The reason for EVERYTHING.

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by winofiend
 


Further appologies but I sense people are working very hard to cause me a great deal of confusion.

FTR I don't agree with the premise of the OP nor do I agree with the scientific explanations he gives, or his ultimate conclusions.

Does this help?

Further, it is my understanding that the moon is artificial, made of metal and built by the alien race which seeded this planet as an observation platform from which to view/continue their experiment. But that, as they say, is another thread! lol
edit on 23-9-2012 by nothingwrong because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
OP.... "The reason for everything" is a title that says a lot! lol

With that said, I can relate a little to your line of thinking.

If we take a long hard look at our Earths History in regards to everything we know and knew and then couple it with the history of man and or pre-man , his inventions and creations, we can come to some sort of idea.

We at present are studying Mars, Radiation (Photon) Belt, Bubbles on the outer part of the Heilosphere, Dark Matter and Dark Energy and more. We are not even studying the moon anymore.

There is so much we cannot see that if something did approach and perturbed our solar system, maybe it would only be seen and felt when its transformation from one dimension to ours takes place. From Dark matter and or energy to light. Harmonics also comes into play as well. Its all connected!

If you are one who believes in enlightenment or ascension then it would first take place in the "heavens" and manifest on Earth. Transforming from dark to light, that is.

Otherwise we are looking at higher energies reaching and bombarding our Planetary System in a slight way that may or may not pick up in time. New life is being observed and coming from Space.

The Earth has always changed... true.

If one looks at the Great Pyramid, you can see an in depth science project perfected in more ways than one and I do believe, will play a MAJOR role when or if this enlightened time takes place.

We live in an age of knowledge. Information is at our finger tips and all can be revealed to us when we let our guard down and seek this knowledge that is so readily available.

TPTB, whoever they may be, hold secrets from the beginning that were burned in the Library of Alexandria. In time (now, I think) people will SEE all that has been hidden from Earth all the way to the Heavens.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Trublbrwing
 


As the ice melts the weight distribution on the earth changes, plates will shift and the planet self adjust.
I don't think it is going to be pretty or a whole lot of fun.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   
The basic meaning of life for me is to increase your own individual ability and strength while doing the same for the rest of humanity. Dr Thomas Campbell helped me to understand that, I wish everyone could understand his theories:

www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
This is some trippy stuff. I'd like to know where you got your information...



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Interesting. You started with the valid premise of NASA doing more complex measurements of the Earth and Moon's gravity based on things like the melting ice caps (which i think would be more accurately estimated by computer models seeing as how observing that effect to the degree in which they want to would take very long). However, you quickly jumped to the nibiru theory.

If an object of significant mass was here, the gravitational perturbations would be marked. To my understanding, no such fluctuations have occurred. Fluctuations occur all the time, but major ones would indicate a massive body that is foreign to the equilibrium of our solar system.

Furthermore, gravity is not in any way uniform, especially when dealing with crustal planets, it all depends on your scale of observation ie: from the Moon the Earth looks like a sphere, but from closer it is hilly and uneven.

With that in mind, i have seen analyses of the gravitational variations on the Moon and Earth. Both have areas of lesser and greater gravity, but the Moon i believe has special, very concentrated spots of higher gravity...maybe titanium deposits absorbing tons of cosmic rays aka photons thus increasing the total gravity/energy in those spots?

Another thing: considering the Moon affects tides, losing a significant amount of polar ice meNs more ocean water around the world, and less mass at the poles. Also, consider the notion that ice is LESS dense than water ie: gravity may seem to increase at the surface, which could possibly pull magma towards the surface at a slightly stronger rate, among tons of other mild effects



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhoDat09
reply to post by Trublbrwing
 


So then how would we know if they found or saw anything? I don't think they'll release anything about it even if they do.

Also I wouldn't think that finding a huge rogue planet somewhere in our solar system would require very sophisticated equipment, if it is coming right at us .....surely someone with a telescope somewhere in the world would have seen it by now? or am I wrong?


Almost every telescope in private hands uses the same principle, they see only the objects that reflect or generate light. An object or mass with no luminosity or reflective properties would be virtually invisible from Earth. Radio telescopes and those with infrared adaptive optics can see more but their use is controlled.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by winofiend

Originally posted by Trublbrwing
They aren't looking to mine the Moon, they're trying to find out exactly how the Moon influences Earth's gravity.


The world seems bigger and scarier when people who do not understand things, attempt to attribute mundane knowledge to complex ideas.

Believe it or not, but there is a form of Maths that calculate things like how two gravitational bodies will act on each other. They don't need to actually send things to the moon to measure the gravity. Or work out how it happens. Or even test it. Considering Gravity is a uniform force..

What is more important to a budget? "Hey everyone, we've tested the gravity and it *IS* true. It exists. can I have a few more billion dollars now?" or "Hey everyone, we've done it - He3 in sufficient quantities to justify a continued and expanded budget for the next 50 years."

Yeah, not so much the gravity I believe. But monopolise a spanking new clean energy market? Ehhe..


That is one of the problems right now, everything they thought they knew, all the Einstein and Newton theories are being reviewed, and in some cases modified, based on new data. We now have "modified gravity", "conformal gravity", "secular increase in the astronomical constant" and a thousand new mathematical formulas to make the data fit the observed conditions.
Of course as you pointed out, with uncertainty comes opportunity, and the longer it takes to figure it out the more money can be spent studying the problems.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Trublbrwing
 


Even if there were some object that didn't reflect light we would still be able to "see" it. It would still be a solid. Therefore even if it's not putting out any light it will still be blocking out the stars behind it. Then of course there's the gravitational effects such an object would be having on the rest of the solar system but let's ignore those since no Nibiruphile has been able to explain why all the planets are still in their normal orbits.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghezuz
I am ready to follow you in this thread, but first I would like for you to show me any data, orbital changes or statistic demonstrating that the premise of your thread is correct.

The premise being that the earth's gravitational orbit has been altered in any way by an object in space that we have not detected.



As promised...........

arxiv.org...

miur.academia.edu...

meetings.copernicus.org...

labs.adsabs.harvard.edu...



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trublbrwing

Originally posted by WhoDat09
reply to post by Trublbrwing
 


So then how would we know if they found or saw anything? I don't think they'll release anything about it even if they do.

Also I wouldn't think that finding a huge rogue planet somewhere in our solar system would require very sophisticated equipment, if it is coming right at us .....surely someone with a telescope somewhere in the world would have seen it by now? or am I wrong?


Almost every telescope in private hands uses the same principle, they see only the objects that reflect or generate light. An object or mass with no luminosity or reflective properties would be virtually invisible from Earth. Radio telescopes and those with infrared adaptive optics can see more but their use is controlled.


Wrong.

IR and Radio astronomy equipment is NOT controlled. If you have enough money, you can build your very own systems that are quite powerful. Just cruise the internet and look for it, it's there and for sale.

Second: if there were a 'black body" that neither emits on ANY spectrum nor reflects on ANY spectrum.......it would still block the light of background stars, and would be spotted. So far, no one has spotted a "hole" in space.

By the way: reflective telescopes mirrors reflect more than just visible light, they can reflect IR and UV too just fine. All one has to do is hook up a IR camera to the eye piece.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

Sorry I didn't do the quote thing, when I get to three comments in one box it throws me off. I numbered the responses in order of your comments.
1. If that were truly the case, why didn't they simply call it the "Gravity Mapping" mission instead of "Gravity Recovery"
mapping is not the same as recovery so it doesn't make any sense.
2. By all accounts the current polar ice melt is off the charts, when that mass enters the ocean it will change how the water flows above and below the surface.
3. NASA and MIT both indicate the size and composition of the Lunar core is a primary objective. How that core moves below the mantle is currently unknown. Planting a flag and a reflector and then using the same reflector for twenty years as the primary source for Lunar distance was a mistake, and they know this.
4. How exactly do you know this to be true? Saying "No. There is not" without proof is far worse than implying something might be out there. I will assume you don't own a radio telescope, spacecraft, satellite or any other instrument that would qualify you to make that statement. I won't say definitively there is or isn't a perturbing force because there are currently way too many unanswered questions. I will say a large perturbing force would explain a lot of these changes though.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Sooo....If "it" is the reason for everything, what is the conclusion exactly?

There is a ton of "X" commentary to sift through on ATS.....Is what you're saying something that could compliment an existing thread on this subject?



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by nothingwrong
reply to post by Trublbrwing
 


A few issues with your opening post:

The moon does not have a dipolar electromagnetic field like the earth does.
The melting ice caps will indeed have a small effect on the rotation of the earth about it's axis, but so far this is negligible, not even enough of a change to measure. It would have no affect on the earths gravity, as obviously the overall mass of the earth will not change, just have miniscule alterations in it's distribution.
Any object which was close enough to our solar system to have an effect on the Earth/Moon/Sun relationship would be close enough to effect Mercury, Venus and Mars too. (Mercury and Venus being between us and the sun as you will know)
Any Earth/Moon/Sun changes would cause noticeable tidal changes, and weather pattern changes.

Now, I am not saying that none of the above issues are occurring, but for your opening post to be believable, you would need to include links to evidence that they are. I have had a quick scout about on the internet and can't find any evidence to back you up, but will happily read anything you can provide for me, I am fascinated by this topic.



There are a few tricks you will need to help you find any reliable scientific data related to this issue. If you type "gravity change" into most search boxes you'll get you tube videos and links to every 2012 disaster site on the internet. If you type "secular changes in gravitational constants" (without the quotation marks) you'll get this....
www.google.com...=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=secular+changes+in+gravitational+constants&oq=secular+changes+in+gravita tional+constants&gs_l=hp.3...1781.17614.1.18628.42.38.0.4.4.0.128.4032.10j28.38.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.ilx-7RWmR9A&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=99d641 4d69e5a888&biw=1280&bih=630
You would then refine your search by only looking for info posted in the last year, month etc.
As a rule I skip anything from NASA because the usually censor data and anything from a .edu link since it is usually basic astronomy lectures, but not always.
I can give you a few more examples of search terms if you're interested, it's tedious work but sometimes you find amazing stuff.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trublbrwing

Originally posted by Ghezuz
I am ready to follow you in this thread, but first I would like for you to show me any data, orbital changes or statistic demonstrating that the premise of your thread is correct.

The premise being that the earth's gravitational orbit has been altered in any way by an object in space that we have not detected.



As promised...........

arxiv.org...

miur.academia.edu...

meetings.copernicus.org...

labs.adsabs.harvard.edu...



Did you even bother reading the first two papers that you linked?


Both those papers conclude that there is no outside body affecting things. Read through the papers, or skip to the conclusions. I'll even post the conclusions here:

In your first link, discussing "The perihelion precession of Saturn, planet
X/Nemesis and MOND", here was the conclusion drawn;


Inci- dentally, let us note that our results rule out the possibility that the hypoth- esized Nemesis can be the Sun-like object X that may be responsible of the anomalous perihelion precessions of Saturn, also because, at approximately just 10 kau from us, its orbital period would amount to 1-10 Myr, contrary to the 26 Myr periodicity in extinction rates on the Earth over the last 250 Myr which motivated the Nemesis proposal. Moreover, our Sun-sized body X would not penetrate the Oort cloud which is believed to extend from 50 10 kau to 150 kau.


They even admitted:


Anyway, further data analyses of enlarged radio-ranging datasets from Cassini by different teams of astronomers are required to confirm the ex- istence of the anomalous perihelion precession of Saturn as a real physical effect needing explanation.


In the second paper, entitled: "On the anomalous increase of the eccentricity of the lunar orbit: search for possible explanations", (authored by the same person by the way), the conclusions were:


Actually, the expectations concerning X are doomed to fade away.
Indeed, along-term harmonic modulationis introduced in  ˙ e  bythe presence of the time-varying ω and Ω in eq. (15), contrary to the linearly increasing trend actually measured in eq.(1)
Moreover, it turns out [Iorio 2011a] that K X = 4 . 46 × 10 − 24 s − 2 (16) would agree with eq.(1), as far as the order of magnitude is concerned.
But, eq. (16) istotally unacceptable since it corresponds to distances of X as absurdly small as d X = 30 au for a terrestrial body, and d X = 200 au for a Jovian mass.


The last two papers are also by "Lorenzo Iorio"......

and I'm starting to sense either a agenda.........or advertising here.......

However, citing publications from the same person is not helping your case (especially considering the person debunks you), but normally we would want to see more than one person's papers on what you are discussing.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Also, by the way:

The Pioneer Anomaly that you mentioned, and then linked to in that last link of yours, this one here, "The Outer Planets Of Our Solar System And The Pioneer Anomaly" (also by L. Iorio...), was published in 2006.

Let me bring you up to speed:


n 2011, papers reanalyzing the thermal radiation pressure forces inherent in the spacecraft showed that a careful accounting of this could account for the entire anomaly, and thus the cause was mundane and did not point to any new phenomena or need for a different physical paradigm.[2][3] The most detailed analysis to date, by some of the original investigators, explicitly looks at two methods of estimating thermal forces, then states "We find no statistically significant difference between the two estimates and conclude that once the thermal recoil force is properly accounted for, no anomalous acceleration remains."



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 


It wasn't that long ago that blood letting and leaches were standard medical procedures, or that astronomers were killed for trying to prove what is now in every science text book. When I was a kid Planet X was a planet and Mars was too hot to even consider landing on it, that has now changed as well.
I refuse to appoint NASA or any other organization as my official source for information. I believe our ancestors left gifts of knowledge in the form of written and carved correspondence in hopes their message would reach us. To ignore these things is an insult to the entire human race.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful
Also, by the way:

The Pioneer Anomaly that you mentioned, and then linked to in that last link of yours, this one here, "The Outer Planets Of Our Solar System And The Pioneer Anomaly" (also by L. Iorio...), was published in 2006.

Let me bring you up to speed:


n 2011, papers reanalyzing the thermal radiation pressure forces inherent in the spacecraft showed that a careful accounting of this could account for the entire anomaly, and thus the cause was mundane and did not point to any new phenomena or need for a different physical paradigm.[2][3] The most detailed analysis to date, by some of the original investigators, explicitly looks at two methods of estimating thermal forces, then states "We find no statistically significant difference between the two estimates and conclude that once the thermal recoil force is properly accounted for, no anomalous acceleration remains."


I believe that quote is from a paper titled "Conformal Cosmology and the Pioneer Anomaly" by Gabriele Varieschi.
In the third portion he admits to holes in his own theory "This could be a serious problem for our model" which relies on a localized "blueshift region" which has not been proven.
I am familiar with the paper and frankly this is another case of monte carlo data forced to fit the problem.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trublbrwing

Originally posted by eriktheawful
Also, by the way:

The Pioneer Anomaly that you mentioned, and then linked to in that last link of yours, this one here, "The Outer Planets Of Our Solar System And The Pioneer Anomaly" (also by L. Iorio...), was published in 2006.

Let me bring you up to speed:


n 2011, papers reanalyzing the thermal radiation pressure forces inherent in the spacecraft showed that a careful accounting of this could account for the entire anomaly, and thus the cause was mundane and did not point to any new phenomena or need for a different physical paradigm.[2][3] The most detailed analysis to date, by some of the original investigators, explicitly looks at two methods of estimating thermal forces, then states "We find no statistically significant difference between the two estimates and conclude that once the thermal recoil force is properly accounted for, no anomalous acceleration remains."


I believe that quote is from a paper titled "Conformal Cosmology and the Pioneer Anomaly" by Gabriele Varieschi.
In the third portion he admits to holes in his own theory "This could be a serious problem for our model" which relies on a localized "blueshift region" which has not been proven.
I am familiar with the paper and frankly this is another case of monte carlo data forced to fit the problem.


No, it was from two other papers:


^ a b Slava G. Turyshev, Viktor T. Toth, Gary Kinsella, Siu-Chun Lee, Shing M. Lok, Jordan Ellis (11 April 2012). "Support for the thermal origin of the Pioneer anomaly". arXiv:1204.2507. Published in: Turyshev, S.; Toth, V.; Kinsella, G.; Lee, S. C.; Lok, S.; Ellis, J. (2012). "Support for the Thermal Origin of the Pioneer Anomaly". Physical Review Letters 108 (24). arXiv:1204.2507. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.24110


Source



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


I have read the data, it does not rule out the presence of a perturbing force, it rules certain types of objects as being the source for those perturbing forces. The author is one of the few who will even consider the possibility of an unseen perturber and has written extensively in support of the Planet X hypothesis.





top topics
 
14
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join