It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Aliens. Is this the proof?

page: 8
78
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 08:29 PM
link   

tigertatzen



And it doesn't need a moon to survive either.
reply to post by strongfp
 


You are most likely correct about that. However life as we know it would not exist. Without the moon's strong gravitational pull, Earth would be pulled by other planets as they orbit the sun. Earth's axis would not be stable and the planet would be pulled in one direction, then in another direction, then in another, and so on. Without the moon's pull, all of the tides would be pushed toward the sun; there would be no ebb and flow, and the tides are believed to have been what caused the chemical reaction which spawned life on this planet and triggered the process of evolution. Over time, as life has evolved on the planet, the tides have slowed as the proximity of the moon to Earth has increased. Our days would be markedly shorter as the planet would spin faster, and we would not have seasons...in fact, without the stablizing gravitational pull of the moon there would be enormous winds and drastic temperature changes as the planet wobbled on an unstable axis from being yanked around by other planets. So no, the Earth doesn't need a moon to survive, but we would not be here having this debate were that the case.




Also as for the eclipse scenario, it doesn't fit perfectly 'in front' of the sun, it's an illusion, just like how if you take your thumb and can cover any object within your field of view, doesn't matter how big it is, as long as it's far away it'll seem small, within a margin or course.


The OP stated that it was an illusion, in the caption directly under the illustration of the eclipse:




At just the right time for the earthly observer, the moon appears to be the exact same size as the sun.


OP, s&f for your very fascinating post and for taking the time to present it with such attention to detail...definitely something to investigate further, thank you!




Thats not true do to our location in the solar system we would still have tides they would just follow behind the sun instead of the moon.and the moon isnt needed to stabilize the earth's orbitin any way. If anything its actually hurting us do to drag meaning its slows down our orbit. But by the time it has any real effect are sun will have already burnt earth to a cinder so will be ok.
edit on 2/11/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


You do understand that the recession of the moons orbit is due to tidal acceleration and has nothing to do with the earths orbit around the sun right? The moon is getting farther away from the earth. This means that it will not always keep these "measurements".


Tidal acceleration is an effect of the tidal forces between an orbiting natural satellite (e.g. the Moon), and the primary planet that it orbits (e.g. Earth). The acceleration causes a gradual recession of a satellite in a prograde orbit away from the primary, and a corresponding slowdown of the primary's rotation. The process eventually leads to tidal locking of the smaller first, and later the larger body. The Earth–Moon system is the best studied case.


The eclipse will not always appear to be "perfect" as the moon recedes...



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 




The eclipse will not always appear to be "perfect" as the moon recedes...

Uh oh.
That means the guys that set it up also gave us an expiration date.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by constantwonder
 




The eclipse will not always appear to be "perfect" as the moon recedes...

Uh oh.
That means the guys that set it up also gave us an expiration date.


I like not to mention a self destruct at the end when our sun goes red giant you would think they would have took that into account and redesigned the place huh?



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 02:00 AM
link   


Thats not true do to our location in the solar system we would still have tides they would just follow behind the sun instead of the moon.and the moon isnt needed to stabilize the earth's orbitin any way. If anything its actually hurting us do to drag meaning its slows down our orbit. But by the time it has any real effect are sun will have already burnt earth to a cinder so will be ok.
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Not really sure why you are claiming to refute what I said, only to essentially repeat my words right back to me:




Without the moon's pull, all of the tides would be pushed toward the sun; there would be no ebb and flow


I didn't say we wouldn't still have tides. I said they would only flow in the direction of the sun...the reason we have an ebb and flow of tides is because the sun and the moon act together as a see-saw effect, pushing them back and forth. Remove the moon from the picture and you lose the effect.




and the moon isnt needed to stabilize the earth's orbitin any way. If anything its actually hurting us do to drag meaning its slows down our orbit.


Neither did I say that the moon "stabilizes the Earth's orbit it any way". I said that it stabilizes the Earth's axis and keeps the planet from wobbling as it rotates. If the moon were to disappear, the Earth's axis would become unstable and the planet would start to wobble because the other planets in the solar system would be sucking it into their gravitational pull as they orbit. Like Mars, for example...it really doesn't have a "moon" per se; just two small rocks essentially which do not exert the gravitational pull necessary to keep the planet from wobbling on its axis. If this were to happen to Earth, due to the instability of the axis we would no longer experience seasons, would experience extreme temperature changes and high velocity winds...life as we know it would not be sustainable.

I am not sure what you mean by it "hurting us do to drag (did you mean "due to"?)"...the moon doesn't slow down our orbit. It slows down our rotation, resulting in longer days and preventing the planet from spinning wildly on a wobbly axis. I don't know about anyone else, but I personally consider that to be a GOOD thing...hurricane-force gales and unpredictable climate shifts are not exactly my idea of a good time but hey, to each his own, right?




But by the time it has any real effect are sun will have already burnt earth to a cinder so will be ok.


By the time what has any real effect? Not sure what you're referring to there. I don't see anything "ok" about Earth being burnt to a cinder...I tend to think the suck factor would be pretty high in that scenario...but hopefully nothing that drastic will happen in my lifetime and if it does, I hope it's quick and not a slow burn. Bottom line is, in order for life on this planet to continue in the way to which we are accustomed, the moon is a necessity. Did we spawn from a well-planned and engineered project by some advanced intergalactic race? Anything is possible. I do believe that our minds were meant to explore possibilities and question things beyond our immediate comprehension and belief systems, and the OP is doing exactly that...giving us food for thought. And to that, I say YUM!







posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by tigertatzen
 


because in no way is a moon needed for life other than a night light. Venus doesnt have a moon its axis is alot more stable. See the moon causes the earth to wobble thru space it doesnt stabilize anything. people bought into that life wouldnt exist without the moon stuff its wrong.the reason i repeated back what you said is simple you made the argument for why we dont need a moon.Its not a requirement life could have developed without it and there is probably places in the universe it has.There was no grand design involved with the moon its a planet that hit earth.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


Well for a start, the moon does NOT rotate (first picture). So where did you get the 400km per day?



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 06:23 AM
link   

vavud
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


Well for a start, the moon does NOT rotate (first picture). So where did you get the 400km per day?


Well that's news to me.

The moons rotation lasts a bout 27 days'ish and its orbit is also 27 days'ish.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 11:50 AM
link   
There was a thread before on the moon mysteries. One of them was that the moon, as a planetoid, existed before the Earth began to form (i.e. it is much older than Earth). Following this fact there are no decent theories to explain how it came into our orbit - one of the theories was that Aliens towed it here in order to be able to create the conditions for sustainable life.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 01:25 PM
link   

vavud
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


Well for a start, the moon does NOT rotate (first picture). So where did you get the 400km per day?


Actually the moon does rotate if it didnt the part of the moon we see would change as it goes around the earth. The moons rotation keeps one side towards earth as it rotates around it.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 01:30 PM
link   

igor_ats
There was a thread before on the moon mysteries. One of them was that the moon, as a planetoid, existed before the Earth began to form (i.e. it is much older than Earth). Following this fact there are no decent theories to explain how it came into our orbit - one of the theories was that Aliens towed it here in order to be able to create the conditions for sustainable life.


Well the aliens towed it here theory aside the most likely reason is a collision in the early solar system between earth and another planet. This caused a ring around earth much like saturn which later became the moon. We know this by looking at the rocks returned from the moon since it shows that the same materials are found on earth because large parts of the earth were sent flying into space.but im sure theres evidence for that towing thing from aliens too right?



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 02:35 PM
link   

dragonridr

waltwillis

Spotless
No, this is not proof. This is numerology. If you crunch the numbers on anything long enough, you'll always find something "interesting" like this.


Yes! I agree! BUT...

Why are there people on this forum that are still looking for proof?

There must be others like me on this forum that have seen aliens.

Hope the time I’ve spent here has not been wasted believing this forum
were somewhere to find others that know aliens are real and not just full of a lot f people wondering if they are real.

Has there not been enough eye witness reports from all around the world to answer that question?

We would be much better served to ask why they are here then to ask if they are here.


deciding whats real can be difficult as you said lots of eye witnesses. But keep in mind there are lots of eye witnesses for fairies and big foot the loch ness monster and ghosts. Believing there real and proving there real are two very different things. Trust me no one is lurking in this thread without some belief aliens are possible and probably some hope they are. But you also have to remain rational i had an experience i cant explain but its not proof.

See i guess seeing isnt always believing because we know its easy to fool ones eyes.
edit on 2/10/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



At one time I also thought that the story of the Loch Ness Monster was a hoax until I saw the monster for myself.
If you look up the reports of Chesapeake Bay monster you will find photos of what I saw near Kent Island. There is also the famous video from the sailboat found by the US Coast Guard that was shown on TV last year of the monster.

To ignore one report is understandable, but to ignore ten of thousands of such reports indicates a lack of good judgment on the part of our government. There may also be another motive behind the marginalizing, demonizing, and discrediting the people that make reports of aliens and flying saucers.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 05:20 PM
link   


because in no way is a moon needed for life other than a night light. Venus doesnt have a moon its axis is alot more stable. See the moon causes the earth to wobble thru space it doesnt stabilize anything. people bought into that life wouldnt exist without the moon stuff its wrong.the reason i repeated back what you said is simple you made the argument for why we dont need a moon.Its not a requirement life could have developed without it and there is probably places in the universe it has.There was no grand design involved with the moon its a planet that hit earth.
reply to post by dragonridr
 





There was no grand design involved with the moon its a planet that hit earth.



Did you actually say that the moon is a planet that hit Earth??? Now that I'm done laughing I'm linking you some reading material so that you can better educate yourself on the finer points of how our satellite moon actually works in relation to our planet.

Once again, I did NOT say that the moon is needed for life on Earth. What I DID say is that life, as we know it right this second, would not be sustainable if we suddenly had no moon. The moon is far more relative to our current conditions than just a 'night light".




See the moon causes the earth to wobble thru space it doesnt stabilize anything.


Wrong. The moon's gravitational pull stabilizes Earth's axis and prevents it from wobbling. If our planet wobbled, which it would do without the moon keeping the axis aligned, Earth would most likely be uninhabitable by human beings. Our bodies are not designed to withstand the extreme climate changes that would occur without the stabilizing effect of the moon. Does that mean that higher forms of life would not exist? Probably. But simple organisms would most likely do just fine.




Venus doesnt have a moon its axis is alot more stable.


Venus does not need a moon to have a stable axis because its axial tilt is retrograde, unlike most of the other planets in our solar system. Earth's axial tilt is the opposite, so without the alignment caused by the moon's gravitational pull the planet would wobble due to being pulled into the orbit of other planets in the system as they pass by. Whether by design or by serendipity, the moon keeps that from happening. Venus on the other hand, due to its retrograde axial tilt, does not need help staying stable. It is a completely different situation and cannot be effectively used as a basis for comparison. If the Earth's poles were upside-down relative to its orbit, as is the case with Venus, we could be a "stand-alone" planet too. But that is not the case at all.




the reason i repeated back what you said is simple you made the argument for why we dont need a moon.


The argument I am making is that in order for our species, homo sapiens, to survive on this planet we DO need a moon. I am certainly not making any hint of an argument that we DON'T need one. I believe that is what you yourself are arguing, not the other way around.

Here is an article that explains in great detail exactly how the moon affects not only the planet itself, but also life on the planet. I would love to see some science that backs up these very interesting claims you are making, so it would be great if you could provide us with some literature or links as well. I am sure that elementary school science teachers everywhere would be unhappy to know that they've been teaching 5th graders wrong this entire time.

www.astrobio.net...



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 05:38 PM
link   

igor_ats
Following this fact there are no decent theories to explain how it came into our orbit - one of the theories was that Aliens towed it here in order to be able to create the conditions for sustainable life.

That seems like an awful lot of work to go through just to grow stuff. If an alien has the power to move planets, you'd think they might have figured out how to grow stuff using asteroid dirt, artificial light and water. We do (minus the asteroid dirt). It's called hydroponics, and you don't need an entire planet to make it work.

In fact, it might be smarter to set up large ecosystems as far away from stars as you can, out in the quiet darkness of interstellar space, in order to avoid having them roasted by solar flares or blasted by meteorites.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by tigertatzen
 


Earth's axial tilt is the opposite, so without the alignment caused by the moon's gravitational pull the planet would wobble due to being pulled into the orbit of other planets in the system as they pass by. Whether by design or by serendipity, the moon keeps that from happening.
Yeah. But does it matter? Seems that no one really checked. Or did they?


That’s because really big changes in a planet’s tilt would occur only after a very long time, so there would be more than enough time for the evolution of life, Lissauer reported yesterday here at the summer meeting of the American Astronomical Society. “The variations in Earth’s axial tilt would indeed be substantially larger if there was no large moon,” Lissauer says, “but really big excursions from the current value would only occur on time scales of billions of years.” That would leave ample time for advanced land life to evolve under relatively stable climatic conditions—although what would happen to such life during an axial shift remains unclear.
news.sciencemag.org...

Here's the paper he wrote about it. Certainly no reason humans couldn't have evolved. Our direct lineage doesn't go back quite that far.
barnesos.net...

Moon? We don't need no steenkin' Moon!



I am sure that elementary school science teachers everywhere would be unhappy to know that they've been teaching 5th graders wrong this entire time.
Wouldn't be the first time. No one told me about plate tectonics when I was in 5th grade.

edit on 2/12/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 06:07 PM
link   

tigertatzen



because in no way is a moon needed for life other than a night light. Venus doesnt have a moon its axis is alot more stable. See the moon causes the earth to wobble thru space it doesnt stabilize anything. people bought into that life wouldnt exist without the moon stuff its wrong.the reason i repeated back what you said is simple you made the argument for why we dont need a moon.Its not a requirement life could have developed without it and there is probably places in the universe it has.There was no grand design involved with the moon its a planet that hit earth.
reply to post by dragonridr
 





There was no grand design involved with the moon its a planet that hit earth.



Did you actually say that the moon is a planet that hit Earth??? Now that I'm done laughing I'm linking you some reading material so that you can better educate yourself on the finer points of how our satellite moon actually works in relation to our planet.

Once again, I did NOT say that the moon is needed for life on Earth. What I DID say is that life, as we know it right this second, would not be sustainable if we suddenly had no moon. The moon is far more relative to our current conditions than just a 'night light".




See the moon causes the earth to wobble thru space it doesnt stabilize anything.


Wrong. The moon's gravitational pull stabilizes Earth's axis and prevents it from wobbling. If our planet wobbled, which it would do without the moon keeping the axis aligned, Earth would most likely be uninhabitable by human beings. Our bodies are not designed to withstand the extreme climate changes that would occur without the stabilizing effect of the moon. Does that mean that higher forms of life would not exist? Probably. But simple organisms would most likely do just fine.




Venus doesnt have a moon its axis is alot more stable.


Venus does not need a moon to have a stable axis because its axial tilt is retrograde, unlike most of the other planets in our solar system. Earth's axial tilt is the opposite, so without the alignment caused by the moon's gravitational pull the planet would wobble due to being pulled into the orbit of other planets in the system as they pass by. Whether by design or by serendipity, the moon keeps that from happening. Venus on the other hand, due to its retrograde axial tilt, does not need help staying stable. It is a completely different situation and cannot be effectively used as a basis for comparison. If the Earth's poles were upside-down relative to its orbit, as is the case with Venus, we could be a "stand-alone" planet too. But that is not the case at all.




the reason i repeated back what you said is simple you made the argument for why we dont need a moon.


The argument I am making is that in order for our species, homo sapiens, to survive on this planet we DO need a moon. I am certainly not making any hint of an argument that we DON'T need one. I believe that is what you yourself are arguing, not the other way around.

Here is an article that explains in great detail exactly how the moon affects not only the planet itself, but also life on the planet. I would love to see some science that backs up these very interesting claims you are making, so it would be great if you could provide us with some literature or links as well. I am sure that elementary school science teachers everywhere would be unhappy to know that they've been teaching 5th graders wrong this entire time.

www.astrobio.net...









Id stop laughing if i were you because quite frankly your clueless. Stay away from science its not your strong suit. See the earths wobble is called precession. And here lets just look at how the moon effects it according to NASA.




The cause of the precession is the equatorial bulge of the Earth, caused by the centrifugal force of the Earth's rotation (the centrifugal force is discussed in a later section). That rotation changes the Earth from a perfect sphere to a slightly flattened one, thicker across the equator. The attraction of the Moon and Sun on the bulge is then the "nudge" which makes the Earth precess.


www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov...

So see the moon causes it not to be balanced causing it to wobble not like you think and stabilizes it. See wobbling is oppisit of stabilizing isnt it?

Now lets move on when the solar system was formed there were lots of planets created that are no longer here. Well one of these new planets hit earth causing the moon. I know you prefer to think it magically appeared in place but it didnt.Here might i suggest some reading material for you but this is the current scientific theory as to the origins of the moon. And we have some evidence through chemical analysis this is the correct answer.

www.princeton.edu...

As for life on earth if the moon magically disappeared other than the shock of it and species that would have to learn new breeding times life would be fine.
edit on 2/12/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 

The question is of axial tilt, not precession. Different things. Precession just changes where the north pole points, not the tilt of the axis (obliquity). We precesss around an axial tilt of about 23º. The tilt stays pretty much the same while we do so.

Without the Moon the actual tilt would vary, by as much as 85º. Earth could end up completely sideways, which would have a pretty dramatic effect on climate. Think about what it would be like if the north pole were pointed at the Sun. But as the modelling showed, even without the Moon the tilt could be relatively stable for billions of years:

Thus we assess that moonless Earths are probably able to access a good fraction of the range of obliquities allowed by frequency map analysis, but the typical timescale to explore this region may be longer than the typical lifetime of a solar-type star, or at least longer than the time that lapsed on Earth since the Cambrian diversification.

barnesos.net...

edit on 2/12/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by dragonridr
 

The question is of axial tilt, not precession. Different things. Precession just changes where the north pole points, not the tilt of the axis (obliquity). We precesss around an axial tilt of about 23º. The tilt stays pretty much the same while we do so.

Without the Moon the actual tilt would vary, by as much as 85º. Earth could end up completely sideways, which would have a pretty dramatic effect on climate. Think about what it would be like if the north pole were pointed at the Sun. But as the modelling showed, even without the Moon the tilt could be relatively stable for billions of years:

Thus we assess that moonless Earths are probably able to access a good fraction of the range of obliquities allowed by frequency map analysis, but the typical timescale to explore this region may be longer than the typical lifetime of a solar-type star, or at least longer than the time that lapsed on Earth since the Cambrian diversification.

barnesos.net...

edit on 2/12/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)


As i was saying when i started again the moon leads to an instability in the earths rotation that was my original point. Everything in the universe has a trade off. As far as the earth tilt in relation to the sun we could argue the effects on the earth as well. The axis was created when through accumulation of debri in the early solar system. The sun itself creates this as we go around its gravity well kind of like water down a drain. It would take so long for this spin to slow down enough to be unstable that its almost inconsequential. But i know you know this you just ike to start trouble and thats why i like you.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


But i know you know this you just ike to start trouble and thats why i like you.
No. I don't like to start trouble, I like to get the facts straight. The Moon does mess with precession. But precession has nothing to do with obliquity.

The other planets do affect obliquity and without the Moon our obliquity would not be as stable as it is because of the influences of the other planets. This is a fact. Without the Moon the Earth would roll around like a ball with its obliquity varying from 0º to as much as 85º. The north pole actually could end up pointing nearly at the Sun. Almost the entire southern hemisphere could be in darkness all year round.

That is what the idea of the Moon being so necessary to the evolution of life is based on. With such dramatic changes in climate it is unlikely that life could have evolved beyond simple forms.

But when someone sat down and actually crunched the numbers it became clear that those "excursions" of obliquity could take a very long time. Longer even than the lifetime of the Sun, leaving plenty of time for stuff like us to evolve.

Read the paper. You might find it interesting.


edit on 2/12/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Rosinitiate
 

I think we are talking maybe of 2 different things. I meant rotating on its on axis. I am thinking you meant circling around the Earth? IS that right?



new topics

top topics



 
78
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join