Moon Orbit Wrong Cornell University Says.

I use Stellarium, which is calendar based and offline (so the position of the moon is calculated).
When the moon is visible in my location, it is always where it should be according to Stellarium, that's enough proof for me.

Originally posted by kman420


But that doesnt explain why thousands of us from all around the world, can see it straight above us at say, 10pm one night, then not even in the sky at 10pm the next. Then 7pm the next night, then not again for days even weeks. But all of a sudden its back for a few days around the same part if the sky for a few nights around 9pm directly above us, then no where near that positon 24 hours later. and so on.

edit on 16-11-2011 by kman420 because: quotes didnt work first time properly

Well, well, well...I do not know what to say or where to begin...but I will start with the statement, "...then not again for days even weeks." You are not seriously expecting any member on this thread to believe the Moon disappears for DAYS EVEN WEEKS...are you? Please...if this were really the case, then why would you be an amateur astronomer? If you reported that information to your town mayor or other responsible authority and it proved to be accurate, you would be instantaneously hailed as superior to Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Lowell, and Tombaugh...They would name all future observatories and space-based explorations in your honor...

I want to challenge the OP and anyone who agrees with them. Approach this scientifically! Go outside every night for 1 month and observe the moon and its changes...Then if you feel so inclined go out for a year and mark the progression of where the moon rises and where it sets in orientation to your viewing area.

Then DOCUMENT the rise and setting, record it with photographs. Come back in one year and if the photo you took a year ago does not match up then we will talk. Give me visual proof that should be easy enough for anyone to understand.

But it is conjecture to say that the moon has changed… OF COURSE IT HAS! It changes daily, monthly and yearly! But until it rises in the west or south or north this is complete and utter nonsense. Prove to yourself with the scientific method that something has changed!

I guarantee if you do this you will get a greater understanding of the moon and the earth. If you do record an oddity then we can discuss grabbing pitchforks, torches and storming the science labs! But somehow I just think you will reassure that all is right and get some fun photos of the moon...

reply to post by CherubBaby


I agree with you that something has changed. I am trying to learn someof the basics of astronomy but from my research and basic intuition I think its the location ,orbit or whatever of the earth that has changed so that what we observe is different because our location has changed.There are so many variables that it is dificult to arrive at any conclusion. But I think we better concentrate on our own planet.

reply to post by chardonnay


I think your right. I think maybe it could be a combination of the two. Thanks and keep yours open

reply to post by ProudBird


Regarding elliptical orbits: no the pdf did not discuss this. I mentioned elliptical orbits because they are inherently unstable. The three body problem is another situation that makes orbits unstable. The recently discovered asteroid that orbits with earth was only discovered because it had for some reason moved out of a stable orbit into an unstable orbit. It had departed from its' point of stability. The point of stability put it in a position where it was undetectable. Now that it is unstable, it can be seen. Don't know if that's what you're referring to with the 3 body but there it is anyway.

Regarding teeny tiny and patently ludicrous: as I mentioned there was a number missing from the pdf that was an http to a nasa.org site which I was unable to open. So teeny tiny or not remains a mystery. The only unreasonable part about Tyche or whatever its' called now was the fact that NASA et. al. finds nothing. If something had been found, it would have explained the anomaly.

reply to post by ignorant_ape


Regarding Lorenzo Lorio's paper contradicting 'moon is in the wrong place based on thier (sic) own observations' I don't see where the paper even addresses this. He's talking about an orbit that has become and is becoming more elliptical than it already was. I missed the part in the paper about 37 years - I read the part that said the anomaly was discovered in 2001. I read the part that said this anomaly is in addition to whatever already existed. I missed the part about 4 millimeters a year because the year was 2001 and as I said before I missed the 37 years. 2011-2001=10+years.

Regarding ROFLMAO (whatever that means) this was an observed increase in eccentricity. Observed using instruments. They all then went on to try and explain it. It remains unexplained after 10 years of work. I don't think anyone is using this as evidence of anything other than what it is which is an unexplained moon anomaly=moon orbit wrong...based on what remains unexplained.

With all of the pooh poohing I see that no one has offered to supply the number missing from the pdf. NASA is like Rome. All roads lead there.

reply to post by luxordelphi

No.
Elliptical orbits are not unstable. All regular orbits are elliptical.

reply to post by luxordelphi


No, they are not:

I mentioned elliptical orbits because they are inherently unstable.

You may think that most objects in space that orbit something else move in circles, but that isn't the case. Although some objects follow circular orbits, most orbits are shaped more like "stretched out" circles or ovals. Mathematicians and astronomers call this oval shape an ellipse. All of the planets in our Solar System, many satellites, and most moons move along elliptical orbits.

Please, read and learn

The Solar System orbits are predictable, and not "unstable". We've been here for billions of years.

reply to post by CherubBaby


Ya know, even if there was something wrong with the Moon's orbit or the Sun and Earth there is no way TPTB would say anything about it. They can't even balance a check book for cying out loud! OK, back on topic, I will say I have noticed unusual behavior in the moon as of this year but I figured I was just loosen it so I did not say anything. After all human nature is for me to think that if there was something wrong would'nt someone else with a degree have said something by now? Hey they just did!

Post Script, maby there is somthing else to this Moon theory? maybe the people who are seeing the moon differently are just insane, hey just maybe....

reply to post by luxordelphi


ok , here goes :

Regarding Lorenzo Lorio's paper contradicting 'moon is in the wrong place based on thier (sic) own observations' I don't see where the paper even addresses this. He's talking about an orbit that has become and is becoming more elliptical than it already was.

its pretty simple , the standard model of lurnar orbit epheremeris states that the moon will be in a certain point at a given time - this is how the times and veiwing locations of lunar and solar eclipses can be calculated to the second decades ahead of thier occurance

the chicken littles of ATS and other places scream " the moon is in the wrong place " , the moon cannot be seen " , " the moon is too far north " , " the moon rose early / late " etc , etc , etc

lorio asserts that the the standard model of lunar orbital epheremeris is incorrect , but ONLY by a factor of 15cm and uses the data gathered from 38.7 years of measurments using the retro-reflectors positioned on the moon by the american and soviet space programs as his evidence

lorio claim contradicts the chicken littles by logical inffereance - if , as lorio claims - the moon only is 15cm further away than it should be [ as predicted by the standard model ] - the chicken little is wrong it cannot be too far north / south , rising late / early , absent or upside down .

simples - QED

as for your other " points "

the 37 years was a transcription error - it should have been 38.7 - mea culpa , this timespan is stated on page 2 [ abstract ] line one

reply to post by kman420


as you claim to be an astronomer - lets hear some science from you

here are the lunar epheremis for 2011

lets see your obseravtional data for given days

reply to post by Phage

reply to post by ProudBird


www.fortunecity.com...

If Pluto's orbit is chaotic, then technically the whole Solar System is chaotic, because each planet, even one as small as Pluto, affects the others to some extent through gravitational interactions. But we now realise that although chaos means that some orbits are unpredictable, it does not necessarily mean that planets will collide - chaotic motion can still be bounded. In 1989, Jacques Laskar of the Bureau des Longitudes in Paris published the results of his numerical integration of the Solar System over 200 million years. These were not the full equations of motion, but rather averaged equations along the lines of those used by Laplace. Unlike Laplace, however, Laskar's equations had some 150,000 terms. Laskar's work showed that the Earth's orbit (as well as the orbits of all the inner planets) is chaotic and that an error as small as 15 metres in measuring the position of the Earth today would make it impossible to predict where the Earth would be in its orbit in just over 100 million years' time.

ProudBird: your link is a dud and doesn't say anything other than what has elliptical orbits. Go away and please don't nickle and dime me to death while ignoring the points in my post that were of value.

OMG ... everybody panic!!!


That was one of the most ****** posts I have seen in a while. Maybe not THE most ******, since some of our regular nuts are quite insane.... but it's still a contender.

Considering that it has a lot of very talented competition for that title, that's still quite an achievement.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. "
The article by S. K. Runcorn titled, Corals as Paleontological Clocks might be of interest to some of you. Therein he discusses ancient coral, and the fact that it shows not only yearly rings of growth, but daily growth rings as well.

Counting them showed that in ancient times there were 400 growth rings in the coral. Hence the earth rotated faster (the moon was closer) and there were 400 days per year in the earth's calender.

The article is in the library system

BTW it was S. K. Runcorn who discovered remnant magnetism in lunar rock.
So I really wouldn't get hysterical, things may be speeding up again...... the 'Quickening'

If someone who has an interest in the subject feel free to contribute. thx..

reply to post by CherubBaby


Well to be fair, the subject is about the Moon have a very tiny different eccentricity to what we thought, prior ro recent more accurate measurements. I'm really not sure that anyone on ATS can offer any real contribution to the subject? Nor can I see that it is any more relevant to anyone than, for example, if it were discovered that Mount Everest is 0.2 inches higher than previously thought.

Interesting to geeks. But really not relevant to normal folk.

reply to post by Essan


Do you plan on continuing the insults?

It's all a matter of degree. Yes the moon's orbit is increasingly eccentric, but only by 0.000001% per year. Yes, the orbits are chaotic, but only noticeably in time scales measured in millions of years.

In human terms, everything is exactly where we expect it to be.

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by Essan

 

Do you plan on continuing the insults?

What insults? But if you have a complaint about my posts, please alert the Mods.

The Geek Term you use to describe people who might have an interest. I think that qualifies as an insult. Also how do you know how many people here would be interested?

reply to post by CherubBaby


What exactly in that article makes you think that it supports claims like "the moon is upside down" or "the moon is not in the right position" or even "something is off with the moon".
What part of the attached article do you feel supports these phrases?