The Anomaly of our Earth's Moon Rotation

[Vitalux]

Most people living on Earth are completely unaware that a solar day experienced on our Moon is 27.32 days.

http://i1023.photobucket.com/albums/af356/stuarburstphotography/moon-rotating.gif


By sheer coincidence, that is also the exact period that it takes our Moon to rotate around the Earth.

However, know that our Earth rotates once every That takes 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds

http://i1023.photobucket.com/albums/af356/stuarburstphotography/Earth-02-june.gif


Because of this, exact synchronization we only see one side of the Earth's Moon and never in history have we ever witnessed seeing the backside of the Moon from an Earth view perspective.

This situation to occur in the case of our Planet and Moon is simply impossible by physics. :der:


You will read of various theories but most that study the relationship of what is happening will ultimately discover that this relationship appears to be a most unnatural setting. :shocked:

Our Moon is the only Moon in our known universe that behaves this way.

Therefore, if you ever wished to really notice the most wildest anomaly ever wish to point out something that does not make no sense whatsoever, just study the Moon's rotation.

In my mind we are either witnessing an Extra Terrestrial Planetoid that has been parked in orbit about our Earth or we are seeing part of the program of a holographic projection in which we are existing in a dream like state.


It has been one of the most interesting things I have noticed in my study of the sky.
However, I find most people too much a sleep to see it or understand it.

:lazy2::lazy:

It is almost as if, some part of people's programing will not allow them to understand even the significance of how easy this is to see, but impossible to understand....if those that are awake can grasp what I am trying to convey :wave:


This youtube video will help demonstrate to those that are interested.
i would enjoy reading the feedback


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZIB_leg75Q

[Tesseract]

It's not sheer coincidence, it's not unique, and it does not violate the laws of physics. Visit the link below, if you dare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking

What is a coincidence is that the moon's distance from Earth is just enough for it to perfectly occlude the sun during an eclipse. Actually, one of my favourite theories is that it is not a coincidence at all, but that the moon is a spacecraft positioned that way deliberately.

[Vitalux]

It's not sheer coincidence, it's not unique, and it does not violate the laws of physics. Visit the link below, if you dare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking

What is a coincidence is that the moon's distance from Earth is just enough for it to perfectly occlude the sun during an eclipse. Actually, one of my favourite theories is that it is not a coincidence at all, but that the moon is a spacecraft positioned that way deliberately.

I have read that article as well as a few others on that same theory. I actually read that information about 30 years ago.


The Earth spins around 27 times for every time our Moon spins once.
Tidal locking, in my opinion does not work. If so, find me another moon in our solar system that does this besides our moon.

For example Saturn has 62 moons, and Jupiter has at least 63 known moons. Please show me any one of those moons that has this same Anomaly with respect to it's Planet of only showing one face of itself.

I have discovered that just because you read about it, does not make it true.
Sometimes you have to use some reasoning.


thanking you in advance.

[ghostrider]

It's not sheer coincidence, it's not unique, and it does not violate the laws of physics. Visit the link below, if you dare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking

What is a coincidence is that the moon's distance from Earth is just enough for it to perfectly occlude the sun during an eclipse. Actually, one of my favourite theories is that it is not a coincidence at all, but that the moon is a spacecraft positioned that way deliberately.

The moon is the vehicle used by star travellers in a dying system to reach mars, then on to earth seeding it and mixing their dna with the three original dark skin, dark hair , dark eyed earth humans, 350,000 years ago. Building pyramids along the way to remind them of their lost home world...

[The Royal Wizard]

Science have a lot of theories, and the common factor is just that, they are theories, deducted off so called known facts inside a common paradigm. Every time something doesn't fit, scientist either dismiss it or adjust the anomily into their known paradigm. David Icke refers to some interesting thougts derived from a book about the moon I in this moment don't remember the name of or it's authors, but they conclude; The moon should not have been there at all when putting so called known facts and science into the equation.

All the best

TRW

[Swan]

David Icke refers to some interesting thougts derived from a book about the moon I in this moment don't remember the name of or it's authors, but they conclude; The moon should not have been there at all when putting so called known facts and science into the equation.



"Who Built the Moon?" Christopher Knight, Alan Butler

[Vitalux]

Science have a lot of theories, and the common factor is just that, they are theories, deducted off so called known facts inside a common paradigm. Every time something doesn't fit, scientist either dismiss it or adjust the anomily into their known paradigm. David Icke refers to some interesting thougts derived from a book about the moon I in this moment don't remember the name of or it's authors, but they conclude; The moon should not have been there at all when putting so called known facts and science into the equation.

All the best

TRW

My hope and goal with this one, was to bring people's attention to something in which common sense and a bit of thinking could alert them to a "in your face" evidence of something that is so easy to spot.

The powers that be (TPTB) seem to take delight in keeping a cloak of stupidity on the general mass of human's on this planet.
Even though we sleep :sleep:for 8 hours a night, we are still very much asleep :sleep: when we are awake.

Similar to the denials of chem trails by TPTB, by offering us ridiculous statements that we are only witnessing condensation trails of airplanes, NASA (TPTB) tells us that our Moon's rotation is called by Tidal locking.

The nice part about studying and understanding the rotation of the Moon on it's axis is very easy, and a 5 year old could grasp it. It is not about advanced astrophysics, nor is it about having to believe some aliens dragged it to that spot, or that God made it spin that way etc. The simple truth is that the Moon,s spin about it's axis and it's revolution around our Planet simply is artificial and does not appear to be a product of natural systems as observed by the nature of things.

Similar to a chem trail, just look up and see something with your eyes. :nerd:

[sirdipswitch]

Love to see y'all payin attention. ccc. I would like to give you the most intriguing aspect of the Moons antics to your attention that by far, points to its artificiallity, more than any other single thing. Its orbit, is retrograde. Meaning, it orbits Earth, in the opposite direction, of Earths rotation. Retrograde orbit, will cause the orbiting body to slow down and fall to the parent body. A retrograde orbit, is imposible for an extended period of time. And yet our little ol Moon does just that. It has sat out there going around the "Wrong" way, for all time. The only way that can be possible, is if it is an intelligently controled artificial, spacecraft.

[eva08]

The moon almost looks like a satellite in this video - satellites behave similarly - always same face to the earth

[Vitalux]

Retrograde orbit, will cause the orbiting body to slow down and fall to the parent body. A retrograde orbit, is imposible for an extended period of time. And yet our little ol Moon does just that. It has sat out there going around the "Wrong" way, for all time. The only way that can be possible, is if it is an intelligently controled artificial, spacecraft.

Thank you so much for your input.

The Earth's Moon is just teaming with all kinds of evidence of an intelligently controlled artificial, spacecraft.

I find it totally baffling how some object that is so apparent and in full view of our eyes is totally ignored by so many.:lalala::flock:

To think that we have this huge unnatural object in orbit about our planet, and most fail to even be aware to look up and notice it.

One of the most interesting aspects I have found is that humans appear to be in a hypnotic state of programming whereby they ignore the obvious, and just like being hypnotized, they have been programmed to not clue in that the Moon does not conform to the way science behaves.

Ironically, even if most were to become aware:bored: , as quick as they clue into it, they appear to just go back to sleep :sleep: and forget about it. Kind of like, light bulb might turn on, but quickly turns off again.

I am so pleased sirdipswitch that I am not alone in seeing and understanding this.


I find the most interesting aspect of waking up is noticing how many things about the world and universe simply do not make sense once we notice.

Much love

[ThePythonicCow]

Retrograde orbit, will cause the orbiting body to slow down and fall to the parent body.
That doesn't sound right to me.

Perhaps even it is the other way around - retrograde orbits may be more stable than prograde orbits, if I understand the following statement, from Hill Sphere (Wikipedia) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_sphere) correctly:



The region of stability for retrograde orbits at a large distance from the primary, is larger than the region for prograde orbits at a large distance from the primary.

[Nick Matkin]

Why is it that when folks who don't understand something they have to resort to wacky, unproven theories? How about some E V I D E N C E ?

What's actually wrong with the tidal locking described in post 2 by Tesseract? Name some genuine astrophysicists out there who think the Moon is an alien spacecraft, or placed there artificially by a superior race. If you understand the physics you won't have to resort to woo-woo mumbo-jumbo explanations.

It is a coincidence that the Moon covers the sun during an eclipse - usually. But not always; in annular eclipses the moon is too small cover the Sun's disc entirely. (No, the Moon's size isn't adjusted by aliens during refuelling, Earth-shackra rebalancing or anything else. Think about it. Or just Google 'annular eclipse'.)

But as the Moon was closer to Earth in the past, it did appear to be bigger. As tidal drag is moving it away by about an inch a year, some day it will never fully cover the Sun's disc in an eclipse.

Nick

[sirdipswitch]

Many years ago, (early 70's) I read two books, co-authored by two Russian scientists, that said the Moon is a spaceship. Everything done since that time, to refute their claims, has only proved them more acurate.

Vitalux, I thank you for this thread, in allowing one to help develope our ability of reason. And now offer you a little something more to expand your own highly developed ablities.

Think of the Gallaxy. Our very own Milky Way. It's a spiral Gallaxy, right. Caused by the stars rotation around the central core. Our Sun, is out on the far end of one of the "arms" of the spiral, which would mean that it must be traveling at a very high rate of speed, in trying to keep up with all of the other stars around the core. It takes Earth, one year, to orbit the Sun, but the funny thing is, that the Sun, is NOT going to be where it was when Earth began that year. The Sun will be many millions of miles farther around the core of the Gallaxy, next year. What does that do to the orbit of Earth, around it. And, why does the Earth chase the Sun in this corkscrew orbit? We are not on a flat plain with the Sun. None of our planets are. They are all chasing the Sun, with corkscrew orbits, and our little Moon is now bedraggled with trying to keep up. OH! and yes, don't forget to throw in that crazy up and down movement of our Solar System across the plane of the Gallaxy, to add to the absoluely crazy mix of orbital movements around each other.

Reason? Yes, I do sometimes... ccccc.

[Vitalux]

Why is it that when folks who don't understand something they have to resort to wacky, unproven theories? How about some E V I D E N C E ?

Name some genuine astrophysicists out there who think the Moon is an alien spacecraft, or placed there artificially by a superior race. If you understand the physics you won't have to resort to woo-woo mumbo-jumbo explanations.






Mikhail Vasin and Alexander Shcherbakov, Russian astrophysicists. Soviet Academy of Sciences
July 1970 article entitled "Is the Moon the Creation of Alien Intelligence (http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/moon_spaceship.htm)?



:drum:

[Vitalux]

Retrograde orbit, will cause the orbiting body to slow down and fall to the parent body.
That doesn't sound right to me.

Perhaps even it is the other way around - retrograde orbits may be more stable than prograde orbits, if I understand the following statement, from Hill Sphere (Wikipedia) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_sphere) correctly:



The region of stability for retrograde orbits at a large distance from the primary, is larger than the region for prograde orbits at a large distance from the primary.

I tend to agree with sirdipswitch
Retrograde orbit, will cause the orbiting body to slow down and fall to the parent body.

All retrograde satellites experience tidal deceleration to some degree. The only satellite in the Solar System for which this effect is non-negligible is Neptune's moon Triton
Tidal deceleration

-Retrograde satellites: All retrograde satellites experience tidal deceleration to some degree because the moon's orbital motion and the planet's rotation are in opposite directions, causing restoring forces from their tidal bulges.
This prevailing condition should cause a gradual slowing down of both the rotational speed of the Moon as well as the planet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrograde_motion


I actually sat at a lecture back in the early 90's at UNB where there was a professor of astrophysics, Fred Adams,was explaining this.
During this lecture he talked about odd anomalies there were in dealing with the moon's current orbit about our planet.

[Vitalux]

Vitalux, I thank you for this thread, in allowing one to help develope our ability of reason. And now offer you a little something more to expand your own highly developed ablities.


Thank you so much.
I too have studied and understand with complete fascination the dynamics in while the heavenly bodies move about through the universe and I agree with you whole heatedly.

I've studied astronomy since I was about 15, and even spent a few years as a member a local regional astronomical association.
I've been pondering the Moon for most of my life.
I've been lucky enough to even observe it with some quite powerful telescopes as well.

The funny part is about awareness, is How on Earth we fail to see and realize, the only thing that there was to realize and see?

Even though it has always been in plain sight :nerd:

Another ground breaking and mind blowing thing to understand is dark energy and dark matter. It tends to defy physics, astrophysics, and quantum mechanics laws and toss them right out the window. :unsure:

[ThePythonicCow]

I tend to agree with sirdipswitch
Retrograde orbit, will cause the orbiting body to slow down and fall to the parent body.

So far as I can tell, everything you quoted, and everything you linked to, disagrees with what sirdipswitch said.

For example, quoting from the Tidal acceleration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration) article you linked:



The gravitational torque between the Moon and the tidal bulge of the Earth causes the Moon to be promoted in its orbit, and the Earth to be decelerated in its rotation.

sirdipswitch said the moon's orbit would be getting less (the moon would fall into the parent body, the earth).

The articles you link and quote say the moon's orbit would be getting greater ("promoted"), moving the moon into a larger orbit, further from the earth, with more potential energy.

You might try reading that Tidal acceleration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration) article you linked another time :).

[ThePythonicCow]

Because of this, exact synchronization we only see one side of the Earth's Moon and never in history have we ever witnessed seeing the backside of the Moon from an Earth view perspective.

This situation to occur in the case of our Planet and Moon is simply impossible by physics. :der:

You will read of various theories but most that study the relationship of what is happening will ultimately discover that this relationship appears to be a most unnatural setting. :shocked:

Our Moon is the only Moon in our known universe that behaves this way.
Well, we don't know of that many moons in the universe, because outside of our own solar system, they're hard to see :).

But the earth's moon is not the only tidally locked moon even within just our own solar system.

As explained in the Tidal locking (Wikipedia) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking) article, Pluto and its moon Charon are also tidally locked, in an even more drastic case than our earth and its moon, in that Pluto shows the same side to its moon Charon, as does Charon to its planet Pluto.

That same article lists some 24 moons that are probably tidally locked within our solar system (out of 166 or so moons known so far to exist in our solar system), and a few extra-solar planets and a pair of stars that thought to be tidally locked. The moon is far from the only known tidally locked moon in the solar system :).

The physics is not impossible.

[meat suit]

wouldnt the heavier side of an orbiting sattelite eventually come to face the orbited object?
the moon could be much heavier on the side facing the earth, it makes sense to me that the moons rotation would surcome to the gravitational pull of the earth.

[SKIBADABOMSKI]

Zog says " ok lets check out this area "

Zing says " I'm telling you Zog that the whole area is in control "

Zog " how can you be so sure? "

Zing "ok look ... can you see that planet with the rings ?"

Zog " Oh !! didn't see that before .. "

Zing " and now we just scan for a moon that faces the planet in it's orbit and that'll be the planet with life on "

Zog " thats the blue and white looking one "

Zing "correct but we should advanced with caution as sometimes the situation can be sensitive"

Zog " Lets go to that area .. *scans* they call it europe "

Zing " come on Zog we should get out of here, my senses tell me we are being watched "

Zog " wait ...*scans* the UK ... cool I'm going in."

Zing " oh Zog I knew you'd be like this.. they'll zap us away soon "

Zog " wow look a human .. *scans* his name is Nick Matkin "

Zing " The reptiles are pulling us up I can't hold the ship much longer "

Zog " Ok one sec.. zooms in on Nick and jumps out of craft and stands right in Nicks face "

Zing " Zog stop pi*****ing about COME ON !!

Zog " Hi Nick can you spare some...

Martin " P**ss off I don't have any spare change, freak "

Zog silently says " open mindedness "

;)

Ski-

[ThePythonicCow]

wouldnt the heavier side of an orbiting sattelite eventually come to face the orbited object?
Exactly.

That's how moons, planets and even stars become "tidally locked" to whatever they are orbiting.

All orbiting astronomical objects get stretched a little, elongated along the line between them and what they orbit. That makes them constantly a little bit heavier on the side toward what they orbit. Tides affect land mass as well as liquid water. This creates a drag on their own rotation, which can eventually cease, leaving them tidally locked.

[Cristian]

Hi Paul,


The math and physics involved in the “tidal lock” concept seem valid. However, we cant extrapolate and say just because the concept is valid that is what actually happened .

There are lots of ancient myths that tell us there was a time when Earth had no moon. Also the fact that the Moon appears to be hollow –and this is mainstream science- only makes things weird.

And if you think the “ Captured Moon theory” or “The fission theory” or whatever mainstream theory of how the Moon got in Earth’s orbit all of them are a bit of a joke.


So for the “tidal lock” to be true you must first explain how and when the Moon got here. Because if the Earth didn’t have a moon 15-20.000 years ago, like many old tribes, from all over the Planet, say - then you have a problem with the “tidal lock concept”.

[ThePythonicCow]

The math and physics involved in the “tidal lock” concept seem valid. However, we cant extrapolate and say just because the concept is valid that is what actually happened .
Agreed, entirely.

I was countering earlier posts on this thread that claimed the tidal lock of our moon was unique and physically impossible.

I was not making any effort to explain how or when our moon got there.

[rgray222]

Interview with Chris Knight on "Who Built The Moon" published in New Dawn Magazine.

Christopher Knight's first book 'The Hiram Key", which he co-authored with Robert Lomas was published in 1996. The Hiram Key was acclaimed a classic in the field of alternative history, going on to influence a generation of researchers among them The Da Vinci Code’s Dan Brown.

In the last ten years Knight has written six books, four with Robert Lomas and two, including his latest Who Built the Moon?, with Alan Butler. In Who Built the Moon?, Knight and Butler raise some fascinating and challenging questions, foremost: Could it be that the Moon is artificial? Could it even be hollow? And does the Moon really exist through some happy accident, or is a blueprint apparent – and if so, who was the architect? New Dawn recently spoke with Christopher Knight about his controversial book and his astonishing conclusions.

– New Dawn
NEW DAWN: All of mankind’s visits to the Moon have not answered some of the most basic questions about its origin and importance. Your new book Who Built the Moon? (co-authored with Alan Butler) brings to light some extraordinary facts about the Moon, and comes to a mind-blowing conclusion about its origin. Could you briefly outline some of these little known and ignored facts?

CHRISTOPHER KNIGHT: The Moon sits very close to the Earth yet it is widely regarded as the strangest object in the known universe. It is a bit like knowing that every person in the world is completely normal except the person you live next door to, who has three heads and lives on a diet of broken razor blades.
The book lists the strangeness of the Moon, which includes the fact that it does not have a solid core like every other planetary object. It is either hollow or has a very low-density interior. Bizarrely, its concentration of mass are located at a series of points just under its surface – which caused havoc with early lunar spacecraft. The material the Moon is made from came from the outer surface of the Earth and left a shallow hole that filled with water and we now call the Pacific. This rock left the Earth to produce the Moon very quickly after our planet had formed around 4,6 billion years ago.
The Moon is not only extremely odd in its construction; it also behaves in a way that is nothing less than miraculous. It is exactly four hundred times smaller than the Sun but four hundred times closer to the Earth so that both the Sun and the Moon appear to be precisely the same size in the sky – which gives us the phenomenon we call a total eclipse. Whilst we take this for granted it has been called the biggest coincidence in the universe.

Furthermore, the Moon mirrors the movement of the Sun in the sky by rising and setting at the same point on the horizon as the Sun does at opposite solstices. For example, this means the Moon rises at midwinter at the same place the Sun does at midsummer. There is no logical reason why the Moon mimics the Sun in this way and it is only meaningful to a human standing on the Earth.

ND: What led you to write Who Built the Moon? And does this latest book relate to your earlier research when writing Civilization One and Uriel’s Machine?
CK: All of the six books I have had published over the last ten years are part of a continued single piece of research. I came to write Who Built the Moon?with Alan Butler after we had finished Civilization One, because our research led us to study the Moon very closely.
We had found that the superbly advanced measuring system in use over 5,000 years ago was based on the mass, dimensions and movements of the Earth.
However, for thoroughness we checked every planet and moon in the solar system to see if there was any pattern. Amazingly, it worked perfectly for every aspect of the Moon but did not apply at all to any other known body – except the Sun.
It was as though we had found a blueprint where the Moon had been ‘manufactured’ using very specific units taken from Earth’s relationship with the Sun. The more we looked, everything fitted – and fitted perfectly in every conceivable way.

ND: Most astoundingly, you found that an ancient system of geometry and measurement used in the Stone Age works perfectly on the Moon. What exactly is this system and how could the ancients have attained this knowledge?
CK: It is not possible to describe the greatness of this ancient system of geometry and measurement without repeating the content of Civilization One.
The work of Alexander Thom, a brilliant professor of engineering from Oxford University, was our starting point. He identified the existence of what he called the Megalithic Yard. This was a precise unit of measurement that was the basis of late Stone Age structures across Western Europe – such as Stonehenge. Most archaeologists have written his work off as a mistake but when one looks coldly at their objections they are baseless.
Alan and I were able to show how they made these highly precise linear units based on the rotation of the Earth and how they were also the basis of all time, capacity and weight units in use today. Once again these are exact – not approximations or close fits.
Where the ancients got such knowledge is quite baffling. All we can be certain of is that they were way ahead of us today! It’s easy to check out by anyone with a calculator.

ND: Your conclusion is there are more than enough anomalies about the Moon to suggest it is not a naturally occurring body and was quite possibly engineered to sustain life on Earth. How did you reach this conclusion?
CK: Not only is the Moon an apparently impossible object, it has some unique benefits for us humans. It has been nothing less than an incubator for life. If the Moon was not exactly the size, mass and distance that it has been at each stage of the Earth’s evolution – there would be no intelligent life here. Scientists are agreed that we owe everything to the Moon.
It acts as a stabiliser that holds our planet at just the right angle to produce the seasons and keep water liquid across most of the planet. Without our Moon the Earth would be as dead and solid as Venus.

ND: If the Moon is an artificial construct, what are your theories on who or what built it, and why?
CK: In Who Built the Moon? we explain that we could not come to any other conclusion than the Moon is artificial. Because it is certain that it is 4.6 billion years old that raises some interesting points. Another factor was the obvious message that has been built into the Moon to tell us it’s artificial. The language of the message is base ten arithmetic so it looks as though it is directed to a ten digit species that is living on Earth right now – which seems to mean humans.
The question of why the Moon had to be built is easy to answer: To produce all life, especially humans. As to who did it – well that’s a lot tougher! We give the three possibilities we can think of, namely: God, aliens or humans. The only one of these that is 100% scientifically possible is the last one. Time travel is universally accepted as being physically possible and a number of scientists are close to sending matter back in time. We can envisage that machines could be built in the future that could be sent back to remove matter from the young Earth to construct the Moon – probably using mini black hole technology.

[starfighter]

I wondered recently: Do Australians see the Moon, because I live in the UK and its visable most the day and night here.

[Nick Matkin]

I wondered recently: Do Australians see the Moon, because I live in the UK and its visable most the day and night here.

Yes, the moon is visible in the southern hemisphere, just as the sun is. :rolleyes: only it's upside-down. I know all this because I saw in in Santiago! (Which is not in Australia, but it is in the southern hemisphere.)

Nick

[araucaria]

I wondered recently: Do Australians see the Moon, because I live in the UK and its visable most the day and night here.

Yes, the moon is visible in the southern hemisphere, just as the sun is. :rolleyes: only it's upside-down. I know all this because I saw in in Santiago! (Which is not in Australia, but it is in the southern hemisphere.)

Nick
It only seems upside down because you've got a southern hemisphere inferiority complex :)

Christoper Knight's point about the moon's rising and setting locations is interesting... But he cannot say the Moon is 4.6 billion years old on the basis of a couple of rocks picked up on its surface. I have a book dating from the 1850s in my house, and I myself date from the 20th century, but the actual house is a good deal younger than that :)

[Vitalux]

As explained in the Tidal locking (Wikipedia) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking) article, Pluto and its moon Charon are also tidally locked, in an even more drastic case than our earth and its moon, in that Pluto shows the same side to its moon Charon, as does Charon to its planet Pluto.

That same article lists some 24 moons that are probably tidally locked within our solar system (out of 166 or so moons known so far to exist in our solar system), and a few extra-solar planets and a pair of stars that thought to be tidally locked. The moon is far from the only known tidally locked moon in the solar system :).

The physics is not impossible.


Paul perhaps that is true....perhaps it is not.

Do you believe that everything NASA and wikipedia tells us is the truth? :wizard:

One thing I have come to understand, that is most cases, it doesn't matter what truth one tries to stand up for, there will always be an equal amount of opposition.:fencing:

For example they know about Pluto's moon's rotation being the same as our moon, yet, they don't talk about the spaceships flying around making the rings of Saturn:confused:

[Tesla_WTC_Solution]

OP, that is SUPER freaking amazing if true.

I was wondering yesterday in fact, how rare it must be (yet amazingly common too it seems) to encounter planets that have MOONS and are also in the GREEN or habitable (goldilocks?) zone of their relative suns...

There could be a huge advantage to having a slightly unstable solar cycle, granted the higher species have technology for easy living.
Why feel guilt where there is none, living on a planet that cannot sustain unintelligent life?

wink wink

[ThePythonicCow]

Paul perhaps that is true....perhaps it is not.

...
One thing I have come to understand, that is most cases, it doesn't matter what truth one tries to stand up for, there will always be an equal amount of opposition.
Ah - so your assertions are the truth, based on many years of study, but if assertions or evidence to the contrary is presented, then there is no truth, just equal amounts of opposition?


Do you believe that everything NASA and wikipedia tells us is the truth?
Of course not - never said I did. That's a paper tiger argument. (And did you yourself not also cite Wikipedia in Post #15 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?52613-The-Anomaly-of-our-Earth-s-Moon-Rotation&p=591979&viewfull=1#post591979), above?)


For example they know about Pluto's moon's rotation being the same as our moon, yet ...

Ah - so you accept this claim of Wikipedia? I thought you were claiming that "Our Moon is the only Moon in our known universe that behaves this way" :)

===

I accept that there are good reasons to conclude that Earth's moon is not what we are told in public. But it seems to me that you do a disservice to our shared efforts at improved understanding with your rhetorical confusions.

[Ba-ba-Ra]

Then, of course, there's the Hollow Moon Theory, based on the fact that it "rings like a bell when hit by asteroids and/or moon landings.

http://www.onelight.com/thei/hollowmoon.html

[Vitalux]

For example they know about Pluto's moon's rotation being the same as our moon, yet ...

Ah - so you accept this claim of Wikipedia? I thought you were claiming that "Our Moon is the only Moon in our known universe that behaves this way" :)

===

I accept that there are good reasons to conclude that Earth's moon is not what we are told in public. But it seems to me that you do a disservice to our shared efforts at improved understanding with your rhetorical confusions.


Ok let me state it clearly :no:, I don't believe everything in mainstream information that I read.

When I wrote "For example they know about Pluto's moon's rotation being the same as our moon, yet"

I was speaking that whoever write for Wikipedia believes that.

For example, Most of the information in the world states that NASA landed a Man on the Moon in 1969.
I do not believe it. :nono:

But most choose to believe it.

Hence, just because something is written in a history book, physics books, etc....does not mean it is my truth.
If you notice I have made no statements in this thread concerning NASA and space crafts banging into the Moon and making it ring like a bell.


have a nice day Paul.

[Nick Matkin]

For example, Most of the information in the world states that NASA landed a Man on the Moon in 1969.
I do not believe it. :nono:

I know this has been done to death on other threads, but in my opinion the best reason to believe that NASA did have manned moon missions is simply this:

The Soviet Union was listening to EVERYTHING sent and received by NASA Mission Control and the astronauts. They would have easily been able to tell if signals were not coming from where they were supposed to be coming from. Suspicious signal propagation delays, direction, cosmic/thermal noise signatures, etc. would all flag up '"HOAX" and the Soviets would have shouted it from the rooftops.

Either NASA anticipated this and somehow managed to fake the location of the astronauts' transmissions, or the Soviets were in on it too. Neither seem at all likely to me.

Nick

[Tesla_WTC_Solution]

I think NASA would rather we believed it was a hoax than asked WHYYYYYY can't we go BAACCCCCKKK?

lol :)

[Vitalux]

Either NASA anticipated this and somehow managed to fake the location of the astronauts' transmissions, or the Soviets were in on it too. Neither seem at all likely to me.

Nick

Or the cold war was a hoax.

[Cristian]

Hence, just because something is written in a history book, physics books, etc....does not mean it is my truth.



I like the above quote. But still you have to build on something. If you want to challenge something you must understand what are you challenging and what are your motives .

Because science, as it is now, enables you to power up your computer and post on forums like this one. It is a joke, our understanding, but it's all we've got.

So if you say tidal lock is not ok for you, you must also explain us why. And if all you have is your gut feeling that is also ok, but you may try to be a bit more subtle about it. After all it's your gut feeling not everybody's.

[DeDukshyn]

wouldnt the heavier side of an orbiting sattelite eventually come to face the orbited object?
Exactly.

That's how moons, planets and even stars become "tidally locked" to whatever they are orbiting.

All orbiting astronomical objects get stretched a little, elongated along the line between them and what they orbit. That makes them constantly a little bit heavier on the side toward what they orbit. Tides affect land mass as well as liquid water. This creates a drag on their own rotation, which can eventually cease, leaving them tidally locked.

I would assume that since no planet (except moon) is an actual sphere, that all other satellites would be tidally locked to their parent very easily and the moon much less easily due to the very spherical nature.

The opposite of what is expected appears to be true ...

Can anyone do physics simulations? (that might be me actually if I can get enough time .. )

What I would want to see is at what point does tidal lock occur? and at what initial speed of rotation from? Are the mass distributions plausible when this is strong enough to occur? etc. It can be figured out, which tells me someone has ... so where's these calculations? They should be available somewhere ..

[meat suit]

a possible general model::wizard:

A. 'orbiting sattelites are spinning until they naturally settle into tidal locking'
B. 'tidal locking may be induced and maintaind artificially by the operators of a sattelite'
C. 'tidal locking may be surpressed artificially by the operators of a sattelite to maintain spinning'

[DeDukshyn]

I'm tempted to fire up the Havok physics engin and run some sims ...

I'd need the mass to diameter ratio between both earth and mars and the distance between the two, I could simulate mass that is biased a little more to one side or another, by slightly shifting the center of gravity of each sphere. I assume there is no way to tell approximately how that weight is actually distributed in these two bodies, but we might be able to get a sense of that after running a few sims of varying distribution. I could set radial gravity to earth and attempt to get the moon to orbit properly. With enough simulations like this we could also get probabilities on hollow Earth / Moon theories ...

This looks like it would take some time to set up and I have a flu right now, but I'll keep this in mind .. it could be fun ;)

[ThePythonicCow]

I'm tempted to fire up the Havok physics engin and run some sims ...
I suspect a key element is that the mass is biased almost, but not exactly, along the line between the two masses. The situation being that each mass stretches the other one, but that these deformations have a time lag due to the viscosity of the matter. So the bulge in each mass is directed toward where the other mass was, a little bit ago. That in turn creates a slight imbalance in the gravitational pull that bulging object exerts on the other.

[DeDukshyn]

I'm tempted to fire up the Havok physics engin and run some sims ...
I suspect a key element is that the mass is biased almost, but not exactly, along the line between the two masses. The situation being that each mass stretches the other one, but that these deformations have a time lag due to the viscosity of the matter. So the bulge in each mass is directed toward where the other mass was, a little bit ago. That in turn creates a slight imbalance in the gravitational pull that bulging object exerts on the other.

I wonder if that effect would be large enough to make a difference, I'm going to say that for between the earth and moon, despite the moon's size, there is little of this effect on Earth or else we'd have a lot more earthquakes, and other plate movements. However, that said, the water on earth is another similar issue.

It would make sense to elongate the moon a bit due to the tidal lock, but we also know the moon is a decent sphere, so again I'm not sure how much emphasis would be needed on this effect. Since the Earth spins much more quickly, the bulges would perhaps be dampened by centrifugal force.

I like the way you think! ;)

[ThePythonicCow]

However, that said, the water on earth is another similar issue.
Yup ... why do you think it's called "tidal lock" :)?

[DeDukshyn]

However, that said, the water on earth is another similar issue.
Yup ... why do you think it's called "tidal lock" :)?

Of course in that sense it only applies to Earth / Moon. It appears that the latest version of 3DS MAX no longer has the Reactor Havok physics bundled and has been replaced by something much simpler without radial gravity. So there will be no sims :(