Moon Orbit Wrong Cornell University Says.

Originally posted by CherubBaby
Responding to those who wanted a simpler explanation for the topic. Here it is. You will also read about the many other inconsistencies taking place currently in our solar system. Below is the link to the article,

www.technologyreview.com...

Nice article. But keep in perspective that lists stuff like a 15cm increase in the AU (from 149,597,870,700.00 to 149,597,870,700.15, or 3.5mm in the orbit of the moon. Nothing remotely visible.

A friendly reminder...

Please keep the discussion topic-centric sans the personal comments and sniping.

TIA

reply to post by Uncinus

Hello Uncinus. In regards to perspectives, you say below,

Nice article. But keep in perspective that lists stuff like a 15cm increase in the AU (from 149,597,870,700.00 to 149,597,870,700.15, or 3.5mm in the orbit of the moon. Nothing remotely visible.

Nothing remotely visible ? You must be in the wrong thread. You'll want the moon is upside down in Las Vegas for visible stuff. See pictures.

But keep in perspective how small the error is? Ok. Lets have a look at how small the error is. Below is a link to the paper again and some quotes, by the author of paper who thought it was something to pay attention to. :

adsabs.harvard.edu...

The Author says below,

There are four unexplained anomalies connected with astrometric data. Perhaps the most disturbing is the fact that when a spacecraft on a flyby trajectory approaches the Earth within 2000 km or less, it experiences a gain in total orbital energy per unit mass

Next, I suggest the change in the astronomical unit AU is definitely a concern.

The other two anomalies are perhaps less disturbing because of known sources of nongravitational acceleration.

The fourth anomaly is a measured increase in the eccentricity of the Moon's orbit. Here again, an increase is expected from tidal friction in both the Earth and Moon. However, there is a reported increase that is about three times larger than expected

Sounds to me like something of concern and some of it disturbing. From the other link you can see that ignoring small anomalies is not wise. Lets face it "Three times more than expected" Hmmm, sounds encouraging. Common sense would dictate and the author obviously has some because three times anything not expected is a real problem.

This anomaly is so tiny that it would require an extra planet of earth size within the solar system near the orbit of Neptune to explain it. So coupled with the sun au anomaly it would require what?? 2 extra planets in the solar system? A black hole in the Oort Cloud would explain it. And so with the sun - what - 2 black holes in the Oort? We'll never know though because what happens in the Oort stays in the Oort. All we get to see is some lipstick on the collar and a motel receipt.

Originally posted by CherubBaby

Nothing remotely visible ? You must be in the wrong thread. You'll want the moon is upside down in Las Vegas for visible stuff. See pictures.

I refer you to your OP. Clearly this thread was about visible deviations.

The moon is not right. Many people here on ATS know this. Thousands of people worldwide also are aware. The internet has a mulltitude of eye witness acounts.

Sounds to me like something of concern and some of it disturbing. From the other link you can see that ignoring small anomalies is not wise. Lets face it "Three times more than expected" Hmmm, sounds encouraging. Common sense would dictate and the author obviously has some because three times anything not expected is a real problem.

A problem in what sense though? All he's saying is that there are some unexplained discrepancies, and he thinks we should try to figure them out, so we can make the model that little bit more accurate, maybe even discover something new. 15cm a year is not "a problem" for the vast majority of people.

reply to post by Uncinus


Ok . 15 cm. a year? Well, sounds like two extra planets in our solar system would explain that . Then again we could always go for the big prize and have a couple of black holes in the oort. Doesn't sound like a problem. Nothing to see here.

reply to post by CherubBaby


It's not a problem. Was Pluto a problem before it was discovered? What about Eris? Is Eris a "problem"

What exactly is the problem?

reply to post by CherubBaby


Excuse me but:

Well, sounds like two extra planets in our solar system would explain that .

Have you thought that through sufficiently?

Where are these "two extra planets"? Way out beyond the orbit of Pluto? So, how is it, then, that their influence, from over 35 AU distance, has an affect ONLY on the Moon?

Explain, please, how just the Moon is being influenced...and nothing else.

Get this.....not even our artificial satellites!

See? The Moon is far, far, far far more massive than any of our spacecraft. SO, if by some (impossible) twist of weird physics the "two extra planets" could reach here to where we are and selectively only alter the Moon....then, the far less massive objects would also have to be disrupted as well.

Isn't that logical?

reply to post by ProudBird


Why stretch it??!! It's 30au, not 35au. It's the orbit of Neptune, not Pluto. It's within the solar system. Why stretch it??!!

What do you mean only the moon is being influenced!!?? Didn't you read the link!!?? 4 (four) anomalies - count them - 1...2...3...4...

Seen, not seen: what does that mean?? Seen or not, that's what it would take to explain the moon. An extra planet in our solar system. That's how insignificant this all is. Only a goof ball would think that's insignificant. The author even says 'new physics' might be needed to explain it. Why do you think everyone's in such a rush to alter the speed of light and make it inconstant?

reply to post by CherubBaby


The author also states "We suspect that all four anomalies have mundane explanations."

This is making a mountain out of a molehill.

Originally posted by CherubBaby

There are four unexplained anomalies connected with astrometric data. Perhaps the most disturbing is the fact that when a spacecraft on a flyby trajectory approaches the Earth within 2000 km or less, it experiences a gain in total orbital energy per unit mass

Please explain how "two extra planets in the solar system" could account for this anomaly. See, when they say "concerned" they don't mean it the way you mean it (big bad unseen planets), they mean they have concerns about there potentially being some yet to be discovered aspect of physics that could be driving very minute effects like this. It is not something you can see, but only with very fine measurements can they detect it. So again, how could an undiscovered planet explain the above phenomenon since it depends on close approach distance to earth .

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by Uncinus

 

Ok . 15 cm. a year? Well, sounds like two extra planets in our solar system would explain that . Then again we could always go for the big prize and have a couple of black holes in the oort. Doesn't sound like a problem. Nothing to see here.

Here it is folks, the crux of it all. Finally stated out loud.

reply to post by CherubBaby


You didn't address my points, but went off on another (couple of) tangents?

It's 30au, not 35au. It's the orbit of Neptune, not Pluto. It's within the solar system.

Huh? Your post mentioned the Oort Cloud. That is not within the Solar System. Anything LARGE and as near as the orbit of Neptune would be seen by now! Neptune was discovered in 1846!!!

Didn't you read the link!!?? 4 (four) anomalies....

Oh, like this one?:

Perhaps the most disturbing is the fact that when a spacecraft on a flyby trajectory approaches the Earth within 2000 km or less, it experiences a gain in total orbital energy per unit mass

It is about how the Earth affects smaller spacecraft. Has nothing at all to do with some planet (that doesn't exist) at 30 AU!

So? And, you ignored my point about our teeny, tiny little satellites in orbit.....those little gems keep on doing what they do, very predictably. How is that? Especially the GPS network.....precision is important for those to work properly.

The author even says 'new physics' might be needed to explain it. Why do you think everyone's in such a rush to alter the speed of light and make it inconstant?

That has nothing to do with and "hidden or invisible" planets on our Solar System.

This is how science works. Ever increasing ability for ever more precise measurements means more precise results. Sometimes, being able to measure more precisely means that some earlier assumptions that a theory is derived from are a tiny bit off, and the math needs to be further refined.

This is all very esoteric, and is more akin to what a pure "geek" loves, in the quest for ever more precision and explanations. This is not well understood by most of us who are not expert in that particular field of study.....but, even a layperson can see that jumping to absurd conclusions by mis-interpreting these reports is a bit over-the-top.

reply to post by ngchunter


I didn't know you were able to decide what someone means when they say "Concerned". or for that matter when they said "Disturbing" Thats really not the issue for me. What is the issue at this point is what you say and whether it is accurate and factual so, since this couldn't be explained by a planets close by that would have to appraoch closely, close enough to see them then I guess it maybe a black hole or worse. Im on the same page with you. I dont think were gonna see it coming.

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by ngchunter

 

I didn't know you were able to decide what someone means when they say "Concerned". or for that matter when they said "Disturbing" Thats really not the issue for me. What is the issue at this point is what you say and whether it is accurate and factual so, since this couldn't be explained by a planets close by that would have to appraoch closely, close enough to see them then I guess it maybe a black hole or worse. Im on the same page with you. I dont think were gonna see it coming.

So instead of "We suspect that all four anomalies have mundane explanations.", you jump to OMG black hole!

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by ngchunter

 

I didn't know you were able to decide what someone means when they say "Concerned". or for that matter when they said "Disturbing"

"However, the possibility that they will be explained by a new theory of gravitation is not ruled out"

Their words. Doesn't say anything about extra planets, a possibility that was ruled out in the paper you originally posted about in this thread. Goes directly to what I was saying they were saying. Even though I'm only an amateur astronomer, I am a scientist and I've known a number of professional astronomers over the years, enough to know how they think. Plus, they flat-out tell you what they're thinking right there in the abstract...

What is the issue at this point is what you say and whether it is accurate and factual so, since this couldn't be explained by a planets close by that would have to appraoch closely, close enough to see them then I guess it maybe a black hole or worse.

No, that would not explain it at all. Again, the issue I asked you about is to do with close approaches to earth accelerating spacecraft very, very slightly more than expected. I asked you how extra planets would explain that. Switching your explanation to a black hole doesn't explain it either since the phenomenon is centered on earth itself.

Another of the issues they mention is the pioneer anomaly, which was in a sunward direction for both probes... even though they left the solar system in opposite directions, meaning if it were a planet, black hole, neutron star, whatever-object-you-think-it-is, it would have to be occupying the same point in space as the sun itself. In other words, no, it's not due to a planet, black hole, neutron star, or any other undiscovered object.

Im on the same page with you.

No, you're clearly not on the same page with me. You seem to think these phenomenon are caused by an external perturber, a possibility ruled out in the paper you originally posted about. I will quote, from that paper:

We must conclude that not even the hypothesis of Planet X is a viable one to explain
the anomalous increase of the lunar eccentricity of eq. (1).

Before you ask, no, changing the claim to a black hole doesn't help. This isn't about the ability to directly see it, it's about the effect it would have on other objects. Take for instance the earth itself, your new link notes the increase in the AU of 15 cm/yr. Is that consistent with the hypothetical perturber from your original paper which was ruled out? The answer is an emphatic no. Using ORSA I simulated the solar system in the year 2010 using the data for the hypothetical perturber from your original paper. I made the perturber 1 earth mass at a distance of 30 AU and got the expected increase in eccentricity of the moon of 9x10^-12. The earth-sun distance (the AU), however, changed by a whopping 3.26 meters, over 200 times what the anomaly was reported to be. So again, the attempt to explain it as a perturbation from an undiscovered object fails.

reply to post by ngchunter


Here are the links to the ORSA calculations I previously mentioned. The data shows the earth-sun distance (in km) change over a 1 year period with and without the perturber affecting the eccentricity of the moon, as well as the change in the eccentricity of the moon over the same time period with and without the perturber (file names including the letters "wo" before the words "moonperturber" are without the perturber).
www.4shared.com...
www.4shared.com...
www.4shared.com...
www.4shared.com...

reply to post by ngchunter


Your data or links that you post or the conclusions and interpretations carry no more proof or guarantee of outcome than mine do. You simply believe in what your sayiing. I believe in what I am saying. You sidestep my questions that you know are valid and I won't address yours as long as you continue to do so. One word does come to mind however. Funny but I keep thinking about the word "Contractor"

reply to post by Uncinus


I can jump to whatever I want untill the causes are known. Are your hopes and unproven and undocument conclusions of things not yet explained more believeable than mine? Should we believe what you think , even though you can't explain or show proof for what your telling others to accept reasonable to you? Of course it is right? Because you are saying it and thats all that obviously matters to you. People have the right to "Find Out" by the due process of DISCOVERY. Not by someone telling them " Look Just Trust Me" If you can't give a proveable explaination that explains The Concerns of the Professionals that wrote the articles , say so. Stop trying to talk over everyone that simply want answers from people who know what they are talking about.