The Big NASA-Military Cover-up On Gravity And Atmosphere On The Moon!

reply to post by AlienCarnage


Alien....actually, even in Columbus' time it was understood that the Earth was a sphere, and not flat....the 'great concept' of Columbus' voyage was to find a faster route to Asia. The idea being, it was a difficult journey overland to the riches, especially the spices, that Asia offered. Hence, the notion that going by Sea would be quicker.

Thing is, at that time, they did not know that an entire Continent was in the way, to the 'Orient'. They had mis-calculated the actual circumference of the Earth.

Spain, and Portugal, were the 'NASA' of their era...as it involves the ability to navigate by sea. What was important, in that era, was an ability to know time accurately. This ability meant that a voyage away from sight of the land was possible....and the course could be maintained not only by sighting the stars, which provided Latitude information...but also by using speed (knots) and a clock, to determine Longitude.

Problem was, clocks would not keep good time on a ship that rolled with the Sea...until one was invented!!!

THAT invention paved the way to greater naval exploration....

Now, fast-forward to modern times. Given the tremendous accomplishments of people several centuries ago, without the help of modern electronics...imagine what we can do TODAY!!!

nevermind..


[edit on 13-11-2008 by Phage]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand

 

letthereader....oh dear, please go study more astronomy! The 'kuiper belt' (not 'kuniper belt) is outside the orbit of Neptune. No, I sincerely doubt the Apollo astronauts ever ventured that far!

Incidentally, the 'kuiper belt' is relevant inasmuch as it is thought to be the source of the various and sundry comets that occasionally threaten the inner planets, including Earth.

Someone else, on this thread, recently challenged me for 'the math'!!

Um....that is not possible in this sort of forum. I would suggest, instead, that anyone with certain doubts do their own research. One might start with Einstein, and work one's way back to Newton...and follow THEIR math.

Absolutely right, forgive me...The Van Allen Radiation belt is what I was referring to, but you knew that. Kuiper belt was in my head from a show I had watched on Neptune a few days back...sorry.

I do study all the time. I go outside and I look at the sky. Sometimes I lay down and watch, but most of the time I'll just sit in a chair. Sometimes, I'll go to the beach and watch the sun set and other times I'll watch the east.

The stars don't rise, they just pop in. Other times I'll see them travel to their spots, because like I said, they move, some really fast then they stop at there station. They even blink faster and slower, some red, some green, some blue...really beautiful you should put down the math and watch some time. You'd probably learn a lot, not that you don't know what you've been taught. I'm sure the guy before you learned real good from the guy before him, only too bad none of them ever experienced anything other then math and arguing over things theorized. Shame really.

We had a full moon last night. It was cool. As it went behind some clouds I noticed a particularly strange thing. The clouds curled up around the moon, like the moon was leaving a wake.

Another weird thing that I just can't seem to understand. How is it, that when the moon is in the sky during the day, when I can hold my arms out at 90 degrees, one pointing to the moon and the other to the sun, then how is it that the moon isn't full? If I was on the moon looking at earth, I'd see a full earth, why not the other way around?

Ever played three way catch? I have, you set yourself and two others in a triangle and go around with the ball. You can see everyone. It's not, you can see one person fully and the other is half, but you can see both people lit under the same light. Being that the moon is some 2,000,000 ? miles away (plenty of distance to not be in shadow) that the line of site to the moon is obstructed by shadow, yet with the naked eye we can see mars, Jupiter, Venus all bright? Simple observation tells me something isn't right. Or how about this? For as big as the sun is, why is it not the ONLY thing we can see during the day. It's only 93,000,000 miles away? How many thousands of earths are supposed to fit into the sun? Just some thoughts


Peace. Oh and thanks for the correction

reply to post by weedwhacker


Ok so my history is not great (never was my best subject back in the day), but the fact is that the person questioning what is considered the norm, must provide the proof.

wow.. S&F Mike!! thx..

posting to read entire thread later with comment.

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand

Another weird thing that I just can't seem to understand. How is it, that when the moon is in the sky during the day, when I can hold my arms out at 90 degrees, one pointing to the moon and the other to the sun, then how is it that the moon isn't full? If I was on the moon looking at earth, I'd see a full earth, why not the other way around?

Actually, you wouldn't see a full Earth.
The moon is full when the sun is 180 degrees from it. Notice last night that the moon rises right when the sun is settting? When the moon is 90 degrees from the sun you will see a half moon (day or night)

reply to post by letthereaderunderstand


letthereader....

Thank you for your questions....where to begin?

Firstly, yes, you recognized and acknowledged your mistake re: Kuiper Belt.

Secondly, your very poetic-sounding post re: the clouds, and the Moon.

You must realize that the Moon is about 250,000 miles ABOVE the Earth, and any clouds you see are in our atmosphere, a mere 5 or six miles away!

Here's a great analogy....IF the Earth were the size of an apple, then the thickness of the SKIN of that apple would approximate the thickness of the Earth's atmosphere.

Think about this, for a moment....we live on a planet, blanketed, for now, by a survivable atmosphere....that is very, very delicate.

Study, and learn.........

reply to post by Phage


Saturn is pretty bright right? Why does this moon have a shadow on the back side facing the incredibly bright Saturn when Enceladus is practically in Saturns atmosphere? Shouldn't the reflection from Saturn fully illuminate the Enceladus moon in front of it?

This is my point with Earth (though realizing they are totally different in terms of size) but deflection should be the same either way. The earth should have enough direct line of sight reflective surface to offset the shadow of the moon or billards goes right out the window.



This picture is what I was talking about in regards to the Earth and Sun. The Sun being as big as it is, why is our view not like this picture where the sun takes up our whole view?

Correct me cause I'm probably wrong, but is not the distance to the sun from earth roughly the diameter of the sun from one side to the other meaning if you were to travel from one side of the sun to the other strait threw it, it would be the same distance as if traveling from the earth to the sun?

If that is the case, again not sure that's way I look to you guys, but if it is then the sun is all we should be able to see due to how massive it is. Why is this not so?

Thanks again and Peace....I'm trying to learn weed wacker. These might be questions a child would ask, but what can I say...Magic isn't real, but I still wonder how it's done.

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
Correct me cause I'm probably wrong, but is not the distance to the sun from earth roughly the diameter of the sun from one side to the other meaning if you were to travel from one side of the sun to the other strait threw it, it would be the same distance as if traveling from the earth to the sun?

No, the distance between the Earth and the Sun is more or less 100 times the diameter of the Sun.

I know that Wikipedia is sometimes considered not to be trustworthy, but I think we can rely on articles like this one about the Sun.

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
reply to post by Phage

 

This is my point with Earth (though realizing they are totally different in terms of size) but deflection should be the same either way. The earth should have enough direct line of sight reflective surface to offset the shadow of the moon or billards goes right out the window.

The Earth does light up the moon. It's called Earthshine and it is visible when there is a new moon.

It's not really bright but it is there. You can't really see it in the later phases of the moon because the reflected sunlight is so much brighter.

Correct me cause I'm probably wrong, but is not the distance to the sun from earth roughly the diameter of the sun from one side to the other meaning if you were to travel from one side of the sun to the other strait threw it, it would be the same distance as if traveling from the earth to the sun?

The sun is 93,000,000 miles from the earth. The sun is 870,000 miles in diameter. It is not the same distance.

[edit on 13-11-2008 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
reply to post by Phage

 

This is my point with Earth (though realizing they are totally different in terms of size) but deflection should be the same either way. The earth should have enough direct line of sight reflective surface to offset the shadow of the moon or billards goes right out the window.

The Earth does light up the moon. It's called Earthshine and it is visible when there is a new moon.

It's not really bright but it is there. You can't really see it in the later phases of the moon because the reflected sunlight is so much brighter.

Correct me cause I'm probably wrong, but is not the distance to the sun from earth roughly the diameter of the sun from one side to the other meaning if you were to travel from one side of the sun to the other strait threw it, it would be the same distance as if traveling from the earth to the sun?

The sun is 93,000,000 miles from the earth. The sun is 870,000 miles in diameter. It is not the same distance.

[edit on 13-11-2008 by Phage]

Cool thank you guys, but that doesn't answer my Enceladus question. Please forgive me, these questions are in helping understand the topic at hand. Thanks

[edit on 13-11-2008 by letthereaderunderstand]

Originally posted by AlienCarnage
reply to post by mikesingh

 

I say the Moon may be an alien space ship. Prove me wrong, though I have no evidence that this is so. Produce yours.

The burden of proof is on the person making claims to back them up. Even Columbus was made to prove his claims of a round world vs the norm of a flat world. It doesn't matter haow factual your claim might be, proof is on the person making claims against the norm.

That's exactly my point. When I say the Moon may be an artificial spaceship, it's just a line of thought, seemingly too far fetched an idea to even discuss.

That said, can you provide proof of how the Moon was formed? There are three scientific theories of how the Moon came about:

1. A rersult of a massive collision of another body with Earth that resulted in a rip producing the Moon.

2. Produced from the same material as that produced the Earth during the early stages of the formation of the Solar System.

3. A free floating object that was captured by the gravity of the Earth eventually becoming the Moon.

Now, this according to mainstream scientific theories. So can you produce
proof/evidence of any of the above? These are all theories, conjectures, guesses, assumptions. But how come you believe in some of these theories though there is NO evidence but trash the idea that the Moon could have been an artificially constructed object? Because of conditioning. It sounds bizarre and beyond comprehension that this could be so.

By the way, this is just an example. I do not stress that the Moon IS artificial! But just one of the lines of thinking!

Cheers!

reply to post by letthereaderunderstand


Hi letthereaderunderstand,

Good to see you again as I haven't heard from you for a while.

I haven't got into this thread very much as I have been on others and very busy with you know What...

I go along with the Writer of this Thread though.

[edit on 14-11-2008 by The Matrix Traveller]

reply to post by letthereaderunderstand


letthereader...

Saturn is 'bright' only as seen from our vantage point....from our view, the Planet Saturn, and also Jupiter, shine brilliantly because they are large.

They reflect from the Sun....they do not...let me repeat, they DO NOT shine as a Star will.

I hope this helps to explain how the Solar System works.

Let me, please, correct certain terms: We call our planetary System the 'Solar System' because we have named our major star, the 'Sun'...'Sol'.

When we find another Planetary System that happens to be similiar to ours, and happens to have intelligent life on one or more of the planets, we will refer to them as a 'System'....or a 'planetary system', or we will use THEIR name for THEIR Star....or OUR name for THEIR Star....but 'Solar System' is unique to OUR System.

This must be clear: --- the definition of the 'Universe' embodies, well, the entire Universe. Too much for any one person to comprehend.

The Universe is incorporated by billions of Galaxies (one of which we live in)...

Each Galaxy has its own billions of stars, with the possibility of Star Systems that include intelligent life, within that System.

Now, focus in on US! Here, in the Solar System. We, on this Planet....if you wish to believe that we have been 'fiddled' with, by extraterrestrials...because, for some reason, WE are so IMPORTANT...then, please keep thinking that is the case.

I would prefer to believe in the capacity of Humans to grow beyond their petty differences, and eventually join together and become a factor for improvement....not only in OUR species, but the possibility of improving OTHER species, should we encounter them.

reply to post by letthereaderunderstand


Let me see if I understood your Enceladus question.

If you say that Enceladus should look brighter on the side facing Saturn, then you must take into account that the photo shows the brighter side illuminated by the Sun, while the shadow part has only the reflected light shining on it, like the Earth shine on the Moon.

But even if Saturn is more reflective than Earth, the light shining directly is always stronger than the light reflected, even with a mirror that happens.

So, the brighter side, being brighter, will appear better on the photo, because that was what they wanted to show. If they wanted to show the area in the shadow they would have made the shadow their target for the light level, making it more visible and the brighter area would look completely white because it would be over exposed, something like this.



(I don't know the right side of Enceladus was also brightened, maybe it's just the result of this being a JPEG image, I will try to find a better photo)

reply to post by mikesingh


Actually I don't take stake in any of the theories, I take stock in the evidence as follows;

The moon is in orbit above our plannet.
The moon shows only one side to the earth currently.

These I can prove, there are probably others but these are the most obvious.

As far as what the moon is made of or formed, I take no stock in any theories, because there is no proof for these only cojecture.

[edit on 11/14/2008 by AlienCarnage]

reply to post by mikesingh


Reply to not only Mike, but all who have chimed in:

Allow me to ask a question...Why is the nearest celestial body still under debate as to its nature?

The Moon is so close, comparatively...and has been studied, and visited, by Humans. Apollo 17 even included trained 'geologists'...although 'geo' refers to the Earth, they were tasked with attempting to devine the origin of the Moon, by comparing commonality between Moon rocks and Earth rocks.

According to everything I've seen, documentary after documentary, it tends to be a consensus that the surface of the Moon is very similar to certain forms of rock on the Earth, just lacking the erosive factors of wind and water.

Furthermore, the scientific theory seems to support the idea that the Moon was 'calved' off of the early Earth, sometime in the early formation of the Solar System, when frequent collisions were occuring. The Moon seems to consist mostly of the lighter-weight components of our own Earth's crust.

MikeSingh has pointed out the 'mascons', which, to me, lends credence to this theory....the Moon had insufficient mass to become fully homogenous, as it congealed. Even our own Earth isn't properly 'balanced'...it has lumps and bumps, combined with the fully-known fact of Plate Tectonics, which mean the Earth's surface is constantly changing.

Here's something to ponder: The Moon is approximately one-fourth the diameter of the Earth, yet has about one-sixth the mass. This is because the Moon lacks the very heavy iron core, and very heavy deep inner mantle components that Earth possesses.

Also, consider, the Moon is, compared to other 'moons' in our Solar System, quite close to the 'mother' planet. The gravitational influence of Earth could be responsible for the 'tidal lock' that we see with the Moon...i.e., keeping one hemisphere perpetually facing the Earth.

I know, someone might bring up Phobos and Deimos, and say THEY are closer to Mars than the Moon is to Earth....but, THEY do not even come close to having the mass of our Moon, and there is rampant speculation that one or both of them MAY be artificial!!!

Considering OUR Moon?

IF it is artificial, then it represents a level of technology so far beyond what we know, it is beyond what we can imagine. Just try to comprehend the SCALE involved! This celestial body is one-fourth the diameter of the Earth!!!

Whist I would not presume to attempt to think like an extra-terrestrial, I'd think I'd build an artificial 'moon' on a somewhat smaller scale.....just my thoughts.

reply to post by letthereaderunderstand


letthe....Enceladus is NOT 'practically' in Saturn's atmosphere!

Any Moon that was in such a low orbit would soon, due to friction, find its orbit decaying to the point that it would spiral down, and be consumed by the 'host' planet.

This is a comment for anyone who stumbles across this thread: We Humans tend to think in terms of our lifetimes....say, 80-90 years. The Universe works differently -- in timespans hard to comprehend by us; hundreds of thousands, even millions of 'years', for events to play out.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Considering OUR Moon?

IF it is artificial, then it represents a level of technology so far beyond what we know, it is beyond what we can imagine. Just try to comprehend the SCALE involved! This celestial body is one-fourth the diameter of the Earth!!!

WW, what do we understand about the technology of ETs? They could be millions if not billions of years ahead of us. Can an ant even begin to comprehend how and why the Sears Towers were built? It's beyond their imagination just as it's beyond ours to imagine how and why the Moon was built! Now I'm not contending that the Moon IS of alien origin! (No one really knows!!)

Whist I would not presume to attempt to think like an extra-terrestrial, I'd think I'd build an artificial 'moon' on a somewhat smaller scale.....just my thoughts.

You would. But what do you know of ET modus operandi of construction of inter stellar space ships? They may not think like us at all!

Again, I'm not stressing that the Moon is artificial! I don't know. But there are plenty of pointers to it. But that later.

Cheers!

reply to post by mikesingh


mike, I appreciate this discussion, and recognize your points.

A civilization ('Type II') that would be capable of BUILDING something as incredible as a 'planetoid' the size of our Moon, and then placing it in orbit....begs one big question.....WHY?

Is it possible, in our hubris, we Humans believe we are so special as to warrant this kind of study?

What I mean is, IF there are ETs studying us, then A) to what purpose? and, B) aren't there OTHER interesting species within the Galaxy worth studying?

Furthermore, to suppose the Moon is artificially constructed is to assume that there is a VERY long-term plan afoot, to observe Human Civilization.

Again, I will come back to the 'hubris' of Humanity, in this matter.

I realize, mike, that you aren't advocating one way, or the other, about the Moon....whether it is artificial or not. I just think, out loud, and in print here on ATS.....

My 'opinion' is that the Moon is of natural origin.

It also happens to be a convenient place IF you were an ET who wished to observe the planet Earth.....for whatever reasons....