Gravity on the Moon...

Originally posted by Kailassa
reply to post by zorgon

 

I'm disappointed, Zorgon, to see you jumping to obviously incorrect conclusions like this. Chandrayaan-1 has been orbiting the Moon since November 2008 at a height of 100 kilometres. Each orbit has taken the spacecraft approximately 2 hours. That's well over 2000 orbits it has made in that time. All without being sucked into the Moon's gravity well or having trouble "staying afloat".

The reason for lifting the craft to 200k was given in the article you referred to.

The spacecraft in this higher altitude will enable further studies on orbit perturbations, gravitational field variation of the Moon and also enable imaging lunar surface with a wider swath.

They are getting a different view in order to gain more knowledge.


Of course it will be interesting to learn what is causing this anomaly, and accurate data on it will help any future moon missions.

And to conserve spacecraft resources...as the gravity is markedly different to that which the mission planners had allowed for, it stands to reason that course and or altitude corrections would have been called for, perhaps on more than one occasion.

The smart thing to do, has been done...take the craft to double the altitude and measure the anomaly again, and hopefully, the anomaly will have less or no effect on flight characteristics and so on.

To actually double the original flight programme orbital altitude though...it tells me that things are being percieved as *quite* significant in certain mission control rooms around the world. Whilst it makes perfect sense to do it, it also smacks of 'backing right off, until we get the first clue of what we are dealing with here'. If you see what i mean.

The far side of the moon should have a much higher iron content than the near side, (because of the higher frequency of meteor hits throughout it's existence). I can't help but think there is a much stronger connection between gravity and magnetism than what is currently accepted/thought, not just mass and it's distribution.

Originally posted by spikey
To actually double the original flight programme orbital altitude though...it tells me that things are being percieved as *quite* significant in certain mission control rooms around the world. Whilst it makes perfect sense to do it, it also smacks of 'backing right off, until we get the first clue of what we are dealing with here'. If you see what i mean.

Yes... that is a very significant 'safety margin'. Good spotting

Originally posted by Flux8
The far side of the moon should have a much higher iron content than the near side, (because of the higher frequency of meteor hits throughout it's existence).

Why? As the moon rotates on its axis, why would one side be hit any more than the other? And if you look at photos in fact the nearside shows much larger hits overall than does farside.




.V.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by zorgon]

perhaps that the moon has no rotation and the solar-wind is connected at an higher energy level with gravity... that could couse an anomaly.....

reply to post by ressiv


If it did not rotate we would see all side of the moon. As we see only one side it must rotate once for every orbit around Earth

Lovely thread.

As one of the more established currently accepted theories goes, the "Mare" are thought to be very old, large meteor impact craters, that were filled with liquid lava following the impact. So these fluctuations can to some extent be contributed to uneven mass distribution.


I remember reading border patrols at the US - Mexican border using devices capable of detecting underground tunnels by scanning for micro gravitational fluctuations... and with some success.

Source

With so much interest in "unprecedentedly" precise lunar gravity scanning one can't help but wonder what exactly are they looking for out there?

It might very well be that they are looking to only better understand the real origin of our moon as the current theories are all quite shaky. We know for a fact that the moon is escaping the gravitational pull by some 3.5cm every year, so the current thinking is that the moon was once a part of the Earth. Maybe by having a precise gravitational map of the moon we could see if there is any weight to this theory?

But hey, what do I know? I'm just some schmuck with a computer

Edit: heavy duty mistakes delux.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by Manawydan]

Curious.

It seems to me that an equilibrium of sorts is going on here.

A strong P gravity in the nearside, and an equally strong N gravity on the farside. Maintaining a balance. Equilibrium.

Perhaps, this is part of the moon's puzzle, of why the moon seems to hold so many curious coincidences. (there are a lot, believe me!) A yin and yang gravitaional moon, suggests control for equilibrium, stability. For maintaining a preset, programmed character.

Personally, i don't know quite what to make of the moon. Until/Unless i get to travel there to inspect it personally, i won't 'know'.

But considering all the strange, bizarre mathmatical coincidences, and stories of the moon being an 'ark'..that delivered Humanity to Earth (a la colony/deep space ship) or being festooned with all manner of bases, (Human and otherwise), Ancient and modern...whatever you all think of the OP story, (i for one am grateful to them), you have to admit that the moon is one weird whathaveyou! Much closer examination is what is called for here..

reply to post by zorgon


I just about fell off my chair laughing at the picture you provided of those NASA guys. A couple of them, like the one running his hand over his head, looked like they were wondering if we're going to buy this one or not, or if they have to get more inventive with their lies and stories. Behold, those who co-conspire to keep us from the truth!

reply to post by zorgon


As i mentioned earlier, i recently have read some Ingo Swann. In "Penetration" he says much the same thing. He calls it the "Dead Moon Dictum", and wonders why we all of a sudden, as a culture, have had this concept thrust on us, and why we have bought it wholesale.

There is quite a bit of evidence that points to things on the moon not being as we are told. There are multiple reports of clouds (which mean atmosphere, and likely would imply greater gravity), and even stranger, large bridges and other "buildings" that come and then go. Many of these reports are from respected folks.

Needing to account for gravity in such a manner seems silly, since wehave already been doing this for years. Going back to the Ranger craft, the moon was very well researched early on, and it seems somewhat superfluous to continue.

Now we see that NASA has scrapped any moon habitation? What about private industry? Do we see similar issues with the private ventures?

Originally posted by Wertdagf
All of this secrecy stuff is only making me angry.

Yeah, me too!

I don't think I believe there are aliens on the moon. But there could be something, maybe artefacts, something else just as astonishing... or there could be nothing.

But one thing I am sure of, there's some hiding going on. That's definitely the prevailing behaviour and that's, to put it politely, very irratating.

reply to post by zorgon


Great to see you back posting again.


It is funny how so many of the "lunatics" who talk about all the "fringe" topics end up being proven right later on. It is a shame Mr. Lear had to go through all the bashing and name calling I saw him take on here, I felt sorry for him really. Give him our regards will you? Great thread by the way.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I don't foresee anything private or not happening on Luna until disclosure. If this is all true then it would be impossible to hide it from people once mainstream gets up there.

Oh it must obviously be alien structures, no way possible for the moon to have a different gravity on one side than the other. I mean no goodness no can't take into account centrifugal force at work putting more mass on the far side of the moon than the near side. Couldn't possibly be that. Has to be alien structures.

:shk:

reply to post by zorgon


and hence why the far side has a stronger gravity than the Earth side. The moon believe it or not was molten at one point spinning round the Earth in it's orbit as it cooled. The force of it's orbit sent more mass to the far side than the near Earth side.

[edit on 5/28/2009 by whatukno]

The Earth protects the near side of the moon from many impacts. The far side of the moon has no protection and therefore is riddled with far more impacts.

Per wikipedia-

"... The two hemispheres have distinctly different appearances, with the near side covered in multiple, large maria (Latin for 'seas,' since the earliest astronomers thought, wrongly, that these plains were seas of lunar water). The far side has a battered, densely cratered appearance with few maria. Only 2.5% of the surface of the far side is covered by maria,[1] compared to 31.2% on the near side..."

Image of the far side of the moon.
img13.imageshack.us...

[edit on 28-5-2009 by Flux8]

What if the aliens who inhibit the life force of the inner moon decide to alter Earth's gravity?

reply to post by Bob Down Under

Regardless of the 100 page arguments we could all get into debating the origin of the gravity anomalies on Luna I think another main point of this thread is that John Lear said this and no one really believed him. So if you can take the abstract of this and just postulate real quick................... Okay ready?


If some of these things that were said and dismissed as crazy are actually true then shouldn't we start paying more attention to these people? I mean I think this grants Lear and others who have claimed inside knowledge more credibility IMO.

reply to post by zorgon


"She and John have been discussing the gravity issues for some time and you can read the email exchanges here. Now I know chatting with John may get her bad reviews, but then, she is already making a name for herself anyway... "

I read all the letters back and forth and a few duplicates from JL, it seems that he wants to lead her in a certain direction and wants his point proven by her scientific work. Anyway, it is interesting, JL have some guts asking the questions in public no matter how weird or wrong they might sound.



[edit on 2009/5/29 by reugen]

I got some doubts about this.

First, we are talking about the gravity anomalies, not about the whole gravity on the Moon, right?

Second, didn't John Lear said that the gravity was stronger on the far side? I may be wrong, I never gave much attention to what he said, but if it was, then this new data from Jaxa does not confirm what he said, they say that there are more negative anomalies on the far side, meaning, if I am not wrong, that the gravity on the far side has more places where it is weaker than on the near side.

I think I had more doubts, but I can not remember any at this moment, so I will just end this post here.

Lear left these forums about a year ago.
Willingly or unwillingly I can't remember.