Moon Orbit Wrong Cornell University Says.

reply to post by ngchunter


I am going to answer your question the only way I can. But before I do I dont like words like "Blatantly" used to describe my actions. It makes me look like I am purposely avoiding a question. FYI I have been under constant and redundant messaging from the same people over and over and over again. Not only in this thread but in many others the same people. How many times does a person have to tell you their name or age for example before you know what their name is? Are we here to say what we think and leave it at that or are we here to tell others they cant talk about what they believe or they are going to be subject to ridicule for their beliefs , while they look for answers and not slander. We all learn in time. For example , Im not going to tell you that I want a reply in 5 mins or Im going to think your avoiding me. I dont start a thread for fame or glory. I have no agendas and IM NOT A LIAR ok? I don't go into places looking for trouble or subject matter (threads) that I know will irritate. I dont post to try to irritate or ridicule others unless I am attacked and ridiculed to the point where its become unbearable. With respect I say this to you and anyone else reading this.I dont have 6 people with me in a thread oposing everyone and everything that agrees with the POSSIBILITY that I may have a right to suspect or question what I am seeing or witnessing. But when someone wants to start telling me I am uneducated and too old to remember properly and trying to pull a fast one on them, I no longer can even listen to the facts of their opinions. I wont have a conversation with a liar or persacuter or know it all. Its a dead issue for me under those circumstances. Once again, page 7 on this thread at the botttom explains all a person need to know about me or my motives. I saw the article and didnt know that I needed a background investigation done on it. ok? Forgive me if thats what it takes to get this over with .

reply to post by CherubBaby


All that and you still didn't answer the question, nor did your post at the bottom of page 7. To repeat, the question was, "You have not told me or anyone what in that article you feel substantiates your claims. What in there supports your views?" I get that you'll hold onto your views no matter what, even if you don't hold onto the article, but you still haven't answered the question. Your initial "answer" was this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
That's blatant deflection, almost in a passive-aggressive way. Now you've chosen to play the martyr card again and still avoid the actual question. I'm not going to pry it out of you though, I just genuinely wanted to hear the answer.

reply to post by ngchunter


The title of the article and the claim it was from Cornell. I dont feel like a martyr. Let me ask a question. What would you think the article was implying if you saw it for the first time? In otherwords lets say it was on the front page of a local news paper.Better yet Whats the title of this thread? Why do you think the thread is titled the way it is? are we done now?

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by ngchunter

 

The title of the article and the claim it was from Cornell.

Finally, thank you for your candor.

I dont feel like a martyr.

What I meant was that you were playing the victim card.

Let me ask a question. What would you think the article was implying if you saw it for the first time?

Unlike some, I made no assumptions about the article until I read its details, at least the abstract. The first sentence of the abstract told me right away that the phenomenon had nothing to do with anything anyone was seeing by eye.

Better yet Whats the title of this thread? Why do you think the thread is titled the way it is? are we done now?

I don't go around judging articles by the titles given to them by third parties. In fact, I do not leap to conclusions about an article based on the title alone in general. You're not the first person I've seen try to use this article to somehow validate a belief that the moon's appearance in the sky is "wrong." I'm sure you won't be the last either, but the irony of it is that the actual details of the data presented in the article contradict that belief. Even the first sentence of the abstract contains a giveaway.

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by Uncinus

 

Hello Uncinus. Let me ask you an honest simple question. Its not a trick question. It a question of honesty i.e. requires the same fairness given to the possibilities of the subject matter, regardless of a persons conclusions

I hope you give the fairness to my question. For example you say a person can check an ephemeris and it will give the EXACT location for the past 100 years. Personally I can't disagree with that. I dont even want to disagree with that. In fact I think at leaste I hope that those are correct calculations I believe they are but, would I stake my life on the bet that the sun or moon will always be where the calculations say it will be 100 years from now? No I wouldnt , would you? Lets not argue about the few inches or several feet that is updated annually for the the next years point of reference. Im talking about unforseen and possibly unknown, undetected possibilities that will make the calculatiions conclusions become errant. ( Incorrect and way off ) Would you agree that this is a possibility? Period..You dont have to defend or explain your answer I just need a yes or a no. thx

Talking specifically about the mutually relative positions and motions of the Earth and the Moon, it's possible, but very unlikely. I would bet my life on it not happening because A) it's a billion to one possibility requiring a very large and very fast object to hit the solar system with pinpoint accuracy (on the galactic scale) - of which there's no past evidence of any such thing happening in geological history, and B) any event sufficiently dramatic to noticeably (to the naked eye) alter the orbit of the earth or moon in such a short time scale would also cause decades of mega-earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis - wiping out most macroscopic life on earth.

reply to post by abeverage

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.

no. I have a much better Idea. since "thousands of people" "world wide" are seeing this, why not get someone in, oh, I dunno, the US, and someone, say, in Australia, to do exactly that, monitor the moon nightly, record it's position with photographs, preferably with something in frame to verify the moons position.

Then both of them will have a record of each nightly sighting. Then i want them to point out the "anomolies" and run those against the other persons "anomalies"

I expect that no anomalies will appear, I will bet my vintage virgin Marshal MK superlead tube amp on it.

But lets just stop and TRY to think critically about this. Ignore the fact that the article the OP linked is in now way a "piece of the puzzle" as to why people think "the moon isn't right". It's not. If the OP even bothered to READ the article (instead of linking it after reading some other forum post about it on some other forum) the first few lines would have explained it all.

Are "thousands" of people really seeing this?

Because apparently thousands of kids are soaking tampons in vodka and inserting them. Thousands of kids are doing "anal beer bongs", thousands of kids are taking vodka shots in the eye, thousands of kids are having "bracelette and liptsick" parties.

Yet no recorded events other than the youtube videos of kids doing it AFTER hearing about it on the news, exist.

Are thousands really seeing this? Or are you taking the word of people on the forums and blogs who SAY thousands are seeing this?

The moon isn't just a piece of art, if anything were amiss we'd know

reply to post by Uncinus


Respectfully I say this. First thatv really wasn a yes or no answer but you answer as you wish. On the issue of prdictions by a book I dont believe in telling someone that the book will tell them anything absoloute about the future. Thats simply a guess to say such a thing. The book isnt right or accurate about the past, Its been updated for one reason anually. It was wrong in the first place.you cant argue that point without looking like an idiot Let me be clear so you understand me. I have no problem with predictions. I have a problem with science being the judge jury and exicutioner of the final say in what happened , whats happening now and what will happen in the future, It's not a fact its a guess at best on their part. A good guess? YES But its not God and it's not anything but mans opinions I have opinions. So do you. I respect your opinions and may follow some of them. But until I do, I have the right to seek the truth until I am convinced., So do others without being made fun of.

reply to post by phishyblankwaters


I see so using ATS for example, the people that also post that they are noticing strange positions and aspects of the moon that they can never remember seeing before. Are they doing beer enemas? Maybe they are just stupid? Your entitled to your opinions. I have no problem with the right to speak your mind. Maybe if you had bothered to think about the right to express yourself, You would know that I have the right to share in here just as much as you do or anyone else and I dont have to have a degree in astronomy to express what I see. There would be alot more people in these types of forums in my opinion , maybe sharing similar experiences if they weren't afraid of being devowered by those who disagree with them. Once again just my observation and opinion.
Yours is noted and thanks.

reply to post by CherubBaby


Equally respectfully you asked a question that is not amenable to a yes or no answer. You asked "is is possible ..." . The answer to that question is almost always YES. So it requires clarification.

It's possibly that I will win the jackpot in the Powerball lottery five weeks in a row. But I would bet my life for a dollar that it will not happen (assuming I enter), since the odds of that happening are 1 in 2.8 x 10^41

So my answer was yes, it's possible, just very unlikely.

Here is the link to the JPL portal for the HORIZONS Web-Interface.

ssd.jpl.nasa.gov...

This tool provides a web-based limited interface to JPL's HORIZONS system which can be used to generate ephemerides for solar-system bodies. Full access to HORIZONS features is available via the primary telnet interface.

This is the system that Lorenzo Lorio mentions using as a starting point in his paper. After reading the tutorial, I would be able to go into the system to generate current, past and future positions for objects like the moon. Using this interface, the moon will always be exactly where it is supposed to be because it is a constantly updating system.

Here is a NASA site for ephemerides of solar/lunar eclipses covering 5000 years.

eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Going to the 'Secular Acceleration of the Moon' section

eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov...

It has this to say:

Direct measurements of the acceleration have been only been possible since 1969 using the Apollo retro-reflectors left on the Moon.

The results from Lunar Laser Ranging show that the Moon's mean distance from Earth is increasing by 3.8 cm per year (Dickey, et al., 1994).

The corresponding acceleration in the Moon's ecliptic longitude is -25.858 "/cy^2 (Chapront, Chapront-Touze, and Francou, 2002). This is the value we have adopted in our lunar ephemeris calculations.

So the construction and maintenance of ephemerides which show the position of objects in space for past, present and future have come a long way from the days of a hard-copy look-it-up reference not to even mention a figure-it-out-for-yourself type deal.

Ephemerides or at least the day to day or second to second or even fractional second to fractional second need algorithms and super computers to generate their numbers.

And so it finally comes to a situation where

www.fortunecity.com...

Laskar's results still have to be confirmed by integrating the full equations of motion, but this will have to wait until the next generation of supercomputers arrives.

I also think that all the carry-on about the speed of light being inconstant is interesting because isn't this one of the ways to judge how far away something is. The sun's light takes 8 minutes to reach earth. If one day it took 7.999999999 minutes, what would that mean? Would it mean that the speed of light had changed? It's an interesting question.

In judging an empirical statement i.e. the moon is wrong versus an algorithm generated statement i.e. the moon is right, the observational criteria is scrutinized on the one hand as should the data input be scrutinized on the other hand. Just a thought.

reply to post by luxordelphi

Using this interface, the moon will always be exactly where it is supposed to be because it is a constantly updating system.

If you are saying that the orbital parameters are continually updated you are in error.

Revised: Mar 11, 1998 Moon / (Earth) 301

ssd.jpl.nasa.gov...

But Ioria did not use the orbital parameters to "locate" the Moon. He used them to determine the effect a trans-Plutonian object would have on the orbit. But there is a difference between the predicted location of the Moon and the measured location. That is what the paper is talking about. It is the direct observations which do show the minute difference. The problem is (for the premise of this thread), is that the difference is way, way to slight to be perceived except by extreme measures. For someone standing on Earth, looking at it, the Moon is where it is supposed to be.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
So the construction and maintenance of ephemerides which show the position of objects in space for past, present and future have come a long way from the days of a hard-copy look-it-up reference not to even mention a figure-it-out-for-yourself type deal.

Do you understand what the -25.858 "/cy^2 acceleration looks like? Do you understand that the moon is receeding from us slowly due to tidal forces and that when an object moves to a higher orbit like that it's because it's being accelerated (the energy of which is taken from our rotational energy which is why the days are slowly getting longer)?

Ephemerides or at least the day to day or second to second or even fractional second to fractional second need algorithms and super computers to generate their numbers.

Uh-oh, not math, anything but math!

Seriously, my home PC can predict the position of the moon to a degree of accuracy far higher than what you can see by eye. And guess what, it works, the moon's actually where my PC says it should be as far as even my telescope can measure astrometrically.

And so it finally comes to a situation where

www.fortunecity.com...

The page cannot be displayed
The page you are looking for is currently unavailable. The Web site might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your browser settings.

Care to try again? I tried to reload the page only to be greeted with a virus which was fortunately blocked.

reply to post by Phage

If you are saying that the orbital parameters are continually updated you are in error.

ssd.jpl.nasa.gov...

Continually update and improve the accuracy of the ephemerides using new data and new data types.

Lorenzo Lorio showed in his paper, one of a series of revisions, that an earth size object within 30au would fit the parameters in being responsible for the variance. Also that a Jupiter size at 200au etc. He used the numbers from the 2001 'discovery' of variance as a given. Based from a 'Horizon' ephemeris apparatus as a given. Data input and fluidity need to be scrutinized as much as empirical data. As I said, the moon is exactly where it is supposed to be based on data input.

reply to post by luxordelphi

Yes, it would require such a body to produce such an effect. But...

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.

The problem is that such a body would make itself known by its effect on other bodies in the Solar System.

Actually, the values for its mass and distance needed to explain the empirically determined increase of the lunar eccentricity would be highly unrealistic and in
contrast with the most recent viable theoretical scenarios for the existence of such a body.

It doesn't fit. That ain't it.
arxiv.org...

Based on the ephemeris data, the Moon's orbit is not what it should be. It is slightly more eccentric than it should be. Ioria attempts to find a cause and cannot.

reply to post by ngchunter


There is no problem or virus in the link I gave. There was no problem with it yesterday when I linked it in another answer. There was no problem just now when I opened it to see what you were complaining about. The link is actually the fascinating story of how our solar system went from being stable to being chaotic. And how now for any final word on anything, we need to wait for the next generation of super computers.

As far as your personal computer goes and your "math" comments - read the article. Your questions will be answered.

reply to post by Phage


I went through this before with someone else in this thread. The 'unrealistic' is that 30au and 200au, given the size of the object necessary, would be within the ability of current technology to locate. If in the Oort, which could hide it from existing technology, the distance would be too great and the object would have to be black hole massive. I am not arguing here for an object or not. I am saying that when it comes to data input: garbage in equals garbage out. The small amounts put forth based on computer generated data are not correlating with the empirical data of a segment of the population.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by ngchunter

 

There is no problem or virus in the link I gave.

My virus blocker disagrees.

As far as your personal computer goes and your "math" comments - read the article. Your questions will be answered.

The one with the virus? Thanks for trying so hard to infect my computer, but no thanks.
Care to explain yourself why my measurements of the moon show it to be exactly where it should be to a higher resolution than the human eye if it is in fact visibly out of position?

The link is actually the fascinating story of how our solar system went from being stable to being chaotic. And how now for any final word on anything, we need to wait for the next generation of super computers.

If we need a new generation of super computers to determine the figures of orbital eccentricities then that is far far far from meeting any description of 'chaotic'. The solar system isn't any more chaotic now then it was when I was a kid. We just didn't have people telling us 30 some millimeters different that calculation projected so how in the world does one find 30 millimeters in 38 years and how can that be attributed to accurate measurements. I'd be the first to question the accuracy of the data than the figures of the eccentricity, or the math, both together squared don't make any difference to anything. People get a number no matter how small and insignificant it is, and they point out we don't know what going on and hell will be paid. It's just ludicrous.

reply to post by luxordelphi

So are you now saying that the OP's claim that minute increase in the eccentricity of the Moon's orbit is irrelevant to the claims that the Moon is not where it is supposed to be?

You've changed your opinion from this?

To me, of course, there are and have been easily observable changes in the moon from whatever viewpoints on earth I found myself in. The only difficulty has been in explaining those observations and so thanks OP because this brings a lot of information.

You now reject the "computer generated data" that is in the article? What brought about the change? Was it the realization that the paper in the OP does not actually support your own "empirical data"?

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by karen61057

 

Oh you mean Tycho Crater, and yeah, nice ejecta rays, not exactly the south pole. Now I have an image of a peeled naval orange stuck in my head.

Yep that one. Yes it looks like segments of an orange. Sorry if the image is stuck in your head. Better than a bad song repeating over and over I guess.