Moon Orbit Wrong Cornell University Says.

reply to post by luxordelphi


Let's follow this line of reasoning for a moment....putting on our thinking caps:

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.

OK...all well and good. Let's presume that there is some as yet undiscovered massive body that is at or farther out from the average Pluto orbital distance.

Now....can you explain with any sort of reasonableness, just how this massive object, if it existed, could only affect the Moon? Our Moon? And nothing else.

How it could have absolutely no influence, whatsoever, on the Earth's orbit? (The Earth is relatively close to the Moon, is it not?). Or, any other celestial body in the Solar System?

Using the laws of physics, explain this please.

Originally posted by CherubBaby
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.

What will be said and what has been said it that these people making these claims are not seeing what they say they are seeing. They either are not looking or are not famaliar with the moons orbits and phases. Or they are repeating something they heard someone else say because they looked at the moon on Monday and it was not in the same place on Friday. Its nonsense being regurgitated by people with little knowledge about space and what goes on there.

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.

The least powerful computer available at Wal-Mart could calculate the moon's position to visible accuracy for the next 1000 years. You get your "supercomputer" reference from:

www.fortunecity.com...

In 1989, Jacques Laskar of the Bureau des Longitudes in Paris published the results of his numerical integration of the Solar System over 200 million years. These were not the full equations of motion, but rather averaged equations along the lines of those used by Laplace. Unlike Laplace, however, Laskar's equations had some 150,000 terms. Laskar's work showed that the Earth's orbit (as well as the orbits of all the inner planets) is chaotic and that an error as small as 15 metres in measuring the position of the Earth today would make it impossible to predict where the Earth would be in its orbit in just over 100 million years' time.

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.

So that's talking about simulating the ENTIRE solar system, including the asteroids and known comets, at full resolution, for 100 million years, and doing it several times, using equations of 150,000 terms.

That is entirely different from predicting where the moon will be in 20 years - something we've been able to do perfectly well since well before we had computers - simply because it does not change much.

reply to post by karen61057


Thats a ridiculous explaination you give. So in effect your basically saying everyone that says something about this topic is just repeating what they heard or they are not as smart as you are about the moon.? Don't make me laugh. Why don't you tell me when people started really talking about the moon and noticing something not right in their opinion. Can you? I took this pic tonight of the rising moon. You know what the rising moon looks like on the equator?

reply to post by CherubBaby


The rising moon on the equator is always going to look like the rising moon in Las Vegas, but rotated counter-clockwise by the difference in Latitude (36 degrees). Since the moon in Vegas is about 18 degrees clockwise of horizontal, then moon at the equator will be about 18 degrees counter-clockwise of horizontal. A mirror image in terms of the crescent and shadow.

From a NASA website with an already posted diagram but with more information.

Question:

Why is the crescent Moon sometimes lit on the bottom?


Answer:

A careful observer will certainly notice that over the period of months, the crescent of the Moon does indeed seem to go from being lit on the "bottom" of the Moon to being lit on the side of the Moon. So what is happening to make the Moon look different? It is all a result of the Moon's orbit around the Earth, and the Earth's orbit around the Sun. And exactly when you see the Moon in the shape of a 'U' (lit on the bottom) rather than a backward 'C' (lit on the side) depends on what latitude you are at. But the explanation is the same regardless of when you see it from your location.

We see the Moon in the night sky because it is reflecting light from the Sun. The Moon does not generate any light of its own. So the lit part of the Moon always points toward the Sun. Now as you can see in the diagram, as the Earth travels aroound the Sun, the tilt of the Earth on its axis sometimes points the northern hemisphere toward the Sun and sometimes points the southern hemisphere toward the Sun. This is why we have seasons here on Earth. But this also changes the apparent path of the Moon across the night sky when you are on the Earth looking out at it. Sometimes it travels at an angle toward the horizon and sometimes it travels straight down toward the horizon. When the crescent Moon travels straight down toward the horizon, you will get the 'U' shaped Moon. Many describe this as when the 'horns' of the Moon point upward. This can happen once or twice a year, again depending on the latitude of your location.


Folklore Can Be Confusing!

This change in the appearance of the Moon has been observed for a very long time. And many conflicting definitions have been given to these lunar appearances.

Some ancient skywatchers spoke of the crescent Moon when the bottom seems to be lit as the "wet moon". They thought it looked like a bowl which could fill up with the rain and snow of the winter season. In Hawaiian astrology, Kaelo the Water Bearer rules from January 20 - February 18. According to the Hawaiian Calendar, Kaelo is the "Dripping Wet Moon" month. However, many other cultures have defined the Moon when lit on the bottom as the "dry moon" since in that configuration, the Moon is "holding in the water".

As winter passes into spring and summer, the crescent shape slowly shifts toward the south and begins to "stand on its end". To some ancients, this represented the Moon assuming a pouring position in which it will lose its water and result in the great summer rains. The result was the creation of a "dry moon", one which held no water because it all poured out. On the other hand, other cultures said that such a moon is a wet moon because it allowed the water to pour out!

This diagram shows typical paths for the Moon during the year (and the resulting look of the waxing crescent Moon) for a specific latutude in the northern hemisphere. Notice that during winter, the Moon sets north of west and follows a path almost straight down to the horizon. During the summer, the Moon sets south of west and follows a slanted path down to the horizon.

source: starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Mod Note: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.
Quoting External Sources - Please Review This Link

Originally posted by Phage
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"?

edit on 11/18/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

My opinions and stance have not changed one nanometer. I am still true blue to my school. My school is old school. Never heard of it? Not surprised. It's a place where data input is only as good as the inputter (is that a word??!!) Scandalous data input is where I'm fixated. 'Moon is right' is not my mantra. The days of 'Moon is right' are gone; been gone. Fluidity of data is not embraceable. 'The Emperor has no clothes' is where I'm at coupled with trouble in River City and this ain't Kansas anymore.

The paper of the OP describes a situation wherein an error so small as to be almost wispy can be explained by an earth size body at 30au or a Jupiter size body at 200au. This is a startling revelation. That a number that small would require a body that big and that close to explain it. You don't find this fascinating beyond belief? My observational data (empirical) tells me that there's a lot more on the loose than that. And that's where I'm at.

Originally posted by luxordelphi

The paper of the OP describes a situation wherein an error so small as to be almost wispy can be explained by an earth size body at 30au or a Jupiter size body at 200au. This is a startling revelation. That a number that small would require a body that big and that close to explain it. You don't find this fascinating beyond belief?

No. 30 AU is a long way away. It is not close. The force of gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. (F = G*m1*m2/(r^2)). So an earth sized object at 30 AU will have 1/136000000th the effect on the moon as the earth does.

Just to put to rest some of my questions on this thread I have emailed Lorenzo Lorio with specific questions as they pertain to claims on this topic. Will post his reply when I receive it from him.

Man, that was quick. He seems like a nice man and if you don't believe his reply I suggest that you Google him and email him like I did.

His reply to my question:



They completely misrepresent the content of my papers.

There is absolutely nothing MACROSCOPIC wrong with the Moon which can have to do with the Earth here. The anomaly in its orbit is equivalent to just a few millimeter per year.


I really cannot figure out how so many people can really trust the first more or less artifacted videos in the Internet!


So is life, it seems...


Regards.


L. Iorio

reply to post by dcmb1409


Are you serious? I just got a reply too from Lorenzo too and he says."Ignore my other reply to dcmb1409 he is emotional and uneducated and I didn't know how to break the news to him/her "

So I am curious, which message is authentic? lol

Originally posted by luxordelphi
My observational data (empirical) tells me that there's a lot more on the loose than that.

Then present your astrometric data showing there's "a lot more on the loose than that."

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by dcmb1409

 

Are you serious? I just got a reply too from Lorenzo too and he says."Ignore my other reply to dcmb1409 he is emotional and uneducated and I didn't know how to break the news to him/her "

So I am curious, which message is authentic? lol

If you don't believe dcmb1409, you can email Lorenzo yourself and ask him. There's no need to lie. I bet you won't do it, but you should email him and ask him if there's anything wrong with the moon's orbit that you could see by eye.

reply to post by CherubBaby


I have not attacked you nor your thread and if you read all of my post I try and stay away from comments other than NASA sites or from the source without pointing a finger at anyone or smugly saying I told you so.

I would like to see your email as my inbox is empty and if Mr. L is not man enough to mail me back with a retraction of his claim, then his character is suspect.

I have his email and headers, show me your reply with headers.

And since you are such a confident of Mr L. maybe you will invite him here for a chat.

Since L thinks I'm uneducated and you are his disciple in intelligence, please have him email me again with those claims and we will discuss accordingly. your childish attempts of proving your superior intellect comes off as a schoolyard taunt.

L's ESP is exceptional as I never mentioned you nor ATS.

As far as uneducated goes I sent L your opening statement. Please advise your mentor that it came from you and not from me.

reply to post by dcmb1409


I was playing with you. Did you really email him? I'll email him altough I do need the addy. I say again, I was just kidding because I thought you were kidding when u said he emailed you.

Yes, honestly I emailed him and have his email account that he answered from. U2 me anytime and I'll give it to you. He is a nice guy it seems and is quick to answer about his work. Anyone else that wants his email please U2 me.

I love how you say "Many people on ATS Know this"

As if you're as smart as college educated experts...you didn't know anything

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by dcmb1409

 

I was playing with you. Did you really email him? I'll email him altough I do need the addy. I say again, I was just kidding because I thought you were kidding when u said he emailed you.

This is fraud...whether you say it was kidding or not...against T&C here at ATS...

A goodly portion of the scientists will respond to a polite inquiry. I've written to several over the years.

It's not like they are inundated with fan mail

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...

For those of you who would like to read the article from the person who presented the inconsistencies the link below will take you to the article

adsabs.harvard.edu...