Moon By Spinoff

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 7 months ago #5277 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I am sure youre aware of these lunar anomalies:
" www.keelynet.com/unclass/luna.htm "

I don't waste time on Internet hoaxes. All the early lunar probes that I can recall were successes. The old "hollow Moon" idea was caused by a calculation mistake in the Moon's gravity from days long before there were computers, and the enormous calculations involved had to be done by hand. They took years to do, and couldn't be checked with as much accuracy as needed. That is as far as I read of this junk site.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I have just finished an old book about the possibility of our moon being artificial and was surprised to know that much of this information of anomalies of the moon are not answered.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Internet hoaxes rarely are. There are now too many of them for anyone to answer. Reader beware. One usually reliable give-away is a lack of specific journal citations as sources of claims. But a few sophisticated hoaxers fake even those. So the only way to be sure is to check if claimed sources (usually "Prof. X at Moscow University") actually exist. Mostly, they don't exist, or they didn't say what is attributed to them, or something was taken out of context.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Also why if gravity can push through earth from space can it not go straight through the opposite end as this 'Levity' that people talk about.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

In "Pushing Gravity", gravitons can and do pass completely through the Earth. But because the Earth blocks some of them, the ones that get through are necessarily fewer than the ones stirking Earth from the opposite direction. So the net force is always 32 ft/sec/sec downward. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

kingdavid
Offline
Senior Member

21 years 7 months ago #5285 by kingdavid

Replied by kingdavid on topic Reply from David King

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
So the only way to be sure is to check if claimed sources (usually "Prof. X at Moscow University") actually exist. Mostly, they don't exist, or they didn't say what is attributed to them, or something was taken out of context.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

The following excerpt is from:
" www.onelight.com/thei/hollowmoon.html "

"In 1959 eminent scientist Professor Iosif Shklovsky put forth his findings in relation to the "moons" circling Mars. "After carefully weighing up the evidence he concludes that they are both hollow" (6)

While some "orthodox" scientists will quietly admit that some earthly bodies are probably hollow, they steadfastly refuse to accept the fact that ALL planets and moons are NATURALLY hollow and hurry to add they must be "artificial" satellites."

I have done a simple search on the internet for the above professor and he seems to be legit, but is there a site where I can log onto to find out for sure?

Also can you tell me why if there is only gravity and motion responsible for planets circling the sun, do they not have erratic orbits over time due to the gravity from other planets affecting them?

Surely this would make some planets eventually crash into others?

Cheers

David

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Topic Author
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 7 months ago #5287 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>"In 1959 eminent scientist Professor Iosif Shklovsky put forth his findings in relation to the "moons" circling Mars. "After carefully weighing up the evidence he concludes that they are both hollow" (6)<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

That characteristic of the orbit of Phobos was long-ago explained by tidal friction, the same phenomenon that causes Earth's Moon to spiral. The old "hollow moon" idea assumed that the spiraling was due to atmospheric drag, which was a mistake.

Anyone still representing an old, long-since-explained puzzle such as this as a current mystery is not being honest, and is trying to create the appearance of an anomaly where there is none.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Also can you tell me why if there is only gravity and motion responsible for planets circling the sun, do they not have erratic orbits over time due to the gravity from other planets affecting them? Surely this would make some planets eventually crash into others?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Planetary perturbations exist, but are too small to change orbits enough to crash into one another, except possibly over billions of years. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

kingdavid
Offline
Senior Member

21 years 7 months ago #5405 by kingdavid

Replied by kingdavid on topic Reply from David King

thanks for clearing this up

David

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

JUU
Offline
New Member

21 years 7 months ago #5639 by JUU

Replied by JUU on topic Reply from

Heres an article on Space.com that gives good layman's info on the earth-moon mechanics, including the predominant theory for the moon's origin.

www.space.com/scienceastronomy/moon_mechanics_0303018.html

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

kingdavid
Offline
Senior Member

21 years 7 months ago #5412 by kingdavid

Replied by kingdavid on topic Reply from David King

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
That characteristic of the orbit of Phobos was long-ago explained by tidal friction...
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Tidal friction? Is there flowing water on mars?

cheers

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.209 seconds