The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: This Is Not Theory - The Moon Hitting the Earth Is Real - Very Real!  (Read 55928 times)

Offline Supercryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
First of all, your theory of gravity is wrong. It is known for a fact that gravity has an effect on space-time. Altitude experiments have proven that time progresses more quickly at high altitudes than at low altitudes because the gravity is weaker at high altitudes. Gravity Prove B managed to measure distortions in the space around Earth caused by the combination of its gravity and rotation (the geodetic effect). Actually, the first confirmation of relativity came from the observation that starlight is bent by the Sun's gravity (and by precisely the amount that Einstein predicted it would). This is called gravitational lensing and has been observed for galaxies as well. GPS systems have to be programmed to take into account gravity's distortion on space-time in order for them to be accurate. There is so much support for the idea that gravity affect space-time that it is accepted as everyday reality by physicists and laymen alike. It's probably more appropriate to say that gravity is a kind of space-time distortion, to be honest.

Second of all, no existing technology can get anywhere near the Earth's core. The deepest holes drilled in the world are on the order of 12 kilometers deep. The inner core, on the other hand, starts around 5,150 kilometers beneath the surface. It will remain out of our reach for a very, very long time. Even if we could reach it, there is no way that we could affect it in any meaningful way because of its shear size. We are talking about an object over 2,000 kilometers in diameter.

What is this about an "active core" you are talking about? When it comes to gravity, the only important thing about the core is its mass. Gravity has nothing to do with what materials is made of other than their contribution to mass. If you think that the government is going to change the Earth's gravity by messing with the core, that is completely impossible and at odds with everything we know to be true of gravity.

Your new arguments don't make any more sense than your old ones. Gravity can't "cut in and out". It doesn't work that way. The Moon blowing up like a balloon? Seriously? Entering the Roche Limit is not going to have any such affect. The forces involved would stretch it out like a football until it broke up. Not only that, but you seem to believe that inflating the Moon will increase its gravity. The opposite would happen in reality.
« Last Edit: 21/11/2013 07:02:46 by Supercryptid »
 

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
I have a another point about the moon ... Now if spacetime is bending wouldn't that mean that only the larger mass body would have any affect if any at only .i say this coz if u have a mass bending space lines and a different mass bending doing the same both of them would only be affected by its own gravity coz for a mass to be affected by 1 it would have to clime up hill of its own bending line and then come down the other side .and that Including the smaller mass having affect on the bigger mass witch they do.so under bending space the only way it would work is for to 2 masses to make a Channel in line of site witch would mean at the in of site gravity would have hugely lower gravity pull at the line of site and would also mean masses of the same size would have no affect on each other .so if gravity also has a pull on space it could pull over the bent lines but at the point that are almost touching the bent line would almost straighten out and gravity would have a massive lower affect and only really the motion doing anything .now that can work for the Roche point to have no affect on the moon at its later stage but .but again that should mean the moon gravity shouldnt have little affect of the other side of earth and a lease affect higher at the line of sites plus all orbit would have to be way of center. .so for gravity to work and not digging space and to affect all matter it would have to be polarized .that wood allow the bending of space to happen with no affect on each own bending but still pull each other.but with polarizing at some point the 2 polarizing bend will form 1 when the angels start to match and that would mean at the point when earth bending angels start to match the moon as they close they would form in to 1 angel with starting to channel bend at the Roche point and minamising the affect of the Roche point of earth gravity ,....so under bending space I think most or all planet could bounce at some point but if there is proof of the Roche point having a accelarated affect on a planet only a more logical reason for gravity would give Roche point streight and still allowing the moon to hit earth and not break up coz like most logical thing they have on and off  ,high low affect of each other 
 

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
Hey I'm not talking about time .the time part I think r right it don't mean its gravity .im talking about gravity having a logical reason .the moon is 1/4 the size of earth and 60% the denity of earth but only 1/6 of earth gravity so If gravity is based on mass the moons gravity should be 60% of earths or at less 1/4 of earth .but it's not  so to me that shows the moons core is working at a different rate meaning gravity has highs and lows not doing with mass but with the working of that mass at that time witch mean bigger is better if at full power .again we have seen with stars blowing up it turn into a 0 like mass body but with gravity supercharge in stead stopping shows it's to do with the working of the mass not just coz it's there .when I talk about a active core I'm talking about us making a real life mini core with its own gravity .u can't just turn something like that on with out it being in control state with rules and safety ...I would be happy to talk to about my gravity idea but not on a blog .coz the truth with the internet people can be who ever and I don't think just anyone should be aball to just test a real active core ..... And yes we can't get to the core .thats my point it's hard to tell but what I'm say is it missing the last peace witch makes it logical as matters and works with it
« Last Edit: 21/11/2013 06:10:47 by Missynmax83 »
 

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
If I was to talk about it .i would go back to bacis .it would even give a idea what is going on in a black hole coz it works with thing we know work around us .i thought it for the ground up with my learning testing it and it keeps working ..... My theroy about the moon was under current theory's and not on a more logical reason
 

Offline Supercryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
If I understood that correctly, you're saying that there should be some point between the Earth and the Moon where the gravitational attraction of the two cancels out. This is true in a way. For a third, relatively small object at some set distance between the Earth and the Moon (called the L1 Langrangian point), the combination of the gravitational attraction between the Earth and the Moon (as well as the centripetal force acting on the third object) allows the third object to stay in an orbit at a fixed distance between the Earth and Moon and will keep in lock-step with the Moon as it orbits. The important thing to remember is that this is specific to the third body and not to the Moon and the Earth themselves. That is, it does nothing to prevent the Earth and the Moon from feeling a net gravitational attraction on each other.

The breaking up of a satellite that strays to close to its parent planet once it enters the Roche Limit is caused by tidal forces. The side of the Moon facing Earth experiences a stronger gravitational attractive force than the far side does. On the other hand, the far side of the Moon experiences a greater centrifugal force than the near side. The sum of these effects is that the Moon is put under a stretching force. When the Moon is far away, the stretching force is relatively weak and has little affect. However, as the Moon is brought into a closer orbit to the Earth (for whatever reason), the stretching force will increase. At some point, the stretching force will become more powerful than the forces holding the Moon together (mainly gravitational). This will make the Moon stretch and deform into an elongated shape, which makes the stretching force increase further in a positive feedback loop. This actually somewhat similar to what happens when an objects strays too close to a black hole (spaghettification).

The Roche Limit, therefore, will depend on how strong the forces are that hold the Moon together. The more strongly it is held together, the closer it can orbit the Earth without breaking up. However, due to scaling laws and a relative lack of structural integrity, there is most certainly a limit as to how close it can get before crumbling. Since gravity cannot be shut off, there is no way to prevent this from happening.

Additionally, I programmed a spreadsheet to crunch some numbers for me in order to help visualize just how important scaling factors are when it comes to the durability of a structure. I decided to model the crust of the Earth as an empty shell of pure quartz crystal (as silicon oxides are the major component of the crustal rock). I assumed it to be uniformly 50 kilometers thick (which is a very generous assumption by the way. I then used the spreadsheet to calculate the tensile and compressive strength of the crust at the equator (assuming a force is being along the axis of the poles. Then I divided that by the mass of the crust to get to a strength-to-weight ratio. I got a compressive strength-to-weight ratio of 0.006284 and a tensile strength-to-weight ratio of 0.000168.

Those numbers might not seem to have much meaning, but we can apply those same numbers to my hypothetical basketball-sized Earth I mentioned earlier to get a better visualizing of what they mean. If we were to assumed that the substance which makes up the crust of our tiny Earth has the same strength-to-weight ratio values as the real thing, then we can calculate the tensile and compressive strengths of that material. Turns out that it is approximately 0.0056 pounds per square inch (compressive) and 0.00015 pounds per square inch (tensile).

To put that in more visual terms, you can imagine a square slab of this material that is 1 foot long and 1 foot width (a total surface area of 1 foot). In order to crush or permanently deform this slab, a force of only 0.8 pounds distributed evenly over the surface is needed. A pillar of this material with a cross-sectional area of 1 square for would require only 0.0216 pounds of force to permanently stretch it or pull it apart. That means that this material is absurdly weak. I don't know how strong gelatin is, but my guess is that it's not far off from these values (it might even be stronger than this substance). These values are actually an overestimate, as it assumes that the crust is one big, solid crystal of quartz. In reality, the crust is broken up into different plates and layers and is laced with cracks and fault lines. It also has an uneven composition. Not to mention it's thinner in most places. That means the real crust is even weaker than my calculations would suggest.

So if you want to visualize a realistic mini-Earth the size of a basketball, you'd make the crust out of something akin to gelatin, with the internal structure made of some thick fluid like pudding or honey. The interesting thing about this is that making the crust thicker doesn't help. The most you could hope to do is to make this entire planet out of gelatin. A ball of solid gelatin is still really weak (and furthermore, the crust would be brittle, unlike squishy gelatin).
« Last Edit: 21/11/2013 07:00:45 by Supercryptid »
 

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
I know everything about spacetime test r getting results but I thing if they where to take gravity out of spacetime and into a produce of matter .some things was make sense with only being what is gravity the main missing key
 

Offline Supercryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
Quote
Hey I'm not talking about time .the time part I think r right it don't mean its gravity .im talking about gravity having a logical reason .the moon is 1/4 the size of earth and 60% the denity of earth but only 1/6 of earth gravity so If gravity is based on mass the moons gravity should be 60% of earths or at less 1/4 of earth .but it's not

That's because mass alone does not determine the surface gravity that a celestial body has; the radius matters too.

Quote
so to me that shows the moons core is working at a different rate meaning gravity has highs and lows not doing with mass but with the working of that mass at that time witch mean bigger is better if at full power

If you keep an object's mass constant, but increase its diameter, its gravitational force at the surface will decrease. Why? It's because gravitational force falls off with increasing distance. Being further from the center means that it has less of a pull on you. Imagine two scenarios. In one, the Moon is the size and mass it is now and we are at a position above its surface that is double its radius. This would mean that we feel a force only a quarter of what we would feel if we were standing on the surface. Now imagine a second scenario where the Moon is the same mass but has twice the diameter. If we were standing on its surface, we would still feel a force only a quarter what its current gravity is. This is because, in both scenarios, we are the same distance from the center of the Moon. So ultimately, only mass and distance are important considerations (except in special circumstances, where tension and pressure come into play. However, that is unimportant here).

Quote
again we have seen with stars blowing up it turn into a 0 like mass body

The mass of an exploding star doesn't disappear. The remnants of the explosion carry its mass (as well as the radiation, since E=mc2). In the case where a stellar body is left behind (white dwarf, neutron star or black hole), there is still a large amount of mass locked up in there.

Quote
but with gravity supercharge in stead stopping shows it's to do with the working of the mass not just coz it's there .

Stars explode due to runaway fusion reactions, not super-charged gravity (although gravitational collapse does play a role in the event).

Quote
when I talk about a active core I'm talking about us making a real life mini core with its own gravity.

As far as anyone currently knows, gravity cannot be generated artificially. You need mass to generate a gravitational field. The stronger you want it, the more mass you need. If you want planet-like gravity then you need planet-like mass.

Quote
u can't just turn something like that on with out it being in control state with rules and safety ...I would be happy to talk to about my gravity idea but not on a blog .coz the truth with the internet people can be who ever and I don't think just anyone should be aball to just test a real active core ..... And yes we can't get to the core .thats my point it's hard to tell but what I'm say is it missing the last peace witch makes it logical as matters and works with it

I assure you, your core idea will not cause any disasters, and that is because it won't do what you think it will.

Quote
If I was to talk about it .i would go back to bacis .it would even give a idea what is going on in a black hole coz it works with thing we know work around us .i thought it for the ground up with my learning testing it and it keeps working ..... My theroy about the moon was under current theory's and not on a more logical reason

Be careful here, as black holes are extremely tricky beasts. Even when I think I've begun to understand them, I learn that they are weirder than I thought.

Quote
I know everything about spacetime test r getting results but I thing if they where to take gravity out of spacetime and into a produce of matter .some things was make sense with only being what is gravity the main missing key

Except you can't take gravity out of space-time, as it is a space-time distortion. That would be akin to trying to take sound waves out of air and putting them in a vacuum. The very nature of what sound is makes it impossible for it to exist in a vacuum.
« Last Edit: 21/11/2013 06:49:59 by Supercryptid »
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8134
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
... the moon is 1/4 the size of earth and 60% the denity of earth but only 1/6 of earth gravity so If gravity is based on mass the moons gravity should be 60% of earths or at less 1/4 of earth

The mass of the Moon is only 1.23 % the mass of the Earth.

If the Moon and Earth had the same radius the surface gravity on the Moon would be 1.23 % that of Earth.
However the Moon’s radius is only  0.2731 that of Earth so the surface gravity on the moon is ...

0.0123 / (0.27312) = 1/6.06370813
, i.e.  1/6 that of Earth.

Please relax Missynmax83, all is well : the moon is behaving as expected and is not falling to Earth.
« Last Edit: 21/11/2013 07:04:12 by RD »
 

Offline Supercryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
The images on the left came from a map of Mercury. On the right are ones from the Moon.

By the way, yes, I did flip the Moon map.
« Last Edit: 21/11/2013 16:36:57 by Supercryptid »
 

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
Ok it's starting to get hard with out giving In site to my theroy ... But first my core idea I'm not trying to talk much about coz not coz it won't work but I do believe the safes place to test in is in space and maybe with 2 more around earth to balance the afect of there gravity ....... Second
« Last Edit: 21/11/2013 10:34:54 by Missynmax83 »
 

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
Under most theroy of gravity gravity is one way ...with my theroy gravity could be looked at as having 2 way but really it's a circuit
 

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
So see when the earth and moon come to close there interfere with each other's circuit.
« Last Edit: 21/11/2013 13:02:10 by Missynmax83 »
 

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
With this theroy it doent charge what we do know and it would work under basic circuit principle
 

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
And it's ok RD the only reason I'm looking in to the moon is coz of moon truths pic that made me think it was possible and have a good look if it did happen
 

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
Also the pic I saw of moon truth wasnt small little simlar impression .its was the hole North Pacific with high to low stamping and = high points of joining where being pulled apart.. That why I I'm taking it serious
« Last Edit: 21/11/2013 14:34:57 by Missynmax83 »
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8134
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
The images on the left came from a map of Mercury. On the right are ones from the Moon.

That should convince any reasonable person that corresponding patterns on the moon and other bodies are not due to the moon colliding with them. However I doubt it will convince MOON TRUTH who has recently gone completely round the bend : late October 2013 they posted the YouTube below claiming the the plot of a Japanese children's cartoon now is confirmation of their moon-hits-earth theory ... 


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx4R7JS5WSY

 [ apparently "sailor moon" is a sci-fi cartoon ].
« Last Edit: 21/11/2013 17:37:23 by RD »
 

Offline Supercryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
Quote
Ok it's starting to get hard with out giving In site to my theroy ... But first my core idea I'm not trying to talk much about coz not coz it won't work but I do believe the safes place to test in is in space and maybe with 2 more around earth to balance the afect of there gravity

Then send me a description of your theory in a personal message. That will be a private place where others cannot see it.

Quote
That should convince any reasonable person that corresponding patterns on the moon and other bodies are not due to the moon colliding with them. However I doubt it will convince MOON TRUTH who has recently gone completely round the bend : late October 2013 they posted the YouTube below claiming the the plot of a Japanese children's cartoon now is confirmation of their moon-hits-earth theory ...

I guess that means the creators of that anime are in on some kind of Moon conspiracy then. He's definitely not helping his credibility.

Alright, I finally watched a few of MOON TRUTH's videos and I have to say that his evidence is anything but compelling. The patterns are far from an exact match. He sees two shapes that are somewhat similar and concludes that they must be related. What really gets me is how he can possibly think that the weather has any connection to surface features below the surface of the ocean. In one case, he even had to move a weather formation from the upper Atlantic Ocean down to the side of Australia in order to come up with a match. How is it remotely reasonable to think that features under the ocean beside Australia will create a weather pattern of similar shape a thousand miles north of it?

When it comes to the weather, you also have to keep in mind that it is constantly changing. By that fact along, if you wait around long enough then you will eventually see a cloud formation that looks coincidentally similar to something else ("that cloud looks like a bunny" mentality). MOON TRUTH is seeing what he wants to see. That's it. The fact that he has to assume that the Moon is four times larger than its actual size in order for his theory to have any chance of remotely working proves in and of itself that it is wrong (his version of the Moon would actually be slightly larger than the Earth. Interesting, isn't it?).
« Last Edit: 21/11/2013 20:38:22 by Supercryptid »
 

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
Ok I wish moon truth would come back and have a look at this blog .im not going on I thing I saw of his and not his hole theroy like nasa hiding it and nothing to do with weather .i just saw a possible and thought to strip it down .if he was to come back to here He would probley c that these is no conspiracy theory but it's impossible wright now so no one is wasting there time on dead ends.but like I sed I have a different theroy on gravity witch could possibly allow the moon to hit earth with out gravity destroying it.................. I'll get back to my theroy later today .i need to winded my head down for a bit coz I'm even dreaming about this stuff and sin my wife and I got the day off together we want to do something with the kids
« Last Edit: 21/11/2013 23:09:45 by Missynmax83 »
 

Offline Supercryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
If MOON TRUTH came back, I seriously doubt the content of this thread would change his beliefs. People who adhere to conspiracy theories are particularly hard nuts to crack.
 

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
That is true
 

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
B4 I do go for a couple hours .under my theroy it would also make everything circular and recycling at all levels
 

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
All under my theroy it would also give a better idea how matter ,motion and gravity affect time ...all I say the time space theory we go by now is so close
 

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
And why it's doing it
 

Offline Supercryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
Well if you're not going to tell us how your theory works, then there isn't much sense in discussing it.
 

Offline Missynmax83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
Truth is this is the first time I'm talk about this (and why I'm taking photo of all ow conversations) .so I am really sorry if I'm just open to talk about it but I'm also a bit scared sin Iv never really done much will this theroy so is never really affected my normal life .but I do believe that the people who have spent there hole life work on stuff like this deserve to be the first to test .sin they have done so much for us all.i do believe u maybe 1 of them people but in truth I don't know that for shore .i do want to talk about and will just give me a sec coz it's probly going to drag out long
« Last Edit: 22/11/2013 00:51:20 by Missynmax83 »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums