Evidence of the Moon's Arrival?

A place to discuss matters of bygone times that are forgotten, but are recovered so that humanity is no longer condemned to repeat history as it so often does.

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
GreatIntellect
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 2:38 pm

Evidence of the Moon's Arrival?

Post: # 915Post GreatIntellect »

Hey all,
I looked up around the time when Mu was destroyed, and I guess at the same time, an Ice Age in North America "ended abruptly." I thought that was interesting. Imagine how HOT that would have to be to melt all that ice so quick. :shock:

Anyways, I also looked up about the same time when the moon supposedly came into Earth's orbit, because it says in TP that there were huge cataclysms from that, too. But, I couldn't find anything! I mean, I have no reason to think that the book isn't true or anything, but wouldn't there be some kind of evidence of those big cataclysms? Just wondering what you all think.
Vesko
Posts: 1086
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2004 5:13 pm

Post: # 941Post Vesko »

According to the book this moon came "about 500,000 years ago" (page 90). The event falls roughly in the mid-Pleistocene, the Pleistocene being the period of repeated Ice Ages in more recent times. I too found it difficult to find expert information on what happened half a million years ago, but here's some food for thought I found. Could have the arrival of the Moon warmed the planet, causing the melting of glaciers and proliferation of corals? Well, we don't really know...

(NOTE: The bold emphasis is mine.)
From http://www.dhushara.com/book/diversit/e ... hor1598394:
ONE well-kept secret of Australia's Great Barrier Reef is out: it's a lot younger than scientists thought. And this means that it may have been part of the driving force behind a mysteriously hot period on Earth around 400 000 years ago, an international team of geologists told this week's meeting of the American Geophysical Union in Baltimore
...
There have been numerous fluctuations in sea level, caused by warming or cooling of the Earth. Most are put down to the Milankovitch cycle, a small wobble in the Earth's axis that alters the amount of sunlight reaching northern latitudes. But the high sea level 400 000 years ago is difficult to explain, as the tilt of the Earth would have favoured a cool and stable climate.
...
"There was a global turn-on of carbonates about 400 000 years ago"
From http://www.dhushara.com/book/diversit/eye1.htm:
Sea levels will rise as the world gets warmer because the heat will melt ice and expand the water in the oceans. Over the next century, levels could increase by a meter or more. Historical changes of sea levels have been vast. Only 400,000 years ago changes in ocean levels accompanied by the formation of coral reefs caused an ocean rise of 20 metres when the deposition of vast quantities of calcium carbonate caused the ocean to release CO2 because although carbonate was deposited, the loss of calcium reduced the buffering capacity of the oceans (New Scientist 31 May 97).
Just food for thought.
Do you REALLY practice meditation? If your REALLY do, do you practice a GOOD method? Are you sure this is REALLY so?
Kestrel
Posts: 365
Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 1:11 am
Location: United States, Earth
Contact:

Post: # 975Post Kestrel »

How would earth be affected if there was luna (moon) ?
Obviously it pulls the water up creating high tide and low tides. Quite intresting. :wink:
Vesko
Posts: 1086
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2004 5:13 pm

Post: # 996Post Vesko »

According to the book, 6 million years ago our planet had 2 other very small moons, which later collided with it and caused cataclysms.
While they arrived and revolved, probably their gravitational influence was not much. Probably :).
I wonder how when our latest moon arrived, it provoked, in turn, new catastrophies.
I think that in the process of being captured by our planet, it must have passed too close to it, and its gravity must have had terrible effects -- oceans mid-air anyone?? Well, certainly not mid-air or I think our atmosphere would have been stripped off.
Do you REALLY practice meditation? If your REALLY do, do you practice a GOOD method? Are you sure this is REALLY so?
GreatIntellect
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 2:38 pm

Post: # 1007Post GreatIntellect »

That's so weird to think about.
User avatar
Rezo
Posts: 725
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2005 1:28 am
Location: usa

Re: Evidence of the Moon's Arrival?

Post: # 11664Post Rezo »

Speaking of the moon orbit - this relates more to its modern orbit....

in TP it says the moon will one day fall [about 100,000 years from now], spiralling into earth [orbits decay but very slowly is the concept?]. And yet, many articles on the 'net, [not saying their measurements are right] say the moon - is actually moving away from us, NASA says, around 1.5 in/year. Just made me wonder a bit [how they got such measurement]

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/moon_worldbook.html
User avatar
Matt
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Contact:

Re: Evidence of the Moon's Arrival?

Post: # 11665Post Matt »

Rezo wrote: And yet, many articles on the 'net, [not saying their measurements are right] say the moon - is actually moving away from us, NASA says, around 1.5 in/year. Just made me wonder a bit [how they got such measurement]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Lase ... Experiment

NASA uses lasers and mirror reflectors on the moon to determine how far away the moon is. The accuracy cannot be disputed, as we don't really know what variables they input to come up with their numbers - for instance, the moon has a constantly changing atmosphere which would impede the speed of light and fuddle the measurements.
Krad
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:29 am

Re: Evidence of the Moon's Arrival?

Post: # 11667Post Krad »

I quote it from the Thiaoouba.com 's FAQ:
"The method of measuring the distance between Earth and the Moon is based on bouncing the light (laser pulses) from the reflectors located at the surface of the Moon and measuring the time it takes for the light to reach sensors back on Earth. By the"distance" between Earth and the Moon they mean the distance between their centers of gravity.

Some of the obvious assumptions our scientists make are
1. the centers of gravity of Earth and Moon are fixed (do not move) with respect to the corresponding planetary/lunar surfaces
2. the speed of light is constant (it doesn't change with time)
3. Light beam between Earth and Moon travels through media that do not change with time

Each of these assumptions needs scrutiny.

1. Neither Earth, nor the Moon are rigid bodies. Their interiors are partly liquid and semi-solid. Hence, observations of our scientists can be explained by slight changes in mass distribution inside Earth/Moon interiors. Incidently, some notorius and unexplained errors in satellite positions can be expained this way too.

2. Recently, our scientists noticed that the speed of light seems to decline slightly. When light becomes slower, it takes more time for it to reach the Moon and come back. Whoever assumes that the speed of light is constant is bound to conclude that the distance between Earth and the Moon increases.

3. The moon seems to develop its atmosphere. If you look at a new moon, you will be able to see its entire outline. In the past, this was not possible. Observing the entire lunar outline is only possible if the moon has an atmosphere. As you know, light travels through atmosphere slower than through vaccum. Hence, thickening of the lunar atmosphere would contribute to a conclusion that the Moon drifts away from Earth. Increase in pollution/composition of Earth's atmosphere (CO2) has a similar effect."
User avatar
BlueHaze
Posts: 69
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 11:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: Evidence of the Moon's Arrival?

Post: # 11671Post BlueHaze »

Rezo wrote:Speaking of the moon orbit - this relates more to its modern orbit....

in TP it says the moon will one day fall [about 100,000 years from now], spiralling into earth [orbits decay but very slowly is the concept?]. And yet, many articles on the 'net, [not saying their measurements are right] say the moon - is actually moving away from us, NASA says, around 1.5 in/year. Just made me wonder a bit [how they got such measurement]

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/moon_worldbook.html
I remember this was also written in TP FAQ. Not sure what is the truth, but I know there are still a lot things our scientists can't yet explain, so it could be either way..

http://www.thiaoouba.com/faq.htm
User avatar
Robanan
Posts: 949
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 3:27 pm
Location: Denmark
Contact:

Re: Evidence of the Moon's Arrival?

Post: # 11675Post Robanan »

Imagine the news:

"scientists found out that the moon will hit the earth in about a 100000 years from now."
The essence of Consciousness, is the ability to Create, Process, Transmit and Receive Information Autonomously.
User avatar
Matt
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Contact:

Re: Evidence of the Moon's Arrival?

Post: # 11683Post Matt »

Krad wrote: Some of the obvious assumptions our scientists make are
1. the centers of gravity of Earth and Moon are fixed (do not move) with respect to the corresponding planetary/lunar surfaces
2. the speed of light is constant (it doesn't change with time)
3. Light beam between Earth and Moon travels through media that do not change with time

Each of these assumptions needs scrutiny.

1. Neither Earth, nor the Moon are rigid bodies. Their interiors are partly liquid and semi-solid. Hence, observations of our scientists can be explained by slight changes in mass distribution inside Earth/Moon interiors. Incidently, some notorius and unexplained errors in satellite positions can be expained this way too.

2. Recently, our scientists noticed that the speed of light seems to decline slightly. When light becomes slower, it takes more time for it to reach the Moon and come back. Whoever assumes that the speed of light is constant is bound to conclude that the distance between Earth and the Moon increases.

3. The moon seems to develop its atmosphere. If you look at a new moon, you will be able to see its entire outline. In the past, this was not possible. Observing the entire lunar outline is only possible if the moon has an atmosphere. As you know, light travels through atmosphere slower than through vaccum. Hence, thickening of the lunar atmosphere would contribute to a conclusion that the Moon drifts away from Earth. Increase in pollution/composition of Earth's atmosphere (CO2) has a similar effect."
Just to be the devil's advocate, I'd like to elaborate:

1. Nasa's measurements are based upon averages. That means that any slight changes over the years would be obviously accounted for. Really, you have to bring in mind, do you think the brightest scientist on earth would overlook this kind of fact?

2. It is a KNOWN fact that the speed of light is NOT constant. In fact, it has recently been demonstrated(!) that light can travel faster than in a vacuum. The more dense a substance, the slower light travels. You are correct in your third point but it doesn't make sense as you say otherwise in your second point. Yes, the speed of light in a vacuum is dictated by a formula, but it is also confirmed wholly by experiments. What reason is there to assume otherwise that this second bends natural law from the next?

3.What source do you have that the moon is developing it's own atmosphere more than the usual? You could always say that it is a variable that is constantly changing, but to say that it is increasing in density is against past measurements.
Krad
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:29 am

Re: Evidence of the Moon's Arrival?

Post: # 11684Post Krad »

1. I think the change of mass distribution is happening relatively fast, but it always returns to the original position, hence the average would not show any change.

2. "You are correct in your third point but it doesn't make sense as you say otherwise in your second point"
I do not quite understand this, I think that the speed of the "natural light" in vacoom is constantly falling, as do the mass and "energy" of every material.

3. I only quoted it, so I am not so sure in this one, but once something is trapped in a gravitational field, it will not be able to go away. I think the atmosphere of the Moon is made from dust, which sometimes go away a bit from the moon, sometimes settles, but it cannot escape from it. If it is so, then it is highly possible that it will catch more and more dust.
User avatar
Rezo
Posts: 725
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2005 1:28 am
Location: usa

Re: Evidence of the Moon's Arrival?

Post: # 12602Post Rezo »

interesting note about orbits of planets around our sun.....moon as well? [earth not orbiting sun per se, but rather it, and other planets/moons, 'follows' it].

http://www.forbiddenknowledgetv.com/vid ... e-sun.html

a more in-depth explanation by Nassim [correction - most of what he presents has actually been discovered decades earlier, by Walter Russell, a very talented and intelligent thinker and doer]:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxvWWHBTNjY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WjSC99i ... re=related

i find this information quite refreshing. And wonder, maybe measurements of moon may look like with this model? [in relation to earth, over time 0 = now, and tf = 100,000 yr]. is it possible measurements are off b/c they dont take relative motion [and possible associated changes in gravity] into account?

not that we really get gravity yet ; )
Post Reply