Moons with Moons

Discussion of the astronomical and cosmological aspects of a universe of motion.
Post Reply
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1407
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Moons with Moons

Post by bperet » Tue Apr 24, 2018 12:33 pm

The sun has planets, the planets have moons and asteroids have moons. But nowhere can I find a moon with a moon, though it is said to be "theoretically possible" based on the Hill Sphere. If it IS possible, then with the thousands of orbiting bodies in this solar system, you'd think there would be at least ONE... if there is, I cannot find it.

If it is NOT possible, then there is some kind of "minimum limit" in effect, that inhibits the situation (a base to the scalar recursion). Even artificial satellites, such as those put in lunar orbit within the Hill Sphere, crash in just a few years--so not in a "real" orbit.

If you are aware of moons with moons... please let me know! Thanks.
Every dogma has its day...

Djchrismac
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:14 pm

Re: Moons with Moons

Post by Djchrismac » Thu Apr 26, 2018 7:51 am

I'm not aware of any nor are mainstream scientists, although they do agree it is possible but only for a short duration due to the interaction between the gravity field of earth, the moon and tidal forces. They also have no examples of any and say they are too hard to find using current methods...
Can the Moon have a moon?

Yes, the Moon could have a sub-satellite. If we look at a system of the Earth, Moon, and a sub-satellite, the same idea as above applies. The Moon has its own Hill sphere with a radius of 60,000 km (about one sixth of the distance between the Earth and Moon) where a sub-satellite could exist. If an object lies outside the Moon's Hill sphere, it will orbit Earth instead of the Moon. The only problem is that the sub-satellite cannot stay in orbit around the Moon indefinitely because of tides.

The Moon, like almost all other moons in the solar system, is in synchronous rotation about the Earth meaning it shows the same face to Earth at all times (its rotation period about its own axis is the same as its orbital period about the Earth), which is a result of tidal forces between the Earth and Moon. These are the same tidal forces that cause the high and low tides on Earth. In this configuration, any object within the Hill sphere of the Moon will have its orbit decay due to tides! That means the orbit of any sub-satellite of the Moon will shrink over time. In other words, the distance between the sub-satellite and the Moon will get smaller and smaller until the sub-satellite crashes into the Moon or the lunar tides rip the sub-satellite apart!

How does the Moon exist if it is a sub-satellite itself?

The reason this argument does not apply to the Sun-Earth-Moon system is that the Earth itself does not synchronously rotate (nor do any of the planets) about the Sun like the Moon and other satellites do around the planets. This allows the Moon to have a stable orbit around the Earth.

What about man-made lunar orbiters? How do they survive?

Lunar orbiters only orbit the Moon for a few years, a very short time by astronomical standards. Man-made satellites can stay in orbit around the Moon or any moon for the duration of a mission because tidal effects require thousands or millions or more years, depending on the system, to cause the loss of a sub-satellite. Because of this we can leave a man-made satellite in stable orbit around a moon for a few years using the spacecraft's rocket thrusters to correct for any changes in its orbit.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about- ... termediate
No satellite we’ve sent to the Moon has ever orbited for longer than a few years before crashing down into the lunar surface. In theory, you could probably get a satellite to last a few hundred years around the Moon.

But why? How come we can’t make moons for our moon to have a moon of it’s own for all time? It all comes down to gravity and tidal forces. Every object in the Universe is surrounded by an invisible sphere of gravity. Anything within this volume, which astronomers call the “Hill Sphere”, will tend to orbit the object.

So, if you had the Moon out in the middle of space, without any interactions, it could easily have multiple moons orbiting around it. But you get problems when you have these overlapping spheres of influence. The strength of gravity from the Earth tangles with the force of gravity from the Moon.
https://www.universetoday.com/109666/ca ... ave-moons/
So I take it you would need a Moon that is rotating during it's orbit in order to have enough gravitational force to capture a moon itself, along with no or minimal gravitational influence from nearby bodies? Or one far enough away from the parent planet but then I figure the gravitational influence would be a lot less so the chances of the planet holding onto a very distant moon would be even less. If it is in orbit at a great distance then surely there is still enough of an overlapping gravitational field effect to still cause tidal forces to upset the orbit of a sub-moon?

At least with all this in mind if they do announce that they have found a sub-moon orbiting a moon, the chances of it being an ark or artificial will be pretty high as then advanced tech could be use to stabilise it in orbit. If only we could take a good close look at Phobos and Deimos before their decaying orbit sees them crash into Mars...

You must be right about a minimum limit effect otherwise we would have identified more than zero sub-moons by now. Along with size being a factor, maybe a sun can only have planets rotating in orbit around it due to them having a large white dwarf core to anchor them into orbit and provide enough gravity to do so, moons can be in orbit around planets (more around larger gas giants, less around smaller planets) but beyond this there is not enough gravitational force in moons below a certain size (and there is also too much influence from surrounding bodies to knock it out of orbit) so they cannot have their own sub-moon.

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1407
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Moons with Moons

Post by bperet » Thu Apr 26, 2018 1:14 pm

Djchrismac wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 7:51 am
So I take it you would need a Moon that is rotating during it's orbit in order to have enough gravitational force to capture a moon itself, along with no or minimal gravitational influence from nearby bodies?
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that once a moon goes into tidal locking with the body it is orbiting, it can not have a moon of its own? That does tend to fit the observed structure of the solar system... Mercury and Venus are in tidal lock with the sun, and no moons. Earth, Mars and beyond rotate independently and all have moons. The moon is in tidal lock about the Earth, so it can't have a moon. I have noticed before (documented somewhere on this forum) that only planets with their own rotation have moons.

It is an interesting idea, particularly because of all the mystery surrounding how tides and tidal locking works. It would indicate that it is NOT gravity controlling the orbits of moons and tides, but some kind of angular velocity (yin) in a harmonic relationship.
Djchrismac wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 7:51 am
Or one far enough away from the parent planet but then I figure the gravitational influence would be a lot less so the chances of the planet holding onto a very distant moon would be even less. If it is in orbit at a great distance then surely there is still enough of an overlapping gravitational field effect to still cause tidal forces to upset the orbit of a sub-moon?
As they say, "there is no gravity--the Earth sucks." This is what this thread of research is about--gravity, a 3-dimensional, inward speed (s3/t3), can ONLY exist in the low speed (1-x) range, because that is the only place where three dimensions of space exists. That limits the effects of "gravity" from lunar orbit to the mantle of the planet (basically, the exosphere, atmosphere and crust). This is a very different view of gravity, as it does not extend out to infinity pulling on things. Something else is going on, and that is what I am trying to figure out by comparing molecules to solar systems.

It is also curious that in molecules, the most abundant "moon" is hydrogen... by comparison, water is "planet oxygen" with two "hydrogen moons." Most of the inorganic molecules are either single atoms with hydrogen (CH4), or form a binary or multiple-star system, like CO2, like the binary α-β Centauri with the 3rd, orbiting Proxima Centauri as carbon.

Again, this is a new line of investigation that has not previously been considered regarding the RS, save for a few notes between Nehru and Larson. The tough part is breaking through the existing paradigms we have been taught to believe, so any clues or insights are always helpful.
Every dogma has its day...

Djchrismac
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:14 pm

Re: Moons with Moons

Post by Djchrismac » Thu Apr 26, 2018 4:47 pm

I've been having a few ideas about this and will just "chew the cud" and throw some thoughts out there in the hope that it helps us think outside the gravitational field... :D

First of all I was reading up on binary star systems and the barycenter which got me wondering... if the Sirius Research Society is correct and the Sun is a binary star with Sirius then that would have to be factored in. Some of the links I read up on:

http://www.viewzone.com/sirius.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_star
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter

Putting on my RS2 hat now...

If galaxies are solar systems and the milky way is the solar system next door, with a black hole sun at the centre, there's the binary system right there, it just seems a galaxy away since we're looking through those two pair's of binocular's like this:
Image

I kept thinking about Larson's shavings going down a plughole, maybe the barycenter in a binary system is like a whirlpool in time-space so we can't see it, only the result in space-time which is planets orbiting around an invisible point, which for most bodies is somewhere within the larger body causing a wobble, exceptions being the Sun and Jupter and Pluto and Charon.

Maybe the whirlpool is sucking in time and pushing in space and this holds the planet or moon in orbit when they become tidal locked?

If the earth is an inverse sun and sucking, the sun would be pushing would it not? Is there a chance, thinking about your molecules statement, that gravity isn't just due to the natural expansion of the universe going one way out into space and the planets sucking inward in time but it's more of a connection between the two bodies, one being more liquid and the other more solid?

This would give us an opposite and ties in with your molecules, liquid or solid, if you view the sun as liquid fire and the planets as solid, while earth is 71% water (oxygen) with a hollow (carbon) moon. I think what i'm trying to get at here is that if you have a sun with a 3-x speed centre and liquid fire 1-x speed outer, orbited by planets with 3-x liquid fire centres and solid outers it could be that the 2-x speed range is doing something we're not aware of, acting to bind together the two other speed ranges either side.

Image

A few other random thoughts... you never know, perhaps our moon and others of a similar nature are all arks! Going into sci-fi territory now, perhaps a lot of moons are like ancient outposts, placed into orbits purposefully and using advanced vibrational physics to hold them into orbit.

Maybe charge is the key and we need to think of the earth rotating as creating a spinning field of gravity like a big sticky ball which could attract the moon which then sticks to the outer shell of this gravitational limit? This would explain the moon not rotating and showing the same face as it orbits around us.

Or, do the two bodies interlock like yin and yang do? Maybe there is an exchange between time and space, with each physical body linking up, represented somewhat in this image:
Image

I also found this excellent yin-yang moon phase diagram, check out the curves of the moon shadow in relation to the cuve on the yin-yang (although they would look better flipped around):
Image

Is there something to do with curves and angles affecting light that we're overlooking? After all how come 'tween time", the solstices and equinoxes are so important and also key regarding temporal interaction?

I suspect you are right and music, harmony, scales and vibrations could be another thing to look into to find some answers. I hope my rambling brainstorming helps!

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1407
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Gravitational attraction

Post by bperet » Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:28 pm

Let me pass on some extra info... the reason that gravity acts differently from dielectric and magnetic fields is because it is generated by rotation, whereas the latter two are generated by vibration. This is why gravity does not have "poles"--only vibration, and in-out motion, has more than one reference point (min, max).

Planets, et al, are just big clumps of atoms, so they should behave exactly like atoms, with the exception of being "fuzzy" -- not having distinct boundaries, but having effects that taper off with distance.

In the RS, the minimum quantity of speed is unity. Atoms have a rotational displacement in time, so the "time" aspect must be greater than unity, making atomic rotation "outward" (away from unity). Because space and time are reciprocally related, "rotationally outward in time" also expresses itself with its inverse, "linearly inward in space," what we call "gravity."

It appears that gravity is trying to pull things together. But that is NOT actually the case... it looks like that because we do not consider the planet to be moving in a scalar (expansion/compression) fashion. So let's flip it around... what if the surrounding "space" is still, and it is the planet that is moving?

The only way the planet could move to explain gravity is if it was getting larger, pushing things on its surface away from it. That gives the appearance of being pulled down. This completely factors "space" out of the equation--no space, not "field" of gravity. It is just an object moving in a scalar, expansive fashion--something we are not accustomed to experiencing, because we treat all motion as vectors.

We also know that space expands at unit speed, all by itself (the progression of the natural reference system), so there will be a point where the linear expansion of space will overtake the spherical expansion of a body--the gravitational limit.

So basic "gravitational attraction" has nothing to do with fields... it is just two bodies that are trying to move towards each other, while the intervening space is expanding. Picture, if you will, two Deloreans on a straight section of road, headed towards each other at 88 mph. BUT... the road is made of infinitely expandable rubber, and stretching apart at the rate of 176 mph, so the cars never make any headway--they stay exactly the same distance apart, despite engines racing. This is an "orbit." Should one of the cars slow down, the expansion of the road will fling it off into space. If one speeds up, it will eventually crash into the other. But as long as the speed remains constant--like it does in ALL atoms--they stay at a fixed distance from each other.

It would be simple if "gravity" (the rotational speeds of the atoms) were the only factor, but it is not. There is also rotation in space, constituting antigravity, and all sorts of vibratory motions, from heat, electrical, magnetic and isotopic, and all the harmonic interactions creating "hills and valleys" of speed that result from their interactions. This creates the "speed ranges" that Larson speaks of, and the "equivalent space" and "equivalent time" functions, that extend within and beyond the gravitational limit.

This is what we need to get a model for, as it will open the door on how to control these relations (as John Keely did), from the molecular, all the way to warp drive for a spacecraft. And I suspect the solution, though complex to implement, will actually be quite simple to understand.
Every dogma has its day...

Djchrismac
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:14 pm

Re: Moons with Moons

Post by Djchrismac » Fri Apr 27, 2018 5:58 am

Thanks for the extra details, it makes a lot more sense now. I keep trying to think of an example from nature that will provide some answers that can be applied on a macro scale but nothing has come to mind yet, i'll keep trying though.

So far it seems like the micro scale and atoms will provide the solution, but based on all of the info here and in Astronomy v2 it looks like we have to re-evaluate the model for atoms first to understand it properly in RS2 terms, then see if it can be scaled up to work for planets, moons etc.

What else do we know about the speed ranges not having distinct boundaries but having effects that taper off with distance and how does this apply to the human body and atoms? Do we maybe have a localised range of speeds per person? In that, outside we are 1-x speed, inside the body is 2-x and our core/soul is 3-x? Although in the RS there are no distinct boundaries so I guess that isn't the case, but what is stopping all of our molecules from flying off into space, is it the effect of gravity on a local level, in that we are in the 1-x range and moving with the progression of the natural reference system, but inside we are at 2-x/3-x speed so the inverse applies and we have our own gravitational centre? We are expanding in a scalar fashion as we grow, much like the planet is, or am I wasting time trying to apply this to us when it should just be the molecular level we're looking at in more detail?

Does John Keely's research turn up anything interesting that is worth investigating further?

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1407
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Moons with Moons

Post by bperet » Fri Apr 27, 2018 9:21 am

Thought of something yesterday while on the treadmill at the gym... normally, when you walk outside, the ground is still and you are moving. On the treadmill, you are still and the ground is moving. Yet, you get the same workout... in a universe of motion, everything is moving so one cannot think in terms of still vs. moving, but just the ratio between motions. Larson talks about this frequently, regarding electric current--is the electron flowing through the wire, or is the wire flowing around the electron. Answer is "both."

Looking at the "moon" problem, what if... the moon ISN'T orbiting the Earth, but something from the Earth is pushing it around in an orbit, like some invisible arm reaching out and whacking it? When you want to swing a ball around your head on a string, YOU have to do the work--not the ball. So, started thinking about what situations in the RS could cause such an effect... which would also have to account for tidal forces.

In the old days of aether, orbits were attributed to a spinning vortex, that carried things around in it (like Larson's whiskers spinning down the drain when he pulled the plug after shaving). But if that were the case, it would be unlikely we would have ocean tides as the effect would be distributed equatorially (current explanation of tidal force is total nonsense... see Miles Mathis' paper The Trouble with Tides for all the gory details).

The answer I came up with was from Nehru's sunspot work, which I later applied to the Earth in "At the Earth's Core": thredules.

Thredules are in the ultra-high (3-x) speed range, 1-dimensional (linear), meaning they work like a "repulsor beam" (which is why solar flares shoot OUT of the sun)--except the "beam" is a bivector, meaning it shoots out in opposite directions, not just on one side.

If planets and moons produce this bidirectional repulsor ray from their cores, rotating about the poles like the beam from a lighthouse--with antigravity properties, as it approached another body that repulsive effect would try to push it away, in two fashions: radially outward and circumferentially forward. The "radial" component would only push far enough until the gravitational attraction of the body being pushed canceled it out--at which point, it would stay at that distance. The push to the side would case the body to move in a circular, orbital pattern at the same rate the "lighthouse beam" was rotating.

Regarding tides... something the old farmers knew was that ground water has "tides" as well--the tides don't stop at the ocean, they continue underground. This is how they determine when to plant seeds--want to get the seed in the ground so when "high tide" comes, it gets plenty of moisture to germinate. The only difference is they consider the "time of day"--plants need sun to grow, so you have to catch the high tide at dawn.

If the Earth is emitting a "repulsor ray," tides would be a natural consequence of it, as water moves easier than rock, so rather than the moon pulling, the Earth is pushing. And the force would be stronger on the lunar side, because the Moon is doing it too--so there will be a stronger repulsor ray between the Earth and Moon, than on the other side of the Earth from the moon.

Point being that one cannot look at a universe of motion from a static observation point. Everything must be considered moving with respect to everything else, so I would think the ratios of motion (magnitude of speed, in/out direction and dimensions of motion involved) would be the key.
Every dogma has its day...

Post Reply