Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Earth May Once Have Had Multiple Moons

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the many-moons-ago dept.

Moon 186

fyc writes "A new study from NASA's Ames Research Center has suggested that the collision of Earth and a Mars-sized object that created the Moon may also have resulted in the creation of tiny moonlets on Earth's Lagrangian points. 'Once captured, the Trojan satellites likely remained in their orbits for up to 100 million years, Lissauer and co-author John Chambers of the Carnegie Institution of Washington say. Then, gravitational tugs from the planets would have triggered changes in the Earth's orbit, ultimately causing the moons to become unmoored and drift away or crash into the Moon or Earth.'" The longest-lasting of such Trojans could have persisted for a billion years. They would have been a few tens of kilometers in diameter and would have appeared in the sky like bright stars.

cancel ×

186 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The Moon (ridiculous liberal myth) is receding (-1, Troll)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 6 years ago | (#23321846)

The implications of such news are obvious. Given enough time, our own moon could fall back to earth and wipe everything right the fuck out. Luckily for us, the moon is receding at a relatively slow pace, so it would take something very big to make it change direction and start back in on us.

That is, of course, if you believe in such a ridiculous liberal myth.

OK, I'll bite.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23321986)

WTF are you talking about?

The implications of such news are obvious. Given enough time, our own moon could fall back to earth and wipe everything right the fuck out. Luckily for us, the moon is receding at a relatively slow pace, so it would take something very big to make it change direction and start back in on us.

That is, of course, if you believe in such a ridiculous liberal myth.

Re:OK, I'll bite.... (1)

cloakable (885764) | more than 6 years ago | (#23322142)

Sorry, BadAnologyGuy sometimes flips and turns into a raving rightwinger. Just ignore him for now.

Re:OK, I'll bite.... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23322150)

The "Moon": A Ridiculous Liberal Myth 173 days ago

It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)

Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors .. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.

Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!

Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.

Re:OK, I'll bite.... (4, Funny)

laejoh (648921) | more than 6 years ago | (#23322428)

So what you're trying to say is:

That's no moon [xkcd.com] !

Re:OK, I'll bite.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23322564)

I think I heard this exact same speech on Liberty City's radio station WKTT!

To paraphrase GP... (1)

PinkyDead (862370) | more than 6 years ago | (#23322822)

WTF are you talking about^W^W smoking?

Re:To paraphrase GP... (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 6 years ago | (#23323344)

.... more to the point, where can we get some?

Re:To paraphrase GP... (1)

wattrlz (1162603) | more than 6 years ago | (#23323442)

I've always wondered about that question: Why would one want to smoke something that's only apparent effect is to turn you into a raving kook?

Mega-Dittos Rush! (1)

JudgeFurious (455868) | more than 6 years ago | (#23323178)

We owe you and Michael Savage a debt we can never repay. Keep up the good work!

Re:The Moon (ridiculous liberal myth) is receding (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23322362)

Maybe it was the moon that killed the dinosaurs!

Re:The Moon (ridiculous liberal myth) is receding (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23322638)

Three days, according to that masked stranger what just rolled into town.

Re:The Moon (ridiculous liberal myth) is receding (0, Offtopic)

skeeto (1138903) | more than 6 years ago | (#23323182)

It looks like some clueless person with mod points thought you were being serious.

Re:The Moon (ridiculous liberal myth) is receding (1)

moteyalpha (1228680) | more than 6 years ago | (#23323584)

I would mod you up for insighful but I already posted something I thought was funny and got modded down. Maybe they did not read the mod guidelines, modding up is better than modding down unless is is obvious crap.

Still does (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23321848)

Haven't you ever seen a HS football team on a schoolbus ?

More proof of the Gospels (5, Funny)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 6 years ago | (#23321862)

In Star Wars when Luke looks up at the sky and sees several moons I always wondered.

But this is scientific proof that the Gospels according to George Lucas are the truth.

Re:More proof of the Gospels (5, Informative)

Taint Bearer (957479) | more than 6 years ago | (#23321914)

Setting Suns. Not moons.

Re:More proof of the Gospels (1)

ZiakII (829432) | more than 6 years ago | (#23321916)

If there was really a Jar Jar Binks I don't want to know, unless he was standing on the moon while it got hit.

Just old (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23321990)

No, it's just proof that star wars came out a really long time ago.

Re:Just old (1)

ArAgost (853804) | more than 6 years ago | (#23322040)

...in a galaxy far, far away. Yeah, we know that.

Re:Just old (1)

kristopher (723047) | more than 6 years ago | (#23322102)

Not just that, but from a galaxy, far far away.

Re:Just old (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23322500)

A long time ago, but somehow in the future...

Re:More proof of the Gospels (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23322172)

In Star Wars when Luke looks up at the sky and sees several moons I always wondered.

But this is scientific proof that the Gospels according to George Lucas are the truth.
That's no moon!

Re:More proof of the Gospels (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23323742)

lol

Re:More proof of the Gospels (0, Offtopic)

moteyalpha (1228680) | more than 6 years ago | (#23323138)

I always thought that now we have absolute proof! --It's good when moderators send people to the cornfield, isn't it?

Re:More proof of the Gospels (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23323296)

Moons? I don't remember him looking at any moons in the sky, but I do remember him looking towards the two suns.

thats no moon....... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23321876)

there. stupid joke out of the way.

continue.

Re:thats no moon....... (-1, Redundant)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 6 years ago | (#23322284)

...that's a Beowulf cluster of moons! (Sorry, could not resist!)

Perhaps the asteroid that did for the dinosaurs.. (5, Interesting)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 6 years ago | (#23321886)

... was one of those old moonlets paying its last visit to earth. If it had left a Langraigian point it could still have orbited very near earth for a long long time until one small nudge put it on the trajectory for that fateful day.

Re:Perhaps the asteroid that did for the dinosaurs (5, Insightful)

Viper Daimao (911947) | more than 6 years ago | (#23322588)

if that were the case, there wouldn't be a k/t boundary layer would there?

Re:Perhaps the asteroid that did for the dinosaurs (5, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 6 years ago | (#23323020)

Quite true. Any "moonlet" if it had been created by the Earth/Thea collision would have bee composed of roughly the same thing as Earth is. The highly increased iridium is a signature of an asteroid and not a terrestrial rock.

Re:Perhaps the asteroid that did for the dinosaurs (1)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 6 years ago | (#23323032)

Why do you say that?

Nothing to say that these "moonlets" weren't made of the same stuff of the KT boundary. I forget the name of the particular rare mineral/ore/whatever that defines the KT boundary, but is there a large amount of it on the moon? If there is, wouldn't it then stand to reason that these moonlets would have been made of similar materials? And if they were made of similar materials, would it not then be possible for one of them to have caused the impact event that created the KT boundary?

Of course, IANAA (I am not an Astronomer) so I really have no clue. But it is a compelling idea, don't you think?

Re:Perhaps the asteroid that did for the dinosaurs (1)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 6 years ago | (#23323052)

Aaand MBGMorden appears to have answered my question for me. Never mind then. :)

Re:Perhaps the asteroid that did for the dinosaurs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23322742)

This is also suggested in the FAQ section [thiaoouba.com] of the book Thiaoouba Prophecy (recommended reading).

Re:Perhaps the asteroid that did for the dinosaurs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23323084)

That could be.... or it could have been one of the many asteroids who's orbits cross earth orbit. You know, like all the other asteroids that have hit Earth, and the one that's going to *very* nearly hit us in a few years?

Really, I don't see any reason that a former Lagrangian moon is nearly as likely for a given impact then another asteroid.

argg.. I couldn't help it...its obligatory... (0, Redundant)

apodyopsis (1048476) | more than 6 years ago | (#23321894)

They would have been a few tens of kilometers in diameter and would have appeared in the sky like bright stars.

...until one of them dropped onto the surface and wiped out the dinosaur civilization?

RMS Proposes Legalization of Animal/Corpse Sex?? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23321896)

"I have seen video so violent that it repelled me. (Some of it was sexual, some was not it's a minor detail.) I hope to avoid seeing any more of it, but I condemn this attempt to censor it.

The Clown regime is planning to prohibit the mere possession of "extreme pornography". The excuse is that one man who liked violent pornography committed crime.

It is true that victims of real violence suffer. (Never mind that in making movies of violence, typically nobody is actually hurt.) The true oppressive spirit of this law starts to show in the prohibition of images of sex with corpses. Are we supposed to believe that corpses can suffer? Or are some cruel prudes trying to impose their prejudices by force?

The prohibition on images of sex with animals is also wrong. Some animals like sex with humansmale dophins are quite enthusiastic, and male dogs seem to like it too. Should you be imprisoned for taking pictures when a dog humps your leg? The parrot that made love to me in the Jurong Bird Park did so of his own free will. (I would never have dared to ask.) Is this photo going to be a crime? Will I be saved only because it is not obvious just what the parrot is doing to me?

The crimes committed by the occasional pervert are nothing against the crimes committed by B'liar in Iraq. So if they want to prohibit video that inspires violence, it would make more sense to go after war movies." - RMS http://www.stallman.org/archives/2008-mar-jun.html#30 [stallman.org] April 2008

Re:RMS Proposes Legalization of Animal/Corpse Sex? (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23321922)

RMS isn't proposing legalization of sex with animals or corpses, he is saying that images of such activities shouldn't be illegal. And he is making a pretty logical argument.

Now, what is your point?

Re:RMS Proposes Legalization of Animal/Corpse Sex? (0, Offtopic)

Neotrantor (597070) | more than 6 years ago | (#23323390)

racecar spelled backwards is racecar

Not far fetched. (4, Interesting)

Auckerman (223266) | more than 6 years ago | (#23321898)

Doesn't sound too far fetched since Earth has Cruithne [wikipedia.org] sharing it's orbit, which in it's own way is a "second moon". On a functional level, not that different from what they are suggesting. I would even take it step futher, there's no reason to even believe any specific natural satellite of Earth originated from our planet or it's creation.

Re:Not far fetched. (5, Informative)

mpe (36238) | more than 6 years ago | (#23322162)

Doesn't sound too far fetched since Earth has Cruithne sharing it's orbit, which in it's own way is a "second moon".

Except that this object isn't sharing the Earth's obit at all. It's in a solar orbit which is similar to the Earth's. In order to call something a "moon" of the Earth it would need to be orbiting the Earth.

Re:Not far fetched. (4, Interesting)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 6 years ago | (#23322546)

Earth has Cruithne sharing it's orbit, which in it's own way is a "second moon"

If it's not permanently orbiting within the Earth's Hill sphere [wikipedia.org] , it's no moon.

On a side not, since these moons were originally at Lagrangian points, it makes me wonder whether or not some of them could evolve into having a horseshoe orbit with the Earth. Actually a mission to one of these asteroids when they get about 1.5 Gm from Earth would be interesting and pretty easy as they would be close to Earth and moving pretty slowly. I guess you could look them up closer to find out if they share material in common with the Moon or anything.

Re:Not far fetched. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23323640)

If it's not permanently orbiting within the Earth's Hill sphere, it's no moon.
It's a space station?

That's no moon (5, Insightful)

sporkme (983186) | more than 6 years ago | (#23321902)

IANAP, but this seems to illustrate a physical possibility, not evidence of past existence. The existence of the moon demands answers, which have been delivered ad nauseum, but this seems to be a bit of "well enough" not being left alone as I see it. TFA:

"The giant impact that likely led to the formation of the Moon launched a lot of material into Earth orbit, and some could well have been caught in the Lagrangian points,"
The possibility of existence does not necessitate existence, but it apparently necessitates a Slashdot headline.
The real headline seems to be:
Post-collision debris from Lunar creation might have persisted a little bit longer than originally thought in these crazy gravitational slots, but no evidence is available to back up this theory, and it sure would be neat-o."
Yay.

Re:That's no moon (0, Offtopic)

hansraj (458504) | more than 6 years ago | (#23321960)

Good Lord!! Judging by your proposed headline, you would have posted the full article as the "summary" had you been an editor!

Re:That's no moon (1)

ajcham (1179959) | more than 6 years ago | (#23322030)

Sure, then the original article could be rewritten so that it contains every calculation used in the study.

Re:That's no moon (4, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 6 years ago | (#23322088)

Sure, then the original article could be rewritten so that it contains every calculation used in the study.
And it should contain all in the headline:

"Post-collision debris from Lunar creation might have persisted a little bit longer than originally thought in these crazy gravitational slots at a distance of r \approx R \sqrt[3]{\frac{M_2}{3 M_1}} which could be described as being such that the orbital period, corresponding to a circular orbit with this distance as radius around M2 in the absence of M1, is that of M2 around M1, divided by \sqrt{3}\approx 1.73...

Re:That's no moon (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 6 years ago | (#23322212)

"Post-collision debris from Lunar creation might have persisted a little bit longer than originally thought in these crazy gravitational slots at a distance of r \approx R \sqrt[3]{\frac{M_2}{3 M_1}} which could be described as being such that the orbital period, corresponding to a circular orbit with this distance as radius around M2 in the absence of M1, is that of M2 around M1, divided by \sqrt{3}\approx 1.73...

Or even "At Earth-Luna L4 and L5". Most orbits are also too eliptical to be approximated as circles.

Re:That's no moon (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23322636)

He couldn't be an editor, he can't een spell ad nauseam.

Re:That's no moon (-1, Redundant)

wilder_card (774631) | more than 6 years ago | (#23322156)

"That's a space station!"

Somebody had to say it.

Re:That's no moon (-1, Redundant)

Speefnarkle1982 (901875) | more than 6 years ago | (#23322220)

Those are not moons, they're space stations!

Re:That's no moon (1)

IkeTo (27776) | more than 6 years ago | (#23322388)

> Post-collision debris from Lunar creation might have persisted a little bit longer than originally thought in these crazy gravitational slots, but no evidence is available to back up this theory, and it sure would be neat-o."

Reading the abstract of the article actually led me to think the opposite: "The L4 and L5 positions are a little less stable than previously thought, so the non-existence of objects in those locations nowadays cannot be used to demostrate the lack of such objects in the past." IANAP either, so perhaps I'm completely wrong.

Re:That's no moon (-1, Troll)

DaveWick79 (939388) | more than 6 years ago | (#23322476)

The reality is, anyone who calls this type of speculation "science" is living in a dream world. Unless you have some concrete evidence to back up your theory, you've got nothing - and this guy has nothing, merely a "what if".

Re:That's no moon (2, Insightful)

khallow (566160) | more than 6 years ago | (#23323308)

Ok, so what's your problem? Constructing a testable hypothesis is one of the key steps of the scientific method. Further, the article mentions two different models that lead to the same conclusion. That is sufficient evidence to generate a hypothesis.

Not exactly newsworthy ... (3, Funny)

pbhj (607776) | more than 6 years ago | (#23321908)

fyc writes "A new study .. has suggested .. may also have .. likely remained .. would have .. could have .. They would have .. and would have appeared in the sky like bright stars.
So it's a first hypothesis, now find some evidence.

Meanwhile a new study by me has suggested that reading Slashdot stops time and may also make you hyper-intelligent. Slashdotters would have bigger brains that could be farmed in the future to feed entire villages. Villagers would crack open the skulls with sharp metal straws which would be used to drink the brains out. A strong light then placed in the skull cavity would then shine in the night like bright stars.

Re:Not exactly newsworthy ... (4, Funny)

kitsunewarlock (971818) | more than 6 years ago | (#23321998)

Hey! If time stopped while reading Slashdot, I could accomplish something with this massive, super productive and delicious brain, you insensitive clod!

Fenrir (0, Offtopic)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 6 years ago | (#23321944)

Would this make news about Ragnarok dupes?

Land of The Lost (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23321946)

In the opening scene, didn't it show multiple moons? But this leads to questions such as, what's going to happen to Jupiter's moons? How old are they, how long have they been in orbit? Why hasn't gravity wreaked havoc with them?

Re:Land of The Lost (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 6 years ago | (#23322178)

But this leads to questions such as, what's going to happen to Jupiter's moons? How old are they, how long have they been in orbit? Why hasn't gravity wreaked havoc with them?

It does. Io's volcanos are powered by gravitational effects. Mostly in interaction with the other large Jovian moons, IIRC

It's all about the mass! (5, Informative)

clonan (64380) | more than 6 years ago | (#23322550)

The biggest difference is the mass ratio's between the satellite and it's parent (this goes for planets as well as moons).

If the mass of the satellites starts to approach the mass of the parent then the system will become unstable. The Moon is by far the largest satellite as a percentage of mass anywhere in the solar system. The Pluto-Charon system beats the Earth and Moon but Pluto was downgraded from a planet. For the earth-moon system, the center of mass for the system is still inside the earth. The Pluto-Charon system the center of mass is roughly 1/3 of the way to Charon. The only reason it is stable is because it is so far away.

If the moon was significantly larger (or there was an additional moon of significant size) they system would become unstable and tend to lose satellites until it WAS stable.

Jupiter's moons are so much lighter that Jupiter has an iron gravitational grip on them. Short of a major external disruption (say getting hit by another moon) all of Jupiter's moons are staying put.

Moon may have been filled with cheese (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23321970)

before the man in the moon ate it all millions of years ago. The smell of cheese may have lingered for several centuries after that.

Moonlets? (4, Funny)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 6 years ago | (#23321974)

Although "Moonlets" is a cute, fuzzy term, I would have much preferred if they'd called them 'mooninites'

Re:Moonlets? (2, Funny)

stoofa (524247) | more than 6 years ago | (#23322012)

The focus group used by NASA's marketing arm did try 'mooninites' but decided that 'Moonlets' had a much greater appeal from a plush merchandise angle.

Re:Moonlets? (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 6 years ago | (#23322104)

The accounting department previously suggested Mooney.

The idea was rejected because of copyright claims from The Cow Level government.

Re:Moonlets? (1)

PJ The Womble (963477) | more than 6 years ago | (#23322238)

...because Revved Sun Wanged Moon, perhaps?

Re:Moonlets? (1)

Sciryl Llort (1160727) | more than 6 years ago | (#23322404)

# It's all about the Moonies
  It's all about the dum dum duh dee dum dum /#

Re:Moonlets? (1)

The Evil Couch (621105) | more than 6 years ago | (#23322232)

I hope you can see this, because I'm doing it as hard as I can.

Re:Moonlets? (1)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#23323600)

That sounds like something a terrorist would name them.

Waxing, Waxing and more Waxing... (1)

PJ The Womble (963477) | more than 6 years ago | (#23321976)

So, like, many many multiple tides per day, dude?

Gnarly. SURF'S UP AND UP AND UP!

Any observers? (3, Funny)

OpenSourced (323149) | more than 6 years ago | (#23321988)

would have appeared in the sky like bright stars.

Appeared to whom?

Re:Any observers? (1)

kristopher (723047) | more than 6 years ago | (#23322092)

The aliens who seeded life on earth of course!

Re:Any observers? (5, Funny)

PJ The Womble (963477) | more than 6 years ago | (#23322110)

Having once played a gig to an audience of zero, I can't agree with your logic here. "Appear" doesn't have to be "to" anyone, sadly! At least the moons got to come back the next night. I didn't.

Re:Any observers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23322122)

If there is no one to see it, was it really there?

Xenu of course! (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 6 years ago | (#23322196)

Just ask Tom Cruise. It was the Xenu!

Re:Any observers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23322324)

If a Trojan satellite appeared in the sky and no one was around to see it, did it really orbit the Earth?

Re:Any observers? (2, Funny)

mcamino (970752) | more than 6 years ago | (#23322504)

I think Cher and Milton Berle were dating at that time.

Future time travellers (1)

TrixX (187353) | more than 6 years ago | (#23322584)

Traveling to the past, of course.

the lights are coming up all over now (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23322014)

even the 'difference' between day & night may be effected. see you on the other side of it? let yOUR conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071229/ap_on_sc/ye_climate_records;_ylt=A0WTcVgednZHP2gB9wms0NUE
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080108/ts_alt_afp/ushealthfrancemortality;_ylt=A9G_RngbRIVHsYAAfCas0NUE
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying

dictator style micro management has never worked (for very long). it's an illness. tie that with life0cidal aggression & softwar gangster style bullying, & what do we have? a greed/fear/ego based recipe for disaster. meanwhile, you can help to stop the bleeding (loss of life & limb);

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/vermont.banning.bush.ap/index.html

the bleeding must be stopped before any healing can begin. jailing a couple of corepirate nazi hired goons would send a clear message to the rest of the world from US. any truthful look at the 'scorecard' would reveal that we are a society in decline/deep doo-doo, despite all of the scriptdead pr ?firm? generated drum beating & flag waving propaganda that we are constantly bombarded with. is it time to get real yet? please consider carefully ALL of yOUR other 'options'. the creators will prevail. as it has always been.

corepirate nazi execrable costs outweigh benefits
(Score:-)mynuts won, the king is a fink)
by ourselves on everyday 24/7

as there are no benefits, just more&more death/debt & disruption. fortunately there's an 'army' of light bringers, coming yOUR way. the little ones/innocents must/will be protected. after the big flash, ALL of yOUR imaginary 'borders' may blur a bit? for each of the creators' innocents harmed in any way, there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/us, as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile, will not be available. 'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet, & by your behaviors. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi glowbull warmongering execrable. some of US should consider ourselves somewhat fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate. it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc.... as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis. concern about the course of events that will occur should the life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order. 'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

meanwhile, the life0cidal philistines continue on their path of death, debt, & disruption for most of US. gov. bush denies health care for the little ones;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/bush.veto/index.html

whilst demanding/extorting billions to paint more targets on the bigger kids;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/12/bush.war.funding/index.html

& pretending that it isn't happening here;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3086937.ece
all is not lost/forgotten/forgiven

(yOUR elected) president al gore (deciding not to wait for the much anticipated 'lonesome al answers yOUR questions' interview here on /.) continues to attempt to shed some light on yOUR foibles. talk about reverse polarity;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3046116.ece

Not an especially unique theory. (3, Insightful)

Lord Graga (696091) | more than 6 years ago | (#23322022)

I did a math project in university on lagrangian points and read what I could find on the net - as far as I remember, there is a similar theory that our moon was formed in one of the Earth's lagrangian points, and grew bigger with asteroid crashes (or something similar), until it grew so big that the lagrangian points couldn't hold it any more, and it flew into orbit with earth. Anyhow, this is purely speculation, but if you look closely enough into our universe, you might be able to find places where this is happening right now.

Moons? Nomeclature? (4, Insightful)

sithkhan (536425) | more than 6 years ago | (#23322080)

Let me see if I have this straight - Pluto is NOT a planet, because it falls beneath some arbitrary threshold for 'planet', but ANY object orbiting a planet is automagically a moon?

I have no problem with the theory, but if objects 'tens of kilometers' across are moons, then Pluto is surely a planet.

And don't call me Shirley.

Re:Moons? Nomeclature? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23322132)

No no - the correct, well known, astronomical nomeclature is "moonlets" ;-)

Btw, Pluto is, of course, a planetlet...

Mod Parent Clueless (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23322256)

Dude, there are hundreds, if not thousands of Pluto sized planetoids. Pluto was discovered first of those objects, and mistakenly thought to be very unique.

Planets are the huge and few main satellites of the sun. It's a category defined entirely by scarcity. There are only 8. Not 8000. Pluto can't be a planet and the hundreds or thousands of larger objects not be, but the fact that there were thousands of similar objects wasn't discovered until after Pluto was added to the planet list. It's just an act of intellectual honesty to note that Pluto is only unique historically for being seen early. But now we know: It's not a major satellite sufficient to be in the planet category. You call this arbitrary, but it's as unarbitrary as anything could be.

What the hell does this have to do with how big a moon is? Any object orbiting a planet is automatically a satellite, any satellite that is naturally occurring is automatically a moon (by some definitions, anyway). Perhaps you should invest in a good dictionary. They are free on the internet.

Thank goodness we don't have to rely on your inane concepts of 'fairness' in celestial bodies for our language needs.

Re:Mod Parent Clueless (1)

edittard (805475) | more than 6 years ago | (#23322672)

and mistakenly thought to be very unique.
In fact, as any fule kno, it is only slightly unique and even then only on odd numbered Thursdays.

Re:Mod Parent Clueless (0)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 6 years ago | (#23323264)

Planets are the huge and few main satellites of the sun. It's a category defined entirely by scarcity. There are only 8. Not 8000.

Does this imply that when we inevitably discover Earth-sized objects in the Kuiper Belt (and/or Oort Cloud) that we will have to reclassify the Earth as "not a Planet"?

Or, for that matter, if we locate several hundred Oort Cloud objects with Neptune's mass, would we then say that the Sun has only THREE planets?

Somehow, I suspect not. That whole "planet/minor planet" crap was done because some astronomers can't stand the idea that they might have to add more "planets" to the list for our Solar System, not because of any particular scientific validity of the idea.

Re:Mod Parent Clueless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23323496)

Yeah, fuck classifying things. Lets just have thousands of planets in the solar system, we can even throw in all of the moons and make them planets too. How about the sun? It's a round thing floating in space, let's make that a planet too.

Re:Moons? Nomeclature? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23323256)

Lets see... why pluto isn't a planet.

Back to the start! The first planets were known for being stars that moved in relation to all the other stars. So only the visible planets were known and named (mercury, venus, mars, jupiter, saturn). Then came telescopes, and uranus was eventually spotted. Then came mathmatics advanced enough to calculate tiny orbital variations, and to explain them all, scientists fround they needed another large body... so they searched about where they expected one to be and found neptune. But it was slightly wrong, in size and placement, so they searched again... and found pluto. That was the end of it for a while.

But as telescopes grew more advanced, the kuiper belt was found. This belt outside the orbit of pluto contains hundreds of objects as large and larger then pluto. The definition of planet hadn't really been an issue before... it was just "big thing around going around the sun." But now the question had to come... exactly *how* big. Before it was pretty obvious... there were asteroids that were kilometers across, and planets that were hundreds of thousands of kilometers across. But the kuiper belt contained everything in between.

And so after endless arguing, the IAU finally met to decide the definition. They could have said "mercury, venus, earth, mars, jupiter, saturn, uranus, neptue, pluto" but that would just delay the issue until we could see rocky planets around other stars, really. And so they decided that a planet was "a body that orbits the Sun, is massive enough to be rounded by its own gravity, and has cleared its neighbouring region of planetesimals." And it turns out pluto doesn't qualify. Its orbit is odd and isn't cleared of planetesimals.

Re:Moons? Nomeclature? (3, Interesting)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 6 years ago | (#23323370)

Let me see if I have this straight - Pluto is NOT a planet, because it falls beneath some arbitrary threshold for 'planet', but ANY object orbiting a planet is automagically a moon?

Apparentely so - the 63 Moons of Jupiter [wikipedia.org] include the 1 km in diameter 2003 J 9 [wikipedia.org] .

I find it odd that people can't cope with there being hundreds of planets, and need some arbitrary distinction between "planet" and "natural satellite of the Sun", but 240 moons in the solar system is considered fine.

It's also strange that a body orbiting a dwarf planet is still considered a moon, and not a "dwarf moon"...

USA = Jail for smoking flowers and selling seeds (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23322148)

The companies who sell alcohol don't want marijuana legal, neither does the DEA or other law enforcement agencies which would lose the millions or billions of dollars of funding. And look at all of those properties and cars which peaceful marijuana smokers and growers would retain rather than have seized for growing a flowering weed.

Marijuana remains illegal in the Land of the free because people remain apathetic, they fear their government, they are afraid to march and protest for fear they will be added to COPLINK (google it for info.) or some other database and be fingered for something.

WE THE PEOPLE and Land of the free are nothing now, the government rules the U.S., and the fight for marijuanas legalization is one small proof.

Plenty of people take garlic or other herbs for medicinal reasons, and cook with them and use them for other reasons too. But how many people say, Medical garlic? even when it has medical uses? We shouldnt have to legalize medical marijuana, we should legalize MARIJUANA. It makes no difference why or how its used, as long as the user isnt harming anyone else.

Play some Bill Hicks videos (see YouTube) and open your eyes.

You are being played. The war on drugs is a joke which benefits big Pharma, DEA, and other involved governmental forces of oppression. Marijuana remains schedule I with no medical beneifts which is a crock of shit!

How can you stand for this? Why do you continue to allow the federal government to control your life?

Why does alcohol and tobacco remain legal but marijuana illegal?

Does NORML even matter anymore, or is their slow progress in legalizing marijuana just proof they were infiltrated and scuttled by law enforcement long ago and rendered ineffective? After all, they failed to support Jack Herers collection of signatures this year for the voters to eventually vote in California to legalize marijuana for any use and provide amnesty to those arrested for its use or possession. I thought NORML was *for* marijuanas legalization, yet they failed to back Jack Herers efforts, which raises a red flag in my opinion.

Some painkillers, like Opiate derivitive pain killers which are prescription only have liver-destroying additives included to discourage so-called abuse. These are also addictive and are big money makers for big Pharma and others who enforce their use. Big Pharma are the real drug dealers in America, with one organization protecting them.

Google LEAP, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, and check Google News for marijuana, and youll see story after story about marijuana growers being busted, the war against marijuana IS BIG BUSINESS FOR THE GOVERNMENT and WE THE PEOPLE lose!

Its all about a control of your perception, marijuana allows for a change of perception, along with some other schedule I drugs. They want to control what you think, and remain rich off your misery.

Asstronomically Speaking (4, Funny)

hyades1 (1149581) | more than 6 years ago | (#23322264)

This "many moons" phenomenon was occasionally seen at my university quite some time in the past. The moons appeared as pale, bifurcated disks in the darkness around the president's residence, often after the end of final exams.

time scale is way off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23322616)

not possible. Ignore him.
The earth is only 6008 years old

I'm not sure about this (1)

failedlogic (627314) | more than 6 years ago | (#23322684)

I think the author may have been the victim of a multiple moon drive by - front and rear passenger seat. Thus the earth has more than one moon - at least according to the author.

Earth's 2nd Moon (1)

Whiteox (919863) | more than 6 years ago | (#23322826)

But Earth DOES have a 2nd moon. It is called Anoolios, a dark fragment and has already been documented from Persian folk history.
Just because NASA can't find it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist!

That's no moon (1)

funkboy (71672) | more than 6 years ago | (#23323000)

It's a space station...

I knew it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23323012)

Beast Wars was right all along. And that second moon they refer too was nothing more than a giant weapon in the sky operated by the aliens that ran experiments on this planet. and it didn't crash into the moon, it was destroyed by Optimus Primal. seesh can't our scientists get their facts straight anymore...

Explains Vaalbara & lunar maria (1)

redelm (54142) | more than 6 years ago | (#23323160)

Why not smaller later impacts? The big one would probably have liquified (basalt flows) the entire surfaces. Smaller, later impacts from trojans could have formed larger features (lunar maria) or fissured eather's supercontinents.

A good time was not had by all :)

Explains the variety of cheeses then (2, Funny)

line-bundle (235965) | more than 6 years ago | (#23323174)

Cheddar, Gouda, Parmesan etc..

The swiss got to the other moons before NASA and mined them clean.

I stand by my theory.

Don't forget Earth's other moon - Cruithne (3, Informative)

KlomDark (6370) | more than 6 years ago | (#23323252)

They discovered Cruithne [messagebase.net] , orbiting the Earth in a weird 770 year orbit, back around 1999.

Time traveler tip #234 (3, Funny)

WheresMyDingo (659258) | more than 6 years ago | (#23323536)

234) When traveling back in time to when the Earth had many moons, using the phrase "not in many moons" to describe the passage of time will only get you blank stares and instantly label you as an outsider (assuming you've managed to blend in with the local environment otherwise).

th1s FP for GNAA! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23323650)

to say there have Hubbard 4nd Mike

Zecharia Sitchen anyone? (1)

phresh (1285616) | more than 6 years ago | (#23323698)

This is somewhat in line with what Zecharia Sitchen has been translating from Sumerian tablets for decades (but a bit off, surprise surprise). Check out his first major book in a series on the subject - 'The Twelfth Planet' - http://www.amazon.com/Twelfth-Planet-Book-Earth-Chronicles/dp/0061379131 [amazon.com]

The books read a bit like scripture, so it's not exactly an easy read but it is fascinating nonetheless. I stumbled onto them as reference in another book called 'Everything You Know is Wrong' by Lloyd Pye. If this stuff interests you I highly recommend you see what both of these guys have to say about it all. It all ties into Intervention Theory, as I understand and accept it, based loosely on what Pye has summarized, much of that basis being on what Sitchen has translated. His site - www.lloydpye.com - is very informative. There are all kinds of easily accessible slide shows presenting the information in an easy to understand way. I'd say his writings are a lot more accessible, I'm not great at finishing books and that's one I couldn't put down.

I've heard before that our moon seems to be of a more ancient origin than our planet. According to the Sumerian tablets, and this was the first civilization on Earth we are aware of that had a written language - cuneiform, and via Sitchen's translations of their tablets and cylinder seals: a rogue planet, which they called Nibiru, came into our system billions of years ago ago and it's moon collided with what they called Tiamat, our planet's predecessor. Nibiru was pulled into the orbit of our sun and has remained on a large elliptical orbit of it, ever since. There were subsequent collisions, that I can't recall the order of exactly, and Tiamat was broken when Nibiru, itself, eventually collided with it. The fractured pieces resulted in comets and an asteroid belt and the remaining part of the planet, still solidifying, became Earth and ended up with an alien moon. Our planet is truely an anomaly in it's geological form (as far as we know), it shows the scars of that ancient collision. Another interesting tidbit, the Sumerians also accurately described Uranus and Neptune as gassy and blue, and as twins. We discovered them in the 20th century and some people have realized they were right about them (this has some implications) but the Sumerian writings still reside inthe myth pile, if you will, as far as mainstream science goes.

If you you've read up on some of the ideas as to what the pending end of this age really means, physically, to the planet, you'll find one of the larger schools of thought on it involves the so-called Planet-X and the possible effects on Earth that a large planet passing nearby it could have. Sitchen says the Sumerians estimated Nibiru's orbit to be about 3,600 of our years. That is all pretty controversial stuff, it's certainly nicer to think we'll just be seeing the stars' constellations will simply be in a different place. Regardless of whether the end of age should be suspected as catastrophic, there is evidence that suggests there is a cycle of catastrophic events on this planet. I do not desire to be the bearer of bad news or thought to be a doomsayer, I just find it relevant, worth discussing, and worth pointing at for other people who might be interested. If you read up on the Sumerian 'Mythology' per Mr. Sitchen, you'll see no shortage of similarities to what it says and what the bible says, and it may help you understand better how things have come to be as they are, with our current dogma of science and religion (not to say that they say the same thing exactly, they just both seem to speak of the same events and some of the same characters, be it with different, yet often similar names). You can get a good and brief summary on Mr. Pye's site, though it will no doubt be a lot to process and that's always hard when it's hard to believe what you're trying to process in the first place. I learned about it all the slow and easy way and that may be best for some people.

Of course I don't think these guys have all the answers, but if you read into it, and have read into much else, you'll likely agree that the amount of sense it all makes is quite compelling. It can explain a lot of the great mysteries we face, in a logical way, and that in itself makes it worth noting to me. Personally, I have hope that science will one day encompass spirituality, that that is possible, and all of this stuff doesn't offer much in that regard. I don't consider that any reason to dismiss it, just reason to realize it's not the whole story, or perhaps these things can and do exist and occur independently. Or maybe we'll never know if they mentioned these things or not.

If I might add a bit to this, for whatever it is worth. I feel I am one of the few who consider archaeological finds and sites to be one of the biggest cons of what has gone on in Iraq. Iraq is where Sumer was. Shortly after the start of the 'war' in 2003, insurgent forces were eventually cleared out of the National Museum of Iraq. Shorty after that, all sorts of looting occurred at the museum. From the wikipedia article on the museum, last paragraph of the "Damage and losses during 2003 war" section:

The third occurrence of theft was in the underground storage rooms, where evidence pointed to an inside job. The thieves attempted to steal the most easily transportable objects, which had been intentionally stored in the most remote location possible. Of the four rooms, the only portion disturbed was a single corner in the furthest room, where cabinets contained 100 small boxes containing cylinder seals, beads, and jewelry. Evidence indicated that the thieves possessed keys to the cabinets but dropped them in the dark. Instead, they stole 10,000 small objects that were lying in plastic boxes on the floor. Of them, nearly 2,500 have been recovered.
These items were likely the Sumerian artifacts I read about being lost, via Sitchen's site. Supposedly these included subjects on energy, perhaps advanced energy. Not that anyone in control in this world would want to keep that sort of information to themselves, thankfully.

Most of my adult life I've sought after answers to big questions. Sometimes you have to look to the extremes to get a different side of things and that is often unfortunate but it isn't beyond the realm of possibilty that you may find some truth in just about anything, if you're willing to look for it and think about it all in a critical way. So, if you're interested in some compelling ideas as to who we are, where we came from and how and why we came into existance, well I'll just say that this stuff regarding the forming of our solar system, as it is, is just the beginning of what Sitchen can tell us about what the Sumerians recorded so carefully, and apparently with the trials of time in mind, for people like us to be able to learn from.

Pardon my long-keyboardedness.
Cheers,
-phresh

/long time reader and AC poster, first time not.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>