Moon closest to Earth in 19 years

chronology
chronology: March 19th (today), sees the Moon closest to the Earth than it has been for 19 years. But despite being closest, it will not look much different to most Wireclubbers around the world. As the technology available to Amateur Astronomers is increasing every year in providing closer and clearer images of Space, some Amateurs are claiming to see activity on and around the Moon. N.A.S.A. say this is not due to 'Aliens', it is simply shadows drifting across the Moon from passing objects such as Asteroids.
13 years ago Report
0
LiptonCambell
LiptonCambell: Still, cool.
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: chronology's accurate that tonight, March 19, will have what is called a "supermoon," a full moon much closer to earth than is typical (which is pretty cool), but he got the year since the last one wrong. It was actually on March 8, 1993, eighteen, not nineteen years ago.

But his little story about NASA, amateur astronomers, and shadows on the moon from passing asteroids is, as usual, apparently made up.

Google searches on ...

~ nasa activity on moon
~ nasa shadows moon
~ nasa amateur astronmers claim activity moon
~ nasa aliens moon
~ nasa asteroids moon
~ nasa asteroid shadow moon

... turn up nothing resembling his claim.

chronology, when you make claims like this, as you often do, why is it that you never say where your information comes from?
13 years ago Report
0
KrAsH
KrAsH: Because saying his source's comes out of his ass would make him look like a dickhead..

Oh wait,he already is a dickhead..
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: Well, to be fair, he at least got ONE fact right in his post. March 19 was the correct date of the supermoon.

I'm assuming his methodology for this post went something like this:

Hmm ... there a "supermoon" tonight ... hmm ... interesting. Let's see ... hmm ... what can I add to this to give it a little more pizazz, dress it up a little bit? ... Oh! I know! I got it! Amateur astronomers making claims of moon aliens or something. Yeah! That'll sound good!

*types it up, making a typo or actual error on the amount of time since the last supermoon*
13 years ago Report
0
hellbhoy
hellbhoy: Well there ya go eh,now we know why the Japs reactor is FUBARRED.Loony activity erm I mean Lunar activity causing tectonic shift and huge earthquake followed by Tsu-nami.Glad I don't live near the San Andreas fault line now ? California maybe next up for for some remodeling or landscaping or Hawaii may become a continent.
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: hellbhoy, take a look at this Forum thread, please:

http://www.wireclub.com/Forums/ViewTopic.aspx?ForumId=772986&ParentId=1207187&Replied=76

As for your comments, were they serious, or facetious? I can't tell ...

By the way, I live very close to the San Andreas Fault.
13 years ago Report
0
hellbhoy
hellbhoy: Well I don't take offence to being called a Brit or any other name even though I live in Scotland which is a separate country so I'm a Scot.I couldn't be bothered typing in "Japanese" and the few Japanese I know don't get shirty when I say Japs as I don't bother when they say Scots.Terms of endearment amongst friends and sometimes PC correctness just goes too far.I'm sure you have many a few choice words you call us so called Brits and a few I'd laugh at too.

Sorry you live in a zone you know will at some point have an earthquake,I hope you don't have that misfortune.Stated a fact the moons gravity could affect unstable zones.
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: The "Japs/Brits" stuff is off topic, so I won't to any further into it here. That other thread is the place to discuss it, and I hope you left a comment there, where I'd love to go further with it. But I felt compelled to mention it to you.

Hellbhoy says:
"Sorry you live in a zone you know will at some point have an earthquake,I hope you don't have that misfortune."

It's a very nice place to live. I'm quite fortunate to live here. We're actually far more concerned about the Hayward Fault, which runs alongside the San Andreas for a stretch. We're used to it. We'll deal with it. At least non of the faults around here are going to cause tsunamis. They're not the kind of faults that do that.

"Stated a fact the moons gravity could affect unstable zones."

Not a fact. That's a myth. The moon's gravity isn't nearly strong enough to cause earthquakes. Earthquakes are caused by tectonic plates shifting around on the Earth's mantle, not the moon's gravity. The moon does, of course, pull on the water in the Earth's oceans, causing tides. But there are two reasons that it can't cause earthquakes:

~ The tectonic plates are simply far more massive than the water pulled on as lunar tides. They're big and they're heavy. The moon's gravity simply isn't strong enough to cause an earthquake.

~ Water has low viscosity. It flexes easily, so the moon's gravity pulling on it has dramatic effects, but it's only pulling directly on a little bit of that water at any particular time as Earth spins on its axis. That water pulls away from the rest of the water, bulging up as tides. Tectonic plates are solid, not viscous. The moon can't just pull on a little of it without also pulling on a great deal more of it.

Another thing to consider is that earthquakes occur randomly in time. There are so many earthquakes that discerning patterns in time would be very easy. And if the moon had an effect, it would be easy to discern a cause/effect relation based on the relative positions of Earth and the Moon. There are no patterns to be discerned.

The moon has enough gravitational effects to cause only tiny shifts in certain kinds of thrust-faults, but not nearly enough to cause the massive movement needed to result in destructive earthquakes.

Right now there are many people all stating that the "supermoon" full moon caused the earthquake/tsunami near Japan. That shouldn't be surprising. So the internet is full of chatter about it. And of course, the internet is currently full of data debunking that unfactual "fact," and debunking moon-caused earthquakes, in general.

Poke around. You won't find any credible source saying that the moon causes earthquakes. You will, of course, find lots of claims to that effect in the kinds of websites that also talk about UFOs, secret government anti-gravity vehicles, etc.
13 years ago Report
0
hellbhoy
hellbhoy: Sits Have you ever heard of an expression the straw that broke the camels back or the butterfly effect ?.

Like you said I do know the moon affects water and the closer the moon is the more water gets moved,so of there is a very low tide there is less pressure on a land mass and the land may rise millimetres and when the tide comes in very high there is enough movement and pressure to sink the land enough so a fault line could move a centimetre and this could cause all sorts of knock on effects below ground triggering a massive earthquake.And what makes you all so knowing it wasn't because the moons gravity had anything to do with it.The earthquake definitely would have happened and did the moons influence make it happen earlier ?.Incase you did not know,the earths mantle is pliable to a certain degree under weight as it is not completely rigid.Tectonic plates are floating land masses on the earths crust.So in theory the moon could have triggered the earthquake simply by moving a vast amount of water back and forth with a minute rocking motion.
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: Hellbhoy says:
"Have you ever heard of an expression the straw that broke the camels back or the butterfly effect ?.

Yes, of course. The "straw" homily simply doesn't apply here, as I've explained. The physical forces involved just aren't great enough. The "butterfly effect" isn't geology, it's philosophy, or perhaps, at best, abstract mathematics (probably not). If you're going to use either one of those concepts, you might as well apply it to the idea of someone jumping up and down causing an earthquake. If you said, "No, jumping up and down isn't enough force to cause it" you'd be making the same argument I'm making about the moon.

hellbhoy says:
"Like you said I do know the moon affects water and the closer the moon is the more water gets moved"

Yes, and no. The changing distance between the moon and earth has much less to do with the tides than you're assuming. It has a distinct and measureable effect, but it's not the primary effect, and it certainly doesn't cause earthquakes.

Here's the wiki link that describes the mechanics of tides in detail:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide

hellbhoy says:
"so of there is a very low tide there is less pressure on a land mass and the land may rise millimetres and when the tide comes in very high there is enough movement and pressure to sink the land enough so a fault line could move a centimetre and this could cause all sorts of knock on effects below ground triggering a massive earthquake."

I don't think so. If you can cite a credible referece confirming that, I'll be happy to concede your point, and pronounce myself to have been wrong.

hellbhoy says:
"And what makes you all so knowing it wasn't because the moons gravity had anything to do with it. The earthquake definitely would have happened and did the moons influence make it happen earlier ?."

I'm not "all knowing." I just know what I research. Before I made any of these replies, I went digging to see what I could find. I could find nothing to back up your claim that the moon causes earthquakes. I found plenty to refute that.
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: Here's one source, the "Skeptic's Dictionary":

http://www.skepdic.com/fullmoon.html

Misconceptions about such things as the moon's effect on tides have contributed to lunar mythology. Many people seem to think that since the moon affects the ocean's tides, it must be so powerful that it affects the human body as well. The lunar force is actually a very weak tidal force. A mother holding her child "will exert 12 million times as much tidal force on her child as the moon" (Kelly et al., 1996: 25). Astronomer George O. Abell claims that a mosquito would exert more gravitational pull on your arm than the moon would (Abell 1979). Despite these physical facts, there is still widespread belief that the moon can cause earthquakes.* It doesn't; nor does the sun, which exerts much less tidal force on the earth than the moon.

The fact that the human body is mostly water largely contributes to the notion that the moon should have a powerful effect on the human body and therefore an effect on behavior. It is claimed by many that the earth and the human body both are 80% water. This is false. Eighty percent of the surface of the earth is water. Furthermore, the moon only affects unbounded bodies of water, while the water in the human body is bounded.

Also, the tidal force of the moon on the earth depends on its distance from earth, not its phase. Whereas the synodic period is 29.53 days, it takes 27.5 days for the moon to move in its elliptical orbit from perigee to perigee (or apogee to apogee). Perigee (when the moon is closest to earth) "can occur at any phase of the synodic cycle" (Kelly et al. 1990: 989). Higher tides do occur at new and full moons, but not because the moon's gravitational pull is stronger at those times. Rather, the tides are higher then because "the sun, earth, and moon are in a line and the tidal force of the sun joins that of the moon at those times to produce higher tides" (ibid.: 989).

Many of the misconceptions about the moon's gravitational effect on the tides, as well as several other lunar misconceptions, seem to have been generated by Arnold Lieber in The Lunar Effect (1978), republished in 1996 as How the Moon Affects You. In The Lunar Effect, Lieber incorrectly predicted a catastrophic earthquake would hit California in 1982 due to the coincidental alignment of the moon and planets. Undeterred by the fact that no such earthquake had occurred, Lieber did not admit his error in the later book. In fact, he repeated his belief about the dangers of planet alignments and wrote that they "may trigger another great California earthquake." This time he didn't predict when.

hellbhoy says:
"Incase you did not know,the earths mantle is pliable to a certain degree under weight as it is not completely rigid.Tectonic plates are floating land masses on the earths crust."

Of course I know that. I'm wasn't arguing against that fact. Only that the moon's gravitaional pull isn't nearly strong enought to do what you say it does: move tectonic plates enought to cause earthquakes.

hellbhoy:
"So in theory the moon could have triggered the earthquake simply by moving a vast amount of water back and forth with a minute rocking motion."

Not a theory in the scientific sense. In the colloquial sense, of course. But it would be an incorrect theory.

If you think I'm wrong, simply provide a credible source of information to prove me so. Then I'll be happy to admit I was wrong.

Here's a suggestion:

Go to the official USGS website. They are the single best authority on earthquakes that exists anywhere. They're the best experts in the world. Search their (very interesting!) website for information about moon-caused earthquakes. You won't find it. You won't find it because it's a myth, and they provide information on science, not myths.
13 years ago Report
0
hellbhoy
hellbhoy: Ha ha Sits I'm beginning to like our banter.

Scientific fact here how close does the moon have to be to affect the earth any way ? centimetres and no scientist will discredit it.There is a direct correlation on the moons affect on the earth by proximity,we read this as tidal shifts because we can convert the data to tell us so.I have seen the full moon recently and it looks bigger for sure.The moons influence on the shape of the landscapes on earth ? gets my vote by water.Also on this subject is the moons closest proximity caused by the lack of solar activity in ten years ?.Thought I'd throw that in the mix ha ha.
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: hellbhoy says:
"Ha ha Sits I'm beginning to like our banter."

"Our banter" is getting repetitive and tedious. You never answer direct questions directly.

hellbhoy says:
"Scientific fact here how close does the moon have to be to affect the earth any way ? centimetres and no scientist will discredit it."

That "fact" ... or question ... whatever it is makes no sense, logically, grammatically, or otherwise. The best I can do is to make a guess at what you were trying to state ... ask ... whatever ...

I have never said that the moon has no effect upon the earth. I have only said (repetitively) that the moon has no SIGNIFICANT effect upon tectonic plates and does not cause earthquakes. PERIOD.

hellbhoy:
"There is a direct correlation on the moons affect on the earth by proximity"

To repeat: yes, there "is a direct correlation on the moons affect on the earth by proximity." But on the oceans, causing tides, not on tectonic plates. PERIOD.

hellbhoy says:
"we read this as tidal shifts because we can convert the data to tell us so."

That was meaningless fluff. It had a sort of quality to it like New Agers use on the fluffy meaningless stuff they talk about.

hellbhoy says:
"I have seen the full moon recently and it looks bigger for sure."

Indeed you did. Periodically, the mechanics of the orbit of the moon, influence by both Earth and the Sun, will be such to bring the moon a little closer to Earth. The apparent size of that full moon was 14 percent larger, and over a third brighter.

But that had no significant effect on the tectonic plates. PERIOD.

The moons influence on the shape of the landscapes on earth ?

No. The moon has absolutely no influence upon the topography (landscapes) of Earth. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Zero. The fact that you even suggest shows what little grasp you have of the science involved in these things.

hellbhoy says:
"gets my vote by water."

I have no idea what that means (but it can't mean much).

hellbhoy says:
"Also on this subject is the moons closest proximity caused by the lack of solar activity in ten years ?.

No. The mechanics of the moon's orbit around earth is absolutely, totally, completely, 100 percent unrelated to solar activity, and again, that you'd even suggest it reveals a complete lack of understanding of the science involved in these things.

I'm not sure how the education system works where you live, but if you were an American, I would suggest you find a nearby Junior College, enroll in a class in Beginning Astronomy and/or Physics, and educate yourself in these things.

I "thought I'd throw THAT in the mix ha ha."
13 years ago Report
0
hellbhoy
hellbhoy: Sits are you calling me thick or uneducated or insulting us Brits generally and slurring me ?.

What makes you such an expert on the subject ?.

Are you dismissing any kind of theory or fact of the moons influence on the Earth is anything other than moving some water and that's that ?.

Water has weight 1 litre = 1 kilogram,add that to the moons closest orbit in 19 years affecting the moons tidal influence at low and high tides.That is a staggering amount of weight and volume of water being displaced.Now place the extra amount of weight or volume of water on a major fault line and also a lower tide ?.Now will you still say that there is no possibility of the moons influence on water affecting a tectonic plate fault line.
13 years ago Report
0
hairytoes
hairytoes: hell boy, you spawn of satan. stop talkin barry white.
13 years ago Report
0
hellbhoy
hellbhoy: Hairytoes we already know the full moon has affected you,shave your feet you werewolf dude.
13 years ago Report
0
LiptonCambell
LiptonCambell: Lol I love how it how Hell ignores everything you say 60, cause he feels his ideas are true despite there being zero evidence behind it- to the point of taking it personally. If he was truly interested in the topic, he wouldn't shrug his shoulders and ignore the scientific work of, lets be honest here, over 3000 years of study on the moon.
13 years ago Report
0
hellbhoy
hellbhoy: HOWWWWWWWWWWLLLLLLLLLLL
13 years ago Report
0
hellbhoy
hellbhoy: Yeh Lipton I may have taken a bit personally SORRY .

But it was like someone saying in insult and has no affect on the person who received it because it was only words.

I'll start a new kettle of fish then on the moons closest proximity now !.
Does the moons new closest orbit shine more light on the Earth and cause a minor amount of global warming and should we be doing something to keep the moon in a complete stable orbit ?.
13 years ago Report
0
LiptonCambell
LiptonCambell: Its my understanding that the moon doesn't act as a mirror and reflect the light off the moon- it rather acts like a lightbulb, and while we visibly see the moon better on a night of full moon, its not reflecting the solar rays.

Also, the moons been around for, like, billions of years- so its unlikely that its suddenly causing climate change....
13 years ago Report
0
hellbhoy
hellbhoy: Yeh your probably right there Lipton,I'm probably still barking at the moon.I do know light=heat but now remember a program that said the moon absorbs a lot of the suns harmful radiation as well.I wish Chronology hadn't started this thread now it's turning me into a lunar loony.
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: hellbhoy says:
"Are you dismissing any kind of theory or fact of the moons influence on the Earth is anything other than moving some water and that's that ?."

What I am dismissing is your premise that the moon causes earthquakes. You keep harping over and over and over again that the moon's gravity pulls on the tectonic plates and causes earthquakes. I will say that the moon's gravity pulls on the tectonic plates, but does NOT cause earthquakes. I have explained, ad nauseum, why. I have repeatedly addressed the various details you have included in your false theory. I've spent quite a bit of time and typing doing this. Yet rather than addressing any of that, you simply choose to ignore all of it in lieu of just repeating the same incorrect point over and over and over again as if repeating it will make it valid. You have simply chosen not to address any of the points I've made and references I've offered. I've been reasonable. You have not. At this point, my replies to repeated points are going to be pared down, and brief, as I don't have the same penchant for repetition you apparently do.

hellbhoy says
"Water has weight 1 litre = 1 kilogram,add that to the moons closest orbit in 19 years affecting the moons tidal influence at low and high tides.That is a staggering amount of weight and volume of water being displaced.Now place the extra amount of weight or volume of water on a major fault line and also a lower tide ?.Now will you still say that there is no possibility of the moons influence on water affecting a tectonic plate fault line.

Yes, I will still say that there is no possibility of the moon's influence on water affecting a tectonic plate fault line. Explanation for my saying that can be found in previous posts in this thread. I don’t wanna repeat it.
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: hellbhoy says (my emphasis added):
"Does the moons NEW CLOSEST ORBIT shine more light on the Earth and cause a minor amount of global warming"

This shows an incredible misunderstanding of the moon's orbit, the mechanics of that orbit, the way gravity works, and astronomy and physics in general. There is no "new closest orbit" of the moon. The moon is in the same basic orbit it's been in for billions of years. Its orbit is constantly changing ever-so-slightly, but this change is microscopic by astronomical standards. The constant change is so slight that it in a pragmatic sense, you can think of it as being absolutely unchanged during the entire time of human existence, and far beyond that.

You're thinking, so you say, that the orbit has changed and the "new" orbit brought it closer to earth. That's rubbish. The moon's orbit isn't perfectly circular. It's slightly oval shaped, elliptical is the correct word. This means that there are points in the moon's orbit where it is closer to Earth than other points. The Earth's orbit around the sun is like that as well. At times Earth comes slightly closer to the sun than at other times. And, of course, the sun's gravity is always pulling on the moon, just as it pulls on Earth. The way these three objects pull on each other causes the orbits to be ever-so-slightly misshapen, and not perfect ellipses. The moon and Earth ever-so-slightly waver off the perfect tracks of those ellipses. They go one way, come back and go the other way, and come back again over and over again

In a way, it's kind of like an auto going down the road. The driver is constantly making tiny corrections. As the auto goes ever-so-slightly to the left, the driver makes an ever-so-slight correction. Then the car goes slightly too far to the right, and again, the driver corrects. Even if the driver is skilled, if you could measure exactly where the track of that auto was, you'd measure those slight wavers to one side, then the other.

The moon's orbit and Earth's orbit are much like that, going just the tiniest bit off to one side, and then coming back the other way, over and over again in a very complex path. Although that path is complex, it can be calculated with extreme precision. And the moon and Earth NEVER deviate from that complex path. Not unless something astronomically cataclysmic occurs. We haven't had anything that cataclysmic happen in many millions of years. Even the huge meteor that killed of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago didn’t change those orbits to any significant degree.

Okay, try to stay with me. Earth's orbit wobbles a bit as it travels around the sun. Because of this, the sun's gravity causes wobbles in the moon's path around Earth too. Both of them are wobbling around a tiny bit in their orbits. This means that every now and then, the various wobbles in the paths of Earth and the moon will line up in such a way as happened on March 19. You are focusing on that alignment, the fact that it brought the moon slightly closer to Earth than at other times. But what you don’t seem to understand is that this is a normal occurrence. It's happened zillions of times in the past, and will continue to happen zillions of times in the future. In terms of things like earthquakes, it's insignificant. The most significant thing about it is that it makes for a nice large, pretty, bright, full moon, it makes for interesting mathematical analysis of the movements of the Earth and moon, and it makes ignorant loonies come out of the woodwork and start squawking about disasters, earthquakes, etc.
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: Despite Lipton's (hopefully) facetious remark about the moon being like a light bulb (it's not a hollow vacuum, and doesn't have an electrically charged glowing metal filament inside of it), the moon does, indeed, reflect the sun's light. It's not like a mirror, but rather like a white-painted wall. Enough light is reflected off of the moon for our human eyes to find useful at night. It does reflect a tiny bit of light in the infrared spectrum (heat), a measureable amount if you have the right instruments, but not anywhere near enough for you to feel on your skin, nor to effect things like climate.



hellbhoy says:
"and should we be doing something to keep the moon in a complete stable orbit ?."

(laughs hysterically)

Um ... What???? Jeezus!

As I said, the moon's orbit is stable. Very, VERY stable. It's in the same basic orbit it's been in for millions and millions of years. What the fw%y could humans do to change it even if it wasn't?

I apologize for being so brutal, but in light of your absurd idea that the moon suddenly has a "new" orbit, and asking if we should "be doing something to keep the moon in a complete stable orbit," I really don't think it's unreasonable of me to suggest again the same thing I've been suggesting repeatedly to you:

Go do some f*w#$%$ RESEARCH, dude. Read a few books. Take a beginning astronomy and/or physics class in school. But really, you should stop just repeating the same incorrect stuff as if doing that makes it valid.

Let me suggest a way to get started:

Google the word “Supermoon.” You’ll find a bunch of good sites, such as those offered by NASA and National Geographic, etc. See what they have to say.
13 years ago Report
0
hellbhoy
hellbhoy: Ha ha Sits you fell for moon global warming theory and I already retracted it after Lipton scalded me for it .

I do hate to drag on a tad Sits but last bite on the bone I've been chewing dude.Cause and effect ! tried to say it was the cause of extra water by tide that indirectly influenced and affected the tectonic plates by weight,gravity and not the moon directly and may have been the hair that broke the camels back even though the earthquake may have happened at a later date naturally.Do I have a winner if not FECK this thread even though my theory would fit in the conspiracy section ha ha.
13 years ago Report
0
Page: 123