New Moon "conspiracy." Lunar gravity is not 1/6th that of the Earth, but 64% and NASA is c

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Just a thought that came to mind ... if we cross the "neutral point" btw the Earth and Moon does that mean we're in the Romulan sphere of influence ?What I find fascinating is how .... hmmm .... fervently people of this ilk believe in, and will defend, this kind of conspiracy lunacy.&nbsp; You'd think that if you came to believe in such a thing (Moon is a populated&nbsp;alien spaceship with whom our leaders are in cahoots), you'd still recognize that it's a far out possibility; that there's still some chance you might be wrong and therefore temper your comments and rebuttals with a degree of caution.&nbsp; I can understand when RCH does his thing, he's caught on the ratwheel of "fame and fortune" () and so he has to continue spewing forth to keep in the limelight (and make a $$ or two).&nbsp; But as for rest of the anonymous masses ... I just don't get the fervor involved.&nbsp; <br />Posted by mee_n_mac</DIV></p><p>The OBGYN who delivered by daughter started out as&nbsp;a psychiatrist.&nbsp; But he left that field.&nbsp; His explanation was, " You can't help those people.&nbsp; They're crazy."<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Kalstang]

<p>Ok as I type this I am trying very hard not to continue laughing my butt off. This is a quote from&nbsp;that forum&nbsp;and quite frankly you will not beable to help BUT laugh. I will also provide the links to some videos that they gave if you really want to watch them. </p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>With special emphasis on the Bob Lazar saga - as only John can tell it - we cover the inconsistencies in the 911 theories and why as a world renowned pilot he is uniquely qualified to judge just what kind of planes, if <br />any, hit the World Trade Center (answer, none: John explains why they were holograms); why the moon's gravity may be as much as 64% that of the Earth's, and could retain a very thin atmosphere; how Ben Rich, the former Director of the Lockheed Skunk Works, was a Mossad agent; the location of the "new Area 51", called Sandia, deep within the Nevada desert; what really happened at Above Top Secret, an internet forum where he was attacked and which he has subsequently left... and much more.</DIV></p><p>The John is John Lear. </p><p>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1904583671241989001</p><p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj-HzHi3dF0&nbsp;</p><p>Now I haven't watched these videos yet, am kind of afraid to...Dieing of laughter isn't really my idea of a good way to die...though it comes close. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ffff00"><p><font color="#3366ff">I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer.</font> <br /><font color="#ff0000">"Imagination is more important then Knowledge" ~Albert Einstien~</font> <br /><font color="#cc99ff">Guns dont kill people. People kill people</font>.</p></font><p><font color="#ff6600">Solar System</font></p> </div>

 

[Smersh]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ok as I type this I am trying very hard not to continue laughing my butt off. This is a quote from&nbsp;that forum&nbsp;and quite frankly you will not beable to help BUT laugh. I will also provide the links to some videos that they gave if you really want to watch them. The John is John Lear. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1904583671241989001http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj-HzHi3dF0&nbsp;Now I haven't watched these videos yet, am kind of afraid to...Dieing of laughter isn't really my idea of a good way to die...though it comes close. <br /> Posted by kalstang</DIV></p><p>I haven't watched those videos either. But may do when I get a chance. I certainly don't buy into all that is being said over at OM about 9/11 even though, as I said in the OBL thread there, I have always been highly suspicious of the official account. Holographic planes, etc? I think not. </p><p>Incidentally, there is a webpage <strong>here,</strong> in which John Lear is interviewed by Art Bell about UFO's, that starts out with some background information about him and his experience as a pilot.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <h1 style="margin:0pt;font-size:12px">----------------------------------------------------- </h1><p><font color="#800000"><em>Lady Nancy Astor: "Winston, if you were my husband, I'd poison your tea."<br />Churchill: "Nancy, if you were my wife, I'd drink it."</em></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Website / forums </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[Smersh]

<p>I just tried to send the following e-mail to Phil Plait:</p><p><font color="#008000"><strong>Dear Phil,<br /><br />Thought you may be interested, but not sure if debunking something that<br />looks like it's out of Monty Python is even worth doing.<br /><br />John Lear [son of Lear Jet inventor Bill Lear,] now believes that the<br />farside of the Moon has a breathable atmosphere with lakes, rivers,<br />forests, snow-capped mountains and life as we know it here on Earth. And a<br />lot of people are believing him, it seems.<br /><br />Webpage here:<br />http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/02files/Case_for_Civilization_on_the_Moon.html<br /><br />Thread at Open Minds forum here:<br />http://lucianarchy.proboards21.com/?board=johnlear&action=display&thread=1633&page=1</strong><strong><br /><br />Cheers! And keep up the good work !!<br /><br />Kind regards,</strong> </font></p><p>Unfortunately, his e-mail address at&nbsp; <strong>badastro "at" badastronomy.com</strong>. [shown like that on his site to avoid spam bots] no longer works. I'm not a member at BAUT, so haven't posted on the message board, but they do have a thread on the go <strong>here.</strong></p><p>The thread is about the "mining operatons" on the Moon and so on, but I don't think anyone has yet noticed this latest theory about the breathable atmosphere, snow-capped mountains, people, etc etc. </p><p>If anyone here knows of a way of getting a message through to Phil about this, maybe he would like to add it to his blog perhaps. &nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <h1 style="margin:0pt;font-size:12px">----------------------------------------------------- </h1><p><font color="#800000"><em>Lady Nancy Astor: "Winston, if you were my husband, I'd poison your tea."<br />Churchill: "Nancy, if you were my wife, I'd drink it."</em></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Website / forums </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;If anyone here knows of a way of getting a message through to Phil about this, maybe he would like to add it to his blog perhaps. &nbsp; <br />Posted by <strong>Smersh</strong></DIV><br /><br />I doubt Phil will waste his time. Mr Lear also believes the Moon has a soul catcher that captures human souls, when we die, to be recycled.&nbsp; Also he believes the Earth is hollow (to some degree) and reptilian aliens live there. Where would Phil start ?&nbsp;&nbsp; ... end ??&nbsp; It would be more useful if Phil could determine what was really meant when Apollo 8 crossed the mystery point @ 55:38 into the mission. </p><p>WRT: the videos ... apparently Mr Lear is still PO'ed about getting banned at ATS, which is now apparently a&nbsp;CIA front.&nbsp; <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-sealed.gif" border="0" alt="Sealed" title="Sealed" />&nbsp;</p><p>EDIT: Here's a YouTube video that relates to the original topic, about 5 mins in. Alas Mr Lear gloats in one video (Part 1) that he debated (and won) with Jim Oberg of NASA on this point (neutral point)&nbsp;and that he'd recall that debate in this video.&nbsp; He doesn't.&nbsp; This part 4 interview doesn't add much but if you want (?!?) to listen to what Mr Lear has to say .....</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

<p>Just to get back to the OP .... (in case Smersh or anyone still cares)</p><p>I note that Mr Lear opens his arguments (in the referenced thread over at OM) with an endorsement of Ms Spolter and her book.&nbsp; However, as I mentioned in passing earlier, she doesn't seem to agree with Mr Lear's opinion that the Moon's surface gravity is 64% of the Earths.&nbsp; See here&nbsp;at Mr Lear's own website. It would seem Mr Lear likes to use Ms Spolter's work to disprove Newton but conviently ignores that she doesn't validate his theory. Ms Spolter doesn't think gravity depends on mass whereas Mr Lear has stated: (bolding mine)</p><p><em><font size="2" color="#0000ff">"</font></em><em><font size="2" color="#0000ff">We are using the Bullialdus/Newton Law of Inverse Square.<br /><br />The inverse-square law (Bullialdus/Newton) is any physical law stating that some physical quantity or strength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them, specifically, the gravitational attraction between two massive objects, <strong>in additional to being directly proportional to the product of their masses</strong>, is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them."</font></em></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>If Mr Lear doesn't believe that F=mA so far as gravity goes, I'd ask if he believes that equation if I were to push a block on a sheet of ice ?&nbsp; If he does believe in F=mA then I'm back to asking about the forces on 2 rocks dropped here on Earth (or on the Moon).&nbsp; If one rock weighs (shhhh)&nbsp;twice as much as the other but falls in the same time, at the same rate, obviously the gravitational force acting on it is twice as large (as that on the small rock).&nbsp; So the gravitational force is at least proportional to the mass of the dropped objects ..... yes .... or is gravity in&nbsp;Mr Lear's world not a force ? </p><p>&nbsp;Lastly I'd ask Mr Lear if NASA is so controlled by the elite that wish to keep the Moon's gravity a secret, why do they publicly announce the "truth" about crossing the "neutral point" (for multiple Apollo missions) instead of announcing the crossing later in the flight, when the spacecraft is ~24,000 miles from the Moon, which would support their lie&nbsp;?&nbsp; I mean they might screw up once but multiple times ?&nbsp; Especially after vonBraun let the cat out of the bag ?? Sounds fishy to me ....</p><p>BTW did NASA use the words "neutral point" in all their communications ? What exactly did Mission Control say ? What did NASA announce ?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[Smersh]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Just to get back to the OP .... (in case Smersh or anyone still cares)I note that Mr Lear opens his arguments (in the referenced thread over at OM) with an endorsement of Ms Spolter and her book.&nbsp; However, as I mentioned in passing earlier, she doesn't seem to agree with Mr Lear's opinion that the Moon's surface gravity is 64% of the Earths.&nbsp; See here&nbsp;at Mr Lear's own website. It would seem Mr Lear likes to use Ms Spolter's work to disprove Newton but conviently ignores that she doesn't validate his theory. Ms Spolter doesn't think gravity depends on mass whereas Mr Lear has stated: (bolding mine)"We are using the Bullialdus/Newton Law of Inverse Square.The inverse-square law (Bullialdus/Newton) is any physical law stating that some physical quantity or strength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them, specifically, the gravitational attraction between two massive objects, in additional to being directly proportional to the product of their masses, is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them."&nbsp;If Mr Lear doesn't believe that F=mA so far as gravity goes, I'd ask if he believes that equation if I were to push a block on a sheet of ice ?&nbsp; If he does believe in F=mA then I'm back to asking about the forces on 2 rocks dropped here on Earth (or on the Moon).&nbsp; If one rock weighs (shhhh)&nbsp;twice as much as the other but falls in the same time, at the same rate, obviously the gravitational force acting on it is twice as large (as that on the small rock).&nbsp; So the gravitational force is at least proportional to the mass of the dropped objects ..... yes .... or is gravity in&nbsp;Mr Lear's world not a force ? &nbsp;Lastly I'd ask Mr Lear if NASA is so controlled by the elite that wish to keep the Moon's gravity a secret, why do they publicly announce the "truth" about crossing the "neutral point" (for multiple Apollo missions) instead of announcing the crossing later in the flight, when the spacecraft is ~24,000 miles from the Moon, which would support their lie&nbsp;?&nbsp; I mean they might screw up once but multiple times ?&nbsp; Especially after vonBraun let the cat out of the bag ?? Sounds fishy to me ....BTW did NASA use the words "neutral point" in all their communications ? What exactly did Mission Control say ? What did NASA announce ? <br /> Posted by Mee_n_Mac</DIV></p><p>Hi Mee_n_Mac, </p><p>Yes, sorry this thread was going off topic, with the "Moon civilisation" thing. I agree with your previous point that Phil Plait&nbsp; would probably not know where to start or end with that one, as it is so totally beyond the realms of even pseudo science I think!</p><p>Regarding the OP, I do care that this nonsense is getting read and believed by quite possibly lots of highly impressionable young people, which does not help with the progress of science.</p><p>Sounds to me like you have made some very good points in your post I quoted above. I'll quote you over in the OM thread with those points, if you like, although whether or not anyone will give a direct answer to them, I somewhat doubt, as previous points that have been made in this thread and quoted over there, have not been answered either. But if I do quote you, at least others can read your points who may not be posting, and at least see the sense of what you say, hopefully.&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <h1 style="margin:0pt;font-size:12px">----------------------------------------------------- </h1><p><font color="#800000"><em>Lady Nancy Astor: "Winston, if you were my husband, I'd poison your tea."<br />Churchill: "Nancy, if you were my wife, I'd drink it."</em></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Website / forums </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[Smersh]

<p>Oh hang on, I might be getting banned over there soon soon because I don't agree with everything they say ...</p><p><strong>http://lucianarchy.proboards21.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=johnlear&thread=1633&page=7&nbsp;</strong></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <h1 style="margin:0pt;font-size:12px">----------------------------------------------------- </h1><p><font color="#800000"><em>Lady Nancy Astor: "Winston, if you were my husband, I'd poison your tea."<br />Churchill: "Nancy, if you were my wife, I'd drink it."</em></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Website / forums </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Regarding the OP, I do care that this nonsense is getting read and believed by quite possibly lots of highly impressionable young people, which does not help with the progress of science.Posted by <strong>Smersh</strong></DIV></p><p>It certainly doesn't help when the likes of Mr Lear pick and choose which portions of natural law they want to believe in and snidely dismiss those who disagree with him.&nbsp; From looking at some posts made at ATS it appears that Jim Oberg hashed this 64% business out with Mr Lear some time ago, though I was unable to find Mr Oberg's rebuttals. "We're" probably just repeating what's been said before.&nbsp; It would be good to present, with reason and numbers, just exactly what was meant by NASA so anyone reading the threads could choose between Mr Lear's interpretation of what was meant and the truth. What I'd really like is a nice graphic of the Apollo 8 CSM trajectory (with Earth and Moon shown) and velocities. I did dig up some data but it dealt with the ascent and lunar phases, not the translunar phase (in any detail).&nbsp; I think even I could deduce what NASA really meant with precise data. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[Kalstang]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Oh hang on, I might be getting banned over there soon soon because I don't agree with everything they say ...http://lucianarchy.proboards21.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=johnlear&thread=1633&page=7 <br />Posted by Smersh</DIV><br /><br />Yeah read that. I'm sure you'll like my response to what he said to you. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ffff00"><p><font color="#3366ff">I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer.</font> <br /><font color="#ff0000">"Imagination is more important then Knowledge" ~Albert Einstien~</font> <br /><font color="#cc99ff">Guns dont kill people. People kill people</font>.</p></font><p><font color="#ff6600">Solar System</font></p> </div>

 

[Smersh]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yeah read that. I'm sure you'll like my response to what he said to you. <br /> Posted by kalstang</DIV></p><p>Yep saw it bro, cheers!&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <h1 style="margin:0pt;font-size:12px">----------------------------------------------------- </h1><p><font color="#800000"><em>Lady Nancy Astor: "Winston, if you were my husband, I'd poison your tea."<br />Churchill: "Nancy, if you were my wife, I'd drink it."</em></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Website / forums </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[Smersh]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It certainly doesn't help when the likes of Mr Lear pick and choose which portions of natural law they want to believe in and snidely dismiss those who disagree with him.&nbsp; From looking at some posts made at ATS it appears that Jim Oberg hashed this 64% business out with Mr Lear some time ago, though I was unable to find Mr Oberg's rebuttals. "We're" probably just repeating what's been said before.&nbsp; It would be good to present, with reason and numbers, just exactly what was meant by NASA so anyone reading the threads could choose between Mr Lear's interpretation of what was meant and the truth. What I'd really like is a nice graphic of the Apollo 8 CSM trajectory (with Earth and Moon shown) and velocities. I did dig up some data but it dealt with the ascent and lunar phases, not the translunar phase (in any detail).&nbsp; I think even I could deduce what NASA really meant with precise data. <br /> Posted by Mee_n_Mac</DIV></p><p>That Apollo 8 graphic has to be somewhere I'm sure. I have to run now, but I might try to have a good search next time I boot up, although it does sound like you've pretty much searched already. &nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <h1 style="margin:0pt;font-size:12px">----------------------------------------------------- </h1><p><font color="#800000"><em>Lady Nancy Astor: "Winston, if you were my husband, I'd poison your tea."<br />Churchill: "Nancy, if you were my wife, I'd drink it."</em></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Website / forums </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That Apollo 8 graphic has to be somewhere I'm sure. I have to run now, but I might try to have a good search next time I boot up, although it does sound like you've pretty much searched already. &nbsp; <br />Posted by <strong>Smersh</strong></DIV><br /><br />I d/l the Boeing trajectory report for AS-503 which is chockfull of good data for the near Earth and near Moon phases but a little sparse elsewhere. Still there were more reports available so when I get a chance I'll see what more I can find. None of this will ever convince Mr Lear or his followers but it would satisfy my curiousity.</p><p>I did get a chance to search ATS for some "debate" btw Mr Lear and Mr Oberg re: the supposed neutral point but only found some mention in passing.&nbsp; What was curious was the Mr Lear cited some books written by astronauts for later Apollo missions where they mention "sphere of influence" and being in the Moon's gravity feild.&nbsp; They didn't say neutral point or equal gravity. Besides if the President of the USA doesn't have the security clearance to know the truth about the Moon (so I'm told)&nbsp;how would mere astronauts be given such info ?&nbsp; Indeed one wonders with the Moon being so secret why would the US try to publically go there ? Why would it be allowed ? You'd think TPTB would have setup more disasters akin to Apollo 1 to delay or kill the program. Given the mood of the early 70's wrt NASA's spending, it wouldn't have taken much.&nbsp; Or at&nbsp;least TPTB would have faked the whole thing on a movie set (as some have alleged) and then the astronauts would have been fed the proper "misinfo" to keep the Moon's gravity a secret.&nbsp;They wouldn't be able to write a book with the "truth" because they would never have known it.&nbsp;(sorry, sorry must not let rational thinking to&nbsp;get in the way ...)</p><p>WRT a breathable atmosphere on the Moon, if true I'd have guessed that the huge temperature differential set up by the slow rotation period would cause large movements and put lots of dust into the "air".&nbsp; Betcha jonclarke would know for sure.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[Smersh]

Well, as I mentioned in the O.P. I would still like to fine a good link to a pre spaceflight book on the Moon, or to who first discovered the 1/6th gravity and when. [I'm sure it was long before spaceflight.] Surely that would knock the 64% thing off track straight away. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <h1 style="margin:0pt;font-size:12px">----------------------------------------------------- </h1><p><font color="#800000"><em>Lady Nancy Astor: "Winston, if you were my husband, I'd poison your tea."<br />Churchill: "Nancy, if you were my wife, I'd drink it."</em></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Website / forums </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well, as I mentioned in the O.P. I would still like to fine a good link to a pre spaceflight book on the Moon, or to who first discovered the 1/6th gravity and when. [I'm sure it was long before spaceflight.] Surely that would knock the 64% thing off track straight away. <br />Posted by <strong>Smersh</strong></DIV><br /><br />You might want to read this article on early attempt to calculate the Moon's mass.&nbsp; It's size and distance from Earth was known to the early Greeks.&nbsp; From the two (EDIT: the two being size and mass) anyone could have calculated the Moon's surface gravity.&nbsp; Of course if you don't believe in Newtonian physics and you're inventing new laws for gravity then .....</p><p><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-yell.gif" border="0" alt="Yell" title="Yell" /></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[Smersh]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You might want to read this article on early attempt to calculate the Moon's mass.&nbsp; It's size and distance from Earth was known to the early Greeks.&nbsp; From the two anyone could have calculated the Moon's surface gravity.&nbsp; Of course if you don't believe in Newtonian physics and you're inventing new laws for gravity then .....&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by mee_n_mac</DIV></p><p>Hmmm ... thanks! I don't understand most of the maths in it, because as I said earlier, maths is not one of my strong points. But as you say. they don't believe in Newtonian physics anyway, so they will probably say that, according to "Spolter physics," or whatever they call it, the Moon's gravity still comes out at 64%.</p><p>Guess we need to successfully debunk Spolter first, before the 64% gravity can be disproved, unless another point could be that nobody knew about Newtonian physics when the early Greeks were around ... </p><p>EDIT sorry I'm talking nonsense I think, because it was Newton, in his Universal Law of Gravitation, who first defined gravity as we understand it today anyway, wasn't it? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <h1 style="margin:0pt;font-size:12px">----------------------------------------------------- </h1><p><font color="#800000"><em>Lady Nancy Astor: "Winston, if you were my husband, I'd poison your tea."<br />Churchill: "Nancy, if you were my wife, I'd drink it."</em></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Website / forums </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hmmm ... thanks! I don't understand most of the maths in it, because as I said earlier, maths is not one of my strong points. But as you say. they don't believe in Newtonian physics anyway, so they will probably say that, according to "Spolter physics," or whatever they call it, the Moon's gravity still comes out at 64%.Guess we need to successfully debunk Spolter first, before the 64% gravity can be disproved, unless another point could be that nobody knew about Newtonian physics when the early Greeks were around ... EDIT sorry I'm talking nonsense I think, because it was Newton, in his Universal Law of Gravitation, who first defined gravity as we understand it today anyway, wasn't it? <br />Posted by Smersh</DIV></p><p>Yes.&nbsp; What is hysterical about the tenets of the wackos might be best understood with a little thumbnail history.</p><p>One upon a time there was a&nbsp;Danish nobleman, with lots of money,&nbsp;named Tycho Brahe, a rich guy with an assistant named Johannes Kepler.&nbsp; Brahe took detailed measurements of the motion of the planets and recorded them meticulously.&nbsp; Kepler took that data, and on a completely empirical basis developed 3 laws of planetary motion that permitted prediction of the planets in the sky.</p><p>Cut forward about 50 years and Isaac Newton is wondering what general principle might lie at the root of Kepler's laws.&nbsp; To answer that questions he:&nbsp; formulates the law of universal gravitation and fundamental laws of motion, finds he needs differential equations to relate them to Kepler's laws (but nobody knows what a differential equation is), invents calculus to give meaning to differential equations, solves them and shows that one can get Kepler's laws from universal gravitation and F=ma.&nbsp; Isaac was rather bright.</p><p>Spolter isn't.&nbsp; She decides Newton was all wet, and writes her own book with F=Aa.&nbsp; That book is a waste of a perfectly good tree.&nbsp; Lear, apparently being less bright than Spolter decides that the moon is 4 times as big as everyone else thinks it is, despite the perfectly good evidence to the contrary based on Newton's theory of mechanics as published in 1687.</p><p>Spolter and Lear clearly deserve some kind of prize for&nbsp;discovering that the theory that had been accurate to many decimal places, the basis for virtually all of astrodynamics, and validated by experiment for over 400 years (with only minor corrections in ordinary situations from Einstein's general relativity) is completely and totally wrong.&nbsp; I personally expect all satellites to plummet to earth just any minute now.</p><p>&nbsp;Here is my suggested prize.</p><p><img src="http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:Njw1qMMSCdAJ:upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/Geek_rubber_duck.jpg/531px-Geek_rubber_duck.jpg" border="1" alt="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Geek_rubber_duck.jpg" title="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Geek_rubber_duck.jpg" vspace="4" width="120" height="135" align="middle" /></p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Smersh]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> ... One upon a time there was a&nbsp;Danish nobleman, with lots of money,&nbsp;named Tycho Brahe, a rich guy with an assistant named Johannes Kepler.&nbsp; Brahe took detailed measurements of the motion of the planets and recorded them meticulously.&nbsp; Kepler took that data, and on a completely empirical basis developed 3 laws of planetary motion that permitted prediction of the planets in the sky...<br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Funny you should mention Tycho Brahe, as I was searching for more info about his work, just before I made my last post, as I read about him and Kepler in many of the astronomy books I read years ago. I was hoping I could find some quote of his, or something, which may help our side of the argument.</p><p>Incidentally, a couple of members have now called for moderators to intervene now [back in that other thread about the moon civilisation, sorry,] because, [here's one quote, but it's worth reading the latest 2 posts to see how they shoot themselves in the foot imo]:</p><p><strong><font size="2" color="#008000"> I mostly lurked at ATS for a few months. But I grew tired of the endless debating of the skeptics, asking for proof that can't be provided.</font><font color="#008000"> </font></strong></p><p><strong>http://lucianarchy.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=johnlear&action=display&thread=1633&page=8&nbsp;</strong></p><p>Speaks volumes I think, at least about a few members there, and the nonsense they are trying to promote. They don't all have that attitude, of course. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <h1 style="margin:0pt;font-size:12px">----------------------------------------------------- </h1><p><font color="#800000"><em>Lady Nancy Astor: "Winston, if you were my husband, I'd poison your tea."<br />Churchill: "Nancy, if you were my wife, I'd drink it."</em></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Website / forums </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></p><p>Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />Amen, nice post!</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Guess we need to successfully debunk Spolter first, before the 64% gravity can be disproved, unless another point could be that nobody knew about Newtonian physics when the early Greeks were around ... </p><p>Posted by Smersh</DIV></p><p>I think Mr Lear has just grabbed onto Ms Spolter's imaginative belief because it helps him try to disprove Newtonion gravity.&nbsp; That she doesn't seem to agree with his "neutral point" calcs or that Gm = 0.64*Ge seems to fly past him.&nbsp; At the heart of it all (IMO) is Mr Lear's misunderstanding of what was meant when people said what they said.&nbsp; He quotes Cernan saying "<em>we"re in the Moon's firm hold</em>" but Cernan doesn't say that spot is someplace on the equigravisphere.&nbsp; Neither does Collin's when he says we're "<em>in the lunar sphere of influence</em>" (also quoted as being supportive by Mr Lear).&nbsp; I can give Mr Lear some partial credit when he's lead astray by the Times article he so often mentions because it does say;</p><p>"<em>Less than twelve minutes after liftoff, a brief boost from the S-4B third stage placed Apollo into a circular 119-mile orbit at a velocity of 17,427 m.p.h. Over the Pacific for the second time, just 2&frac12; hrs. after launch, the spacecraft was cleared by Houston for "translunar insertion" (TLI). Firing for five minutes, the reliable S-4B engine accelerated the ship to 24,245 m.p.h., fast enough to tear it loose from the earth's gravitational embrace and send it toward the moon. <u>At a point 43,495 miles from the moon, lunar gravity exerted a force equal to the gravity of the earth, then some 200,000 miles distant</u>. Beyond that crest, lunar gravity predominated, and Apollo was on the "downhill" leg of its journey.</em> "</p><p>But taking the word of some writer of a mainstream magazine as being some scientific truth is worrisome. More worrisome is that Mr Lear directly attributes the <u>line above</u>&nbsp;to W. von Braun but I can find no such attribution in the article which can be found here. So I tend to doubt WvB was actually the source of the "misinformation". His appeal to authority falls flat.</p><p>Mr von Braun did say this in a much earlier Collier magzine ariticle though;</p><p>"<em>Our fleet of unpowered rocket ships is now passing the neutral point between the gravitational fields of the earth and the moon. Our momentum has dropped off to almost nothing, yet we're about to pick up speed. For now we begin falling toward the moon, about 23,600 miles away. With no atmosphere to slow us, we'll smash into the moon at 6,000 miles an hour unless we do something about it."</em></p><p>&nbsp;Interesting that Mr Lear doesn't quote WvB from that article. </p><p>Whether Mr Lear is deliberately being obtuse and misleading or is just naive is a question I'll leave to others as I don't know nor do I really care. But at the base of all his gravity rantings is the misperception that the points in space mentioned are where the Earth's gravity = the Moon's gravity. They aren't, case closed.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yeah read that. I'm sure you'll like my response to what he said to you. <br /> Posted by kalstang</DIV></p><p><br />Kalstang,&nbsp; IMO, you are taking the wrong approach in that thread.&nbsp; Questioning someone's opinion does nothing to further the conversation.&nbsp; Instead, you should question how he forms these opinions.&nbsp; His opinions are based on a many a false premise.&nbsp; Debate the physics, not the opinions.<br /><br />Mee_n_Mac and I completely destroyed the notion of the moon's gravity being 64% of the Earths.&nbsp; Opinions formed from that are based on a false premise.<br /><br />A few other statements of facts he has made that are wrong:<br /><br />john lear... <strong>"But it takes 27 days for one rotation".</strong><br /><br />Wrong.&nbsp; It is 29.53 days.&nbsp; 27 days is the sidereal motion when measuring it's position among&nbsp; the stars.<br /><br />He then goes on to state, <strong>"The total balance of the solar system is subject to Keplers 3 laws."</strong><br /><br />If he understands Kepler's laws and claims the planets are subject to them, the he must conclude that the moon's gravitational force is 1/6th.&nbsp; Newton used Kepler's laws to show, conclusively, the attributes of the moon.<br /><br />And then this... <strong>"The Moon is actually a spaceship designed to look like a plain old Moon. The Moon is a secret within a secret within a secret."</strong><br /><br />LOL!!!&nbsp; Uhh... ok.&nbsp; That's fine... he is entitle to that opinion, however;&nbsp; Even if it was a spaceship, it still has to follow the laws of physics, in which it would STILL have 1/6th the gravitational force of the earth.<br /><br />More silliness:&nbsp; John lear: <strong>"The gravitational force of a planet is created and is proportional to its acceleration times the area of a circle whose radius in the mean distance of the major axis between the planet and the sun. This fact Pari proves by mathematically showing those proportions for all the planets in our solar system and for satellites orbiting earth.</strong><br /><br />Ask to the formula and how it is derived.<br /><strong><br />"She also believes that the Law of Inversion is quantized."</strong><br /><br />What does this even mean?&nbsp; I'm not sure they understand what quantized is.</p><p>I could go on and on in that thread questioning from what physics his opinions are derived from.&nbsp; Spectroscopic imaging of the moon's atmosphere can determine the chemical make-up if I'm not mistaken.&nbsp; Unless, of course,&nbsp; NASA and its minions have a hold on all telescopic filters that are employed by amateur astronomers around the world.&nbsp; Natural convection of an atmosphere would not allow for one side of the moon to have an atmosphere and not the other.&nbsp; Etc, etc...<br /><br />In <strong>this thread</strong> is an example of how I debate the member's facts he presents... not his opinions.&nbsp; You are certainly entitled to your debating tactics, but being confrontational solves nothing. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[Kalstang]

<p>Thanks for all that derek! I'm not that knowledgeable in those area's so have to rely on common sense alot of the time. After awhile i'll post what you said edited a bit so as not to start forum wars of course <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" />. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ffff00"><p><font color="#3366ff">I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer.</font> <br /><font color="#ff0000">"Imagination is more important then Knowledge" ~Albert Einstien~</font> <br /><font color="#cc99ff">Guns dont kill people. People kill people</font>.</p></font><p><font color="#ff6600">Solar System</font></p> </div>

 

[Smersh]

<p>Yes, cheers Derek!</p><p>Zorgon has just posted in the Pari Spolter thread and asked the following:</p><p><strong><font size="2" color="#008000">Perhaps you could ask your buddies at Space.com to provide us with the actual readings from ANY of the Apollo spacecraft as they crossed the neutral point... this should be easy, yes?</font></strong></p><p>I think this possibility was mentioned earlier in this thread here, IIRC.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <h1 style="margin:0pt;font-size:12px">----------------------------------------------------- </h1><p><font color="#800000"><em>Lady Nancy Astor: "Winston, if you were my husband, I'd poison your tea."<br />Churchill: "Nancy, if you were my wife, I'd drink it."</em></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Website / forums </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes, cheers Derek!Zorgon has just posted in the Pari Spolter thread and asked the followingerhaps you could ask your buddies at Space.com to provide us with the actual readings from ANY of the Apollo spacecraft as they crossed the neutral point... this should be easy, yes?I think this possibility was mentioned earlier in this thread here, IIRC.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by Smersh</DIV></p><p><br />33800 nautical miles = 38896 mi<br /><br />http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_08a_Summary.htm<br /><br /><em>At 055:38:40 the crew were notified that they had become the first humans to travel to a place where the pull of Earth&rsquo;s gravity was less than that of another body. The spacecraft was 176,250 n mi from Earth, 33,800 n mi from the Moon, and their velocity had slowed to 3,261 ft/sec. Gradually, as it moved farther into the Moon&rsquo;s gravitational field, the spacecraft picked up speed.</em><br /><br />http://history.nasa.gov/ap08fj/09day3_green.htm<br /><em><br />Public Affairs Officer - "This is Apollo Control, Houston at 55 hours, 38 minutes into the flight and we have been asked for a reaction here in the Control Center during that television passage. I think the remark from Lovell that got the most reaction was in his description of the blue and brown Earth and not being sure of whether he would land on it. This triggered a tremendous spike of laughter, the likes of which I can't recall, which immediately settled down to business. And in general, the room the - there was just zero talking going on in the room at the time, except for what we all heard from Mike Collins. In an exchange which the crew - And as we have been talking, the Apollo 8 has passed the - into the Moon's Sphere of Influence; and quite literally this is a historic landmark in space flight because, for the first time, a crew is literally out of this world. They are under the influence of another celestial body, the Moon, from which the Earth - 33,820 straight line nautical miles. We indicated earlier our space digital chart, at some point - not yet completely clear - will switch over and start giving us Moon-related values. That switch just took place and we immediately have configured. Velocity is now 3,989 feet per second in relation to the Moon and the last value, in relation to the Earth, was 3,261 feet per second in relation to the Earth. We'll see this number go down off the Moon related figure over the coming period. ...Apollo 8 ... now presently 33,681 [nautical] miles [62,377 km] from the Moon and moving in a Moon related velocity [of] 3,989 feet per second [1,216 m/s]. At 55 hours, 42 minutes into the mission, this is Apollo Control, Houston."</em><br /><br /><br />This is, however, from a NASA website which will of course be corrupted information.&nbsp; The only better source would be to get a hold of the magnetic data telemetry tapes with the information on it.&nbsp; And those too, would be, of course, manipulated.&nbsp; It's called "moving the goal posts".&nbsp; Loony lunar conspiracy 'theorists' will move the goal posts so far, the only evidence possible to prove it to them would be to fly them up there so they can look at the artifacts left behind with their own eyes.&nbsp; Somehow, I think if this were to happen, they would find a way to still deny it.&nbsp; If they refuse to understand the math, then there is no hope of enlightening them. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Interesting that Mr Lear doesn't quote WvB from that article&nbsp; <br /> Posted by mee_n_mac</DIV></p><p>I'd be willing to bet that when WvB was writing that article in 1961, he used his cocktail napkin to do a back of the envelope calculation based on two static masses to come up with a relatively close figure. </p><p>The figures he quotes there is not taking into consideration of both the moon's and earth's hill spheres nor the centripital forces the craft is under.&nbsp; You factor in those numbers, you find the lagrange point which is more related to the number you see NASA and the astronauts quoting.</p><p>When johnlear input the 43,000 mi figure into a formula that describes two static masses, of course his figures will be wrong.&nbsp; 23,000 some miles is the correct figure for 2 static objects.&nbsp; 38,000 is the correct figure when incorporating many other variables in the n-body problem that involves velocity, orbits, centripital forces, etc, etc.</p><p>I do agree with your assessment of the quoted 43000 miles from the article.&nbsp; They may have picked up that figure from a moment after they entered the graviational influence of the moon and began a burn to fall into an orbit.&nbsp; This probably would've happened quite soon after they entered and 5,000 miles (the difference of the 2) would go quick depending on the trajectory of the craft.&nbsp; I'm not sure where the 43,000 comes from, but it is neither the neutral point between to static objects, nor is it associated with the lagrange point.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>