Is John Lear Spreading Disinfo?

What yfxxx is complaining about is my use the Bullialdus/Newton inverse-square law. I make no assumption of the moons mass. It is not necessary. If you know the ‘neutral point’ between two masses, in this case, the earth and the Moon you can determine the gravity of each, proportional to each other.

An 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.

Therefore using the following values which are accepted by mainstream science and which were accepted by yfxxx when we first began this discussion several months ago:

Re = radius of the Earth = 3,960 miles
Rm = radius of the Moon = 1,080 miles
X = distance from the Earth’s center to the neutral
Point = 200,000 miles
Y = Distance from the Moon’s center to the neutral point = 43,495 miles
Ge = Earth’s surface gravity
Gm = Moons surface gravity

Since the forces of attraction of the Earth and the Moon are equal at the neutral point, the inverse-square law yields: (please consider all 2's as the symbol for 'squared'. I can't figure out how to hypertext in this post.)

Ge (Re2/X2) = Gm(Rm2/Y2)

Gm/Ge = Re2Y2/Rm2X2

= (3,960)2 (43,495)2/(1,080)2 (200,000)2

= .64

Therefore, Gm = .64 Ge

This formula is presented in William L. Brian II’s book, “Moongate: Suppressed Findings of the U.S. Space Program. The NASA-Military Cover-up. Pg. 199. Copyright 1982 by William L. Brian II Library of Congress CCN 81-69211 Published by Future Science Research Publishing Company.

So, according the inverse-square law if the Neutral point between the earth and the moon is 43,495 miles then the gravity on the moon is approximately .64 that of earths gravity or almost two thirds. Now we understand why the Apollo astronauts were making those pitiful 18 inch hops on the moon when, if it were really one sixth earths gravity, should have been jumping 10 to 15 feet high! It should also be obvious why they tired so quickly.

If the moon’s gravity was in fact, one-sixth that of earth or approximately 16.66% we could work the problem in reverse and come out with a neutral point from the moon of about 24,000 miles. There is no evidence that the neutral point is that close to the moon.

That the gravity on the Moon is one sixth that of earths is one of the biggest con jobs in the history of mankind.

Originally posted by Rren
Mr. Lear, if you could address these points I think this could be resolved... atleast make the issue here more clear for us regular joes. I'm still not seeing what this does to support any of your other moon theories (which is sort of my point too) but this would be a start.

The notion that the moon as a breatable (and therefore reasonably dense) atmosphere is closely connected to the issue of gravity (because a higher gravity can more easily "hold" an atmosphere). But to refute the "atmosphere claim", I wouldn't refer to the gravity at all, but to astronomical observations. But that's not my point now.

As for Mr. Lear's claim that there are huge artificial structures, and a sizeable population of aliens and humans on the moon: These claims are not damaged at all by disputes about gravity (or atmosphere). Structures and habitats can be built in low-gravity and near-vacuum as well. But that doesn't mean that I think Mr. Lear is right about these claims .

Protectors of JL: I'm not a debunker or expert. I've only asked questions, tried to show where I was coming from (aka, a discussion.) The only debunking I'm seeing is coming from yfxxx.

Indeed. And I actually draw all the fire from the Lear-"protectors"

The fact that somebody would attack the veracity of such an accomplished pilot's physics arguments, is just something that's gonna happen every once in a breathable moon. Especially when said accomplished pilot runs into a physicist.

Well said. If I was going to argue with Mr. Lear about how best to fly an aircraft, my credentials as a physicist would be just as irrelevant as Mr. Lear's piloting accomplishments are here.

Regards
yf

Well spoken! It tells me you have not heard what Mr Bushman said and how the experiment was conducted, so until you do I won't comment

I hadn't heard of him. That's why links work so well in these discussions. This is him, yes?

The experiment involves taking two five thousand dollar magnets, bolting the north to north, and then enclosing them in a rock like case. A rock of equal mass was then used in a drop experiment (without magnets). The two "rocks" are then dropped at the same time from a high distance. The "rock" with the opposed magnets hits the ground after the normal rock. The experiment proved that anti gravity fields could be amplified with electromagnets and nuclear power.

And now you can comment on how this overturns Galileo and Newton (Laws of Motion.) See how easy that was

This is fun, I can feel myself getting smarter by the minute.

Originally posted by johnlear
If the moon’s gravity was in fact, one-sixth that of earth or approximately 16.66% we could work the problem in reverse and come out with a neutral point from the moon of about 24,000 miles. There is no evidence that the neutral point is that close to the moon.

I snipped the rest of the drivel (you can read it in the original post anyway). Let me just say that repeating your stuff umpteen times doesn't make it true.

I know nothing in world can convince you otherwise, Mr. Lear. So what I write now is meant for the benefit of others, who don't yet know what all this is about ...

The calculation, as you do it, is simply incorrect in the dynamic earth-moon system. You calculate your "neutral point" on the direct line between earth and moon (which is the Lagrangian Point L1) as if earth and moon would hang statically in the sky!. However, in reality, earth and moon move around their common center of gravity! This makes the calculations much more complicated[*]. See

en.wikipedia.org...

for a start. At the bottom of that page, there are also a few links, in case you don't trust Wikipedia.

[*]If you regard the direct earth-moon line as your fixed reference on which you want to find a certain "neutral point", you are in a non-inertial (in this case, a rotating one) frame of reference. Therefore all calculations of forces and "neutral points" must take the so-called "pseudo forces" (mainly centrifugal force, but also Coriolis force) into account. That's the reason why the calculations become more complicated.


Regards
yf

Originally posted by Rren

The experiment involves taking two five thousand dollar magnets, bolting the north to north, and then enclosing them in a rock like case. A rock of equal mass was then used in a drop experiment (without magnets). The two "rocks" are then dropped at the same time from a high distance. The "rock" with the opposed magnets hits the ground after the normal rock. The experiment proved that anti gravity fields could be amplified with electromagnets and nuclear power.

And now you can comment on how this overturns Galileo and Newton (Laws of Motion.) See how easy that was

It doesn't "overturn" Galileo and Newton . But it describes a coupling between gravity and electromagnetism, which is something about which the "standard model" of physics doesn't know much (yet). If these experiments hold true (i.e. can be replicated by other researchers), then
- Mr. Bushman can collect his Nobel Prize, and will henceforth be regarded as on par with Newton, Einstein and other really famous scientists
- the Einsteinian theory of gravity (i.e. General Relativity), and therefore also Newtonian gravity (which is a "special case" of General Relativity for "weak" gravitational fields), are shown to be inexact.

Only time will tell, if Bushman has hit the jackpot on this one. If yes, we'll probably know within less than 10 years. If not, the guy and his website will simply fall into obscurity.

By the way, there have been lots of people who have claimed to have found things like "anti-gravity", "electrogravitics", etc., but so far, none of these claims could be verified by independent research institutions. Of course, there are people who think that the latter is not true, and that all positive results are suppressed by "them" (MJ-12, NASA, aliens, whatever ...) for various reasons .

Regards
yf


[edit on 3.5.2007 by yfxxx]

Originally posted by yfxxx

I know nothing in world can convince you otherwise, Mr. Lear. So what I write now is meant for the benefit of others, who don't yet know what all this is about ...

Thank you yfxxx, as I mentioned before, your very informed opinion is always welcome.

The calculation, as you do it, is simply incorrect in the dynamic earth-moon system. You calculate your "neutral point" on the direct line between earth and moon (which is the Lagrangian Point L1) as if earth and moon would hang statically in the sky!. However, in reality, earth and moon move around their common center of gravity! This makes the calculations much more complicated[*].

[*]If you regard the direct earth-moon line as your fixed reference on which you want to find a certain "neutral point", you are in a non-inertial (in this case, a rotating one) frame of reference. Therefore all calculations of forces and "neutral points" must take the so-called "pseudo forces" (mainly centrifugal force, but also Coriolis force) into account. That's the reason why the calculations become more complicated.

You might be able to get a job with NASA yfxxx. They are going to need some help on this item and it sounds like you could provide it.

However one note of caution. NASA trys to keep their explanations simple so that people don't read "malarky" into it. So you don't want to be throwing "pseudo forces and centrifugal and coriolis forces in the mix".

And you don't want to say at the end "Thats the reason why the calculation becomes more complicated" because the average person is just not going to buy it. And, of course, the average person is to whom they are trying to sell this malarky.

But good luck.

Originally posted by yfxxx
The notion that the moon as a breatable (and therefore reasonably dense) atmosphere is closely connected to the issue of gravity (because a higher gravity can more easily "hold" an atmosphere).

Ya know that does make more sense now, thanks. Should of been more obvious, so apologies Mr. Lear for (my) being so dense on that one. I still don't think it jives ('claim this to hide that') but then again what do I know about how to run a massive conspiracy, of the likes implied here. Not much.

Originally posted by johnlear
And you don't want to say at the end "Thats the reason why the calculation becomes more complicated" because the average person is just not going to buy it. And, of course, the average person is to whom they are trying to sell this malarky.

Are you saying these variables (dynamic versus static) are not necessary to determine the moon's gravity (in the way you're attempting to determine the value here)?


Seems to be the crux of the matter, no? Could you elaborate on why your method is better, and/or why yfxxx's method is superfluous. I'm almost up to speed here, honest injun.




PS,

Correct me if I'm wrong (anybody) but isn't there several ways to determine the moon's gravity?


regards.

I am not sure, but would say "No", just based on an understanding that in mathematics there is only two possibilities: right and not right.

I would say, however, that there are many, many variables that are either unknown, unaccounted for, or ignored. For example, what effect does electromagnetism have on gravity? How about the solar wind effect due to reduced atmosphere?

I have this theory that we are "inexact" about a lot of things scientifically for one main reason: we suffer from compounded ignorance. This is an interesting point to me, and i will elaborate a bit:

1. We cannot manage to figure out all the variables when we are not aware of all the variables and the effects that they have on each other. At some point, one must realize that we use an imperfect math to describe a chaos model in every regard. The subtle interplay of effects can yeild wide variations in the final result. I envision the 2-d swirls on a bubble, then consider that relative to a 3d Jupiter. What effects create the swirls, and how do they play on each other.

2. "debunkers" tend toget very upset over people proposing far flung ideas. Compound ignorance, simply put, is being ignorant of what you are ignorant about. You don't know what it is that you don't know. I would posit that those who provide far flung ideas are trying to Deny Ignorance by attacking the first part of compound ignorance. They provide us insight into the possibilities that lay out there, unknown to the masses. Sure, there may be 100 or 1,000,000 misses, but the hits are worth the endeavor, as they can usually extrapolate out to great value in multiple scenarios.

Originally posted by johnlear
I don't know how the moon was formed but I believe it was towed or 'placed' into orbit around the earth many thousands of years ago. Perhaps tens of thousands of years ago. Whoever did that managed to place it in 'rotational lock' so that one side of the moon faces earth at all times.

Immanuel Velikovsky wrote that Democritus and Anaxagoras taught that there was a time when the earth was without a moon. Aristotle wrote that Arcadia in Greece, before being inhabited by the Hellenes, had a population of Pelasgians, and that these aborigines occupied the land already there before there was a Moon in the sky above the earth; for this reason, they were called Proselenes.

Apollonius Rhodius mentioned the time “when not all the orbs were yet in the heavens, before the Danai and Deukalion races came into existence, and only the Arcadians lived, of whom it is said that they dwelt on the mountains and fed on acorns, before there was a moon.”

Velikovsky wrote, “It is probably the most remote remembrance of mankind: the time when there was no Moon”.

Of course, the idea that it 'broke off from the earth' or was wandering in space and 'captured by earths gravity' is flat out nonsense, a fairy tale for the uninformed.

Some have proposed that the moon is a gigantic space ship. I wouldn't disagree with that.

Our own Moon is a possible Death Star.

I hate when that happens



[edit on 3-5-2007 by Paul_Richard]

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
2. "debunkers" tend toget very upset over people proposing far flung ideas. Compound ignorance, simply put, is being ignorant of what you are ignorant about.

Using a term like "debunker" as a catch all for those who do not share your belief system [B.S.] negates the thoughts and views of many individuals, and IMO, is an act of ignorance in itself.

Yeah, well...it is a word that provides an easy point of reference to the type of post/poster i refer to.

However, i would also posit that there are many, many here that will base the positions on preconcieved notions of science, religion, et al, which would also be, in and of itself, a form of ignorance (some would say the worst kind). These are the people generally referred to as a debunker.

If one would state their point, make their argument, then move on, it wouldn't be such an issue. Sometimes you can agree to disagree, and see things in probability (grey) rather than true/false (black and white). We know so little, a black/white view tends to make one seem egocentric and narrowminded.

These are generally the people I would refer to as a "debunker", not someone who is making solid points that consider ALL evidence.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Yeah, well...it is a word that provides an easy point of reference to the type of post/poster i refer to.

Debunker: To discredit, or expose to ridicule the falsehood or the exaggerated claims of something.

Debunkers are scientific skeptics who attempt to disprove and pursue what they consider to be false, unscientific, bizarre or abnormal claims.

It'a not, necessarily, a bad thing. The absolute blind acceptance of these claims would worry me more than any form of skepticism.

However, i would also posit that there are many, many here that will base the positions on preconcieved notions of science, religion, et al, which would also be, in and of itself, a form of ignorance (some would say the worst kind). These are the people generally referred to as a debunker.

What do you base your views on, if not preconceived notions? Or, is your issue here only with people who have pro-religion and/or pro-science preconceived notions. Goes both ways, no? Dogma, that is.

We know so little, a black/white view tends to make one seem egocentric and narrowminded.

Would the question/answer to: The moon's gravity is x% that of the Earth, be black/white? This is not an argument over some philosphical or theological universal truth[s]. Nothing I've seen in this thread so far (debunking wise) is on that level of inquiry.

How about (attempting to stay on the dis-info/mis-info topic here):

- The gas giants are really terrestrial planets instead

- The moon has a breathable atmosphere and active biosphere

- There are artificial structures on the moon

- The moon has an active mining operation and a civilization numbering in the millions


Are the answers to these questions black/white or grey? Why would one's (extreme) skepticism here make them a "debunker" in the bad sense of the meaning as you've applied it here?

These are generally the people I would refer to as a "debunker", not someone who is making solid points that consider ALL evidence.

So who in this thread (as an example) qualifies as a "debunker" based on your criteria. Who's not considering ALL the evidence ie, deflecting?

Why should, any member of this discussion board community, be obliged to "move on" if they are still interested in the discussion, regardless of their position on it?

-Just curious

Originally posted by Rren

Why should, any member of this discussion board community, be obliged to "move on" if they are still interested in the discussion, regardless of their position on it? -Just curious

They shouldn't have to really. But we could certainly do without some of the venom displayed here. After all, aren't we all just interested in the truth?

Originally posted by johnlear
They shouldn't have to really. But we could certainly do without some of the venom displayed here. After all, aren't we all just interested in the truth?

I agree the 'tudes could be better kept in check. Nature of the eBeast, I guess.

For the record: I'm not with ya on any of your more 'out there' theories. I'll concede that makes me typical. However, with that being said: I'm still paying attention because, as I've admitted, I don't fully understand the arguments and evidence/data. I believe you're being sincere. I believe you're an intelligent, thoughtful person. I don't think you're crazy, stupid or willfully ignorant.

I just aint on board, yet. No biggie. If anybody thought such a paradigm shift (a HUGE shift) could be accepted so willy-nilly, I'd have to call into question their rationality and intellectual honesty. They just "want to" believe it, imho. I have no need or desire (believe it or not) to not believe this stuff a priori.


Ok guys I'm gone for the next few days, after today. I fully expect this to be settled by the time I return.

Regards.

Debunker: To discredit, or expose to ridicule the falsehood or the exaggerated claims of something.

Debunkers are scientific skeptics who attempt to disprove and pursue what they consider to be false, unscientific, bizarre or abnormal claims.

It'a not, necessarily, a bad thing. The absolute blind acceptance of these claims would worry me more than any form of skepticism.

Exactly true. As well, those who blindly and faithfully follow the experts (who have a financial stake in their dogma's propogating) is a similar source of worry. Believe nothing, but consider everything is my motto.

What do you base your views on, if not preconceived notions? Or, is your issue here only with people who have pro-religion and/or pro-science preconceived notions. Goes both ways, no? Dogma, that is.

Some of it is obviously preconcieved. But one should temper these preconceptions with the understanding that the information is incomplete and therefore subject to change. Thus, i see reality in terms of probability, not fact. There are few facts, to be sure...unless one convinces him/herself falsely of such. There are always "what ifs" and anomolies that discredit theories to one degree or another. I have yet to see one that accounts for everything we observe.

Are the answers to these questions black/white or grey? Why would one's (extreme) skepticism here make them a "debunker" in the bad sense of the meaning as you've applied it here?

I am not sure if it applies to anyone here or not. It is a large forum, and i am rather new. I am stating something that seems to be relevent to the conversation. I don't wish to argue. I was posting my thoughts. if you do not agree, please help me add additional considerations into my thoughts so that I could amend my view accordingly. That is how I like to do things, personally, and really do value your input.

I will say that the Moons gravity, until we put sensors on the moon to measure it somehow, isn't black/white. The conversation here is conjecture based on current scientific belief. Outside of government measurements we have no proof that physics is correct, and Mr. Lear presents some anecdotal information that would support my position that the question is, currently, nearly completely grey. If you have beliefs that are held very firmly, it will impact the personal reality of how you see this subject. This, i think, is the source of angst in this thread, honestly.

But i will repeat...i am not in this forum to argue. I want input and insight, that is all.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
I will say that the Moons gravity, until we put sensors on the moon to measure it somehow, isn't black/white. The conversation here is conjecture based on current scientific belief. Outside of government measurements we have no proof that physics is correct, ...

That last statement is a bit misleading in the context of moon gravity. The astronomical observations, which enable us to calculate the mass (and therefore the average density and surface gravity) of the moon have been made over many centuries by many astronomers. Many of them were not working for any "government", but either for universities or as private researchers. So, anyone who thinks about a Grand Conspiracy regarding the moon's gravity should take that into account.

Regards
yf

Guys, regarding the "moon issue", I think I have said all I've got to say (some of it multiple times). So, unless I'm attacked personally, I'll leave it at that. If anyone is genuinely interested in further details of "my" (i.e. "mainstream") moon science, feel free to ask by U2U.

I realize that no matter what I say, there is an apparently deep-rooted skepticism (and in one case outright denial ) toward "mainstream science" by many forum members. I'm obviously unable to argue against this skepticism. In the end, it doesn't matter so much anyway, because the physical properties of the moon are what they are, independent of any human arguments .

Regards
yf

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Exactly true. As well, those who blindly and faithfully follow the experts (who have a financial stake in their dogma's propogating) is a similar source of worry. Believe nothing, but consider everything is my motto.

I can dig it. But, as a layman, experts carry alot of weight. Its not a dogma or blind faith thing, imo. On some of these issues the 'grandness' of the conspiracy, for me, leans me (further) towards the mainstream. I've seen nothing here (fuzzy pics nor fuzzy maths) that leads me to believe I've been misled. I'm still open, or I wouldn't be here. Seems we're, more or less, on the same page here... even if we're leaning in different directions.

I am not sure if it applies to anyone here or not. It is a large forum, and i am rather new. I am stating something that seems to be relevent to the conversation. I don't wish to argue. I was posting my thoughts. if you do not agree, please help me add additional considerations into my thoughts so that I could amend my view accordingly. That is how I like to do things, personally, and really do value your input.

[..]

But i will repeat...i am not in this forum to argue. I want input and insight, that is all.

Same here. Thanks for the clarification.

Originally posted by yfxxx
Guys, regarding the "moon issue", I think I have said all I've got to say (some of it multiple times). So, unless I'm attacked personally, I'll leave it at that. If anyone is genuinely interested in further details of "my" (i.e. "mainstream") moon science, feel free to ask by U2U.

Danke. Sie waren eine grosse Hilfe, halten Ihr Kinn oben.

Respekt

Originally posted by Rren

I hadn't heard of him. That's why links work so well in these discussions. This is him, yes?

Very good! I didn't have that page yet either.

As to links... you will see proper links to everything I have on my site and my posts... I just didn't feel like repeating myself in this thread. Everything I have on anti gravity if you interested you can u2u me... (well almost everything that is...)

But its nice to see someone else capable of actual search and read

And now you can comment on how this overturns Galileo and Newton (Laws of Motion.) See how easy that was

I could but not in this thread... I am waiting to see the arguments against Johns formula. I noticed ysfxx just switched back to atmosphere and moon anomalies... Interesting...

This is fun, I can feel myself getting smarter by the minute.

You want to get smarter snoop around here...
landoflegends.us...

[edit on 4-5-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by zorgon
I am waiting to see the arguments against Johns formula. I noticed ysfxx just switched back to atmosphere and moon anomalies... Interesting...

I've stated my arguments against Mr. Lear formula (or, to be exact, the way in which he applied the formula) several times, e.g. at:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You may not concur with my arguments, but I think it's a bit rude to state that I didn't make any.

Regards
yf