Is John Lear Spreading Disinfo?

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Allow me to make a down home, common sense comment about this lunar gravity debate.

The gravitational attractive force exerted by any body is a direct function of is mass (at least according to todays accepted Newtonian model)

The volume of the Earth (with a G value of 1) is 2.4ee11 cubic miles (2.4 times 10 to the 11th power)...

...You know what? I think I just proved the hollow Earth theory!

[edit on 5/16/2007 by darkbluesky]

Interesting post.

What does acoustic analysis tell us of the moon's density?

I have no knowledge regarding Lunar acoustic/siesmic sensing data.

So far I've found data only from remote sensing techniques via radar vs. acoustic from the surface.

adsabs.harvard.edu...



[edit on 5/16/2007 by darkbluesky]

Originally posted by yfxxx
[edit: changed a typo in John Lear's name. I'm really sorry about this typo, and guarantee that it was an honest mistake. I'm sorry, Mr. Lear.]

A fruedian slip?

BTW thanks for the U2U yfxxx. I tried to respond but it said I needed 20 posts before I could reply (strange) so I'll post my response here since I don't see myself wasting much more time with this particular subject in the near future:

You're welcome, glad I could help. I see you've been beating your head against a wall for some time now with him and thought maybe you (and the rest of the sane world LOL) could use a little support. I think the only reason he accepted it is because the math is way over his head.

Anyway, I don't see much point in arguing with him much more about it since he clearly isn't concerned with his credibility. I think he gets off on it actually in a “if you can’t dazzle ‘em with brilliance, baffle ‘em with BS” kind of way. The funny thing is he doesn’t have any credibility with any of the major players in Ufology either which is an amazing accomplishment in itself if you think about it.

Regards and good luck,

H18
[email protected]

Originally posted by darkbluesky
You know what? I think I just proved the hollow Earth theory!

You did didn't you? Now isn't THAT an interesting way to look at it.

Originally posted by hangerateteen

Originally posted by yfxxx
[edit: changed a typo in John Lear's name. I'm really sorry about this typo, and guarantee that it was an honest mistake. I'm sorry, Mr. Lear.]

A fruedian slip?

BTW thanks for the U2U yfxxx. I tried to respond but it said I needed 20 posts before I could reply (strange) so I'll post my response here since I don't see myself wasting much more time with this particular subject in the near future:

You're welcome, glad I could help. I see you've been beating your head against a wall for some time now with him and thought maybe you (and the rest of the sane world LOL) could use a little support. I think the only reason he accepted it is because the math is way over his head.

Anyway, I don't see much point in arguing with him much more about it since he clearly isn't concerned with his credibility. I think he gets off on it actually in a “if you can’t dazzle ‘em with brilliance, baffle ‘em with BS” kind of way. The funny thing is he doesn’t have any credibility with any of the major players in Ufology either which is an amazing accomplishment in itself if you think about it.

Regards and good luck,

H18
[email protected]

So instead of posting your insults directly to John, you are sending them to others via U2U and then posting them indirectly...

Is this a fool-proof way to break the rules?

[edit on 17/5/07 by thebox]

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by darkbluesky
You know what? I think I just proved the hollow Earth theory!

You did didn't you? Now isn't THAT an interesting way to look at it.

It's great that these new ideas have been brought to light in a thread that's devoted to the exposure of a possible disinfo agent...

Only on ATS!

Originally posted by darkbluesky
The gravitational attractive force exerted by any body is a direct function of is mass (at least according to todays accepted Newtonian model)

The volume of the Earth (with a G value of 1) is 2.4ee11 cubic miles (2.4 times 10 to the 11th power)

The volume of the moon is 5.2ee9 cubic miles.

Ergo....the moon has 2% the volume of the Earth.

Assuming the densities of these two bodies are equal we would expect the moon to exert
not 1/6th (16%) of Earth's gravity, but only 2% (1/50th) of Earth's gravity.

You should at least consider the fact, the the gravity on a body's surface is not only proportional to the mass, but also inversely proportional to the square root of the body's radius (g = G * m/r²).

Regards
yf


[edit on 17.5.2007 by yfxxx]

Originally posted by thebox
So instead of posting your insults directly to John, you are sending them to others via U2U and then posting them indirectly...

Could you please explain to me where you saw an insult made anywhere in that post? All I see is an opinion that Lear gets off on this stuff and doesn't seem to care about his credibility. I don't see any insults
Just opinions, and pretty good ones at that.

Just because we may disagree with John doesn't mean we are insulting him.

Originally posted by yfxxx

You should at least consider the fact, the the gravity on a body's surface is not only proportional to the mass, but also inversely proportional to the square root of the body's radius

(g = G * m/r²).

Regards
yf

Yfxxx, this could be where your error is on the moons gravity. Apparently you are assuming the gravity on the moon is:

(1) not only proportional to the mass, but also,
(2)inversely proportional to the square root of the bodies radius

So if the moon was artificially constructed those particular laws wouldn't necessarily apply would they?

Originally posted by johnlear
Yfxxx, this could be where your error is on the moons gravity. Apparently you are assuming the gravity on the moon is:

(1) not only proportional to the mass, but also,
(2)inversely proportional to the square root of the bodies radius

So if the moon was artificially constructed those particular laws wouldn't necessarily apply would they?

Now J.L., do you consider what you said above a fact or an opinion? And if it was your opinion would that be a factual opinion or an opinionated fact?

Is the moon really artificially constructed? Or is that intended to 'promote discussion' and ruin some one's day? I think I speak for the majority of us when I say you are doing more to confuse every one than to bring forth any help full data, but I will base that on my assumed opinion. You with me?

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

Now J.L., do you consider what you said above a fact or an opinion? And if it was your opinion would that be a factual opinion or an opinionated fact?

Its your choice here and I am not going to try and influence you:

(1) I believe that the moon is artificially constructed
(2) My opinion is that the moon is artificially constructed
(3) My opinion that the moon is artificially constructed is based on these facts:
a. rings like bell
b. surface cannot be easily penetrated with drills
c. surface gravity is at least 64% that of earths so it does not conform to stated laws that gravity is proportional to mass and that gravity inversely proportional to the square root of the radius.
d. is in rotational lock with the earth
e. has not been orbiting the earth as long as the earth has been in exitence
f. capture theory extremely unlikely
g. has rock that have been found to be considerably older than either the moon or the earth
(4) I do not know what an 'opinionated fact' is.

Is the moon really artificially constructed?

Yes, I believe so.

Or is that intended to 'promote discussion' and ruin some one's day?

It is indeed intended to promote discussion and if it ruins your day that means that you find comfort in mainstream scientific lies. Please accept my apologies for the inconvenience.

I think I speak for the majority of us when I say you are doing more to confuse every one than to bring forth any help full data, but I will base that on my assumed opinion. You with me?

WOW!!! I'm impressed! You are speaking for the majority of all the people that read this thread? You can be darn sure that I am with you on this one!

Thank you for your hasty reply and your time, John.

The moon may or may not be an artificial structure, but then we get in to the philosophical and logical definitions of just what artificial really means, especially under the basis of physics where all energy is eternal and thus authentic, so any thing "created" from it could not possibly be "artificial". Any way, this is not where the thread is headed, so please do enjoy as I have been enjoying the last few pages.

Excuse my stern questions, but I am merely trying to clear the potential of future, present, and past anticipations regarding mathematical and interlocutory innuendos.

Just to add: It is not any person's place to say how old the Earth is in contrast to the moon because in physics we know that all energy is eternal. We should find a way to measure the age of energy, then we would no longer require oil nor He-3

Note: Capture theory is not plausible in your eyes, then you must work on re-working how the solar system came to be locked around the sun.

John, do you believe in God? Because it appears that you are trying to push a form of creationism

It is indeed intended to promote discussion and if it ruins your day that means that you find comfort in mainstream scientific lies.

It's not the information that is said to ruin someone's day, you state that it is you whose day is not complete until you have ruined some one elses. Perhaps you could reveal to us some concretely discernable data that would blow us all out of the water before using the terms "mainstream scientific lies", instead of the overwhelming political bickering that you seem comfortable laying in?

4. I do not know what an 'opinionated fact' is.

JohnLear signature: The above is my opinion and is intended to promote discussion. It is not represented as fact unless so stated.

Originally posted by johnlear

(3) My opinion that the moon is artificially constructed is based on these facts:
a. rings like bell

WHAT?

Are you telling us the Moon rings when you shake it? Seriously, how did you come up with this? John, there is Nothing, anywhere that I have ever seen or heard to suggests that the moon rings.

No offence, but this has to be the most rediculas claim I've ever seen on the internet.

Tim

Originally posted by Ghost01
No offence, but this has to be the most rediculas claim I've ever seen on the internet.

Our Enigmatic Moon

Possibly the strongest evidence for it to be a 'hollow object' comes from the fact that when meteors strike the Moon, the latter rings like a bell. More specifically when the Apollo crew in November 20, 1969 released the lunar module, after returning to the orbiter, the module impact with the Moon caused their seismic equipment to register a continuous reverberation like a bell for more than an hour. The same effect occurred with Apollo 13's third stage which caused the Moon to ring for over three hours. So what's going on with the Moon?

Just sayin'.

Originally posted by yeahright

Originally posted by Ghost01
No offence, but this has to be the most rediculas claim I've ever seen on the internet.

Our Enigmatic Moon

Possibly the strongest evidence for it to be a 'hollow object' comes from the fact that when meteors strike the Moon, the latter rings like a bell. More specifically when the Apollo crew in November 20, 1969 released the lunar module, after returning to the orbiter, the module impact with the Moon caused their seismic equipment to register a continuous reverberation like a bell for more than an hour. The same effect occurred with Apollo 13's third stage which caused the Moon to ring for over three hours. So what's going on with the Moon?

Just sayin'.

Yeahright, that has to be the most classic comeback of the century. Thanks.

Originally posted by yfxxx
You should at least consider the fact, the the gravity on a body's surface is not only proportional to the mass, but also inversely proportional to the square root of the body's radius

(g = G * m/r²).

Oops!! Of course I wanted to say "square" and not "square root" (of the radius). Sorry, my fault! The formula in parenthesis is correct.

Regards
yf

Originally posted by johnlear
Yfxxx, this could be where your error is on the moons gravity. Apparently you are assuming the gravity on the moon is:

(1) not only proportional to the mass, but also,
(2)inversely proportional to the square root of the bodies radius

Replace "square root" by "square". I mistyped the words in my posting, but the formula I gave ( g = G * m/r² ) is correct.

So if the moon was artificially constructed those particular laws wouldn't necessarily apply would they?

Depends. If it was constructed without any use of "artificial gravity", then these laws would still apply. However, if whoever built the moon (was it a free gift from Magrathea to go with the earth? ) has very clever means to manipulate surface gravity without affecting the overall mass of the moon, the laws would not apply.

Regards
yf

Originally posted by johnlear
(3) My opinion that the moon is artificially constructed is based on these facts:
a. rings like bell

Acoustic shock waves will run through any solid body, be it "natural" or "artificial". E.g, an earthquake will send waves running back and forth all through our planet. So I don't think such acoustic wave propagation is an argument for or against an artificial structure.

b. surface cannot be easily penetrated with drills

Really? I didn't know that Apollo had high-powered drilling gear on board. Anyway, there are very hard natural substances as well. Just ask a tunnel engineer who has bored a tunnel through granite. It's a "pain in the ***", as they say .

c. surface gravity is at least 64% that of earths so it does not conform to stated laws that gravity is proportional to mass and that gravity inversely proportional to the square root of the radius.

A surface gravity of 64% ge would indeed not conform to anything. What I find interesting here is that you copied my erroneous phrase "inversely proportional to the square root of the radius" ("square" instead of "square root" is correct; silly typo) verbatim, when you had the chance to ridicule my "physics" by pointing out this error. That you did not do so, and even copied the mistake into your argument, lends some plausibility to the idea that you actually didn't notice the mistake, which says a bit about your understanding of the laws themselves.

d. is in rotational lock with the earth

So? Almost all moons in our solar system are in rotational lock with their respective planets. Were they all "artificially constructed"? Someone must have been very busy here .

e. has not been orbiting the earth as long as the earth has been in exitence

So? There have been several suggestions as to how a planet could "acquire" a moon without the need for anyone building it.

f. capture theory extremely unlikely

Correct. That's why "mainstream" science prefers the impact theory by now.

g. has rock that have been found to be considerably older than either the moon or the earth

Finding a rock on earth (or moon) which is older than earth (or moon) itself is nothing inexplainable by itself. Material from the edge of our solar system, which falls on earth may well be older than earth itself.

If by "rock" you mean not single rocks, but the whole bedrock of the moon, then I'd be interested, how this can be considered not equal to the age of the moon itself. In other words, how old is this "rock", how old do you think is the moon, and how did you arrive at that moon age.

Regards
yf

[edit: typo]

[edit on 17.5.2007 by yfxxx]

Originally posted by kleverone

Originally posted by thebox
So instead of posting your insults directly to John, you are sending them to others via U2U and then posting them indirectly...

Could you please explain to me where you saw an insult made anywhere in that post? All I see is an opinion that Lear gets off on this stuff and doesn't seem to care about his credibility. I don't see any insults

Just opinions, and pretty good ones at that.

Just because we may disagree with John doesn't mean we are insulting him.

I just find it a little shameless that's all, posting an intentionally private U2U onto one of John's threads.

It's a bit like - "Look at me, I've been slagging you off behind your back, this is what I had to say!" COPY-PASTE

General etiquette doesn't even come into it does it?

*awaits next defensive post*

Originally posted by yfxxx

A surface gravity of 64% ge would indeed not conform to anything. What I find interesting here is that you copied my erroneous phrase "inversely proportional to the square root of the radius" ("square" instead of "square root" is correct; silly typo) verbatim, when you had the chance to ridicule my "physics" by pointing out this error. That you did not do so, and even copied the mistake into your argument, lends some plausibility to the idea that you actually didn't notice the mistake, which says a bit about your understanding of the laws themselves.

No, I did not notice the mistake and you are correct that I am not a physicist or mathmatician as I have plainly state in this thread.

It wasn't my intention to ridicule your physics or you. My intention is to show where your error is in using that physics to claim that the moon has only 16% or 24%, (depending on which one you are using) the gravity of the earth.

Once I can find your error its no big deal to work the math.

I don't think you realize that the moon is a 'spaceship' and is towed around and placed into orbit wherever it is needed. As a 'spaceship' its gravity is going to be considerably different than what you think.

So? Almost all moons in our solar system are in rotational lock with their respective planets. Were they all "artificially constructed"? Someone must have been very busy here

.

Many were and I agree with you someone has been very busy.