NASA Scientist Fired - Promises Disclosure

Originally posted by ArMaP
Why being specific about one measurement and vague about the other?

Because he had the space craft reading in his head, as I am sure the actual figure was a shock for NASA and thus would be on the tip of your mind, but he didn't have the second figure handy and didn't calculate it for the news reporter... the one figure was important, the other not

Originally posted by johnlear

It was Saturday December 9 (1972), and we were in the Moon’s firm hold, only about 38,000 miles out and drawing closer by the moment. Eugene Cernan “The Last Man On the Moon” Copyright 1999 Eugene Cernan and Don Davis.

John, don't use numbers out of context, puh-leeze. You must know that the Apollo's trajectory could not have possible been a straight line connecting the centers of Earth and Moon, therefore the 38,000 number in any case can not be used in the one-dimensional formulas you quoted.

"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." - Wernher von Braun (Time Magazine, July 25, 1969.)

Mr. von Braun does not explain who he arrived to this number at all, and the other number, 200k, is quoted very approximately. This can be (even though this exerpt does not allow for strict interpretation to be made) that this was the result of the shape of the translunar trajectory which is a complex curve. Hence, you plugging this number into a one-dimensional equation foes not makes sense.

No need to speculate about density.

Well, please do just for the fun of it. Calculate the mass of the Moon based on your bogus 64% g, and knowing the radius, divide the mass by the volume. Call me in the morning.

Originally posted by johnlear

It was Saturday December 9 (1972), and we were in the Moon’s firm hold, only about 38,000 miles out and drawing closer by the moment. Eugene Cernan “The Last Man On the Moon” Copyright 1999 Eugene Cernan and Don Davis.

John, don't use numbers out of context, puh-leeze. You must know that the Apollo's trajectory could not have possible been a straight line connecting the centers of Earth and Moon, therefore the 38,000 number in any case can not be used in the one-dimensional formulas you quoted.

"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." - Wernher von Braun (Time Magazine, July 25, 1969.)

Mr. von Braun does not explain who he arrived to this number at all, and the other number, 200k, is quoted very approximately. This can be (even though this exerpt does not allow for strict interpretation to be made) that this was the result of the shape of the translunar trajectory which is a complex curve. Hence, you plugging this number into a one-dimensional equation does not makes sense. The Apollo craft was never, in fact, present in the "neutral point" where by definition there is no gravitational pull at all. The shape of the trajectory does not allow for that.

No need to speculate about density.

Well, please do just for the fun of it. Calculate the mass of the Moon based on your bogus 64% g, and knowing the radius, divide the mass by the volume. Call me in the morning.


[edit on 8-11-2007 by buddhasystem]

Originally posted by buddhasystem

John, don't use numbers out of context, puh-leeze. You must know that the Apollo's trajectory could not have possible been a straight line connecting the centers of Earth and Moon, therefore the 38,000 number in any case can not be used in the one-dimensional formulas you quoted.

Thanks for the post BS. You are welcome to apply any correction factor including Coriolis you may feel is necessary but it is not going to be equal to the difference between 43,495 and 24,000 miles. Just remember that you need to apply those corrections equally and not selectively.

The Apollo craft was never, in fact, present in the "neutral point" where by definition there is no gravitational pull at all. The shape of the trajectory does not allow for that.

There is no truth to that statement, in my opinion. There is indeed a point at which, the gravity of earth, if only for a moment, becomes the exact same as the gravity of the moon. That point is called the neutral point. And the distance that point is from the moon can be used to determine the moons gravity relative to the earth by means of the Bullialdus/Newton law of inverse square which states:

Any 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.

And using that law, the moons gravity works out to be 64% of earths gravity. Please see my previous post for the exact calculation.

Well, please do just for the fun of it. Calculate the mass of the Moon based on your bogus 64% g, and knowing the radius, divide the mass by the volume. Call me in the morning.

This calculation would only be valid if the moon was made out of the same material as the earth. In fact, we don’t know what the moon is made out of and could, in fact, be artificial. In which case your formula of dividing the mass by the volume would not apply.

But thanks for your post BS, it is truly appreciated. :

Russ from Boeing just sent me this I almost missed it....

I started a thread not sure if someone else did as I have to leave for work and don't have time... and apologize if someone else found this already

www.abovetopsecret.com...


UFO BOMBSHELL ANNOUCEMENT! CNN TO BRING FORTH USG MILITARY OFFICIALS, "BLACK WORLD" SUPERSTARS and GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS FROM AROUND THE WORLD TO "OUT" THE UFO/ET MATTER!

Thursday, November 8th, 9 p.m. ET, 6 p.m. PT on the "Larry King LIVE!" Show!

MARK YOUR CALENDARS NOW!

www.cnn.com...

UFO BREAKING NEW FLASH:

"High-ranking military officials and government personnel from around the world discuss close encounters with UFOs. Is national security on the line? Or perhaps some reputations? Whatever your take, you'll be talking about this long after Larry says good night."

I will be back i a few hours to follow up

Originally posted by johnlear
Thanks for the post BS. You are welcome to apply any correction factor including Coriolis you may feel is necessary but it is not going to be equal to the difference between 43,495 and 24,000 miles. Just remember that you need to apply those corrections equally and not selectively.

John, I didn't mention Coriolis anywhere. What I did mention is that I don't know the origin of the 43k number, i.e. how Braun arrived at that.

The Apollo craft was never, in fact, present in the "neutral point" where by definition there is no gravitational pull at all. The shape of the trajectory does not allow for that.

There is no truth to that statement, in my opinion. There is indeed a point at which, the gravity of earth, if only for a moment, becomes the exact same as the gravity of the moon. That point is called the neutral point.

John, let me repeat this to you again in case you didn't get it the first time -- the spacecraft did NOT travel along the straight line connecting the centers of Earth and Moon. Since forces are vectors, this means that the angle between the gravitational force of Earth and that of the Moon was never at exactly 180 degrees, making it impossible for them to completely cancel. There was a point where the magnitudes of the vectors were the same, but the net force acting on the spacecraft was not zero even then. So yeah, there is plenty of truth in my statement.

Density of the moon:

Well, please do just for the fun of it. Calculate the mass of the Moon based on your bogus 64% g, and knowing the radius, divide the mass by the volume. Call me in the morning.

This calculation would only be valid if the moon was made out of the same material as the earth.

John, please refresh your knowledge of what density is. It's mass divided by volume, and material has nothing to do with it.

In fact, we don’t know what the moon is made out of and could, in fact, be artificial. In which case your formula of dividing the mass by the volume would not apply.

It's not "my formula", John. It's the definition of density. Again, it doesn't matter what the material is -- so please calculate the density of the moon, if you will, based on your fantastic claim of the lunar g being 64% of the Earth's. I've done it, but I don't want to spoil the fun for you.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

What I did mention is that I don't know the origin of the 43k number, i.e. how Braun arrived at that.

Thanks for the post BS. Von Braun is using the number of miles which represents where the 'neutral point' is. The neutral point is defined as:

A point in space at which a particle experiences no net gravitational force.

John, let me repeat this to you again in case you didn't get it the first time -- the spacecraft did NOT travel along the straight line connecting the centers of Earth and Moon.

Nobody said it did.

Since forces are vectors, this means that the angle between the gravitational force of Earth and that of the Moon was never at exactly 180 degrees,

Nobody said it was.

making it impossible for them to completely cancel.

Try "equal" then. No: 'net' gravitational force.

There was a point where the magnitudes of the vectors were the same, but the net force acting on the spacecraft was not zero even then.

Same=equal. Now I would respectfully request that you stop your wordsmith acrobatics. The neutral point is where the earth pull equals the moons pull; the spacecraft stops decelerating and start accelerating. And that point is 43,495 miles from the moon according to Von Braun and to numerous other sources. And the Bullialdus/Newton law of inverse square apllied to that figure makes the gravity on the moon 64% that of earth's.

Thanks for your post; and your continued obfuscation of the issue is respectfully noted.

reply to post by johnlear


john,
Any point source which spreads its influence equally in all directions without a limit to its range will obey the inverse square law.

Are you saying that gravity has no limit to its range? That the force of gravity, from earth, can be felt at all points in the universe?

If so, my physics professor from college will be pissed.

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by buddhasystem

What I did mention is that I don't know the origin of the 43k number, i.e. how Braun arrived at that.

Thanks for the post BS. Von Braun is using the number of miles which represents where the 'neutral point' is. The neutral point is defined as:

A point in space at which a particle experiences no net gravitational force.

You said nothing about the origin of that number, i.e. how Braun got it. Did he arrive to it by calculation based on the pre-supposed 64% lunar g?

Since forces are vectors, this means that the angle between the gravitational force of Earth and that of the Moon was never at exactly 180 degrees

Nobody said it was.

Ah, OK. Let's see then...

making it impossible for them to completely cancel.

Try "equal" then. No: 'net' gravitational force.

There will be a net gravitational force if the vectors are not collinear, John. Do you understand that concept?

The neutral point is where the earth pull equals the moons pull; the spacecraft stops decelerating and start accelerating. And that point is 43,495 miles from the moon according to Von Braun and to numerous other sources. And the Bullialdus/Newton law of inverse square apllied to that figure makes the gravity on the moon 64% that of earth's.

I know that roughly 43k miles produces the roughly 64% result. What I still don't know is how Braun got this number to begin with. Since I assume the Chinese, ther Japanese and even the Russians (who flew a lot of missions to the Moon) wouldn't be very interested in the NASA "coverup" participation, I can only assume that the numbers used by all these other nations must be real... Which meant that whatever source Braun used for his quote was faulty. It may be, for example, that Braun, who was German, applied the miles to kilometers conversion coefficient (which he undoubtedly had to do on great many occasions in his life since he was trained in the metric system) without realizing he already had the miles number in his hand. As great an expert von Braun was, he has, by now, a veritable army of peers among the space-faring nations, and those are flying successful missions to the moon. I just can't expect them all to lie in unison.

Now, since you are apparently having problems calculating the Moon's density which is consistent with your looney, err, lunar theory of 64% of Earth's gravity, let me present it for you here:

since g~m/r^2, the 64% means that the mass of the Moon has to be 0.048 that of the Earth. Since the density d~m/r^3, and the density of the Earth is 5.515 g/cm3, the density of the Moon comes out to be 13 g/cm3, which is about the same as the element mercury and quite a bit more than lead


You are occusing me of obfuscation... On the contrary, John, I'm using numbers and logic to expose the inconsistencies in your propositions.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

I know that roughly 43k miles produces the roughly 64% result. What I still don't know is how Braun got this number to begin with. Since I assume the Chinese, ther Japanese and even the Russians (who flew a lot of missions to the Moon) wouldn't be very interested in the NASA "coverup" participation, I can only assume that the numbers used by all these other nations must be real... Which meant that whatever source Braun used for his quote was faulty. It may be, for example, that Braun, who was German, applied the miles to kilometers conversion coefficient (which he undoubtedly had to do on great many occasions in his life since he was trained in the metric system) without realizing he already had the miles number in his hand.

Thanks BS for the post. BS, let me respectfully suggest to you that this is a very important debate. I would estimate that many people are interested in seeing you put forth your best effort in challenging my estimate of the Moons gravity of 64%.

But let me also respectfully suggest that the above argument is probably the poorest effort at the challenge I have ever seen. On one hand I am embarrassed for you but on the other hand I am delighted that this is all you have to offer: Von Braun confusing the neutral point in miles with kilometers?

You are not going to get anywhere accusing Von Braun, Americas most highly respected rocket scientist with nonense.

So let me respectfully suggest that you pull back and regroup.

Thanks for the post. And I mean it!

Originally posted by johnlear
But let me also respectfully suggest that the above argument is probably the poorest effort at the challenge I have ever seen. On one hand I am embarrassed for you but on the other hand I am delighted that this is all you have to offer: Von Braun confusing the neutral point in miles with kilometers?

Well, didn't the Unted States lose a Mars probe due to such confusion? Seriously, John? Google it up.

You are not going to get anywhere accusing Von Braun, Americas most highly respected rocket scientist with nonense.

Here you have your straw which you are clasping... I didn't even accuse von Braun... I simply don't know the provenance of this number, so it may mean anything at all or be based on a faulty instrument.

So let me respectfully suggest that you pull back and regroup.

With no less respect in return, I suggest that you consider the fact that there are many respectable rocket scientists around the globe who are designing spacecraft for living. I also suggest that you meditate on the fact that you are accusing all of these people of lying to the rest of the population. Last but not least, try to imagine the lunar module taking off from the lunar surface in 64% gravity environment, and speeding off to the orbit... and ask yourself how that is possible with the amount of fuel and the tiny engine that they had. After that, may I respectfully ask you to ponder the model of the Moon which you are trying to push here, where that said Moon is heavier than lead.

Originally posted by COOL HAND

john,
Any point source which spreads its influence equally in all directions without a limit to its range will obey the inverse square law.

Are you saying that gravity has no limit to its range? That the force of gravity, from earth, can be felt at all points in the universe?

If so, my physics professor from college will be pissed.

Thanks for the post COOL HAND. Yes, not only your physics professors but many others will be irritated when they find out the truth.

The gravity "B" wave which you are referring to has no limit to its range and can be felt at any point in the universe instantaneously, including as far away as you can possibly imagine. Gravity is a wave and as a wave has amplitude, frequency and length. I belive that the frequency of the Gravity B wave is 7.46 hz. but 'm not sure. In my notes I have the Gravity "A" wave as 7.46 hz. but I don't know if that is different for the Gravity "B" wave.

The gravity "B" wave is used for communication because it is instantaneous and infinite throughout the universe.

Please give my condolences to your physics professor, and thanks for the post.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Last but not least, try to imagine the lunar module taking off from the lunar surface in 64% gravity environment, and speeding off to the orbit... and ask yourself how that is possible with the amount of fuel and the tiny engine that they had.

Thanks for the post BS. There is no possible way that the Grumman Lunar Lander, as presented to the American public, and allegedly used to descend from a 60 mile lunar orbit and then ascend back into a 60 mile lunar orbit accomplished that mission, with that alleged engine, in 64% of Earth's gravity, with the 22,000 pounds of rocket fuel they claimed was on board. No way. No possible way.

After that, may I respectfully ask you to ponder the model of the Moon which you are trying to push here, where that said Moon is heavier than lead.

Since the moon is obviously not heavier than lead we are very limited in our possibilities of explanation/rationalization keeping the 64% of Earth's gravity lunar model.

Thanks for the posts, they are enjoyable.

Originally posted by johnlearThanks for the post BS.

John is not doing a very good job of hiding the double meaning of his use of the poster's initials here. Especially considering he addressed COOL HAND by his full screen name.

Bad form John.

Originally posted by johnlearSince the moon is obviously not heavier than lead we are very limited in our possibilities of explanation/rationalization keeping the 64% of Earth's gravity lunar model.

Android doesn't anger, nor does he engage in actual combat, rather he will merely point out the logical inconsistencies of other Warriors. Irony and sarcasm are completely lost on Android, and being impossible to insult or injure in any way, he is invulnerable to conventional attack. If, for example, someone were to call him a pinhead, he would get out a tape measure and after finding that his cranium falls within normal size specifications Android would dismiss the comment as erroneous. Android's circuits are not equipped to process ambiguous or aesthetic input, consequently any extensive discussion involving personal feelings, intuition, art and metaphorical allusions will quickly drive Android from the field of battle.

Originally posted by johnlearThanks for the posts, they are enjoyable.

This may seem like a joke, but is this just a canned response using a macro which is triggered everytime you hit the 'post reply' button?

Also, , is this another macro you use? Android?





[edit on 8-11-2007 by Enrikez]

Originally posted by buddhasystem

You said nothing about the origin of that number, i.e. how Braun got it. Did he arrive to it by calculation based on the pre-supposed 64% lunar g?

I pointed out several times that he came upon that figure by taking a reading from the Apollo 8 spacecraft...

Paying attention when someone answers your question is usually a good way to get answers

:shk:

Mr. Lear, how do you explain the japanese orbiter's pictures not showing a breatheable atmosphere on the moon ?

Also, whay hasn't SETI detected any of the civilizations you claim are on the planets in our solar system ?

with the writers on strike, you may be my last source of fresh entertainment

I must say I'm in agreement with John Lear on the instantaneous nature and unlimited reach of gravity. The inverse square law governs the overall effect at any given point in space but other factors must be considered as well due to the dynamic nature of things in motion IE the point where gravity between the bodies is in balance is not static.

The moon as an object orbiting the earth implies that its centifugal force perfectly balances the gravitational attraction between the earth and moon. For a spacecraft travelling toward the moon there's a factor of angular velocity to be considered if the craft is to match the orbital velocity of the moon adequately to achieve an orbit of the moon. This angular velocity adds a significant factor of centrifugal force causing the point of 'apparent' balance of gravitational forces to be shifted closer to the earth.

This was explained very nicely by an astute observer in another thread.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest

Mr. Lear, how do you explain the japanese orbiter's pictures not showing a breatheable atmosphere on the moon ?

Thanks for the post SHP. What would you think that you would see from Selene as proof there was breathable atmosphere on the moon?

Also, whay hasn't SETI detected any of the civilizations you claim are on the planets in our solar system ?

SETI is a joke.

with the writers on strike, you may be my last source of fresh entertainment

I'll do my best.

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by syrinx high priest

Also, whay hasn't SETI detected any of the civilizations you claim are on the planets in our solar system ?

SETI is a joke.

I completely agree. However, I don't want to derail the thread typing about how pointless the SETI effort is and always will be.

At least NASA did the right thing by pulling the pin on funding any more SETI ventures.

Originally posted by johnlear


SETI is a joke.

I going to go out of my way to ensure this is the only thing that you and I ever agree on

However, if the civilizations you claim are out there in our very own solar system, might it not be possible for an organization such as SETI to pick up an errant signal or two from them? I doubt it, come to think of it. They are looking in a very narrow band if I remember correctly. Plus, SETI couldn't hit their ass with both hands in the dark, so you could pretty much park a class 3 civilization two planets away and they would never know it......


[edit on 8-11-2007 by IgnoreTheFacts]