NASA Scientist Fired - Promises Disclosure

reply to post by euclid


Except for the fact that they "borrowed" all the letters and schematics posted by Isaac for one of their personal contests.

Originally posted by johnlear
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.

john, are you saying that gravity is energy?

I have never heard of gravity being expressed as having a frequency.

[edit on 9/11/07 by COOL HAND]

Originally posted by Pilgrum
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.

If such a thing were true, then all of space would be a micro-gravity enviroment and there would be no such thing as zero-G in deep space.

That would mean that every deep space probe that we send out would have to be powered throughout their entire flight.

Originally posted by johnlear
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.

Thank you for acknowledging that fact and stating that's impossible. Now did von Braun lie to us on that occasion, in stating that it did? Let me quote yourself, John, and say you are not going anywhere accusing one of our most respected scientsits, Werner von Braun. You can't argue with yourself, can you John?

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.

We are limited and our limits are actually zero. Hence the 64% is an impossibility. Unless...

Well HOW DO YOU KNOW IT'S NOT HEAVIER THAN LEAD? huh? Have you ever considered it's made mostly of depleted uranium? And that the US missions to Moon were mining operations for the US military. Now that all that lunar uranium has been spent on antitank munitions used in Yugoslavia and in the Gulf, all of a sudden there is renewed interest in lunar missions... Don't you think that is suspicious?

Seriously, this uranium theory is no more laughable than other stuff that you peddle.

Thanks for the posts, they are enjoyable.

Oh sure. I'm confident you enjoyed me stating the obvious, which is that you accuse ALL of the people around the word working in space industry of lying to the populous and part of a sinister global conspiracy. What's interesting, according to you, even corporations are part to that.

You see, the Hughes Corporation used the Moon's gravity to correct the orbit of the Hughes Spacecraft model 601 HP back in 1998. The booster misfired and the orbit of this telecom satellite was useless. Employess of that private entity calculated that they didn't have enough fuel to rectify the highly inclined elliptical orbit. Instead, they performed a few maneuvers that eventually sent the craft around the Moon and used it as a gravitational sling. When the 601HP flew around the Moon and back to Earth, it was deployed on a circular orbit.

All of that would be impossible if your statements had any truth to them.



[edit on 9-11-2007 by buddhasystem]

[edit on 9-11-2007 by buddhasystem]

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Thank you for acknowledging that fact and stating that's impossible. Now did von Braun lie to us on that occasion, in stating that it did? Let me quote yourself, John, and say you are not going anywhere accusing one of our most respected scientsits, Werner von Braun. You can't argue with yourself, can you John?

Again, BS, thank you for your post and, again, you continue to miss the point.

The point being that the gravity of the moon is at least 64% that of earth's (Dr. von Braun was correct and no, he did not lie and no, he did not confuse miles with kilometers), so:

1. either we didn't go to the moon, or
2. the lunar lander had a different propulsion system and that system probably had anti-grav capabilities.

Now it is a fact that several remote viewers have remote viewed Apollo 11 and state that it did not happen. They say Apollo did not go to the moon. Their remote viewing activities did not include later attempts so they have no opinion on 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17.

It is also a certainty that the U.S. had antigrav capabilities by the late 1950's and that those capabilities were used to go to the moon in 1962 and Mars in 1966. We also had at least one orbiting space station in 1968, a year before the alleged Apollo 11 mission.

So its possible that the Apollo program used antigrav techonology in the lunar lander, claiming to have used a rocket engine and thereby keeping the moons gravity a secret.

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.

Would you please show your calculations whereby you propose that assuming the gravity on the moon is 64% that of earths that the moon would be made of lead or depleted uranium. Thanks.

I'm confident you enjoyed me stating the obvious, which is that you accuse ALL of the people around the word working in space industry of lying to the populous and part of a sinister global conspiracy. What's interesting, according to you, even corporations are part to that.

The truth is more subtle than that. People working in the space industry, the industry itself and the corporations don't lie per se. What they do is not ask questions. They might wonder why a specific figure or procedure is used if the moons gravitry is really only 16% but its not in their best interests to go around asking questions.

You see, the Hughes Corporation used the Moon's gravity to correct the orbit of the Hughes Spacecraft model 601 HP back in 1998. The booster misfired and the orbit of this telecom satellite was useless. Employess of that private entity calculated that they didn't have enough fuel to rectify the highly inclined elliptical orbit. Instead, they performed a few maneuvers that eventually sent the craft around the Moon and used it as a gravitational sling. When the 601HP flew around the Moon and back to Earth, it was deployed on a circular orbit.

All of that would be impossible if your statements had any truth to them.

And why is that? Please explain your answer. Thanks.

And thanks for the post.

Originally posted by COOL HAND

john, are you saying that gravity is energy?

I have never heard of gravity being expressed as having a frequency.

If you view a wave with amplitude, modulation and frequency as having 'energy' then yes.

Originally posted by johnlear
Again, BS, thank you for your post and, again, you continue to miss the point.

No John, you miss the point that I'm actually right on the point.

Dr. von Braun was correct

He was and all others who flew missions to Moon were not? There is no explanation whatsoever about how he produced this number.

1. either we didn't go to the moon

Wait, your claim of 64% G, however wrong, comes at least partially from perceived facts originating from lunar missions

the lunar lander had a different propulsion system and that system probably had anti-grav capabilities

Oh I see. And what's evidence of that? I say that an army of angels decended from heaven and carried the lander on their wings. You can't disprove that.

Now it is a fact that several remote viewers have remote viewed Apollo 11 and state that it did not happen.

I personally don't think that 'fact' and 'remote viewer' belong in the same sentence any more than 'pharaoh' and 'bubble gum toothpaste'. Again, divine intervention explanation is equally plausible and you cant disprove divine intervention any more than I can "remote viewing". It's just tossing around statements. In Occam's tradition, I find both antigrav engine and remote viewing claims without merit... Along with the occult.

It is also a certainty that the U.S. had antigrav capabilities by the late 1950's and that those capabilities were used to go to the moon in 1962 and Mars in 1966.

Oh, it's a certainty? LOL. Then your respected source, von Braun, is a cheat because like who needs rockets when there is antigrav. Come on John, there is a contradition upon a contradiction in all you say, with the exception of something that does not have factual nature like remote viewing (or my idea of angelic intervention).

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.

Would you please show your calculations whereby you propose that assuming the gravity on the moon is 64% that of earths that the moon would be made of lead or depleted uranium. Thanks.

Please read my recent post where I showed you how to arrive to this result. If you can't reproduce it, you don't qualify for this discussion.

I'm confident you enjoyed me stating the obvious, which is that you accuse ALL of the people around the word working in space industry of lying to the populous and part of a sinister global conspiracy. What's interesting, according to you, even corporations are part to that.

The truth is more subtle than that. People working in the space industry, the industry itself and the corporations don't lie per se. What they do is not ask questions. They might wonder why a specific figure or procedure is used if the moons gravitry is really only 16% but its not in their best interests to go around asking questions.

Wait, if you publish a report, a diagam, a bluprint of a craft that can't fly, it's a lie.

Sorry John but this is far, far beyond credible. I'll much quicker believe in Allah and 72 virgins which I can get with enough frequent flyer miles than I believe in that somebody installs an "antigravity device" in a unit which you are developing/building and you just say "OK then, it's none of my business". Or, that the Sovets are part of the "don't ask don't tell" routine. There were tens of thousands of people invloved in the Soviet space program, and it's preposterous to assume that they all went mum.

Originally posted by johnlear
Now it is a fact that several remote viewers[...]It is also a certainty that the U.S. had antigrav capabilities......

I'll assume you've abandoned the "only an opinion offered for discussion" stance, and that I can now be permitted to ask you to back up these assertions.

I think you should be able to back that up "Conspiracy Master".

And thanks for your contribution.

Speeking of Gravity here's a site with a nice little theory of electro-gravity...

www.electrogravityphysics.com...

FOr JL, cont'd

You see, the Hughes Corporation used the Moon's gravity to correct the orbit of the Hughes Spacecraft model 601 HP back in 1998. ..snip..When the 601HP flew around the Moon and back to Earth, it was deployed on a circular orbit.
All of that would be impossible if your statements had any truth to them.

For that satellite to be able to escape Moons gravity well if it's as deep as 64% of Earth's, it's obvious that the Hughes must have flown a craft very different from what they claimed they flew, with larger engines and much more fuel, and that the published data on this flight is all manufactured. Since it was followed by insurance company who had this satellite insured, it's far beyond any credibility. The insurance company would never sign a multi-hundred-million dollat contract without having reliable docs. And Hughes is just a corp, after all.



[edit on 9-11-2007 by buddhasystem]

Originally posted by MrPenny

Originally posted by johnlear
Now it is a fact that several remote viewers[...]It is also a certainty that the U.S. had antigrav capabilities......

I'll assume you've abandoned the "only an opinion offered for discussion" stance, and that I can now be permitted to ask you to back up these assertions.

"Now it is a fact that several remote viewers". Dr. Ron Blackburn (retired, Lockheed scientist 30 years) had dinner here last night and confirmed that he was part of the remote viewing group that did the look at Apollo 11. He just moved to Las Vegas from Albuquerque.

"It is also a certainty that the U.S. had antigrav capabilities." It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out or wait...maybe it does.

Thanks for the post MoneyPenny.

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts

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

Actually that would be incorrect.... You also agree with 'most' of what John said in the Sub base in Nevada

Originally posted by COOL HAND
If such a thing were true, then all of space would be a micro-gravity enviroment and there would be no such thing as zero-G in deep space.

CH & P, please look up Mach's principle.

Originally posted by johnlear
"It is also a certainty that the U.S. had antigrav capabilities." It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out or wait...maybe it does.

No, rocket scientists cannot assert, based on their training, that the US possesses antigrav technology. It takes a conspiracy theorist with a nasty habit to throw around unsubstantiated anti-scientific claims, to "figure it out".

Originally posted by COOL HAND
john, are you saying that gravity is energy?
I have never heard of gravity being expressed as having a frequency.?

John used the word 'wave' Waves are usually defined in frequency. That physics professor might want to take a refresher course.

There are many great sites out there talking about this but I figure seeing how some in here are always criticizing the quality of the source, I would use NASA

Gravitational Waves

In 1955, General motors corporation said...

Wavelength of gravity = Gm/c^2
Wavelength of gravity = 4.0507625(38) x 10^-35 m
(at mass 5.4563026(39) x 10^-8 kg)

Whereas G is the Newton constant, m is the gravitational mass, and c is the speed of
light in vacuum.

And, in 1955, 1st day of April, G-d said...

Frequency of gravity = (Gd)^1/2
Frequency of gravity = 7.4008894(66) x 10^42 /s
(at density 8.2089591(81) x 10^95 kg/m^3)

Whereas G is the Newton constant, and d
is the gravitational density.

So thanks to two of Einstein's equations...

wavelength of gravity = Gmc^2
frequency of gravity = (Gd)^1/2

=========================================

Observations of high-frequency temporal gravity wave spectra in the middle upper stratosphere

A. T. Russell
Department of Physics and Astronomy, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada

R. J. Sica
Department of Physics and Astronomy, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 106, NO. D11, PAGES 11,849–11,858, 2001

==========================================

High-Frequency Grav-Waves
This animation shows a gravity-wave being amplified by a superconductor, currently under experimentation.

American Antigravity

==========================================

VHF radar and lidar observations of high frequency gravity waves ...
Harvard



So when it comes to waves and frequencies of gravity, it would seem you physics professor is mistaken about a great many things

As to the effect being noticed across the universe... that is in the NASA report as astronomers are actually capturing the effect

As to the particles across vast distances... I don't have time for that right now

Originally posted by buddhasystem Employess of that private entity calculated that they didn't have enough fuel to rectify the highly inclined elliptical orbit. Instead, they performed a few maneuvers that eventually sent the craft around the Moon and used it as a gravitational sling. When the 601HP flew around the Moon and back to Earth, it was deployed on a circular orbit.

All of that would be impossible if your statements had any truth to them.

To know that one would have to have the figures that they used in their calculations. Just to say they sent the craft around the Moon and used it in a gravitational sling is useless info to prove anything without the actual figures.

Please be so kind as to produce those figures to validate your argument. I really wish you skeptics would at least try to provide somereal figures instead of just speculating

reply to post by zorgon


Zorgon,
Go back and read the specific post where I talked about what my professors would be upset about and then rethink what you just wrote down.

I don't think that folks here really understand what I am getting at, so I will have to try and (for lack of better term) dumb it down a little for them. This could take a while.

Originally posted by johnlear

Would you please show your calculations whereby you propose that assuming the gravity on the moon is 64% that of earths that the moon would be made of lead or depleted uranium. Thanks.

John, when you're in a hole stop digging. I often read these threads for entertainment but at the moment I'm actually finding your posts toe-curlingly embarrassing as you're making such a fool of yourself.

If you are claiming that the moon has 64% of the gravity of the Earth then calculating it's average density is straightforward, especially so when buddhasystem has already posted the calculation:

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

Any problem with this?

Though that is of course the average density, and as you claim the moon is hollow that would make it's surface "shell" astoundingly dense - perhaps exotic matter from a white dwarf?

The truth is more subtle than that. People working in the space industry, the industry itself and the corporations don't lie per se. What they do is not ask questions. They might wonder why a specific figure or procedure is used if the moons gravitry is really only 16% but its not in their best interests to go around asking questions.

So scientists from places like Russia, France, Iran, Venezuela and China all pretend to themselves that the moon doesn't have 64% earth gravity because.......they might get in trouble with NASA? Would NASA ban them from looking into space again? Would it confiscate their telescopes?

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

John, when you're in a hole stop digging. I often read these threads for entertainment but at the moment I'm actually finding your posts toe-curlingly embarrassing as you're making such a fool of yourself.

Thanks for the post FatherLukeDavis and not to worry. Making a fool of myself has been a life long quest that I have elevated to 'Master' achievement and quality.

If you are claiming that the moon has 64% of the gravity of the Earth then calculating it's average density is straightforward, especially so when buddhasystem has already posted the calculation:

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

Any problem with this?

Though that is of course the average density, and as you claim the moon is hollow that would make it's surface "shell" astoundingly dense - perhaps exotic matter from a white dwarf?

Thanks FLD. Thats the informaton I needed.

So scientists from places like Russia, France, Iran, Venezuela and China all pretend to themselves that the moon doesn't have 64% earth gravity because.......they might get in trouble with NASA? Would NASA ban them from looking into space again? Would it confiscate their telescopes?

I would respectfully caution you, Father, that I am used to looking like a fool. In your cae, however, I would consider that many knowledgeable people are reading these posts and you might want to temper your rants in that respect, just in case.

Know what I mean?

But thanks for the post and the information.

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

So scientists from places like Russia, France, Iran, Venezuela and China all pretend to themselves that the moon doesn't have 64% earth gravity because.......they might get in trouble with NASA? Would NASA ban them from looking into space again? Would it confiscate their telescopes?

I would respectfully caution you, Father, that I am used to looking like a fool. In your case, however, I would consider that many knowledgeable people are reading these posts and you might want to temper your rants in that respect, just in case.

I just don't see how the Father's post qualify as rant. While you are certainly used to looking like a fool, which you freely admit, FatherLukeDuke just pointed out the extra crust of absurdity in your claims, and you cannot even refute it (regarding national space programs of Russia, France etc being all controlled from NASA). Sorry sir, but the rant is yours.

By the way, I hope you are satisfied with the density calculation which FLD pointed you to. In the realm of fantasy you are so prone to find yourself, not only NASA possesses an antigrav device they installed on the Apollo craft, there is also a super-gravity device hidden inside the Moon! Where does this end?

[edit on 9-11-2007 by buddhasystem]