It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Questions for John Lear

page: 46
39
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlearThanks for your comment Ry. As you well know, you are assuming what the mass of the moon is. In my equation I don't have to 'assume' what the mass is because I know the neutral point.

But nice try!



Oh yes, my apologies. I forgot we're dealing with "funnybook" physics in this thread.

I challenge you to a physics debate at a university somewhat convenient to both of us. We each debate this point - the force of gravity on the moon - in front of a full room of physics students and several professors. Let's see who gets laughed out of the room first.

By the way - the previous poster's comments regarding earth-centered rotation was in relation to the earth-moon rotational system, not the earth-sun system.

You do realize that the Moon's mass is not assumed, don't you? It is solved for given orbital velocity, orbital radius, etc.. etc...

Weighing the Moon

What is important is that the moon is in a stable orbit. That means that its centripetal acceleration (which comes by way of its orbital velocity) is just the right size to counter the force of gravitation from Earth.

As you know from the last example I gave, the formula for the force of gravity between two objects is: F=(GMm)/r2.

G is the gravitational constant (please don't make be explain how they developed the gravitational constant...if that's in question in your mind, I suggest a physics refresher course at your local university), r is the radius between the centers of the two bodies, M is the mass of the earth and m is the mass of the moon. If we are to assume you are correct, and we don't know the exact mass of the moon, it doesn't matter, as you'll see. The formula can still be solved based on orbital velocity and radius.

The force of gravity draws the Earth and Moon together. So then take a look at the centripetal acceleration of the orbit.

Centripetal acceleration a = v2/r, where v is the orbital velocity and r is the radius of the orbit. From Newton again, F=ma, so put these together and we have our centripetal force.

These two forces have to balance out to make a stable circular orbit, so set one equal to the other (the two equations for F). Notice that the "m" on both sides cancels out? That's why the mass of the moon doesn't matter, because based on orbital velocity, radius of orbit you can still perform the required calculations. You just need to use different formulas from the physics arsenal. And no matter how you cut it - the mass calculates to the value I gave up above, and the force of gravity on the moon is 1/6th that of the force of gravity on Earth...assuming we're talking about Newtonian universal laws of physics. If you want to ignore the universal laws of physics, I suppose you could try to claim the moon is hollow and filled with cheese. But then your formulas for won't work.


-Ry




[edit on 21-2-2007 by rdube02]




posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 12:14 PM
link   
But the Moon's orbit isn't stable. The Moon's distance from the Earth is increasing at a rate of something like 4 centimeters per year due to tidal forces. How does this affect your calculations, if at all?



The Moon's orbit (its circular path around the Earth) is indeed getting larger, at a rate of about 3.8 centimeters per year.

The reason for the increase is that the Moon raises tides on the Earth.

Moon moving away from the Earth



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
But the Moon's orbit isn't stable. The Moon's distance from the Earth is increasing at a rate of something like 4 centimeters per year due to tidal forces. How does this affect your calculations, if at all?


Awesome question! This site outlines it far better than I ever could. But essentially the moon's orbital change is explained as follows:



The force between the Earth and the Moon is not exactly along the line between their centers producing a torque on the Earth and an accelerating force on the Moon. This causes a net transfer of rotational energy from the Earth to the Moon, slowing down the Earth's rotation by about 1.5 milliseconds/century and raising the Moon into a higher orbit by about 3.8 centimeters per year.


and here:



The asymmetric nature of this gravitational interaction is also responsible for the fact that the Moon rotates synchronously, i.e. it is locked in phase with its orbit so that the same side is always facing toward the Earth. Just as the Earth's rotation is now being slowed by the Moon's influence so in the distant past the Moon's rotation was slowed by the action of the Earth, but in that case the effect was much stronger. When the Moon's rotation rate was slowed to match its orbital period (such that the bulge always faced toward the Earth) there was no longer an off-center torque on the Moon and a stable situation was achieved. The same thing has happened to most of the other satellites in the solar system. Eventually, the Earth's rotation will be slowed to match the Moon's period, too, as is the case with Pluto and Charon.


It's part of essentially an orbital "sych" that is still happening, however the net transfer of rotational energy in relation to the orbital radius/velocities used in the Universal formulas are inconsequential. If the radius from earth-to-moon increases even slightly, this is taken into account in the formulas above that utilize orbital velocity and orbital radius.

-Ry

[edit on 21-2-2007 by rdube02]



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by rdube02
If you want to ignore the universal laws of physics, I suppose you could try to claim the moon is hollow and filled with cheese. But then your formulas for won't work.
-Ry



Thanks for your post Ry. I don't know what the moon or the earth is filled with...thats why using the neutral point, which takes into consideration shell thickness, the percentage of caverns, core density, the average density of the shell material and everything else that makes up the moon and the earth is more of a scientific solution than any supposed 'universal laws'.

I can sympathize with your refusal to accept that the moons gravity is not one sixth that of earths. It is as tough a pill to swallow as when Giordano Bruno was trying to sell the fact that the earth revolved around the sun instead of vice-versa.

That the moon has more than one sixth gravity and in fact has at least .64 percent of the gravity of earth would mean that we might have to accept that the moon has an atmosphere and that that atmosphere might be breathable.

Then we would have to accept that the daytime sky is not black as portrayed by NASA photos because an atmophere would refract the suns light and make the sky blue or red or green or yellow.

Then we would have to consider that if there was a breathable atmosphere who might be up there breathing?


Then we might have to ask how long 'they' have been there and who the heck are 'they'?

So please believe me when I tell you that I sympathize with your predicament. On the one hand you are trying to defend a lie. On the other hand you want to be sure you have a chair when the music stops.


But please know this: truth will be known. Maybe not in my lifetime. But the truth will be known.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

I can sympathize with your refusal to accept that the moons gravity is not one sixth that of earths. It is as tough a pill to swallow as when Giordano Bruno was trying to sell the fact that the earth revolved around the sun instead of vice-versa.


Yes, but at least in that case the person doing the claiming offered a verifiable scientific explanation for the claims.



That the moon has more than one sixth gravity and in fact has at least .64 percent of the gravity of earth would mean that we might have to accept that the moon has an atmosphere and that that atmosphere might be breathable.


Fascinating claim, though all verified evidence shows otherwise.



Then we would have to accept that the daytime sky is not black as portrayed by NASA photos because an atmophere would refract the suns light and make the sky blue or red or green or yellow.


Yes - when is the last time you looked up and saw a moon that had beautiful blue skies like the earth? Or do you look up and see the sunlight reflecting on the perfectly completely clear whitish lunar surface? Just use your own two eyes. No telescope required.



Then we would have to consider that if there was a breathable atmosphere who might be up there breathing?



No one.



Then we might have to ask how long 'they' have been there and who the heck are 'they'?


No one.



So please believe me when I tell you that I sympathize with your predicament. On the one hand you are trying to defend a lie. On the other hand you want to be sure you have a chair when the music stops.



I was advised recently that in this field (ufology/aliens) there are many people who are delusional, and have convinced themselves of these delusions so thoroughly that it is what makes up their perceived reality. And to ask them to call into question that preceived reality would put their own personal mental balance in jeopardy. So believe me...I understand your predicament....and I will leave you to your thread in peace.

I am very sorry to have bothered you John. Carry on.

-Ry



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by rdube02

I was advised recently that in this field (ufology/aliens) there are many people who are delusional, and have convinced themselves of these delusions so thoroughly that it is what makes up their perceived reality. And to ask them to call into question that preceived reality would put their own personal mental balance in jeopardy. So believe me...I understand your predicament....and I will leave you to your thread in peace.

I am very sorry to have bothered you John. Carry on.

-Ry



Thanks Ry, although I really don't consider a debate about the gravity of the moon to be a 'Ufology/Alien' subject I can understand the motives of those who do.

It is with tearful regret that I accept your promise to leave this thread 'in peace'. I truly enjoyed honing my argument for the substantial gravity on the moon and regret that you didn't put forth more of an argument other than my supposed "delusions".

As a matter of fact when you resorted to this statement, "...there are many people who are delusional, and have convinced themselves of these delusions so thoroughly that it is what makes up their perceived reality. And to ask them to call into question that preceived reality would put their own personal mental balance in jeopardy", rather than debate the validity of the neutral point and Newtons Inverse-Square law I was intrigued.

Is this the best that Ry can come up with is that I am 'delusional'? Not only is that getting very close to violations of the T&C here but it is a very weak argument for one sixth gravity on the moon.


Remember: a promise is a promise.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by rdube02
I was advised recently that in this field (ufology/aliens) there are many people who are delusional, and have convinced themselves of these delusions so thoroughly that it is what makes up their perceived reality. And to ask them to call into question that preceived reality would put their own personal mental balance in jeopardy.

This is true. IIRC there have been documented cases of mental breakdowns when people have been "forced" (e.g. by their psychlogists) to see through their delusions (but I admit I can't come up with an authoritative quote for that right now).



So believe me...I understand your predicament....and I will leave you to your thread in peace.

I am very sorry to have bothered you John. Carry on.

He will, don't worry
.

It's only bearable if you see it as (somewhat bizarre) entertainment. And don't feel sorry for Mr. Lear - I'm sure he's very happy in his own world of grand conspiracies


Regards
yf



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost01

May I ask where you found the above quote?


I found it on the Operation Cyclone page in Wikipedia, it's in the link you gave me.


When I went back to the page (assuming I might have made a mistake), I failed to find your quote, however I found this:


Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by Western security agencies. Throughout the 80's, he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.


I did not find this statement on the link you gave me in your previous post.


I think the Page on Operation Cyclone and the Page on Al-Qaeda might have been different at one point. Also remember these pages CAN be Edited by outsiders like you and I.


I hope that you are not suggesting that I EDITED these pages. I am posting the entire 2 paragraphs that are in the link you gave me. However if you want to go to the SITE that you gave me you will find it in the 2nd paragraph next to the last sentence.


Operation Cyclone was the code name for the US CIA program to arm Islamic mujahideen during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, 1979-1989. The Program relies heavily on using the Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) as an intermediary for funds distribution. Along with similar programs from Britain's MI6 and SAS, Saudi Arabia and other nations, the opponents to the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan collectively train over 100,000 insurgents betweem 1978 and 1992. Somewhere between $3–$20 billion in US funds are funneled into the country to train and equip troops with weapons, including Stinger surface-to-air missiles.

The favored leader amongst the Afghan resistance fighters was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. His tactics became increasingly violent and aimed towards civilian populations, including shelling Kabul with American-supplied weapons, causing 2,000 casualties. According to a Newsweek article, in the late 1980s, Pakistani President Benazir Bhutto, concerned of the growing strength of Islamist movement, told President George H. W. Bush, "You are creating a Frankenstein." Hekmatyar was said to be friendly with Osama bin Laden, founder of al-Qaeda, who was running a similar Arab logistical organization concurrent to Operation Cyclone, called Maktab al-Khadamat (MAK). The US asserts all of its funds were used to supply native Afghan rebels, and denies any of its funds were used to supply Osama bin Laden or foreign Arab mujahideen. It is estimated that 35,000 foreign Muslims from 43 Islamic countries also take part in the war.



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 07:35 PM
link   
To all the fancy-dan Earth physics ' experts ' who disagree with Mr Lears moon gravity calculation

WHY IS THE MOON THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE ??

Answer that then rubbish John Lears argument.

JOHN LEAR FOR PRESIDENT



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Perhaps a mere chemist, like me, can help mediate the differences in opinion as to the gravity of the moon. Check your math, and watch the instructional video presented here




Google Video Link


[edit on 21-2-2007 by TheAvenger]



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 04:45 PM
link   
With a .64 eaths g and a semi thick envelope of gasses (breathable or not)shouldnt we be able to observe the liquidity of it in the varying visibility from dust storms?Winds and cloud patterns any other faint sign of some turbulence?
Or would the atmosphere remain static for some reason i am not aware of?(maybe its refusal to spin like we do.......)
Since after forty-seven, there are all kinds of claims of obsevatories seeing things being altered or appearing un natural up there....
The famous bridge is miles large!The tower is obviously real....
Can the UFO community buy scope time from some big observatory to investigate these things?
I find it very hard to believe that the self-assured scientists who s'n-word' at the farther out parts of extrapolation and obsevation but refuse to make concerted effort to debunk for good what is being postulated.
The moon is realtively the cheapest and easiest piece of solar real estate we have to study and explore,but no real effort gets made, and no concise data gets released.
The whole thing would be forgotten if people didnt insist on keeping it alive...Good on you, John.
There is another hollow moon story that i understand is documented by NASA though i am sure it is inadvertent, and probably could never reoccur.
I understand that the ejected moon lander vehicle that got abandoned when the astronaughts returned to earth. Was NASA tracked into its finall crash on the moons surface and the impact recorded via remote sensors they had planted there on the surface.
The astounding result was that the moon actually not only sounded hollow, but "rang like a bell" for over an hour!
I think you stand in good company with this investigation.
Any thoughts on a world organized moon watch co-ordinated through here?
Any comment would be appreciated.
thanx



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by rdube02
I was advised recently that in this field (ufology/aliens) there are many people who are delusional, and have convinced themselves of these delusions so thoroughly that it is what makes up their perceived reality. And to ask them to call into question that preceived reality would put their own personal mental balance in jeopardy. So believe me...I understand your predicament....and I will leave you to your thread in peace.


In fact, you've just described the very condition the majority of mankind is suffering from. Remember, the truth is much stranger than fiction.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by yfxxx

Originally posted by rdube02
I was advised recently that in this field (ufology/aliens) there are many people who are delusional, and have convinced themselves of these delusions so thoroughly that it is what makes up their perceived reality. And to ask them to call into question that preceived reality would put their own personal mental balance in jeopardy.

This is true. IIRC there have been documented cases of mental breakdowns when people have been "forced" (e.g. by their psychlogists) to see through their delusions (but I admit I can't come up with an authoritative quote for that right now).



So believe me...I understand your predicament....and I will leave you to your thread in peace.

I am very sorry to have bothered you John. Carry on.

He will, don't worry
.

It's only bearable if you see it as (somewhat bizarre) entertainment. And don't feel sorry for Mr. Lear - I'm sure he's very happy in his own world of grand conspiracies


Regards
yf


Why is it John's own world of grand conspiracies? Take a closer look at your screen, this is ABOVE TOP SECRET. John's theories are precisely the reason this site is here. Deny ignorance.

It still baffles me why such blatantly closed-minded people contribute to a site devoted to conspiracy theories.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Mr. Lear,

I know I don't have any formulas listed or anything about the moon mentioned here, but I was hoping you could give me an answer on my post below.

Thanks.

Horri



Originally posted by Horrificus
Mr. Lear,

Sorry if you have answered this before.

Years ago, I would say in the mid 90's, as a new type of satellite was going up, I remember hearing that the new tracking technology was going to "make the seas transparent." I think that was the quote.

Anyway, here are the questions:

1. Is there such a mechanism in place now?
2. Are there any kind of hi-res images, scans, etc. of the ocean floor?
3. Have there ever been any anomalous formations found in any images or scans taken of the ocean floor?

Thank you sir.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by yfxxx

Originally posted by johnlear
But do they know what they are talking about?

Have they ever heard of the inverse-square law initially proposed by Ismael Bullialdus and put on a firm basis by Isaac Newton?


Yes, they do know, what they're talking about. Other than you, who has quite obviously not the slightest clue about orbital mechanics! Furthermore you obviously didn't understand a single word I said when I talked about Lagrangian points and frames of reference in the Earth-Moon system. This is shown by your simple "calculation" with the inverse square law, because I explained in detail why this is a physically meaningless calculation! Just because your understanding of celestial mechanics doesn't go beyond primary school level doesn't mean that others can't do better.


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


Basing a grand conspiracy theory on one's own total lack of understanding of the underlying principles is just unbelievably ridiculous
. But thanks for making this clear to me.

Mr. Lear, I call you either a liar (prankster or fraud), an incredibly simple-minded person, or - most likely - a highly delusional first-class crackpot!

Regards
yf


yf,

I don't mean to incur the wrath of people like you and John, who seem to play on a different intellectual level than I do, but I have a question. Please don't take it as a challenge.

I have been watching the communications between you and Mr. Lear, and you certainly seem know the material. And you also seem to have very passionate convictions concerning the subject.

Could you tell us a little about your background?

Thanks.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Horrificus
Mr. Lear,

I know I don't have any formulas listed or anything about the moon mentioned here, but I was hoping you could give me an answer on my post below. Thanks. Horri

Originally posted by Horrificus
Mr. Lear,

Sorry if you have answered this before.

Years ago, I would say in the mid 90's, as a new type of satellite was going up, I remember hearing that the new tracking technology was going to "make the seas transparent." I think that was the quote.

Anyway, here are the questions:

1. Is there such a mechanism in place now?


I don't know. My guess would be yes.


2. Are there any kind of hi-res images, scans, etc. of the ocean floor?


I don't know.


3. Have there ever been any anomalous formations found in any images or scans taken of the ocean floor?


Yes, there are huge, dome enclosed alien bases and they are regularly monitored by the Navy.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by Horrificus

3. Have there ever been any anomalous formations found in any images or scans taken of the ocean floor?


Yes, there are huge, dome enclosed alien bases and they are regularly monitored by the Navy.



Holy Cow!! That would mean that the same type of cover-up involved with the moon, is happening with our oceans, and that there must be another Government Entity, or Pseudo-Government Entity involved in suppressing the info, in the tradition of NASA.

I guess we would be talking about the Navy again.

The difference is, people have easier access to the oceans. So, I wonder if anybody is doing this work.

Can I ask where you have found your information regarding this?



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Mr Lear,

Is it theoretically possible for a real 757 flying at 450 kias to achieve a turn radius indicated in blue on the Google frame shown below?

Thanks.




posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Mr Lear,

Is it theoretically possible for a real 757 flying at 450 kias to achieve a turn radius indicated in blue on the Google frame shown below?

Thanks.





No, not at 450 kts. Let me work on the exact physics but I believe that 450 kts is roughly 750 feet per second. I will have to figure out the distance in the area you have marked but its very unlikely that an airliner the size of the Boeing 757 could have maneuvered as shown with the blue line.

If you have time, maybe you could measure the distance from where the blue line starts a right turn from abeam the Navy Annex to the wall of the Pentagon. Thanks.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

If you have time, maybe you could measure the distance from where the blue line starts a right turn from abeam the Navy Annex to the wall of the Pentagon. Thanks.



Thanks for the quick reply.

The linear distance along the blue course is approx 4,550 ft.
The radius of the last left turn is approximately 1,450 ft.




top topics



 
39
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join