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.
Originally posted by undo
Erased is perhaps the wrong term. Like people in the witness protection program are erased (made to vanish) but they aren't really dead or gone, just renamed.
So, Mr. Lear, according to a formula, which you said was correct, and using a Lagrange point, which you said was correct, we get a moon gravity of 24% of earth's!.
So, even if you do not give up your claim that NASA (and every physicist and astronomer in the last few hundred years) is lying about the true gravity on the moon, you must at least modify your conspiracy theory to claim a moon gravity of 24% of earth's instead of 65%! And this is a blow, because at that gravity, all the claims about a "breathable atmosphere" become even more ridiculous than they already are (if this is at all possible)!
Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by yfxxx
So, Mr. Lear, according to a formula, which you said was correct, and using a Lagrange point, which you said was correct, we get a moon gravity of 24% of earth's!.
So, even if you do not give up your claim that NASA (and every physicist and astronomer in the last few hundred years) is lying about the true gravity on the moon, you must at least modify your conspiracy theory to claim a moon gravity of 24% of earth's instead of 65%! And this is a blow, because at that gravity, all the claims about a "breathable atmosphere" become even more ridiculous than they already are (if this is at all possible)!
Thanks for the post yfxxx. Boy that must have taken forever to type! I'm sorry to tell you that you have made an error as the moon's gravity is at least 64% that of earth's and the neutral point is 43,495 miles. But not to worry. Many great sceintist's have made errors.
I have considered taking the time to take your figures down the the University of Nevada at Las Vegas physics department and find someone to explain to me where you have erred.
But you know what? I think you'd try talk your way out of that too. Know what I mean?
So how about this? Instead of both of us wasting time trying to convince each other of their viewpoint (which is obviously not going to happen), why don't we just agree to disagree?
I'll agree that you are using mainstream accepted values to prove that the moons gravity is 16% or 24% (or whatever your current story is).
For instance the atmosphere on Mars. Surely you must believe as I do that the atmosphere on Mars, unlike the atmosphere on the moon, is almost identical to earth's.
WHERE IS MY ERROR?
Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by yfxxx
WHERE IS MY ERROR?
Yfxxx, your error is in the fact that your result as to the gravity of the moon compared to the gravity of the earth is not at least 64% that of earths. Its simple.
Now, you are not going to trick me into going down to UNLV, finding out where you have made your errror and then coming back, posting it and then having you perform all kinds of contortions as to why UNLV is wrong.
Thats why I proposed the agreement to disagree. Because no matter what I say you are going to have an argument with it. And the only problem with that is that in my opinion I am correct and you are wrong. My opinion is that my videos, photos and mathematics are more valid than your mainstream scientific mathematics.
Now I am taking into account of how stubborn you people are, believe me, but, can we agree to disagree?
And you have the guts to call me stubborn! egards
yf
Originally posted by TheAvenger
Please book me on the trip John. I prefer private quarters, but either an aisle or window seat will do.
We can make it a scientific mission by testing the effects of massive quantities of Courvoisier XO Imperial on human physiology under zero gravity conditions.
Originally posted by marker3221
Hi John,
Have you ever heard of Robert Bruce, the Austrailian metaphysist?
[edit on 16-5-2007 by marker3221]
Originally posted by yfxxx
Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by yfxxx
WHERE IS MY ERROR?
Yfxxx, your error is in the fact that your result as to the gravity of the moon compared to the gravity of the earth is not at least 64% that of earths. Its simple.
So your argument goes effectively like this:
"yfxxx made an error, because he doesn't agree with John Lear."
And that's it?! Is this your style of "discussion"!?
I made an argument, based on facts which you accepted, and came to a conclusion which differs from your "opinion". And this difference to your opinion is your only argument why I'm in error?!
So, whenever someone makes an argument against you, which you cannot refute, you simply say "You must be wrong, because I'm right"?
:shk:
Now, you are not going to trick me into going down to UNLV, finding out where you have made your errror and then coming back, posting it and then having you perform all kinds of contortions as to why UNLV is wrong.
You didn't read what I said. I clearly stated that I would accept it if UNLV said, that you are correct with your "gm = 0.64 ge" theory.
Thats why I proposed the agreement to disagree. Because no matter what I say you are going to have an argument with it. And the only problem with that is that in my opinion I am correct and you are wrong. My opinion is that my videos, photos and mathematics are more valid than your mainstream scientific mathematics.
The problem is your denial of basic logic. To summarize:
(1) You accepted a certain mathemtical formula (the one for the calculation of L1) and a certain value (the distance of L1 to the moon) as valid
(2) Using these two facts, I made a logical argument, using only relatively simple mathematical calculations to come to a conclusion (gm = 0.24 ge; not the "mainstream" value, but one based on the premise in (1)
(3) This conclusion differs from your opinion.
In a proper discussion, where logic is of any value, you have three options:
(a) Back out from the premise (1), i.e. either reject your value for L1 and/or reject the formula for L1.
(b) Show an error in the logical argument (2)
(c) Change your opinion, and adopt the conclusion from (2)
However, you do none of the above:
- You obviously don't even consider (c).
- You refuse to try (b), most likely because you are not able to. I double-checked the logic and mathematics, and they look "waterproof".
- Nothing you said so far indicates that you are going for option (a). You probably won't reject what you call "L1 distance from the moon" (the ~43,000 miles), so your only way out is rejecting the formula for calculation of L1. But by simply doing so without any hint whatsoever why this widely-accepted formula is wrong, you won't score many points on the credibility scale.
Now I am taking into account of how stubborn you people are, believe me, but, can we agree to disagree?
And you have the guts to call me stubborn!
Regards
yf
Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by hangerateteen
I said most (if not all) of the worthless crap you spew (IMO) is based on claims made by others.
As psuedo-ethical as you claim my behaviour to be I certainly don't stoop to the use the childish language you used at the beginning of your post.
If you want me to continue to respond to your posts I would respectfully suggest that you review the T&C's for ATS. I am going to give you a free pass on your childish language this time but next time you may not be so lucky! Capice?
Sorry if I offended your delicate sensibilities there John and thanks for the free pass. What did I win?
Would you prefer I expressed my opinion with something a little more verbose like “the utterly worthless unadulterated nonsense that emanates from you” instead?
Originally posted by hangerateteen
Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by hangerateteen
I said most (if not all) of the worthless crap you spew (IMO) is based on claims made by others.
As psuedo-ethical as you claim my behaviour to be I certainly don't stoop to the use the childish language you used at the beginning of your post.
If you want me to continue to respond to your posts I would respectfully suggest that you review the T&C's for ATS. I am going to give you a free pass on your childish language this time but next time you may not be so lucky! Capice?
Sorry if I offended your delicate sensibilities there John and thanks for the free pass. What did I win?
Would you prefer I expressed my opinion with something a little more verbose like “the utterly worthless unadulterated nonsense that emanates from you” instead?