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: 95
39
<< 92  93  94    96  97  98 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 05:56 PM
link   
I cannot say that I don't believe it, because I do not think you are a disinformation intelligence agent.

I think its totally far out but I think it's possible, because starting from Roswell, we have a huge government cover up, and there are so many stories it is hard to think that ALL of them are made up when everybody seems so honest about what they are saying.

This is my greatest interest in the world - extraterrestrials.

God - if the elite globalists, the NSA and department of Navy, and all other deep inside intelligence agencies are lying to us, don't you think its time for world a revolt? I mean God! If there are people lying THAT MUCH I want to kill them all just like they want to kill me, and I am the most peaceful person I know. I just cannot tolerate people not telling the world something so important. It would make me F-ing believe that THEY ARE involved in a plot to kill us peace loving citizens. Please give me feedback if you can.

Much Love




posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Your opinion is well known. He is funny. You are just rude.


Dear Blaine,

it's not always easy to gauge the level of sensitivity of people you are speaking to, on the internet. However, I find it incredible that you accuse me of rudeness when referring to a specific post, in which I simply asked Mr. Springer the following:


I humbly beseech you to provide a reference to 5 posts of John that stretched your mind (hopefully, not in an irreversible way).


Perhaps, you don't see humorous notes in this line. Oh well. I however insist that it does not contain any "rudeness". You totally made it up and I don't appreciate it.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Edwards Patterson
...snip...
department of Navy, and all other deep inside intelligence agencies are lying to us, don't you think its time for world a revolt? I mean God! If there are people lying THAT MUCH I want to kill them all


We are at war now, and professing your desire to kill members of our Navy is essentially an act of treason, assuming you are an American. Even if you are not, it's probably against the T&C of this site. And even if it's not, you wanting to kill Americans is disgusting.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Would you please write out 3 or 4 reasons why we know that the moon has a density of 3.3 gr/cm3?


It's an average density. One can arrive to this number by dividing the Moon's mass, known from calculations based on its period of rotation, by its volume known from the radius, which can be measured based on observations.

What I gave you is one reason, not 4. Hope that still helps.


[edit on 17-12-2007 by buddhasystem]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Originally posted by buddhasystem




What I gave you is one reason, not 4. Hope that still helps.


Yes thank you BS, that helps. Now if you would kindly review by other three reasons I would appreciate it.


1. Would it be fair to say that the earth's crust has an average density of 2.7 gm/cm3 and that the moon's average crust density is 3.3 gm/cm3 and that to satisfy a gravity on the moon of one sixth earth's that an iron core in the center of the earth was hypothesized, to make the earth's density 5.5 gm/cm3 (to make the Fg+ G x (M1M2/r2) come out correctly) and subsequently scientifically backed up with the measurement of shock waves?

2. Would it be fair to say that another way of determining the density of the earth was measurement of asteroids and the polar axis of the earth?

3. Would it be fair to say that originally the density of the earth was determined by the Cavendish experiment which used 2 solid metal spheres, and that this experiment determined the gravitational constant in Newton's gravitational equation which was then used to determine the mass of the Earth?

Regarding you statement that you can figure an average density of the moon by dividing the Moon's mass, known from calculations based on its period of rotation, by its volume known from the radius, which can be measured based on observations:

Can you please tell me how to determine mass of the moon based on its period of rotation and volume? Or point me in the direction where I can find that information?

Thanks for your help BS.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
1. Would it be fair to say that the earth's crust has an average density of 2.7 gm/cm3 and that the moon's average crust density is 3.3 gm/cm3 and that to satisfy a gravity on the moon of one sixth earth's that an iron core in the center of the earth was hypothesized, to make the earth's density 5.5 gm/cm3 (to make the Fg+ G x (M1M2/r2) come out correctly) and subsequently scientifically backed up with the measurement of shock waves?


John, this is one crampled statement. As to the particular part of it, the Moon's crust density being equal 3.3, it's likely not correct. This number is the average number, as you know. If there is ANY structure/layers to the Moon, with varying densities (verly likely) the crust must have a different density.


2. Would it be fair to say that another way of determining the density of the earth was measurement of asteroids and the polar axis of the earth?


No. What do you mean by "measurement of asteroids"?


3. Would it be fair to say that originally the density of the earth was determined by the Cavendish experiment which used 2 solid metal spheres, and that this experiment determined the gravitational constant in Newton's gravitational equation which was then used to determine the mass of the Earth?


This is likely correct.


Can you please tell me how to determine mass of the moon based on its period of rotation and volume?


Mass is not dependent on volume. As to the period,
en.wikipedia.org...


Or point me in the direction where I can find that information?


Sure! www.google.com



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Originally posted by buddhasystem


Thanks BS. So would it be fair to say that the earth's crust has an average density of 2.7 gm/cm3 and that the moon's average density is 3.34 gm/cm3 and that to satisfy a gravity on the moon of one sixth earth's that an iron core in the center of the earth was hypothesized, to make the earth's density 5.5 gm/cm3 (to make the Fg+ G x (M1M2/r2) come out correctly) and subsequently scientifically backed up with the measurement of shock waves?

Would that be an accurate statement?


originally posted by johnlearCan you please tell me how to determine mass of the moon based on its period of rotation and volume?



Mass is not dependent on volume.


OK. Well I just repeated what you told me which was:


you can figure an average density of the moon by dividing the Moon's mass, known from calculations based on its period of rotation, by its volume known from the radius, which can be measured based on observations.


Thanks for your help BS.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
So would it be fair to say that the earth's crust has an average density of 2.7 gm/cm3 and that the moon's average density is 3.34 gm/cm3 and that to satisfy a gravity on the moon of one sixth earth's that an iron core in the center of the earth was hypothesized, to make the earth's density 5.5 gm/cm3 (to make the Fg+ G x (M1M2/r2) come out correctly) and subsequently scientifically backed up with the measurement of shock waves?

Would that be an accurate statement?


Your "statement "is a pile-up of disparate facts and assumptions. Break it up in 8 pieces and we'll talk.




originally posted by johnlearCan you please tell me how to determine mass of the moon based on its period of rotation and volume?



Mass is not dependent on volume.


OK. Well I just repeated what you told me which was:


you can figure an average density of the moon by dividing the Moon's mass, known from calculations based on its period of rotation, by its volume known from the radius, which can be measured based on observations.



No, John, you did not repeat me. Please try to concentrate. I said "density" and not "mass".




[edit on 17-12-2007 by buddhasystem]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 12:08 PM
link   
That is correct John, the very science that is used (against us) should be turned back on those that created it. Reflecting Truth for Truth. Until a stalemate is reached in the minds of its beholders, then everything is equal and no certainity and more uncertainity arrives at the conjuction of a realized basis.

"The ego of scientists sometimes overide the scope of learning"

The hunt is on and now they will have to start coming clean of what they know, they don't really know, but like to articulate on.

Their are many like to do a dis-service to man because they think its not in the minds scope to learn. That if something is unknown it is to be feared.

Then they have to classify it, label it, put in the field of the known to conceptualize a basis (for their) truth.

I really think it is in (Us) the 'backyard Scientists' that bring truth to a forefront.


Because sometimes you have to push the limits to stretch the imagination, beyond its grasp of learning to move forward.

It will take those 'Backyard Scientists' to rally and push the very foundations of The Standard Science to new levels.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by menguard
It will take those 'Backyard Scientists' to rally and push the very foundations of The Standard Science to new levels.


I can't wait for this rally to happen! I'm sure that the Secret Army of Backyard Scientists (SABS) is busy studying math in order to make this possible.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Originally posted by buddhasystem



No, John, you did not repeat me. Please try to concentrate. I said "density" and not "mass".


Well here is your exact qoute:



you can figure an average density of the moon by dividing the Moon's mass, known from calculations based on its period of rotation, by its volume known from the radius, which can be measured based on observations.


Am I missing something here? All I asked was how I figure the Moons density by its period of rotation and mass as you stated above.

All I'm trying to do is is nail down the exact argument that mainstream science is using to predict both the density of the Earth and the density of the Moon.

Thanks for your help BS.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Am I missing something here?


Yes.


All I asked was how I figure the Moons density by its period of rotation and mass as you stated above.


John, here's your actual question:


Can you please tell me how to determine mass of the moon based on its period of rotation and volume?


You may have inadvertently put "mass" in place of density. Can happen to anybody (and I am notoriously bad at that).

So, you measure the volume based on the Moon's radius. Right? And you calculate the mass based on it's period. Does that makes sense?

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear in the first run.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


It's happening now in bigger waves, the closer we get to Eternity, 2010-2017 the knowing happens.

Look for the government of any country or administration to set a stage to dumb us down. Through our own FEARS. Get rid of your Fear Implants.

The time is now and The Gathering of higher intelligence is already here.



The time for the Stone Age is over with, no more Dark Ages. We know too much to be dumbed down now.


[edit on 17-12-2007 by menguard]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by menguard
Look for the government of any country or administration to set a stage to dumb us down.


So it's all the governments fault. I see.


Through our own FEARS. Get rid of your Fear Implants.


So you are constantly living in fear?



The time for the Stone Age is over with, no more Dark Ages.


What does Stone Age have to do with Dark Ages? Are you sure you got your facts straight?


We know too much to be dumbed down now.


You do? I havent' noticed that, sorry.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Its from the fears of (our own) inner governments.

Knowing.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Originally posted by buddhasystem




You may have inadvertently put "mass" in place of density. Can happen to anybody (and I am notoriously bad at that).

So, you measure the volume based on the Moon's radius. Right? And you calculate the mass based on it's period. Does that makes sense?



OK, sorry and thanks. Now. How do I figure density of the moon based on its period of rotation and mass?



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
OK, sorry and thanks.


I must apologize for using not the warmest words in my vocabulary in this conversation.


Now. How do I figure density of the moon based on its period of rotation and mass?


Another typo here, John. Rotation period and mass are related. Instead, you use mass (derived from period) and volume to figure out density. Let me know.


[edit on 17-12-2007 by buddhasystem]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
All I'm trying to do is is nail down the exact argument that mainstream science is using to predict both the density of the Earth and the density of the Moon.

I see where you're headed, John...

Average Density = Mass / Volume.

We can assume a near spherical shape for the Moon and Earth. Most of us, including mainstream scientists will agree that the average measurements for the radii of the Earth and Moon are close enough to being true. Therefore, there's probably little argument regarding the accuracy for the Volumes of the Earth and Moon.

So, what you want Buddhsystem to explain is how the Mass of the Earth and Moon can be obtained, as that's probably where you're looking for the erroneous result which will fudge the Average Density values... right?

Buddhasystem, how do scientists determine the Mass of the Earth and Moon? We all know geometry, so we're happy enough to accept the Volumes of the Earth and Moon can be calculated from measured radii.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Tezza, I think this is a good read:

en.wikipedia.org...

As for the mass of the Moon, the method can be googled even easier



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
you wanting to kill Americans is disgusting.


Everybody, I am absolutely sorry for saying that I am scared the Government wants to kill us Americans and that I want to kill the people involved to protect the freedom loving people across the world. I was a little intoxicated during the post, and I admit I was completely wrong.

I am sorry Buddhasystem, I didn't mean it like that. This is what I meant.

I am scared of another 9/11!

I DON'T WANT TO SEE AMERICANS DIE

I LOVE ALL THE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD

I am not against all humanity in the government, I am just saying that there may be a plot, they are just thoughts so don't take me seriously. We are at war because of our government, you probably know it is for the wrong reasons, so stop supporting these murderers because they have put our young to death. It is just cognitive writing.

My apologies to the management if I have done anything wrong, I don't want to start off on the wrong foot because I am here for John.

[edit on 17-12-2007 by Edwards Patterson]

[edit on 17-12-2007 by Edwards Patterson]

[edit on 17-12-2007 by Edwards Patterson]

[edit on 17-12-2007 by Edwards Patterson]

[edit on 17-12-2007 by Edwards Patterson]

[edit on 17-12-2007 by Edwards Patterson]



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 92  93  94    96  97  98 >>

log in

join