Questions for John Lear

Originally posted by Edwards Patterson

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.

So you are on the same bandwagon as Timothy McVeigh? After all, he was upset about the Koresh cult tragedy, and decided to blow up some Feds to make him feel a little better. Never mind that bastard also blew up the child care facility and in general, a bunch of nice OKies.

I am scared of another 9/11!

Why should you be scared? Fear has you in its grip and you start writing hateful things, maybe there is a connection?

I LOVE ALL THE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD

Do you love serial killers?

Hello all,

Was following the recent exchange between John Lear and Buddha with great curiosity. How DO you calculate the mass of the Earth? Estimate average density of the crust (compared in relative size to the skin of an apple?) then estimate the various layers, the mantle and so forth, down to what I believe I was told about in Grade school is an iron core? That would seem to make sense given the very high pressures involved. If my elementary science is correct it should also explain certain aspects of radioactivity?

Now, once a mass of our planet is determined, I still don't know how the rotational period of a body can help to determine its mass...perhaps we are really talking about its orbital period, knowing the average radius of that orbit?

Hope I asked this clearly, thanks.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
How DO you calculate the mass of the Earth? Estimate average density of the crust (compared in relative size to the skin of an apple?) then estimate the various layers, the mantle and so forth, down to what I believe I was told about in Grade school is an iron core?

No, it goes the other way. We can't drill to the core hence we can't bona fide estimate the various layers.

That would seem to make sense given the very high pressures involved. If my elementary science is correct it should also explain certain aspects of radioactivity?

No, it's not correct. The high pressures do not affect radioactivity, which is a property of a nucleus.

Now, once a mass of our planet is determined, I still don't know how the rotational period of a body can help to determine its mass...perhaps we are really talking about its orbital period, knowing the average radius of that orbit?

That's right. Kepler's laws.

Originally posted by tezzajw
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.

Earth has been answered by BuddhaSystem.
Moon: www.mathpages.com...

Originally posted by buddhasystem

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.

OK BS. Let's talk about these 'disparate facts'. We'll take them one at a time.

The first sentence in "Would it be fair to say that the earth's crust has an average density of 2.7 gr/cm3?"

Whether or not you agree with this statement would it be fair and accurate to state that the average density of the earth is usually accepted as 5.5gr/cm3?

Thanks for you interest and although I don't think I can divide my statement into 8 parts I will do my best.

All I am trying to do is determine exactly how mainstream science determines/calculates the density of the Earth and the Moon so that when I present my argument for a gravity on the Moon of at least .64% that of earth's on the nearside and equal to earth's on the farside and the resulting 'breathable atmosphere' that I am using accepted mainstream scientific facts (i.e: earth's crust 2.7 g/cm3 and Earth's density of 5.5 g/cm3) as a starting point.

Thanks again for your help and telling me about 'google.com' for my research.

Originally posted by johnlear
The first sentence in "Would it be fair to say that the earth's crust has an average density of 2.7 gr/cm3?"

There are different types of crust, actually:
mediatheek.thinkquest.nl...

but the average number of 2.7 is likely to be an acceptable estimate.

would it be fair and accurate to state that the average density of the earth is usually accepted as 5.5gr/cm3?

You answered your question within that question. Yes, this is an accepted number.

All I am trying to do is determine exactly how mainstream science determines/calculates the density of the Earth and the Moon

By now, we've covered this topic, in this thread.

so that when I present my argument for a gravity on the Moon of at least .64% that of earth's on the nearside and equal to earth's on the farside

Oh boy. Phew. Good luck.

Thanks again for your help and telling me about 'google.com' for my research.

You are most welcome. May I also suggest the Wikipedia and actually, hardcover college textbooks on physics. They can be bought inexpensively in a used book store. Fascinating read, I'm telling you. Indispensable in any kind or research. Just don't forget to do the problems in each section, otherwise the real understanding won't come.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

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?

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

OK. So apparently the 2.7 g/cm3 for the Earth's crust and the 5.5 g/cm3 for the average density of the Earth's were not among the 'disparate facts' and 'assumptions'.

Let's try 3.34 g/cm3 for the average density of the moon. Would it be fair and accurate to say the average density of the moon was 3.34 g/cm3?

I tried out google.com and Wikipedia that you introduced me to. Here is what Wikipedia had to say.

The Moon has a mean density of 3,346.4 kg/m³, making it the second densest moon in the Solar System after Io. Nevertheless, several lines of evidence imply that the core of the Moon is small, with a radius of about 350 km or less.[1] This corresponds to only about 20% the size of the Moon, in contrast to about 50% as is the case for most other terrestrial bodies. The composition of the lunar core is not well constrained, but most believe that it is composed of metallic iron alloyed with a small amount of sulfur and nickel. Analyses of the Moon's time-variable rotation indicate that the core is at least partly molten.[26

en.wikipedia.org...]

So, BS, would you agree that the average density of the Moon is 3.34 g/cm3 or is this among the 'disparate facts' and assumptions that you accused me of?

Thanks again for your help and prompt attention to my questions.

Originally posted by johnlear
So, BS, would you agree that the average density of the Moon is 3.34 g/cm3 or is this among the 'disparate facts' and assumptions that you accused me of?

Yes John, I agree with 3.34 and I stand by my statement that your original post with questions was quite crumpled.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

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?

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

OK, BS. It seems you don't have a problem with the density of the Moon being 3.34 g/cm3 or with the Earth's crust being 2.7 g/cm3 or with the Earth's average density of 5.5 g/cm3.

How about the Moon's gravity? Would you agree that the Moon's gravity is one sixth that of Earth's? Or is this one of the rapidly dwindling and ever diminishing 'disparate facts' and assumptions' that you accused me of?

I can't believe this Wikipedia thing you told me about. It knows almost everything!

Search
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You searched for John Lear [Index]
Jump to: navigation, search

No page with that title exists.

en.wikipedia.org...

Thanks again BS for your prompt attention to my posts.

Originally posted by johnlear
OK, BS. It seems you don't have a problem with the density of the Moon being 3.34 g/cm3 or with the Earth's crust being 2.7 g/cm3 or with the Earth's average density of 5.5 g/cm3.

I made it abundantly clear I don't. Your point?

Would you agree that the Moon's gravity is one sixth that of Earth's?

Roughly. And frankly, enough of that.

I can't believe this Wikipedia thing you told me about. It knows almost everything!

See, you live and learn, John. I feel proud to have enriched your life experience. You even tested this out:

Search
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You searched for John Lear [Index]
Jump to: navigation, search

No page with that title exists.

John, you are not significant enough to be included in the Wikipedia. Does it really surprise you?

But fear not, sometimes insignificant people make it into encyclopedias by virtue of their association with somebody famous. And so you did, John. You are listed in your father's entry along with your siblings, God bless you all. So, after all, you ARE in Wikipedia.



[edit on 19-12-2007 by buddhasystem]

Originally posted by buddhasystem

John, you are not significant enough to be included in the Wikipedia. Does it really surprise you?

Yes it does. Because for one thing I am the only person to ever have single-handed an America's Cup boat in an officially sanctioned (Santa Monica Yacht Club) race.

And two, I came in 5th in the 1968 Reno Air Races Unlimited Class flying a Doulgas B-26 medium twin engine bomber. I passed one P-51 after which I was informed that 3 fighter pilots from Nellis Air Force Base commited suicide over the back of the grandstands.

And third, while driving the Powerboat Magazine Special top fuel hydroplane I turned 164 mph in the quarter mile at Lake Ming, one of the fastest runs for the time (1968).

Now the way I see it any one of those should get me my own page in Wikipedia.

Thanks for the post.

Originally posted by johnlear
And two, I came in 5th in the 1968 Reno Air Races Unlimited Class flying a Doulgas B-26 medium twin engine bomber. I passed one P-51 after which I was informed that 3 fighter pilots from Nellis Air Force Base commited suicide over the back of the grandstands.

... snip...

Now the way I see it any one of those should get me my own page in Wikipedia.

Well, apparenlty coming in 5th didnt' qualify even it happened against the tragic background of a mass suicide. Wikipedia has standards that exceed those of ATS.

What it also does have is a wealth of useful information on space, planets and physics. The apparent lack of John Lear mention there doesn't bother me a bit.


[edit on 19-12-2007 by buddhasystem]

TO JOHN LEAR:

As you know, I am a big fan of yours...

I have ONE QUESTION

I have heard you mention the "suicide by 3 pilots off the grandstands"
once before, and I thought I was a joke.

Is it a joke or the truth,
and if it is the truth,
can you please elaborate as to the cause, circumstances, etc?

Thanks

T Patrick



[edit on 19-12-2007 by HighDefinitionFilms]

Originally posted by buddhasystem

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?

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

OK, BS. It seems you don't have a problem with the density of the Moon being 3.34 g/cm3 or with the Earth's crust being 2.7 g/cm3 or with the Earth's average density of 5.5 g/cm3 or with the moon's gravity being one sixth that of earth's.

Would you agree that the formula for Gravity is:

F=G x (M1M2) /r2

where:
• F is the magnitude of the gravitational force between the two point masses,
• G is the gravitational constant,
• m1 is the mass of the first point mass,
• m2 is the mass of the second point mass,
• r is the distance between the two point masses.

en.wikipedia.org...


Now this may seem unnecessary BS, but it was you who made the accusation:

"Your "statement "is a pile-up of disparate facts and assumptions."

It was also you that asked ME to

" Break it up in 8 pieces and we'll talk."

So frankly I am at a loss to understand the meaning of your statement:

Roughly. And frankly, enough of that.

It was you who asked ME to:

Break it up in 8 pieces and we'll talk.

So all I am doing is acting at your request and attempting to clarify the facts.

Thanks for your prompt attention to my posts.

John, I am in general very positive when it comes to answering physics questions. However, what you doing is presenting me with a number that is fairly non-controversial, such estimated density of Earth (which can be researched by you or anybody, for that matter), and asking if that number is correct. This is a waste of my time as much as it is a waste of the ATS bandwidth. If you find a discrepancy in formulas or physics data, I'll be happy to take a look.

Originally posted by HighDefinitionFilms

TO JOHN LEAR:

As you know, I am a big fan of yours...

I have ONE QUESTION

I have heard you mention the "suicide by 3 pilots off the grandstands"
once before, and I thought I was a joke.

Is it a joke or the truth,
and if it is the truth,
can you please elaborate as to the cause, circumstances, etc?

Thanks TP. Of course it was a joke!

Since time began there has been a social battle between 'bomber pilots' and fighter pilots'. Fighter pilots think they are the 'best' because depending on your level at graduation from pilot training you get your choice of airplanes and EVERYBODY wants to be a 'fighter pilot'.

The bottom sludge goes to bombers and navigators. Gen. Curtiss E. LeMay was a navigator which is why he had such an inferiority complex and was such a bully.

So the 'ultimate disgrace' for a fighter pilot is to by passed by a bomber pilot IN A BOMBER. In my case I was flying a B-26 (actually an A-26, the B-26 was the Martin Marauder, but after the war and all the Martins had crashed they renamed the A-26 the B-26. The B-26K was a modification by On Mark Engineering of the B-26 for counter-insurgency use in Southeast Asia.)

Anyway, before the race I had gotten some tips on the best rpm for the R-2800's by Lt. Col. Ted Sturmthal one of the B-70 pilots who worked the test pilot's school at Edwards.

It was Col. Sturmthal who, after I had landed came racing over as I was shutting the engines down and yelled up into the cockpit:

"John, 3 fighter pilots from Nellis committed suicide over the back of grandstands when you passed that P-51."

Of course everybody standing around went hysterical.

The guy flying the P-51 I passed was Tom Kuchinsky.

Anybody who didn't get the joke is respectfully requested to accept my apologies. Suicide is no laughing matter. Especially when it involves 3 fighter pilots from Nellis Air Force Base who watched me pass a fighter in a bomber in front of God and the entire grandstand at the 1968 Reno Air Races. (Incidentally next year will be the 40th anniversary of that incident.)

Originally posted by buddhasystem
This is a waste of my time as much as it is a waste of the ATS bandwidth. If you find a discrepancy in formulas or physics data, I'll be happy to take a look.

It can't be a waste of your time. If it was, you would simply ignore it.

The fact that you are replying to John, means that you feel it necessary to do so. No one forces you to respond, Buddhasystem. You choose to be here and spend your time doing so.

You wanted John to break it down in to eight parts, which he is doing, but you claim it's a waste of time?

Originally posted by tezzajw
You wanted John to break it down in to eight parts, which he is doing, but you claim it's a waste of time?

Please go back and read it where it started. It's hard to figure out.

And tell me, what sense does it make to ask if a number found in a reference book is agreeable to me? It's a number. And it's really not a physics question.

John, if you read this, do think it's fair to say that the number PI is approximately equal to 3.1415926535897932? (I didn't look it up and wrote from memory, so I may be mistaken). So please let me know.

buddhasystem
This is a waste of my time as much as it is a waste of the ATS bandwidth.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Please go back and read it where it started. It's hard to figure out.

It's ok, Buddhasystem - unlike you, I am not wasting my time being here. I've read it all and I can see where it all started. I've read almost all of your posts from the day you logged in and started 'contributing' to John's threads, as though you might have an agenda to push.

John, if you read this, do think it's fair to say that the number PI is approximately equal to 3.1415926535897932? (I didn't look it up and wrote from memory, so I may be mistaken). So please let me know.

I'm not sure why you typed the approximation for pi? Too much time on your hands, possibly? Maybe you just wanted to impress us with your recollection of digits in a random sequence? A local Melbourne teenager could recite pi to around 10,000 digits. From memory, he's top ten in the world for doing so, but I don't have the article with me now to quote the source. I don't see why you needed to type sixteen digits, when most computational accuracy would only require pi to maybe five decimals.

It seems that you have plenty of time to type these diversions, so you contradict yourself when you state that it's a waste of your time? Which is it Buddhasystem - a waste of your time or not?

Originally posted by tezzajw
I'm not sure why you typed the approximation for pi?

To illustrate that it's rather silly to ask me whether the mean density of the Moon is roughly 3.3g/cm3. Now, do you get that?