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.

 

John Lear's Moon Pictures on ATS

page: 234
164
<< 231  232  233    235  236  237 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


With the greatest respect.....please check this website about the "Coriolis" affect. Water can drain in both directions, regardless of the hemisphere.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled program.




posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
and the water will swirl in opposite direction in the Southern hemisphere. Physics is cool, ain't it?


Just for my own edification, are you suggesting that the Coriolis force causes water flowing down a drain to swirl in opposite directions in northern vs. southern hemispheres?



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrPenny
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


With the greatest respect.....please check this website about the "Coriolis" affect. Water can drain in both directions, regardless of the hemisphere.


Thanks for correction. I was probably wrong on the magnitude of the force in the drain situation. Truth be told, I did this experiment myself in an empty tub, and the results seemed to be consistent with the Coriolis effect. Having said that, the experiment itself could have been flawed.

There are other manifestations of this effect though, which are hemisphere dependent -- cyclonic patterns in the atmosphere and artillery projectile deviation.


reply to post by yeahright
 


See the above.


[edit on 27-11-2007 by buddhasystem]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



Fair enough. Didn't mean to "pile on" there, but I hadn't seen MrPenny's post before I posted.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Originally posted by buddhasystem


Matyas, please show how this Law applies to the recent (quite astonishing) posts in this topic.


It applies to the tone you come across with in your posts. Or as Mr. Penny would say, "the style is getting in the way". Surely you understand the language of the Buddha?


...one that comes to mind is "pontification" on your part.


So what do I have to pontificate if I am also subject to this Law?


Call me when you have something to say about Advanced Composites and Minerals. Otherwise, don't hinder my inquiry.


I never denied you the privilege of your inquiry. It is my duty, since you wear the badge, to call foul when you are in slander or close to it. And I felt you were crossing that line. And if I were in slander, I would expect you to do the same for me. Otherwise, there is no brotherhood.

edit for !@#$ quotes

[edit on 11/27/2007 by Matyas]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matyas
It applies to the tone you come across with in your posts.


Too much uniformity would be quite boring, don't you think? People have tones.


It is my duty, since you wear the badge, to call foul when you are in slander or close to it. And I felt you were crossing that line.


If this is your duty indeed, how about your duty to research the subject of slander before you put this word in your post:

en.wikipedia.org...

You are wrong on two levels: defamation involves a false claim, and I didn't make such false claims; second, slander is transient (speech), and when in written form, defamation is classified as libel. However, because of the first item, this is moot since I'm not guilty of either. In fact, since you put a false claim of slander on my part in writing, it is you who's guilty of libel. Peace.


[edit on 27-11-2007 by buddhasystem]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Ok guys, take a deep breath, put away the swords and lets get back on topic shall we? Otherwise, please start a new thread discussing the Coriolis effect. Thank you.

I think it's about time for Zorgon to throw something in here.....there's been alot of new info gathered and discussed in two other threads that have direct correlation to this thread.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by MrPenny
 


Yeah, your right. The link BS provided for us states this:


Contrary to popular belief, the Coriolis effect is not the determining factor in the rotation of water in toilets or bathtubs (see the Draining bathtubs and toilets section below).


Physics IS fun!!!


The article goes on to say this:


Many people who misunderstand the Coriolis effect compound their misunderstanding by claiming that drain water spins clockwise north of the equator and counterclockwise south of it, which is reversed from direction of spin that would result from the Coriolis force if it were a determining factor. In addition, the Coriolis effect is a few orders of magnitude smaller than various random influences on drain direction, such as the geometry of the sink, toilet, or tub, and the direction in which water was initially added to it. For example, consider a bathtub where draining creates a water level difference of 3 cm over 60 cm, giving a pressure gradient of 500 N/m3. Now assume the water is draining at a speed of 50 cm/s. At a latitude of 45 degrees, this would give rise to a Coriolis force of 0.05 N/m3, or only 0.01% of the pressure gradient. Most toilets flush in only one direction, because the toilet water flows into the bowl at an angle[3]. If water shot into the basin from the opposite direction, the water would spin in the opposite direction[4].



I should have asked the guy who helps out my plumber. Sure, he makes minimum wage and doesn't have a GED "deploma". But he likely could have shed some light on this subject for me!

Thanks for, um, clarifying that for me, BS!



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Too much uniformity would be quite boring, don't you think? People have tones.


With this logic it is possible to justify the most egregious trespasses.


In fact, since you put a false claim of slander on my part in writing, it is you who's guilty of libel. Peace.


Of course, of course, I am guilty of libel if you you use this context and interpretation. But then you are using inferior Roman law. As a civilization come lately they do not hold a candle to the old ones.


The Great Teacher Chang-an says, “One who destroys or brings confusion to the Buddha’s teachings is betraying them. If one befriends another person but lacks the mercy to correct him, one is in fact his enemy.”


source

That should be clear enough.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 09:32 PM
link   
That Coriolis effect looks like another nifty way to prove the "roundness" of Earth.

Here is a thought: Could the drift of deep space probes be caused by the "roundness" or curvature of space and its associated Coriolis effect?



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 02:33 AM
link   
Oh, hey... not to stray from the current topic, but I mentioned a couple of weeks ago that all the LO-4 pics had been removed from the USGS site...

astrogeology.usgs.gov...

I thought it might be a temporary glitch, but they're still gone


All links at the LPI site have been going to 404's for the LO-4 hires gzip files from USGS for a while now.

www.lpi.usra.edu...

I hope they were archived off somewhere
There were some interesting pics there.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Zarniwoop
 



I got pretty nigh most of them although they are not gzipped now every one expanded on my hard drive.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Zarniwoop
 


Ah..my mistake upon examination what I have are LOIII and LOV.

Are you sure they were LOIV ? because hi-res are available through the consolidated lunar atlas.

www.lpi.usra.edu...



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Matyas
 


You are quoting:
"If one befriends another person but lacks the mercy to correct him, one is in fact his enemy"

As you have probably noticed, I tried to correct my ATS friends and was corrected myself on a couple of occasions, so well, I'm not anyone's enemy



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   
OK... I've been following this topic for quite some time now, and what I don't understand (and wish that someone would explain) is that with ALL the powerful ground based and space based telescopes and imaging gathering hardware all accross the globe, why hasn't anyone other than NASA taken pictures of the moon in order to settle this moon station issue once and for all??

Or is it that they already HAVE looked into it, but found nothing?

I don't get it... something THAT important and potentially life changing and so easy to either prove or discredit you would think that we would have people other than NASA looking into it.

People claim that there are stations on the moon, why not use 2007 technology to look into it a little deeper. NASA is not the only organization with the technical capabilities to image something as close to earth as the moon. Japan just placed a spacecraft in moon's orbit and has been taking pictures of the moon's surface in High Definition... where are the Moon Stations???

I oplogize if my post comes accross as pesimistic, but I find it hard to understand how something that could potentially change the way we all think about space travel and space colonization, not to mention History books, gets overlooked and the only thing we have in the form of proof are old NASA photos?

No disrespect to John Lear, the pictures ARE amazing.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by musikman
 


musikman, welcome to the fray.

Yes, there are many opinions out here, and common courtesy suggests we respect all. However, you raise some very good questions...

To wit: some here have suggested the Japanese orbiter's pictures are faked. In my opinion, that is false...

To wit: the Chinese now have a Lunar orbiter as well. Much disclosure is sure to follow.....



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


That's my problem... I'm not saying that the pictures we've seen so far are fakes or have been doctored up. In some weird way I REALLY DO want to believe and see proof that there actually IS such a thing as a "Moon Station", but I'm really confused as to why no one (other than NASA) has set their sights on the moon to see what's really there.

We have so many telescopes (ie. Hubble) that can see thousands if not millions of light years into space but no one can produce a desent picture of the moon which is 3 DAYS away from earth?? Something just doesn't make sense to me....



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by musikman
People claim that there are stations on the moon, why not use 2007 technology to look into it a little deeper. NASA is not the only organization with the technical capabilities to image something as close to earth as the moon. Japan just placed a spacecraft in moon's orbit and has been taking pictures of the moon's surface in High Definition... where are the Moon Stations???


Welcome to ATS musikman. In case you didn't have time to read the very long threads related to these (imho absurd) claims of various secret stations, let me cut to the chase: proponents state that ALL governments in the world form a huge conspiracy to suppress any and all evidence that goes against the "mainstream" notion that the Moon is, well, just a Moon
This conspiracy theory completely leaves out the huge army of amateur astronomers who are indeed armed with ever improving technology and computers to boot but hey, that's not the biggest hole in this



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by musikman
 


If you were to place the Mt Palomar telescope on the moon do you think you would be able to distinguish any man made object on Earth ?

You need high quality cameras in orbit or on the surface of the moon. That is why Japan and China have sent probes.

Having said that, Hubble ST does a pretty mean job of showing moon anomalies ( in certain pictures )



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by sherpa
reply to post by Zarniwoop
 


Ah..my mistake upon examination what I have are LOIII and LOV.

Are you sure they were LOIV ? because hi-res are available through the consolidated lunar atlas.

www.lpi.usra.edu...


EDIT: Nevermind. I went back through my old posts and found the link where the LO-IV pics are. They're still there


astrogeology.usgs.gov...

Although, LPI and USGS are not communicating very well because all the links from lpi to the USGS gzips are going to dead links.

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Perhaps they'll read this and fix it


[edit on 29-11-2007 by Zarniwoop]



new topics

top topics



 
164
<< 231  232  233    235  236  237 >>

log in

join