John Lear's Moon Pictures on ATS

Originally posted by SpaceMax
Tried the USGS?

Don't recall seeing any Surveyor 1 images there but I will look again... might have missed it

I've been privileged to meet many outstanding female scientists throughout my career.

Buddhasystem, any chance you could hook me up with Lisa Randall?

Originally posted by SpaceMax

I've been privileged to meet many outstanding female scientists throughout my career.

Buddhasystem, any chance you could hook me up with Lisa Randall?

I think if BS was familiar with Lisa's work he would not have labeled my notion of time travel as fantasy and pure fiction.

But sure, I'll assume he rubs shoulders with her unless he says otherwise. Why not?

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by Zarniwoop

Here is a pic from April 22nd 1959

This looks like a perfect circle but does not blend in with the curvature of the moonscape. I'm trying to figure this one out, but I can't... any help?

I went to the CLA and that photo is identified under Full-Moon Photography as photo section "HI" but the photo just above it is "GI" and I that it might be a "G" but that wouldn't account for the following subscript which would not be an "I".

So maybe its a notational circle around an anomaly, or possibly a number 6 with a possible subscript put on there by the someone who was inspecting the photo to identify the photo itself or something else.

Interesting find.

I was thinking it might be an early attempt at covering up an anomaly in the pic. Albeit, not a very good attempt. In the close-up, it looks as if the circle blends in with the surrounding landscape. But when zoomed out to normal, it obviously does not.

I thought about it being a stamp of some sort as well, but it doesn't look quite uniform enough. Also, none of the other photos from the site have anything remotely similar

Originally posted by Matyas
I think if BS was familiar with Lisa's work he would not have labeled my notion of time travel as fantasy and pure fiction.

Matyas, I am not familiar with either Dr. Randall of her work. However, from the content of your posts one can assume that your qualifications in physics are a tiny bit below those necessary to comprehend her papers. I therefore doubt very much that Dr.Randalls work and your interesting theory of time travel have many common salient points.

But sure, I'll assume he rubs shoulders with her unless he says otherwise. Why not?

Matyas, this is one of the least intelligent comments I ever read on the ATS and that sadly does include proclamations of a breathable Moon atmosphere.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Matyas, I am not familiar with either Dr. Randall of her work.

Why does that not surprise me?

That's the pretty lady that has some crazzzzy ideas about Locally Localized Gravity, four-dimensional gravitational physics, warp factors and extra dimensions of space

Yup our kind of scientist radical thinkers... too bad physicist's of her caliber are to busy to spend all day chatting with us



Hey maybe you could spend less time tossing out insults and call her up for a chat... You might learn something to share with us. I am sure she would make time for a fellow physicist

[edit on 11-12-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Matyas, I am not familiar with either Dr. Randall of her work.

Why does that not surprise me?

Because maybe (and it's a wild guess) you realize that there are thousands of theoretical papers published in refereed journals each year and that Dr.Randall is one of the cohort of talented theorists but does not hold an exclusive position in the community. Of course, you don't in fact realize that, and just made a feeble attempt at sarcasm.

That's the pretty lady that has some crazzzzy ideas about Locally Localized Gravity, four-dimensional gravitational physics, warp factors and extra dimensions of space

Zorgon, you are tossing around terms that you, personally, cannot begin to comprehend. According to Dr.Randall,

Ambiguous word choices are the source of some misunderstandings. Scientists often employ colloquial terminology, which they then assign a specific meaning that is impossible to fathom without proper training.

Hey maybe you could spend less time tossing out insults and call her up for a chat... You might learn something to share with us. I am sure she would make time for a fellow physicist

In reality, it would take me months and maybe years to catch up on highly advanced math used in her area of research, just as it would take Dr.Randall months and years to catch up with my expertise in particle detector design and software.

stupid, and no edvidance!

Originally posted by buddhasystem
In reality, it would take me months and maybe years to catch up on highly advanced math

Well then no time like the present to get started

reply to post by buddhasystem


Well BS, at least I have read her paper (one of), and yes, it has more to do with massless gravitons, which raises the possibility of exotic matter on demand! But you pointed out it has nothing to do whatsoever with time travel in relation to proclamations of a breathable Moon atmosphere.

Of this I am sure you are sure.

Maybe next time you can read one with me so to help me understand it better. Apparently I have not been managing very well at all without your help.

Well, as an off-topic post (just to go with the flow, here) I'd very much like to learn more about this concept of Time.

Perhaps much of what we discuss is somehow related, and therefore on topic? I'm just speaking here, not as a scientist, but as a person who can understand, if not comprehend fully at first, the concept that Time and Reality as we experience it, or as we think we experience it, might not be the whole truth.

I'm reminded of a book titled 'Flatlanders' (sorry, didn't look up the author yet) where the characters are two dimensional, and their world is intruded upon by a three dimensional entity. It is a great allegory on how perception works, and how we are locked into our 'view' of things, sometimes, and unable to contemplate something larger, outside our pre-conceived ideas and experiences.

Just food for thought....

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Well, as an off-topic post (just to go with the flow, here) I'd very much like to learn more about this concept of Time.

Errr...umm.. No offense, but this is not at all the flow for this thread

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a section from the NASA web pages for students. It seems they are prepping the 'next generation'…

www.nasa.gov...

The moon is a huge rock that travels around the Earth. Nothing lives on the moon. The moon has no air and no wind.

That 'may' be true, but it does have dust storms.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

We cannot see all sides of the moon from Earth. The part of the moon we cannot see from Earth is called the far side. Pictures from spaceships have shown us what it looks like. U.S. astronauts also traveled around the far side in 1968.

Spaceships??? I’ve never heard of Lunar Orbiters referred to as “spaceships"

Even today, many people believe that the moon affects the weather and people's behavior.

Oooooo....K




And here’s the scariest one…

sse.jpl.nasa.gov...

Can you tell me why an astronaut turns to dust if they take their suit off while on the moon?

I believe the answer has to do with equilibrium thermodynamics. There is no water in the Moon's (almost non-existent) atmosphere and so the water would get sucked out of the astronaut's unsuited body in an effort to even out the water vapour pressure over the Moon's surface. Since there is so little water in the astronaut's body compared to Moon surface, the water leaves the body very quickly and very completely, leaving behind dry dust.

[edit on 12-12-2007 by Zarniwoop]

Worlds First Moonbeam Collector

www.reuters.com...

Wed Dec 5, 2007 9:12am EST

BATHING IN MOONLIGHT

Neither of the Chapins are scientists. The couple used income from a popular swap meet they own in Tucson to develop what they call their "Interstellar Light Collector," which has so far cost them $2 million.

It consists of a large frame sunk into a 45-foot-deep (14-meter) crater, on private land in sparse desert, in an area known for its dark skies a few miles from the Kitt Peak National Observatory.

The device is five stories tall and weighs 25 tons, and is covered with 84 mirrored panels set on a hydraulic mount that, the Chapins say, can focus the light of the moon with "the precision of a Swiss watch."

Some visitors to the site believe that exposure to the moonlight has helped alleviate some medical conditions. After bathing in the moonbeams, Carr said he noticed an improvement in a long-standing asthma condition.

However, no clinical experiments with moonlight have been carried out on people. Scientists say there is no proof that it has any effect whatsoever on medical conditions and diseases, and are skeptical of anecdotal claims.

"I haven't seen any hard scientific evidence that it's not a placebo effect. There hasn't been enough real research on it yet to say that it's doing anything," said Katherine Creath, research professor of optical sciences and medicine at the University of Arizona.

...()

[edit on 12-12-2007 by Orion437]

UK team bid for Google moon prize

news.bbc.co.uk...

Last Updated: Friday, 7 December 2007, 05:54 GMT

Odyssey Moon says it wants to "make history" by sending a robotic lander to the lunar surface without any government funding.

The company is competing for a share of a $30m prize offered by Google and the X-Prize Foundation, designed to stimulate research into low-cost space missions.

"It's amazing to think that over half of the world's population was not alive the last time that humans or even robots were on the surface on the Moon." said William Pomerantz, Director of Space Projects for the X-Prize Foundation.

A top prize of $20m will go the first private company that lands a vehicle on the Moon and successfully completes a series of tasks including travelling across the surface for at least 500m and collecting scientific information.

Teams can earn bonuses of $5m for completing additional missions like taking photos of man-made artefacts such as equipment left behind by the Apollo missions.

"The Earth is big - it's hard and very expensive to get off. Once we have infrastructure on the Moon, from there we can get to anywhere in the Solar System with much less energy."

The model is equipped with a 3D laser scanner, designed to give the lander a full picture of its environment.

The company is working with MDA of Canada, best known for building the robotic arm for the US Space Shuttle fleet, to build their vehicle.

Dr Christian Sallaberger, the vice-president of MDA, explained that the final design will be shaped by the restrictions of the competition.

"One of the requirements of the prize is to send a high definition video signal back to Earth. So that dictates part of the sensing system you will bring with you.

"You will also have an impact from that on the communications. You need to send those high definition signals back, so you will need a high bandwidth system. That is one of the technical challenges that we are addressing."

They are working to a strict deadline - on 31 December 2014, the prize will be withdrawn.

(..........)

Originally posted by Zarniwoop

Can you tell me why an astronaut turns to dust if they take their suit off while on the moon?

So you mean to tell me that all that dust up there is....

Nahhhh

reply to post by Orion437


[deleted]

[edit on 13-12-2007 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by zorgon


Z!!!!

Very funny....thanks.

But, to answer another post up above...the prize money to achieve a landing on the Moon is $30M? Wow...I'm guessing it will cost a heck of a lot more for a private foundation to mount such an adventure...seems a poor prize, in my opinion.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
the prize money to achieve a landing on the Moon is $30M?

Hmmmm Matyas figures 30 million would just about do it for that 4 seater we're working on... anyone want to chip in?

That's the kicker to getting the prize money... you have to spend it first to build the ship etc... I think Spaceship One spent many times what they won to build the ship that took the prize

Originally posted by zorgon
Hmmmm Matyas figures 30 million would just about do it for that 4 seater we're working on... anyone want to chip in?

Yep, that should do it. The main cost comes in keeping four monkeys comfortable.

reply to post by Matyas


Well...mice are less massive, therefore cheaper...and fewer potential SPCA problems....or rats, maybe. No one likes them....(and near enough to mice on the evolutionary scale to be scientifically plausible).

OH!!! Cockroaches!!! Even better, on all counts...