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: 42
164
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Originally posted by Essedarius




You've grown increasingly snide and cynical over the past few weeks. Questions that you used to address are dismissed with venom, and attacks that you used to laugh off are returned.



You are 100% accurate. Thanks for the 'heads up'. Heading for the mine.




posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrappedSoul

Originally posted by johnlear
with proper decompression you can stand out on the the moons surface, without a space suit or helmut, look up into the clear blue sky and take a relatively deep breath of fresh moon air.

But where are the trees and plants that generates the oxygen?
And how do you know these things? Sorry, I haven't read EVERYTHING...

And a clear blue sky would also mean that there is much H2O there?

[edit on 2006/10/26 by TrappedSoul]


here is a repeat of the water that NASA estimates


30 to 300 million metric tons (recent thinking has raised the upper limit to perhaps as high as 3 billion tons). If melted, this larger number would fill a "lake" 10 square kilometers in area (3.1 x 3.1 km) to a depth of 10 meters.


LOL SO FAR I have only used official NASA sources to present evidence... Why? well most skeptics would at least be willing to accept the data if its from NASA... and in truth those figures from the spectrometers are pretty good...

Now when I quote other sources they may carry more weight


However oxygen does not have to come from trees... ever hear of electrolosis?... all you need is some H20 [see a few posts back] and electricity [see Matyas lightning bolts]

Haven't looked this up yet, but cosmic rays from the sun... can they knock Oxygen out of minerals?

The Britanica article says that only a small increase [from what is known in mainstream science] in the lunar atmosphere and it would last for 15,000 years... and NASA stated that those few short missions increased it by 30%...

Seems to me a mining operation venting steam would have an impact


The Borg... in commenting on that clip as being "blurry" remember that is is a clipping from Lick Two and the rest of that image is NOT fuzzy... so if one area is fuzzy, then cloud/dust fuzzy is more likely..

To Matyas...
Okay so where do we file the claim? I hear a lot of Mars has already been sold off too... Surely there must be a claims office somewhere?

To Violet...
Great followup!!! I will look at all that...



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 08:16 PM
link   
The best part of the Moon is what is within.

Wasn't there a movie called Red Planet or something where and Astronaut took off his helmet and could breathe the air, hint, hint.

I know there was something else I wanted to write but I'm having a senior moment, (yeah right.)

Senior moment over. Why do you all think they declassified Pluto...???? I still can't believe they had the nerve to have one of the Scientist on TV say to be classified a planet it had to be "round"



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Just a little snippit of what the Russian's are talking about...



Earth's moon is growing an atmosphere Also, the moon is growing an atmosphere that's made up of a compound Dmitriev refers to as ''Natrium.'' Dmitriev says that, around the moon, there is this 6,000- kilometre- deep layer of Natrium that wasn't there before. And we're having this kind of change in Earth's atmosphere in the upper levels, where HO gas is forming that wasn't there before; it simply did not exist in the quantity that it does now. It's not related to global warming and it's not related to CFCs or fluorocarbon emissions or any of that stuff. It's just showing up.

Source



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
No Essedarius, it was a statement. The statement started out, "Its a question" but it ended up as a statement. It was the same statement that has been posted on this thread many times. I try to be polite to people who don't want to bother reading the entire thread, but I tend to lose my sense of humor when they don't even scan it and then end up making the same statement.

I would have preferred Esoterica mention something about the Lick Observatory photos so I might think Esoterica had the slightest clue about what we are talking about instead of cutting and pasting old textbook science in this thread.

For instance Esoterica might have said something like this: John, I have looked at the smoke/dust rising from the explosion on the moon and realize that dust/smoke cannot form or drift in a column like in the Lick Photo if the moon had no atmosphere. Therefore I believe you have very good evidence that there is at least some sort of atmosphere on the moon. Why then, do you think blah, blah, blah.

See what I'm getting at?

Pounding me with words is useless when I have a picture of a column of smoke rising and drifting on the supposedly 'airless' moon.

Thanks for your post.



I scanned the thread, saw some grainy photos of a blob people say is an explosion and smoke column. I can only assume I missed the post where this photo was analyzed in more detail. Please direct me to it. It would be nice to understand why every astronomer in the world is wrong. I'm sorry, but 40 pages of people who just learned how to use Photoshop drawing arrows and playing with the color filter is not my cup of tea :-p. I did a search on "occultation" on this entire A& U forum, and found only my posts on the matter. Please also direct me to the post where the occultation issue qwas dealt with before.

A few grainy photos of what your "propietary" source says are an atmosphere are hardly convincing. Why take your single word for it, when I have everyone else in the world freely showing me the sources for their findings, which are in total opposition to yours?



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Oops!!!!!!!!!!! There's them dang CHEMTRAILS again.

You guys aren't looking up and observing now are you?



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica
I did a search on "occultation" on this entire A& U forum, and found only my posts on the matter. Please also direct me to the post where the occultation issue qwas dealt with before.


page 38 for one, where this link was posted:
www.holloworbs.com...



William Brian, a recent Moon researcher, suggests that a lunar atmosphere would be very clean, due to the lack of high winds and other weather conditions. Since the lunar atmosphere would not generally be carrying dust and water vapor by surface winds, he points out that light diffusion and scattering effects would be minimal. Therefore the occultation of stars would not be as pronounced, even if the Moon possessed a dense atmosphere.

Firsoff writes in his book that he observed the occultation of two stars in March 1957 while using a 6.5-inch reflector. Neither star 'snapped out' at contact with the rim of the Moon, but dimmed rapidly, then flickered brilliantly, before dimming again and finally disappearing. At the time of observation the Moon was a narrow crescent 2.5 days after the New Moon, and Firsoff stated that the effect could not be seen at a fuller phase, probably due to the background glare of the moonlit sky. Since we are dealing with different conditions for the Moon, the observational results do not come as easily as observing the Venusian atmosphere effects. This instance seemed to be an excellent combination of timing, seeing conditions, and most importantly - professional objectivity.


there's quite a bit of information about moon occultation in that link, and what i posted above is only a very small portion of the page.

now, understand something - NASA says the moon DOES have an atmosphere. it's thousands of times thicker than the "vacuum" that is space...but yet you're saying that occultation's don't exist when it's common knowledge some lunar atmosphere exists, even if NASA says it's very thin.

well this begs the question: HOW MUCH ATMOSPHERE IS NEEDED TO CAUSE OCCULTATIONS?

if the lunar atmosphere is, say, 3-4 miles high like the article i posted says it is, is that enough to cause occultations?

also, take into mind that we suffer EXTREME amounts of light pollution from the moon. the moon is so bright that if a star were to occult on the ridge, it would be very hard to tell. the ring of light that goes around the moon is quite significant, so what chance do you have to see a half a second flicker of a star?

also, the moon doesn't possess jet streams and weather like our planet does. that would make the moon's atmosphere VERY clean. if the atmosphere has no contaminents and dust floating around, a star would not occult properly. it would be like looking through a sheet of clean glass. you'd walk right into a piece of glass if it was clean enough. ever been in a hall of mirrors? i have and i've walked into several walls.

the moon's atmosphere - the one john lear speaks of - is much thinner than earth's. it would be something like standing on the top of mount everest. it's possible to breathe, but not very well at all and oxygen tanks are necessary. now, could a very thin atmosphere - thin enough to sustain pressure but barely enough to breathe - be up on the moon, too small and TOO CLEAN to cause occultation?

of course there can be.



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Thank you. I had a nice response all made up, and my computer died


I can't stay on long enough to retype it all, so I'll hit the big points-

1.Pluto's atmosphere is 1/700,000th that of Earth, and it can be used to witness occultation and detect an atmosphere. In fact, changes in the atmospheric density have been observed with this method. Unless you're going by the Propietary Source, which I do not have access to and therefore cannot provide a retort.

2. I cannot find the photographs of W.H. Pickering or the works of Alex Firsoff, and find no other mention of them in regards to a significant atmosphere aside from your single link provided. Therefore, I have absolutely no idea how relaible or accurate those claims are. Or even if they exist at all.

3. If there was significant plant life on the moon, as the Propietary Source states, then I believe there would be wind action simply due to differing densities of CO2 and O2 on opposite ends of the planet. Don't quote me on that though, I'll have to do a little more research.



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by observe50
Oops!!!!!!!!!!! There's them dang CHEMTRAILS again.

You guys aren't looking up and observing now are you?


LOL Chemtrails are a good thing.... you just wait... when you see the sun getting hotter you will be glad they were there.... but hey that's off topic



I posted the info the Russians had on the atmosphere where they stated about Natrium
[That's Sodium to us folkes]

Well here is some additional info on sodium in an atmosphere...

First... yes it is in out atmosphere too...


Sodium layer refers to a layer within the Earth's mesosphere of unbound, non-ionized atoms of sodium. The altitude of this layer is usually located between 80–105 km (50–65 miles) and has a depth of about 5 km (3 miles). Atmospheric sodium below this layer is normally chemically-bound in compounds such as sodium oxide, while above the layer the atoms tend to be ionized.



Source


Now then a backup to the Russian claims... Boston University

The Moon's Extended Sodium Atmosphere... Notice how far out it extends... [this is just one of the elements that make up the Lunar Atmosphere... Point is its an ATMOSPHERE





Source


To Esoterica:

Instead of insulting people on the thread, why not just go and look at the original copy of Lick 2 posted on page 23 of this thread... the "cloud" is in the upper right corner of the image, NW of Endymion... The clipping is no grainier than the rest of the image.


To John:

You might be right about the "Yellow" concept....


Atoms of sodium in this layer are typically in an excited state, and radiate weakly at a wavelengths around 589 nm, which is in the yellow portion of the spectrum. These radiation bands are known as the sodium D lines. The resulting radiation has been termed night glow.


Same source as above....

With all that sodium in the lunar sky, yellow seems very likely



Just a theory for now
but ummm pretty good statistics to back it up


[edit on 26-10-2006 by zorgon]



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica
Thank you. I had a nice response all made up, and my computer died


I can't stay on long enough to retype it all, so I'll hit the big points-

1.Pluto's atmosphere is 1/700,000th that of Earth, and it can be used to witness occultation and detect an atmosphere. In fact, changes in the atmospheric density have been observed with this method. Unless you're going by the Propietary Source, which I do not have access to and therefore cannot provide a retort.

again, john lear already mentioned this, you are getting your information from NASA, the world's biggest disinformation campaign. the 1/700,000th figure you have is likely false. can you prove that pluto's atmosphere is 1/700,000th of earth's? of course not. but i have shown you evidence of an astonomer watching the moon occult stars. of course, NASA won't tell you that, because it would expose their lies. they will also do whatever it takes to discredit the source to promote their ongoing 40+ year coverup.


Originally posted by Esoterica
2. I cannot find the photographs of W.H. Pickering or the works of Alex Firsoff, and find no other mention of them in regards to a significant atmosphere aside from your single link provided. Therefore, I have absolutely no idea how relaible or accurate those claims are. Or even if they exist at all.

www.lpl.arizona.edu...



INDEX TO VOLUME 11 OF THE JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION OF LUNAR AND PLANETARY OBSERVERS (The Strolling Astronomer):

More on a Possible Anomalous Occultation 117-118
Occultations of Stars by Juno 142-143
Occultations of Stars by Mars in 1958 144-145
Occultations of Planets by the Moon in 1958 145

i'll try to find more information on this some other time, but i'm writing a lab report right now, so you'll have to excuse me, but as you can see, occultations do exist and they are documented - and what do you know, it's in 1958


Originally posted by Esoterica
3. If there was significant plant life on the moon, as the Propietary Source states, then I believe there would be wind action simply due to differing densities of CO2 and O2 on opposite ends of the planet. Don't quote me on that though, I'll have to do a little more research.

there is. just not like earthly wind. it would be significantly weaker and lighter in the much less dense atmosphere. haven't you ever seen the flag waver ever so slightly in the apollo videos?

also, the wind would be extremely light because there are no large standing bodies of water on the moon like there is on earth, thereby producing no jet significant jet stream.

finally, who says lunar plantlife has to produce oxygen and has to breathe carbon dioxide? i HATE this assumption that extraterrestrial life has to be like earth life. they can breathe sodium and release helium for all we know. or maybe they don't breathe at all.

i stumbled across this website:
www.gafintl-adamski.com...



Space Research Reveals The Probability of a
Lunar Gravity Variable up to 64% Of the Earth's Gravity, and NOT the 16% Previously Theorized


funny how this estimate mirrors john lear's claim of the moon having 65% of the earth's gravity almost EXACTLY! i almost fell over when i read it. the fact that it's exactly what john lear has been saying for God knows how long is astounding!

if you're asking me who i trust more, NASA or john lear, i choose john lear. don't ask me why, i can't tell you. maybe john lear just seems like an honest, good guy. maybe the government just has a history of lying. or maybe it's both. i'm leaning toward both.

[edit on 26-10-2006 by ChocoTaco369]



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 08:00 AM
link   





The second image shows more detail about Endymion and doesnt show any "domes" or other "structures" or manipulation (airbrushing) as John mentioned at around page26. It's just the shadows acting up and cast a heavy black shadow..

And thats also the whole problem with most pictures showing in this topic, to many hairs,smudges, stripes etc..

Just my 2 cents.



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369
...i HATE this assumption....

I read your post and absolutely had to respond. So let's jump to a point previous of this little snippet.


..NASA, the world's biggest disinformation campaign[...]NASA won't tell you that, because it would expose their lies[...]promote their ongoing 40+ year coverup...

You have no verifiable, sound support for those statements. You haven't been to the moon, I haven't, neither has Mr. Lear. The only known organization on the face of the earth that has been to the moon?.....NASA.


www.lpl.arizona.edu...


This index of articles is worthless as a source. I hunted around on the site and cannot find the actual article in order to read and evaluate the information. Its no better than this; www.themoonisadeadrock.com...
Please, if you want to use that article as a source, actually link the article.


www.gafintl-adamski.com...


I have a crick in my neck from reading the slant on this website.

And finally...

the 1/700,000th figure you have is likely false


Why is it likely false? Do you have a more accurate figure in mind? It is unimaginable to me why an organization would feel the need to falsify the density of a planet's atmosphere; taking into consideration the incredibly unlikely chance that me, you, my neighbor, or nearly any other of the 6,000,000,000 people currently on Earth will ever visit Pluto and prove them wrong. What's the frickin' point?

Oh!!! I just got it. Its not the least bit entertaining or thrilling.



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   
in response to MrPenny:

please being reading on page 16:

www.bluetornadocyclones.com...

here are some key excerpts:


The history of reported lunar CHANGES, as distinct from the considerable variations in aspect of lunar features with changing solar lighting, is full of controversy and contradictions (1). However, in looking over my old observing notebooks for other reasons, I found what appears tobe a striking example in the crater Herodotus. The reader may properly wonder why this event was not reported when it occurred, 48 years ago. At the time, I wanted to make other observations under very similar solar lighting in order to confirm that something abnormal had indeed been observed. And after that, the matter just slipped away from memory. The observation was made on 11 August 1954 at 2:18 - 2:39 UT. A copy of a rather poor drawing is provided as the left image in Figure 1. The following notes were made: "The appearance of the floor is VERY PECULIAR; nowhere is the 'shadow' (necessarily existing with the Sun only a few degrees above the horizon at Herodotus) nearly so dark as in the adjacent crater Aristarchus. The land just north of Herodotus, and perhaps that in the north part of the crater as well, looks AS IF it may be very dark because very slantingly illuminated. The view is often good enough to show the two crater-pits at the foot of the two main dark bands on the east (now IAU west, the hemisphere of Mare Imbrium) inner wall of Aristarchus as two humps on the large interior shadow." At 3:03, UT, the curious appearance was confirmed. At 4:05, it was noted that the "shadow" was much darker than on the earlier drawing, but still less black than the Aristarchus interior shadow. At 5:09-5:28 UT, another drawing was made, here copied as the center image in Figure 1. A note says: "The shadow is of normal blackness now!".


now, if the moon had no atmosphere, all the shadows should be dark black, correct? you can't have gray shadows with no atmosphere. hmmm...

there's more:


It is difficult to explain this observation. Lunar atmospheric obscurations and mists have often been invoked in the past to explain curious appearances, but it is very hard to reconcile them with the known EXTREME tenuity of any lunar atmosphere


but if we are mistaken about the "known lunar atmosphere"...

put on your thinking caps.


Richard Baum has called my attention to recent evidence for lunar dust veils(9) which may be relevant to the Herodotus oddity. Surveyors 5,6, and 7, and perhaps Clementine as well, detected a patchy glow along the sunset terminator (10,12). The glow advanced westward at the same rate as the sunset terminator and disappeared about 20 miles, or a little more than two hours, into the lunar night. Dr. D. R. Criswell has proposed that the glow is produced by very small dust grains elevated above the lunar surface by electrostatic fields, which had been produced by solar x-rays ionizing atoms on sunlit surfaces and making them positive relative to their shadowed neighbors. The charges become neutral and the dust grains fall 20 miles beyond the terminator. Also, the microparticle detector left on the Moon by the Apollo 17 astronauts found evidence for dust particles moving westward at sunrise and eastward at sunset, especially in the interval from about40 hours before sunrise until about 30 hours after that event (11). This appears to be a classic example of electrostatic particle levitation.


or, possibly a classic example of small particles flying through air? after all, grains of sand should fall like blocks of lead if there is no atmosphere to keep them afloat


i have NEVER heard of any theories of a significant lunar atmosphere until i became a member on ATS, and i thought the idea was crazy at first, but after seeing there is research on it and how it's been downlplayed, it makes you think...

[edit on 27-10-2006 by ChocoTaco369]



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369
now, if the moon had no atmosphere, all the shadows should be dark black, correct? you can't have gray shadows with no atmosphere. hmmm...

Who says? If any other surface provides a reflecting backlight, the shadow could cover a wide chromatic range.



It is difficult to explain this observation. Lunar atmospheric obscurations and mists have often been invoked in the past to explain curious appearances, but it is very hard to reconcile them with the known EXTREME tenuity of any lunar atmosphere


but if we are mistaken about the "known lunar atmosphere"...

Did you read your own source? It clearly states "known EXTREME tenuity of any lunar atmosphere"....


or, possibly a classic example of small particles flying through air? after all, grains of sand should fall like blocks of lead if there is no atmosphere to keep them afloat

Again, who says? Don't forget, the moon's gravity is much weaker than Earth's.


but after seeing there is research on it and how it's been downlplayed, it makes you think...

What research? Your own source in your previous post appears to support the idea of electrostatic particle levitation. You've managed to cite sources that do nothing to support any more than an extremely wispy atmosphere on the moon. Certainly nothing that would be breathable for any length of time,



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrPenny

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369
now, if the moon had no atmosphere, all the shadows should be dark black, correct? you can't have gray shadows with no atmosphere. hmmm...

Who says? If any other surface provides a reflecting backlight, the shadow could cover a wide chromatic range.

NASA says so. if there is no atmosphere on a planet, the shadows have to be dark black. gray shadows are caused by atmospheric interference.


Originally posted by MrPenny


It is difficult to explain this observation. Lunar atmospheric obscurations and mists have often been invoked in the past to explain curious appearances, but it is very hard to reconcile them with the known EXTREME tenuity of any lunar atmosphere


but if we are mistaken about the "known lunar atmosphere"...

Did you read your own source? It clearly states "known EXTREME tenuity of any lunar atmosphere"....

what they are doing there is questioning the accepted rule of no air on the moon. they are asking a question without a question mark. the statement goes: "how can this be if there is no air on the moon? maybe there is?" they just didn't come out and say it for fear of being discredited by the mainstream scientific community.


Originally posted by MrPenny

or, possibly a classic example of small particles flying through air? after all, grains of sand should fall like blocks of lead if there is no atmosphere to keep them afloat

Again, who says? Don't forget, the moon's gravity is much weaker than Earth's.

Newton says so. it's his law of falling bodies. in a vacuum, a feather and a bowling ball fall at the exact same rate. this means that if there is no atmosphere on the moon, grains of sand will fall straight down at the same rate as large rocks. it doesn't matter if the moon has less gravity than earth. it will still fall rather quickly and won't linger around as a dust plume.


Originally posted by MrPenny

but after seeing there is research on it and how it's been downlplayed, it makes you think...

What research? Your own source in your previous post appears to support the idea of electrostatic particle levitation. You've managed to cite sources that do nothing to support any more than an extremely wispy atmosphere on the moon. Certainly nothing that would be breathable for any length of time,


"electrostatic particle levitation" is called debunking. it's coming up with a theoretical explanation because they don't know what is going on, and if they come out and say that conventional views (an airless moon) is wrong, they will instantly be discredited by nearly the entire scientific community. it's fear mongering.

[edit on 27-10-2006 by ChocoTaco369]



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369
Newton says so. it's his law of falling bodies. in a vacuum, a feather and a bowling ball fall at the exact same rate. this means that if there is no atmosphere on the moon, grains of sand will fall straight down at the same rate as large rocks.


So, just out of curiosity, the moon video where Astronaut Dave Scott drops a hammer and a feather and they both fall at the same speed...you're position would be that this was completely fabricated by NASA?



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369
NASA says so. if there is no atmosphere on a planet, the shadows have to be dark black. gray shadows are caused by atmospheric interference.


incorrect - atmospheric " interfence " as you put it

please research what an umbra and penumbra are

and discover that reflection is required - and reflection can be acheived in the absence of any atmosphere .

PS - i have deliberatly refused to supply links to make you look yourself



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 Newton says so. it's his law of falling bodies.


Galileo. Newton did the part where objects in motion will remain in motion until acted upon by another force. My blunder, so sorry you took so much heat. Now you will never trust me again



"electrostatic particle levitation" is called debunking. it's coming up with a theoretical explanation because they don't know what is going on, and if they come out and say that conventional views (an airless moon) is wrong, they will instantly be discredited by nearly the entire scientific community. it's fear mongering.


Not too quick here. I said "not likely", not "impossible". Electrostatic levitation fits snugly into EU Theory. Our understanding of atmospheres stand to change dramatically by including the electric element.

Recall in the STS75 video the tether had a nitrogen atmosphere along its 12 mile length making a strand about 1/12th cm in thickness appear like a cigar from 100 km away. The atmosphere was being held down by ionization!

What if the Moon has a part time atmosphere? Now wouldn't that be quirky! But I digress. I am comfortable with the Moon having an atmosphere, but not enough for me to take my helmet off.

Also of note machining by thunderbolts produces different patterns on airless bodies as opposed to bodies with heavy atmospheres. The Moon tends to favor the former. So let's take a real hard look at ionization.



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essedarius
So, just out of curiosity, the moon video where Astronaut Dave Scott drops a hammer and a feather and they both fall at the same speed...you're position would be that this was completely fabricated by NASA?

could be. some people say parts of the moon landing were faked and others weren't. maybe this was the fake part?


Originally posted by Matyas

"electrostatic particle levitation" is called debunking. it's coming up with a theoretical explanation because they don't know what is going on, and if they come out and say that conventional views (an airless moon) is wrong, they will instantly be discredited by nearly the entire scientific community. it's fear mongering.


Not too quick here. I said "not likely", not "impossible". Electrostatic levitation fits snugly into EU Theory. Our understanding of atmospheres stand to change dramatically by including the electric element.

Recall in the STS75 video the tether had a nitrogen atmosphere along its 12 mile length making a strand about 1/12th cm in thickness appear like a cigar from 100 km away. The atmosphere was being held down by ionization!

What if the Moon has a part time atmosphere? Now wouldn't that be quirky! But I digress. I am comfortable with the Moon having an atmosphere, but not enough for me to take my helmet off.

Also of note machining by thunderbolts produces different patterns on airless bodies as opposed to bodies with heavy atmospheres. The Moon tends to favor the former. So let's take a real hard look at ionization.

it's very possible. personally, i believe that scientists know absolutely nothing about the universe and most of their theory is horribly wrong, but that's just my opinion. i have little faith in human cosmology, and i won't have faith in human cosmology until we start performing experiments on other planets. i think that newton's laws and all that good stuff are earth-bound. go to another planetary system and they may not work. i don't think we have a very good understanding of gravity and i think our laws of physics aren't universally emcompassing. again, that's all my opinion.

i don't think we know enough about the moon from looking at it on earth. i think we actually have to start going there privately before we get the real truth. whether the moon has air or not, i'm sure NASA is lying about something.

[edit on 27-10-2006 by ChocoTaco369]



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrPenny


www.lpl.arizona.edu...


This index of articles is worthless as a source. I hunted around on the site and cannot find the actual article in order to read and evaluate the information.


I don't know what your talking about there are LOTS of great articled there about atmosphers on many planets including the Moon... Try starting at the front page..

www.lpl.arizona.edu...




new topics

top topics



 
164
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join