Is John Lear Spreading Disinfo?

Originally posted by yfxxx

You see, discussing such scientific issues with Mr. Lear becomes quite pointless after a while, because he is unable to discuss these things at all.

Thank you yfxxx for your very lengthy, scientific, response.

Uh, I was just wondering, do you have an opinion on what the 'neutral point' is between the earth and the moon? (please express it in miles from the moon, thanks). I know I asked you this before but you may have forgotten.

If you don't know it, or can't find it out please just say 'no'. No more lengthy dissertations trying to bambozzle your way out of giving us a straight answer. Thanks.

Originally posted by johnlear
Uh, I was just wondering, do you have an opinion on what the 'neutral point' is between the earth and the moon? (please express it in miles from the moon, thanks). I know I asked you this before but you may have forgotten.

This is becoming surreal ... I'm beginning to feel like Bill Murray in the "Groundhog Day" movie!

If you don't know it, or can't find it out please just say 'no'. No more lengthy dissertations trying to bambozzle your way out of giving us a straight answer. Thanks.

For the umpteenth time: The point which best fits what you call a "neutral point", is the Lagrangian L1, at ~38,000 miles from the moon. Calculated using the established parameters (masses[*], distances) of the Earth-Moon system.

[*]I.e., the values which lead to a moon surface gravity of ~1/6 g , and not your stupid 0.64 g!


So, Mr. Lear, that should do it. Bookmarks this posting, and if you forget the answer again, go here for a look.

Regards
yf

Originally posted by Rren

I'm not seeing anything when I search that date through their site. Do you have a link to the image?

As with many NASA and Lick Observatory photos with incriminating evidence this photo is in short supply. The best place to find it is in books with photos of the moon published prior to the early 70's.

There are several examples here in the John Lear Moon Photos thread and at thelivingmoon.com of the Lick series.

If you look carefully you will find that photos of the moon as seen from the earth or in orbit are limited to a very few that have been in circulation for years. The massive moon photo 'cover-up' began in earnest in the early 70's. I have been fortunate enough to have collected numerous books and photos of the moon taken and or published prior to the early 70's.

But there is really nothing like finding an independent source but it getting more difficult.

But, I believe, you're looking for their center of gravity, correct?

I am looking for the exact point in space, between the earth and the moon, where an object such as an Apollo spacecraft would experience neutral or 'equal' pull of gravity of both bodies.

With this figure we can calculate by using the Bullialldis/Newton Law of Inverse-Square, the pull, relative to each other, of the earth and the moon.

The Bullialdus/Newton law of inverse-square (so called because Bullialdus originally hypothesized and Newton proved it) states that the gravitational attraction between two massive objects, in addition to being directly proportional to the product of their masses, is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

Using this method we don't have to 'assume' the density of either of the earth or the moon (which is where the basic flaw or actually 'con' originates about the moon having one sixth the gravity of earth).

Originally posted by yfxxx

For the umpteenth time: The point which best fits what you call a "neutral point", is the Lagrangian L1, at ~38,000 miles from the moon. Calculated using the established parameters (masses[*], distances) of the Earth-Moon system.

Well, first, lets be sure that what 'I call' a neutral point is what everybody else calls a neutral point.

I prefer to call the "neutral point" what Werner von Braun calls a "neutral point" and that is (and I quote von Braun) "At a distance of 43,495 miles from the moon, Apollo 11 passed the so-called "neutral point", beyond which the lunar gravitational field dominated that of earth." (Werner von Braun, 1969 edition of Rocketry & Space Travel, Thomas Y. Cromwell, New York.)


Then, yfxxx, would you agree with Werner von Braun (as he stated in the 1969 edition of History of Rocketry & Space Travel, Thomas Y. Cromwell, New York) that the neutral point is 43,495 miles from the moon?

Thanks for your patience and forebearance.

I'm not a mathematician, but I play one on the Internet.

Somewhere in there is a serious flaw. The Lagrange point is the result of a formula, using already determined masses for the planetary bodies. And I think, its determined by figuring the gravitational affect on a body at that point, and not so much their affect on each other. I'm pretty sure a third body must be included in the formula.

So you want to go backwards, starting with the result of a formula using established values, and discredit it by arriving at different values with a different formula? If that's the case, it throws the validity and accuracy of your formula into doubt also.

I'm thinking on the fly here. Can you tell?

(I just wrote a little note to myself, and I'm keeping it secret)

EDIT: THAT'S IT!!!! Its not a static relationship.

[edit on 1-5-2007 by MrPenny]

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by Rren

I'm not seeing anything when I search that date through their site. Do you have a link to the image?

As with many NASA and Lick Observatory photos with incriminating evidence this photo is in short supply. The best place to find it is in books with photos of the moon published prior to the early 70's.

Is there a book you could recommend?

I am looking for the exact point in space, between the earth and the moon, where an object such as an Apollo spacecraft would experience neutral or 'equal' pull of gravity of both bodies.

You already got your answer, looks like several times now [~Earth-Moon Lagrange point 1] and here's a page that explains how that matches the Apollo Mission(s) observations.

For discussion . . .
As the Appollo missions left the Earth's orbit and headed to the Moon, their speed was about 24,000 miles per hour. The engines were off. By the time they reached a point 30,000 miles from the Moon (37 cm from the model Moon), they had slowed to 2,000 miles per hour. From that point on, they began to speed up once again. The reason for this is that, at first,the crafts were slowed by the pull of Earth's gravity. That point (30,000 miles from the Moon) is where the pull of the Earth and the Moon are equal. Once past that point, the crafts began to speed up once again because of the net force caused by Moon's gravity.

Also wikipedia has a List of objects at Lagrangian points that would provide experimental observations/confirmations of the maths, no?

Source


[Emphasis- Rren]
For a smaller body (the Moon) orbiting a larger body (the Earth), there are 5 points where rotational forces and gravitational forces acting on a spacecraft cancel out. The L1 point is where the Moon's gravity plus centrifugal force cancels the Earth's gravity. If we launch a spacecraft on a Hohmann transfer trajectory from the Earth to the Moon and aim it at L1, it will actually complete a figure-8 orbit of the type discussed above. Similarly, a spacecraft placed near any of the other 4 points will tend to hover there. The L4 and L5 points are on equilateral triangles at the same distance from the Earth as the Moon, but 60 degrees ahead and behind the Moon. They are more stable than the other 3 Lagrangian points, and some space advocates have suggested these as natural locations for human space colonies.

Originally posted by yfxxx

Originally posted by johnlear
Uh, I was just wondering, do you have an opinion on what the 'neutral point' is between the earth and the moon? (please express it in miles from the moon, thanks). I know I asked you this before but you may have forgotten.

This is becoming surreal

... I'm beginning to feel like Bill Murray in the "Groundhog Day" movie!

"Hey now, don't you tell me you don't remember me 'cause I sure as heckfire remember you. [ ... ] Ned... Ryerson. "Needlenose Ned"? "Ned the Head"? C'mon, buddy. Case Western High. I did the whistling belly-button trick at the high school talent show? Bing. Ned Ryerson, got the shingles real bad senior year, almost didn't graduate? Bing, again. Ned Ryerson, I dated your sister Mary Pat a couple of times until you told me not to anymore? Well? "

Have fun fellas.

Originally posted by MrPenny
I'm not a mathematician, but I play one on the Internet.

Somewhere in there is a serious flaw. The Lagrange point is the result of a formula, using already determined masses for the planetary bodies. And I think, its determined by figuring the gravitational affect on a body at that point, and not so much their affect on each other. I'm pretty sure a third body must be included in the formula.

So you want to go backwards, starting with the result of a formula using established values, and discredit it by arriving at different values with a different formula? If that's the case, it throws the validity and accuracy of your formula into doubt also.

I'm thinking on the fly here. Can you tell?

Thank you for some clear thinking Mr.Penny.

Now if assumption of planetary mass had the La Grangian point at 30,000 miles and the actual point at which the spacecraft experienced neutral was 43,495 who is in error? The assumptions of mass? Or those idiots in the Apollo spacecraft and idiots at Houston Space Tracking Center?

Originally posted by johnlear
Now if assumption of planetary mass had the La Grangian point at 30,000 miles and the actual point at which the spacecraft experienced neutral was 43,495 who is in error? The assumptions of mass? Or those idiots in the Apollo spacecraft and idiots at Houston Space Tracking Center?

Who's saying the 'actual point' is 43,495 miles? That appears to also be an assumption, owing to the fact that I have in a very short time seen the neutral point as 24,000 miles or 43,000 miles, and the Lagrange Point as 38,000 miles (not the 30,000 you efficiently rounded down to).

Does anyone know what the hell anyone else is talking about here?

This is a fun mind exercise, but I think it only points out that, given a choice of variables, (none of which seem to be agreed on), a result that makes you (hypothetical "you", not you) and your (redux) theories happy is inevitable.

And the preceding sentence is a semantical version of the maths being tossed around here.

Originally posted by MrPenny

Who's saying the 'actual point' is 43,495 miles?

The astronauts and Werner von Braun.

That appears to also be an assumption, owing to the fact that I have in a very short time seen the neutral point as 24,000 miles or 43,000 miles, and the Lagrange Point as 38,000 miles (not the 30,000 you efficiently rounded down to).

No, it is not an assumption. It is the exact point that the Apollo spacecraft started accelerating.

Does anyone know what the hell anyone else is talking about here?

We are about to find out. Can you please give us your opinion on the neutral point. Your opinion is valued here.

This is a fun mind exercise, but I think it only points out that, given a choice of variables, (none of which seem to be agreed on), a result that makes you (hypothetical "you", not you) and your (redux) theories happy is inevitable.

There can be only one 'neutral point'. All you have to do is decide what it is. Is it Wikepedia 30,000? Is it 24,000? Is it yfxxx 38,000. Its really very simple. Just choose one.

And the preceding sentence is a semantical version of the maths being tossed around here.

If you think it is bad now, Mr.Penny, wait until you choose a neutral point and we get into the actual math. Don't give up now, please.

Originally posted by johnlear
There can be only one 'neutral point'. All you have to do is decide what it is. Is it Wikepedia 30,000? Is it 24,000? Is it yfxxx 38,000. Its really very simple. Just choose one.[...]If you think it is bad now, Mr.Penny, wait until you choose a neutral point and we get into the actual math. Don't give up now, please.

Unfortunately John, I can't play fast and loose with an empirical value and decide I have an opinion about it. It isn't like a steak....rare?....or medium rare?....I'll eat either one and probably enjoy it. But that kind of "close enough for guv'ment work" doesn't work in these kind of calculations. You should know that....pounds of fuel available, rate said fuel is consumed.....expected range. You don't get a lot of fudge factor there.

You see, the formulas for the Lagrange Point appear to calculate a third object not moving, relative to two other objects that are moving. Keep that in mind, "relative to". Your scenario has an object already moving in one direction; where its inertia and forward momentum may cause it to experience an acceleration prior to the calculated Lagrange Point. Your "neutral point" looks more like a terminus of sorts, dependent on a third object's own mass, acceleration, velocity, etc.....Ultimately, it may have far too many variables to be useful for this thought experiment. In short, your opinion (I know, and von Braun's, the Apollo crew...et al....) of the neutral point at 43,000 miles may only be valid for that single Apollo vessel, and flawed dependent on the amount of food they toted (affecting its mass).

This doesn't look like "six of one, half dozen of another".....it seems more like "half of one, six dozen of another". Until the variables, terms, and parameters are agreed on, or even understood (heh), agreement may be impossible. Its math.....1+1=2.....unless you can't agree on what "1" is.

So far, that's my opinion on the "neutral point". It could change, given different input.

[edit on 1-5-2007 by MrPenny]

[edit on 1-5-2007 by MrPenny]

In reference to the post on page 8.

I am not referring to the +'s, I am talking about the "stars". The white specks and swirly tails that are supposed to be stars. If we are going to discuss moon anomalies, I'd suggest clearer and more reliable picks and pics.

Any where I see darkness or a shadow, I seem to be able to find "stars"

[edit on 1-5-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by MrPenny

In short, your opinion (I know, and von Braun's, the Apollo crew...et al....) of the neutral point at 43,000 miles may only be valid for that single Apollo vessel, and flawed dependent on the amount of food they toted (affecting its mass).

Mr.Penny. Thats why its called the 'neutral point'. Its good for any weight. Any amount of food. Any Apollo vessel. Its THE neutral point between the earth and the moon. And it doesn't make any difference what the speed is. It can be stopped. It can be going M 1.

But thanks anyway for your opinion on neutral point.

Originally posted by johnlear
its good for any weight. Any amount of food. Any Apollo vessel. Its THE neutral point between the earth and the moon.

See, its about definitions, meanings,.....

You want a Lagrange Point with your own rules. Sorry....you've got to realize, the velocity, mass, direction, etc....will affect the "state" you're looking for.

So in conclusion, you want to determine the mass and gravity of the moon, by using a formula and/or scenario that ignores the mass of a third, moving object? And you successfully piloted aircraft?

You're entitled to your opinions, you're even entitled to air those opinions....having done so, I feel free to tell you.....its poorly thought out and logically flawed.

johnlear

Where can I find the Apollo astronauts' and/or the Houston Space Tracking Center's comments that the Apollo crafts crossed L1 at ~43k miles out and not ~30k miles out? You're not claiming any inside sources here, correct? This is in the category of 'public domain stuff most folks don't realize is out there,' I assume.



Why hide the fact of a more massive/dense moon? What (implications) am I missing here? If you were correct, Mr. Lear, what would change? Besides the obvious i.e., Luna is more dense than we thought? Didn't Apollo 8 pass L1 at ~30k miles, as it should of, and was predicted too?

Regards.

Originally posted by MrPenny

So in conclusion, you want to determine the mass and gravity of the moon, by using a formula and/or scenario that ignores the mass of a third, moving object?

No. The mass and gravity of the moon are already determined. I just wanted to expose it.

And you successfully piloted aircraft?

For 45 years. Amazing huh? Amazes me too.

You're entitled to your opinions, you're even entitled to air those opinions....having done so, I feel free to tell you.....its poorly thought out and logically flawed.

Thanks Mr.Penny, your input is appreciated as always.

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Where is all the He+3 currently being mined on the moon being sent and what's it being used for?

Its staying on the Moon... The Helium Barons do not intend to let us have it.

The new catch phrase is ISRU... its in ALL the new Lunar and Mars planned outpost documents.. it means "In Situ Resource Utilization..." Get use to it... what is on the Moon, stays on the moon

Whats it used for? Fusion reactors...

MIT Levitated Dipole Fusion Reactors



INFO HERE

The dipole magnetic field is the simplest and most common magnetic field configuration in the universe. It is the magnetic far-field of a single, circular current loop, and it represents the dominate structure of the middle magnetospheres of magnetized planets and neutron stars. The use of a dipole magnetic field generated by a levitated ring to confine a hot plasma for fusion power generation was first considered by Akira Hasegawa after participating in the Voyager 2 encounter with Uranus

Basically its a non radioactive fusion reactor that creates a LOT of electricity directly and can be a power source for a spaceship drive...

Wait till I post detials about the "Aquila"

BTW the word "Levitating" in the papers should at least raise an eyebrow or two...

25 tons H3 has enough energy to power the US for a year
25 tons is 1 shuttle payload (Russia's shuttle held 100 tons )
100 Tons is enough to power the Planet for 1 year
There are an estimated several trillion metric tonnes of H3 on the moon
Thats enough to power the Planet, the Moon and Mars for the next few thousand years...
Current value based on oil price 5.3 BILLION per ton

And no pollution to boot...

This seems like the same concept of technology as Searle and Carr.

Very interesting.

The H3 numbers you give. Is that using the generator you posted (the Searle machine), or using other means more mundane?

The Searle machine would be self sustaining at a certain point, beyond which it actually generates electricity rather than using it.

Originally posted by yfxxxSo, look for the eroded craters. I'm sure you'll have no difficulties at all finding some,

Excellent Idea!! I will get right on it... Undo... lets pull up those Clementine links and see what we can find I know I have seen some in passing..

But here is one in a dry region of Earth... not much erosion here..
Monturaqui Impact Crater Chile



Tenoumer Crater Mauritania




Meteor Crater, Arizona



There are more than 25 craters on Earth that are large...

Start Here LOL
landoflegends.us...

Getting back to the topic at hand.....

Is John Lear a government operative spreading disinformation? Based on what I know: NO! Short of uncovering a W-2 from the CIA Id say he more likely to be a Target of disinfo that be a conduit of it.

Originally posted by MrPennyIn short, your opinion (I know, and von Braun's, the Apollo crew...et al....) of the neutral point at 43,000 miles may only be valid for that single Apollo vessel, and flawed dependent on the amount of food they toted (affecting its mass).

What the heck does mass have to do with the neutral point? And how can the nuetral point be variable?

Earth exerts a certain amount of gravity pull. Last I checked this does not change from day to day... if it did there would be havok down here. I therefore think its safe to assume this holds true for the Moon or any other body in space.

At some point in space between the Earth and the Moon there is a point where the pull form both sides is equal... that is the neutral point... this does not change... you don't need physics to understand this... If it changed it would change the orbital mechanics of the solar system.

If you now toss in a small piece of metal like the Apollo craft the gravity that its mass effects the neutral point would be so small I doubt you could measure it, and still the amount of pull that the spacecraft would exert on Earth and what it would exert on the moon I am willing to bet would be the same at that very neutral point.

Now its easy to get the data from NASA as to what that distance is. Von Braun wrote it down in his book...

So lets have a straight anser just for once. A lot of minds in here and a lot of differnt distances...

THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE, or there would be no stable planetary orbits anywhere