Is John Lear Spreading Disinfo?

Hi Zorgon,

You the PR guy?

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Rren
This is hard science here, the Laws of motion and all that.

And hard science is the hardest thing to topple... but there are times when that happens..

Boyd Bushman of Lockheed Martin drops two stones off a high tower... He gets any man off the street to bring him the one that hits the ground first...

Guess what? One hits the ground first... so much for Galileo and Newton

Um, that only works in a vacuum. You know, like space and on the moon. There's more acting on an object than gravity... when you're under an atmosphere, that is. Remember "the feather-hammer drop" bit? I hope this guy " " meant you were kidding. Or that, for Mr. Lears sake, this PR thing isn't in any kind of official capacity.

Here is a good one... from NASA

"Numerous space physics and plasma theories are being revised or overturned by data gathered during the Tethered Satellite System Reflight (TSS-1R) experiments on Space Shuttle Columbia’s STS-75 mission last March."

So it seems even NASA says old school science is out the window LOL

Reading into that a bit much aint ya? Why didn't you link to it? Here it is if anyone is interested.

"Perhaps the most significant finding," Stone said, "is that tether currents proved to be up to three times greater than existing theoretical models predicted prior to the mission. With the amount of power generated being directly proportional to the current, this bodes well for technological applications." "Reversing the direction of current flow puts the system into an electric-motor mode," Stone explained. This harnessed energy could furnish thrust for reboosting a space station, satellite or Shuttle in a decaying orbit.
[..]

Tethered Satellite System investigators have just begun to scrutinize the data from STS-75. They expect that it will reveal more answers to questions about the workings of the Earth's upper atmosphere, its physics and the electrodynamic applications of tethered systems in space.

Humor me, what 'old school science' is out the window here? How is that related, in any way, to the science being discussed here? Interesting nonetheless so, thanks.

Originally posted by zorgon

I wonder why people rely so heavily on the opinions and evidence presented in Wikipedia... Afterall ANYONE can write or edit just about anthing they want so long as they provide appropriate sources..

First of all I was using it as a link to 'Big Impact Hypothesis.' It works just fine for that. I have no idea what Mr. Lears ideas are on how the moon formed. I, therefore, was not refuting them; arguing anything or; saying anything controvercial wrt to this conversation. That link does indeed give a good description of the 'impact' theory. If there was nothing in there you wanted to dispute, or no (on topic) reason to do so, you just wasted a perfectly good speech. Plus the wear and tear on your soapbox too.


Thanks for taking me to school though.

regards.

Originally posted by johnlear
Now just a darn minute here. I have always said the neutral point is at 43, 495 miles from the moon and I use Werner von Braun and the Apollo astronauts as a source of information. I make no calculations of the moon's mass. None.

I would respectfully request a clarification or retraction of your statement above yfxxx. Thanks.

Too stupid to understand even your own nonsense, huh!? I sure won't retract anything!

You use your "neutral point" value of ~43,000 miles as a start, and from there work backwards (using a seriously flawed application of a scientific formula) to arrive at the moon's mass or surface gravity (the two latter are equivalent from your point of view, because you apparently accept the textbook value for the moon's size).

Regards
yf

Originally posted by zorgon

Yes appears to be qualified...

Perhaps for the record you could state those qualifications so we may know what your expertise is yfxxx? Thank you, it would make it easier to judge your position

I studied physics at a German university, and finished with a degree ("diploma"), which is roughly equivalent to a Master of Science in the USA. So I think I know a wee bit about science in general and physics in particular. Apart from that, seeing the mistake in John Lear's arguments is basic high school physics, you don't need a university degree for that.

Ok, now for your scientific qualifications, Mr. Zorgon! Go ahead, I'm all ears ...


Regards
yf

Im gonna call trolling on yfxx. You are clearly trying to start crap with John and there is an influx of a few others recently doing the same. Its seems John has drawn the attention of a few resident and new edition debunkers and they just want to try and slander a guy whom has some excellent credentials to begin with unlike some of our persistant trouble makers. I can see if these were well thought out and polite arguments but these last few threads attacking John and others is disgusting and cowardess IMO. And it seems to be more prevalent now than ever. If you think its Bull say your peace and Move Along! Id like to see some of you fools post your credentials for all to see. But wait that would be fair play wouldnt it and most of you wouldnt have a leg to stand on in comparison. One again I believe John's genuine and most members calling him out consistantly are nothing but trolls and naysayers whom should belong too the world is flat club. And I thought there were rules against personal attack threads. So what gives mods?
Discussions are one thing but attacks are completely different and again quite cowardly.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
I don't recall seeing John provide any calculations or formulas for his 43k. I believe that this is a misstatement. I could be wrong, and just missed it...but like John says, he is referencing texts from 64, as well as Von Braun. I think that, given your position, you would be best to debunk him by showing how Von Braun was wrong, or that Mr. Lear misinterpreted the information that he read?

Nobody disputes the "43k" figure of von Braun. What is in dispute is Mr. Lear's "theory", which takes this value and uses it to arrive at a much higher moon mass (or surface gravity, which is equivalent in this context, because Mr. Lear accepts the textbook value for the moon's size).

I mean, in the end, all you are doing is arguing with a lay person who is using a very, very respected physicists own statements. Your argument, then, is not with John, but with Werner Von Braun.

No, it isn't - see above. To say it again: I do not dispute von Braun's claim, that the Apollo spacecraft experienced an accelerational "neutral point" at ~43,000 miles from the moon. What I do dispute is Mr. Lear's reasoning that this fact leads to the conclusion that the moon has a higher surface gravity than said by all textbooks. In fact, von Braun's "neutral point" is in good agreement with the textbook value for moon mass and surface gravity, if the laws of physics are applied correctly!

However, Mr. Lear does not apply said laws correctly[*]. With these incorrectly applied laws, he can only arrive at von Brauns "neutral point" value, if he assumes that the moon's mass (and therefore surface gravity) are much higher than the textbooks say. And since Mr. Lear trusts von Braun (as I do), he concludes that the moon's gravity is indeed higher than what "established science" says.


[*]Technically, he uses Newton's law of gravity in a way which applies only in inertial frames of reference, when he should in fact apply the (much more complicated) laws of motion for a non-inertial (in this case, rotating) frame of reference.

Just a thought. It would seem that in your fervor to debunk John you are starting to misrepresent information.

You only misunderstood my argument, which is probably my own fault. I hope, that I cleared up my point of view a bit with what I said above.


Regards
yf

Originally posted by Rren
I have no idea what Mr. Lears ideas are on how the moon formed.

I don't know how the moon was formed but I believe it was towed or 'placed' into orbit around the earth many thousands of years ago. Perhaps tens of thousands of years ago. Whoever did that managed to place it in 'rotational lock' so that one side of the moon faces earth at all times.

Immanuel Velikovsky wrote that Democritus and Anaxagoras taught that there was a time when the earth was without a moon. Aristotle wrote that Arcadia in Greece, before being inhabited by the Hellenes, had a population of Pelasgians, and that these aborigines occupied the land already there before there was a Moon in the sky above the earth; for this reason, they were called Proselenes.

Apollonius Rhodius mentioned the time “when not all the orbs were yet in the heavens, before the Danai and Deukalion races came into existence, and only the Arcadians lived, of whom it is said that they dwelt on the mountains and fed on acorns, before there was a moon.”

Velikovsky wrote, “It is probably the most remote remembrance of mankind: the time when there was no Moon”.

Of course, the idea that it 'broke off from the earth' or was wandering in space and 'captured by earths gravity' is flat out nonsense, a fairy tale for the uninformed.

Some have proposed that the moon is a gigantic space ship. I wouldn't disagree with that.

Whatever it is, or wherever it came from, it sure was pretty tonight.

Originally posted by VType
Im gonna call trolling on yfxx.

Fine. Go ahead ...

Its seems John has drawn the attention of a few resident and new edition debunkers and they just want to try and slander a guy whom has some excellent credentials to begin with

As far as I can tell, Mr. Lear's credentials as a physicist or astronomer, which are the only ones relevant in the recent discussion on this thread, are absolutely non-existent.

If you think its Bull say your peace and Move Along!

So you think everyone on ATS should have the right to post "Bull" (as you called it) without being challenged?!

Id like to see some of you fools post your credentials for all to see.

I just did, a few minutes ago.

But wait that would be fair play wouldnt it and most of you wouldnt have a leg to stand on in comparison. One again I believe John's genuine and most members calling him out consistantly are nothing but trolls and naysayers whom should belong too the world is flat club. And I thought there were rules against personal attack threads. So what gives mods?

Crying for mama to help? In fact, the moderators are smarter than you think .

Regards
yf

Originally posted by yfxxx
I studied physics at a German university,

Welche deutsche Universität konnte die sein? Das möchte ich wirklich wissen...

Ok, now for your scientific qualifications, Mr. Zorgon! Go ahead, I'm all ears ...

LOL Chemistry and Geology at a University in Toronto, then electronics. Many years spent as a security system specialist that took me to many interesting places. [I was there when they declassified and took photos of the Sea Shadow stealth hydrofoil ) I am sure I have a file in just about every police force on the planet... In my spare time I am a Viceroy and in that capacity myself or one of my loyals have held a sword over most of the politicians in Nevada's head!

But enough about me...

You seem to have a real personal thing against John... I have seen this displayed in many threads... time to grow up and act like a man...

Just because he strikes a nerve with his presentation and you can't refute it, resorting to such tactics as you display, while quite common amongst the scientific community when trying to discredit their peers or their peer's theories, is really getting old in here

Have a nice day

[edit on 3-5-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by johnlear
I don't know how the moon was formed but I believe it was towed or 'placed' into orbit around the earth many thousands of years ago. Perhaps tens of thousands of years ago. Whoever did that managed to place it in 'rotational lock' so that one side of the moon faces earth at all times.

[...]

Of course, the idea that it 'broke off from the earth' or was wandering in space and 'captured by earths gravity' is flat out nonsense, a fairy tale for the uninformed.

Some have proposed that the moon is a gigantic space ship. I wouldn't disagree with that.

!!! If nonsense had gravity, your post would have collapsed into a black hole!

Just for the record, Mr. Lear: What are your credentials as an astronomer or physicist? If there are none, why should anyone regard statements like yours above as anything else than the incoherent ramblings of a disturbed mind?

Regards
yf

However, Mr. Lear does not apply said laws correctly[*]. With these incorrectly applied laws, he can only arrive at von Brauns "neutral point" value, if he assumes that the moon's mass (and therefore surface gravity) are much higher than the textbooks say. And since Mr. Lear trusts von Braun (as I do), he concludes that the moon's gravity is indeed higher than what "established science" says.

Honestly, I mean no disrespect. I am fairly blunt and straightforward, so don't misinterpret my delivery.

I don't understand the duplicity. If you agree with Von Braun, and you agree with his 43k distance, then what about the distance that your scientific discipline predicts? Am I missing something?

I understand what you are saying about reverse engineering mathematics. It doesn't always work to use such derivatives. Consider:

you, John and I go to a hotel while out of town. We are told that we get a group rate of $30 (but you or john sleep in the tub, as there are only two beds ). We pay $10 each and go upstairs. Shortly, the bell hop runs up and states that there was a discount tonight and it is only $25. So, he keeps 2, and gives us each 1 back (totalling $5, right?).

If you figure that we each paid $9 net (equaling 27), and the hop kept $2, then that is only $29...where did the other dollar go?

Yeah, it is an old "riddle", but i use it to teach my kids that logic isn't always what it seems. And it seemed to apply here.

Originally posted by zorgon
Welche deutsche Universität konnte die sein? Das möchte ich wirklich wissen...

Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (-> www.uni-erlangen.de...). War die Frage ein Test, ob ich wirklich aus Deutschland bin ?

LOL Chemistry and Geology at a University in Toronto, then electronics.

Thanks. However, the absence of physics is noted . On the other hand, chemistry and/or geology probably required some basics in physics, so you should be able to follow my arguments about the dynamics of the earth-moon system, and how the textbook values for moon gravity, von Braun's observed "neutral point", and calculations of Lagrangian points all agree with another.

Regards
yf

Originally posted by yfxxx

Originally posted by VType
Im gonna call trolling on yfxx.

Fine. Go ahead ...

Its seems John has drawn the attention of a few resident and new edition debunkers and they just want to try and slander a guy whom has some excellent credentials to begin with

As far as I can tell, Mr. Lear's credentials as a physicist or astronomer, which are the only ones relevant in the recent discussion on this thread, are absolutely non-existent.

If you think its Bull say your peace and Move Along!

So you think everyone on ATS should have the right to post "Bull" (as you called it) without being challenged?!

Id like to see some of you fools post your credentials for all to see.

I just did, a few minutes ago.

But wait that would be fair play wouldnt it and most of you wouldnt have a leg to stand on in comparison. One again I believe John's genuine and most members calling him out consistantly are nothing but trolls and naysayers whom should belong too the world is flat club. And I thought there were rules against personal attack threads. So what gives mods?

Crying for mama to help? In fact, the moderators are smarter than you think

.

Regards
yf

Please spare me your rederick. You are a coward with no credibility whom enjoys attacking others. And go cry to mommy? Please junior your the one doing all the crying. Put that in you pipe and stew over it for a while.
Once again John has quite an authentic history you on the other hand are about as credible as a bag of rocks with a few college physics books in front of him.
But please all mighty windbag grace us with more of your vast knowledge and expansive thinking.

Originally posted by yfxxx

Originally posted by johnlear
I don't know how the moon was formed but I believe it was towed or 'placed' into orbit around the earth many thousands of years ago. Perhaps tens of thousands of years ago. Whoever did that managed to place it in 'rotational lock' so that one side of the moon faces earth at all times.

[...]

Of course, the idea that it 'broke off from the earth' or was wandering in space and 'captured by earths gravity' is flat out nonsense, a fairy tale for the uninformed.

Some have proposed that the moon is a gigantic space ship. I wouldn't disagree with that.

!!! If nonsense had gravity, your post would have collapsed into a black hole!

Just for the record, Mr. Lear: What are your credentials as an astronomer or physicist? If there are none, why should anyone regard statements like yours above as anything else than the incoherent ramblings of a disturbed mind?

Regards
yf

Lets see yours oh mighty one. Cmon or is your said persona non existant?

Oh and John never said he was anything but one hell of a pilot and of notable distinction both Civil and Militarily. And im sure John has been around and done more hush activities than you can shake you physics book at.


[edit on 3-5-2007 by VType]

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Honestly, I mean no disrespect. I am fairly blunt and straightforward, so don't misinterpret my delivery.

Ok.

I don't understand the duplicity. If you agree with Von Braun, and you agree with his 43k distance, then what about the distance that your scientific discipline predicts? Am I missing something?

I'll try to make it simple, so please don't anyone jump on technical details of the following ;-) ...

- I agree with von Braun (as does John Lear).
- My "scientific discipline" (i.e. conventional textbook physics) predicts von Braun's value, if we use the textbook values for the moon's gravity
- John Lear's "science" (it's hard to call it so ) agrees with von Braun's value, if we use a much higher moon gravity than in the textbooks.
- Since Mr. Lear is convinced that his "science" is right and conventional textbooks are wrong, he concludes: the moon has a higher gravity than the textbooks say.

Err ... was that clear enough?

you, John and I go to a hotel while out of town. We are told that we get a group rate of $30 (but you or john sleep in the tub, as there are only two beds

). We pay $10 each and go upstairs. Shortly, the bell hop runs up and states that there was a discount tonight and it is only $25. So, he keeps 2, and gives us each 1 back (totalling $5, right?).

If you figure that we each paid $9 net (equaling 27), and the hop kept $2, then that is only $29...where did the other dollar go?

Not bad! And yes, there are parallels to the "moon discussion"

Regards
yf

P.S.: Just for the record : We paid $27, of which $25 goes to the hotel and $2 to the bell hop.

Originally posted by Rren
You the PR guy?

No the "webpage guy" and the "research guy"

Um, that only works in a vacuum. You know, like space and on the moon. There's more acting on an object than gravity... when you're under an atmosphere, that is. Remember

Well spoken! It tells me you have not heard what Mr Bushman said and how the experiment was conducted, so until you do I won't comment

Reading into that a bit much aint ya? Why didn't you link to it?

Not at all, but then that is just a little news release... in the other documents it says 10 times not 3 times, but that is irrelevant as you say to this thread..

I have linked to it in other threads and on my site, so as your interested I will send you a file or two...but seems you found it easily enough

The science thats out the window is the amount of free electricity that can be pulled out by simply dragging a copper wire through the magnetosphere. News release says it was a success... if you don't count the loss of a 100 million dollar satellite minutes after deployment...

How is that related, in any way, to the science being discussed here?

Not at all related nor to the topic of proving John a disinfo agent but relevant to the fact that scientists don't always have all the right answers. I could make you a LONG list of those who were seriously wrong over the last 100 years but all claimed that theirs was the truth...

Interesting nonetheless so, thanks.

And that is why I toss them in...




[edit on 3-5-2007 by zorgon]

So, might I ask what sort of behavior you could expect from an iron meteor moving through this same environment?

What about a comet, which usually travels much faster and has less opportunity to offset the charge differential before impact?

Originally posted by yfxxx
Nobody disputes the "43k" figure of von Braun. What is in dispute is Mr. Lear's "theory", which takes this value and uses it to arrive at a much higher moon mass (or surface gravity, which is equivalent in this context, because Mr. Lear accepts the textbook value for the moon's size).

[..]

To say it again: I do not dispute von Braun's claim, that the Apollo spacecraft experienced an accelerational "neutral point" at ~43,000 miles from the moon. What I do dispute is Mr. Lear's reasoning that this fact leads to the conclusion that the moon has a higher surface gravity than said by all textbooks.


[...]

[*]Technically, he uses Newton's law of gravity in a way which applies only in inertial frames of reference, when he should in fact apply the (much more complicated) laws of motion for a non-inertial (in this case, rotating) frame of reference.


[...] my arguments about the dynamics of the earth-moon system, and how the textbook values for moon gravity, von Braun's observed "neutral point", and calculations of Lagrangian points all agree with another.

Thanks for those posts, yfxxx. That really helped, atleast me anyway. Mr. Lear, if you could address these points I think this could be resolved... atleast make the issue here more clear for us regular joes. I'm still not seeing what this does to support any of your other moon theories (which is sort of my point too) but this would be a start.


Protectors of JL: I'm not a debunker or expert. I've only asked questions, tried to show where I was coming from (aka, a discussion.) The only debunking I'm seeing is coming from yfxxx. He's yet to be refuted anywhere on this thread. If I missed it let me know.


Also, Mr. Lear is a grown man, who happens to get along famously 'round these parts, and doesn't seem to need any bodyguards. The fact that somebody would attack the veracity of such an accomplished pilot's physics arguments, is just something that's gonna happen every once in a breathable moon. Especially when said accomplished pilot runs into a physicist.

Call it life.

Goose Fraba, Goooose fraaaba

Originally posted by zorgon
You seem to have a real personal thing against John... I have seen this displayed in many threads... time to grow up and act like a man...

... and accept every nonsense unchallenged? Or not accept it, but be quiet and watch the nonsense spread? No, thank you, Sir!

Just because he strikes a nerve with his presentation and you can't refute it, resorting to such tactics as you display, while quite common amongst the scientific community when trying to discredit their peers or their peer's theories, is really getting old in here

I can (and did) perfectly well refute his claims about the moon's gravity. However, it's obvious that not all people understand my arguments. May bad. If you think that the "scientific theories" of someone whose track record includes lots of "great piloting" but no science are more believable than those of many accomplished physicists, it's your choice. But is it a good choice ?

Regards
yf

Originally posted by yfxxx
Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (-> www.uni-erlangen.de...). War die Frage ein Test, ob ich wirklich aus Deutschland bin

?

No but it got the NAME of the university out of you

Originally posted by yfxxx

Originally posted by zorgon
You seem to have a real personal thing against John... I have seen this displayed in many threads... time to grow up and act like a man...

... and accept every nonsense unchallenged? Or not accept it, but be quiet and watch the nonsense spread? No, thank you, Sir!

Just because he strikes a nerve with his presentation and you can't refute it, resorting to such tactics as you display, while quite common amongst the scientific community when trying to discredit their peers or their peer's theories, is really getting old in here

I can (and did) perfectly well refute his claims about the moon's gravity. However, it's obvious that not all people understand my arguments. May bad. If you think that the "scientific theories" of someone whose track record includes lots of "great piloting" but no science are more believable than those of many accomplished physicists, it's your choice. But is it a good choice

?

Regards
yf

So now your an acomplished physicist what next Nascar driver or maybe a
Navy Seal.
Once again your no more relevant than John on this subject and a hell of a lot less likeable. But no surprise there. And your supposed degrees dont mean diddly unless you can Prove they are real.
Whoops now Im being a debunker. Oh my.



[edit on 3-5-2007 by VType]