Jesuit priest debunked the lunar breathable atmosphere theory!

This may be a dumb question so I apoligize in advance if it is so. . .

Couldn't the question whether or not an atmosphere exists on the Moon be detected during a solar eclipse? Isn't there some spectral analysis that could be performed to show what elements are present? Again, probably not possible because I'm sure someone much more intelligent than I would have thought of it already.

2PacSade-

bad sentence

[edit on 20-11-2007 by 2PacSade]

Originally posted by johnlear
I know how emotionally bound you are to your numbers and drawings and laws you assume to be inviolate.

No John, I'm only attached to my family. Logic and numbers are tools at my disposal and not much beyond that. But I have those tools, and you don't

When I say 'laws' what mean is "currently accepted scientific dogma" because it only represents what mainstream science thinks 'now'. Tomorrow they may think different.

The Moon was orbiting Earth and observed by humans in the last few milleania, and unless that changes, I don't see how laws of mechanics will fall.

I invite you to continue wallowing in your mainstream scientific dogma

... as you continue wallowing in endless circulation of unfounded claimes without giving yourself the trouble of a simple calculation.

Oh, by the way. The revolution period of Apollo around the moon was one hour. Please don't get that confused with NAZA's published data.

Oh I'm sorry John but you like to quote data published by NASA. So I'll stick with your source. Taking one number from a dataset and refusing to use the other is beyond critique, John.

Thanks for carefully reading what I just wrote and exerting your mind to fully understand it.

Originally posted by 2PacSade
This may be a dumb question so I apoligize in advance if it is so. . .

Couldn't the question whether or not an atmosphere exists on the Moon be detected during a solar eclipse? Isn't there some spectral analysis that could be performed to show what elements are present?

It's not a dumb question at all. The spectral analysis of the tenuous Moon atmosphere has been done on a few occasions. There is no evidence that there is either (a) dense atmosphere (b) oxygen in significant quantities.

In fact, if the Moon's atmosphere was compressed to the density we have here on Earth, it would occupy mere 210 cubic meters -- so rarified it is, so it's damn close to vaccum.

reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts


And what eats Moon Cheese? Moonbats! Therefore, the Moon *must* have an atmosphere otherwise the Moonbats wouldn't be able to fly! QED.

All joking aside, the simple fact is that Mr Lear will *never* post his own first-hand experiences of observing the Moon through his own telescope with his own eyes.

He will *never* explain why his own *direct* observations of the Moon support his own hypothesis.

Nor will he explain why observations made by thousands of astronomers around the world support his own hypothesis.

He will evade, avoid and deflect but he will *never* get out a telescope, record some observations, share those observations and then explain how his observations support his hypothesis.

Thanks for reading this post John, your evidence is keenly awaited

Originally posted by johnlear
Oh, by the way. The revolution period of Apollo around the moon was one hour. Please don't get that confused with NAZA's published data. Thanks.

That doesn't coincide with the time stamps from all the air to ground loops. Are you now going to tell us that the air to ground loop was delayed so it would appear to happen as they said it did?

Sorry but its causes me pause as to whether a Jesuit priest would know anything abot this subject. What a crock!

reply to post by johnlear

Mr Lear,
Respectfully,
I Believe Sir, that there is a relatively simple explanation for the atmosphere being denser on the far side.
I have long believed that the moon has an artificial outer shell that is attached to the nearside of the internal mass, creating an internal hemispherical space which was terra formed long ago thus creating an internal atmosphere. Galileo noted that the Moon had not only craters but 'holes' which no doubt gave rise to much amusement and led to the notion that it was made of cheese.
Whilst I do not believe the Moon to be made of cheese ,I do believe that the 'holes'[many of which seem to occur in identical pairs] allow part of the atmosphere to 'leak out' thereby making it denser at source and gradually thinning out as it spreads around the periphery.
I don't think that what is happenning here is in any way at odds with the laws of physics, it's just that simple.
Kindest regards, and thanks for all that you have thus far revealed to us.
Horsegiver.

Originally posted by dk3000
Sorry but its causes me pause as to whether a Jesuit priest would know anything abot this subject. What a crock!

Well, you'd be surprised if you read abour Mr.Boscovich's scientific qualifications. I encourage you to follow the links in the original post. You'll see that Mr.Boscovich had more knowledge on this subject than Mr.Lear seems to have. Thanks.


[edit on 20-11-2007 by buddhasystem]

BS, I am in awe of your continued support of the Vatican and attacks on John Lear. Why keep contradicting yourself? I suppose you believe aids and other viruses exist, yet they cant be seen by us very easily. As a matter of fact, I doubt Boscovich could see viruses. And as stated before, scientific "law" changes constantly. It would be wise to take what Boscovich learned with a grain of salt. Although he may have been a genius, his tools were not as advanced as ours, and I'm sure his beginning work with atomic theory was not right on the money, and definately not the foundation on which atomic theory grew. Even if it was, it has since completely changed in light of the new evidence of more than 10 dimensions, and up to 16, according to a theoretical physicist I know personally, as well as string theory, which completely turns the atomic world we know into something altogether different. I dont necessarily believe John about many things, but he is not forcing you to believe him, and you sure as heck are having a hard time disproving him, in my opinion.

Of course he would debunk it, the Jesuits have been the lead Geological Scientists working on terraforming other planets in our solar system for decades.

Interesting, keeping all this in mind, how it relates to just how more intensive activity on the moon must be carried out in regards to issues with atmosphere. Of course, we had vehicles driving along the surface in the 1960s with relative ease from the camera view (initiate staged moon landing allegations here), so I would be interested in knowing what protective suits are used by us and/or others to carry out physical labor. Obviously, it wouldn't be the bulky suits of the last 40 or so years. So, I'd be interested in knowing the suit technology that has been adapted for surface activity there. Obviously this would require light, flexible material for maneuverability. The only way around this that I could see would be a method to produce perhaps a temporary atmospheric "structure" that would allow physical activity without the use of specialized breathing apparatus.

Now, do any of you know if such an artificial atmosphere has been created before, and in what detail, when, where (anything you can pass on, and if you could, share sources)? Thanks!

[edit on 20-11-2007 by eaurouge]

I do not know what the Vatican has to do with the existence or non-existence of and lunar atmosphere. It seems inappropriate to make attacks that people can take personally.

When anyone paints with a broad brush as to the Vatican and anyone else in positions of leadership in any other religious group, there is a principle involved here. I think it is to realize many people seek the essential truths, and what matters is the individual heart. We live in a system that demands we use fiat money, that may be wrong and clearly unjust, but the people who use the money are not necessarily wrong for being held hostage to it. The same goes for their religions in any case where people involve themselves. Not all catholics, and not all people in the Vatican are subject to critical remarks here that as I said before "paint with a broad brush." It is suggested that one look at the people who put so much energy in smears, and as always "follow the money."

People here should examine their conscience.

reply to post by SkipShipman


Skip I admit I did not take time to read the entire thread before I made my post above, however it is apparent to me that you may be feeling a bit defensive on behalf of the Catholic Church? This thread in no way is out to "Smear" the Catholic faith or its Church fellowship. If you look deeply into the past history (Very interesting) of the Jesuits from the beginning to present, you will find that they are not the passive, benevolent bald headed monks you would think. They have shaped the world we live in and continue to play a major role in the direction our planet and all of its inhabitants move in. What the OP has brought forward is entirely plausible.

Originally posted by jmilla
BS, I am in awe of your continued support of the Vatican and attacks on John Lear.

jmilla, I'm in awe of the amazing ease with which you form misconceptions. For one, I never supported the Vatican. And why would I "attack" our lovely chap, Mr.Lear? I'm just pointing at glaring holes in most of his arguments. Nothing personal here.

I suppose you believe aids and other viruses exist, yet they cant be seen by us very easily.

Exactly my point, and yet some are saying "until I travel to the Moon and take my helmet off, I won't know for sure". I say, start with taking off your condom if you are so averse to believing the facts of objective reality is they take more than a direct sensory sensation to verify.

And as stated before, scientific "law" changes constantly.

True, as we progress, we refine our models. We can now caclulate orbits with more precision than Kepler did, but his equations still do a crack job of exposing John's statements as invalid.

It would be wise to take what Boscovich learned with a grain of salt.

And of course breathable lunar atmosphere is and established fact, right?

Although he may have been a genius, his tools were not as advanced as ours

Well I asked John 5 times or more to get this telescope of his out of the closet because it's likely much better thatn Boscovich's, and do the direct measurement. Mysteriously, John refuses to look at the Moon, because guess what, that would be like looking in the face of the fact that he's posted nonsense.

Even if it was, it has since completely changed in light of the new evidence of more than 10 dimensions, and up to 16, according to a theoretical physicist I know personally, as well as string theory, which completely turns the atomic world we know into something altogether different.

At may be different but still even older models are good enough to calculate nuclear reactions and send a probe to Jupiter. The new stuff is a refinement and a complement.

I dont necessarily believe John about many things, but he is not forcing you to believe him, and you sure as heck are having a hard time disproving him, in my opinion.

I don't think so at all. He quotes the NASA data on one page and says it's a lie on the next, what do you say?

Well, there is not really much I can add or argue within this post but I will say this....


Considering what we commonly know about how an atmosphere is suppose to look when viewed from afar(and the many ways is can be looked at technologicly speaking), it certinly appears that there is no 'tell tale' signs of one on the moon. Perhaps its possible for a martian atmosphere to exist without these visable signs but as of yet, I have seen ZERO evidence that was something other than speculation, conjecture or flat out guess work.

For anyone that believes in JohnLears ideas/opinions on this matter, including Mr Lear himself, can you please post just one piece of evidence that rises above the level of speculation? Just one supporting Fact?? Please dont post any links here to long winded reads, I have probablly read them all anyway. I'm just looking from anyone to post something of substance that is undeniable...

Please refer to my sig before attempting to reply.

Best reguards, Ron.



Oh, and by the way, I mean no disrespect to anyone who believes in this, as I would love to as well!! I just can not seem to find anything that stands out as more than an interesting read.

[edit on 20-11-2007 by HomeBrew]

Originally posted by antar
reply to post by SkipShipman

 

Skip I admit I did not take time to read the entire thread before I made my post above, however it is apparent to me that you may be feeling a bit defensive on behalf of the Catholic Church? This thread in no way is out to "Smear" the Catholic faith or its Church fellowship. If you look deeply into the past history (Very interesting) of the Jesuits from the beginning to present, you will find that they are not the passive, benevolent bald headed monks you would think. They have shaped the world we live in and continue to play a major role in the direction our planet and all of its inhabitants move in. What the OP has brought forward is entirely plausible.

When I am "defensive," it is to all people involved in all religions. There is no question that catholics as well as other social and religious groupings have serious problems when confronting any historical record. I do not consider nor have I mentioned anything about the Jesuits being "benevolent bald headed monks." The world is a rough place, and one can consider the omissions of other historical figures in other religions as well in these diatribes against catholics and catholicism, as evidence of "either or," thinking verses "not only but also," thinking as preferable.

If you are doing an historical critique, then lay it on all parties. Otherwise by omission, you are deflecting from valid criticism of any and all religions or "anti-religions," and ideologies involved in the decimations of humanity.

We need a better world, and it will not happen in a "divide and conquer," mentality.

It seems it is free season on catholicism, even in an innocent discussion of the existence of a lunar atmosphere, and whether or not that is so. If catholics are so powerful then how is it so that they are freely bashed in the media, while other groups who have issues are not discussed?

p.s. When I said artificial atmosphere, I was referring to one that was not contained in an enclosed structure, like the shuttle. Just to clarify, thanks!

reply to post by SkipShipman


Just in our forum here alone the Catholics are by no means the only Religion to take hits or be the topic of the hour, Mormons, Jews, Christians, have been deeply discussed lately on the forum. I like what Homebrews signature above says. I find it difficult to sort through a bunch of headiness to get to the real meaning of what someone is trying to relate. A little truth here mixed in with nonsense stil leaves the mediocre mind nodding in approval. Peace.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
reply to post by johnlear

 

Mr. Lear

please state, in specific terms, the following about the atmosphere on the moon;

does this atmosphere currently exist ?
what gasses (by molar content/volume) compose the atmosphere ?
what is the density of the atmosphere ?
what is the temperature of the atmosphere ?
does it have 6 layers like Earths atmosphere ?
what is the maximum altitude of the atmosphere ?
which gravitational forces keep the atmosphere in place ?
by "breathable" do you mean specifically breathable to humans, or earth based life forms ?

c'mon Mr. Lear, humor me with your data. I'm sure a man of your infinite abilities has this information at your fingertips.

I'm sure, as a seeker of the truth, you would never just throw out a half assed idea just for the sake of it, I'm sure you have examined the moon carefully, and have data to back up your speculation.

and I forgot 1 question;

What is the relative humidity in this atmosphere ?

This thread seems to have become a mixture of being a hit piece against John Lear on one hand and on religion on the other...

While I do believe there are other civilizations in speace, I think any kind of an assumpttion that there is an atmosphere on the moon is bizarre. Now, with that being said, that does not rule out the possibility that there may be some kind of an alien base or monitoring lab on the moon.

However, the topic of this thread is about whether the moon has a breathable atmosphere or not. It shouldn't be turned into some type of demonization of either John Lear nor the Vatican. We all know that we could say tons about both... However, that's not what this thread was intended for.