John Lear's theory of elementary particles

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


1. Why do we have titals/tidalwaves here on earth caused by the moons rotation around the earth when there is no gravitational pull from the moon?

Is it the super secret 120mph submarines that causes them?

And could anyone please tell me:

2. If there is atmosphere on the moon, why doesn't the apollo lunar module burn up in the decent?

3. And if there is no gravitational pull from the moon, how can the lunar module use the moons gravity to be thrown back to earth? ( slingshoot )

4. If a pen dont fall to the moons surface ( granted that you are standing on the surface of the moon. How does all the dust and small rocks keep still to the ground. Wouldn't the whole moon look like a giant dust ball?




[edit on 22-11-2007 by tep200377]




posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by tep200377
reply to post by zorgon


Let me guess... you were one of those students I quoted from yes?





1. Why do we have titals/tidalwaves here on earth caused by the moons rotation around the earth when there is no gravitational pull from the moon?


We have tidal waves because the gravity on the Moon is .64 of Earth...



Is it the super secret 120mph submarines that causes them?


Submarines on the Moon?
John will love that! Can you link us to that please?




And could anyone please tell me:

2. If there is atmosphere on the moon, why doesn't the apollo lunar module burn up in the decent?


Because the atmosphere is not high enough or dense enough and the gravity is about half of Earth so it would not cause enough friction. Also the fact that they had ROCKET MOTORS to slow them down might have helped a whole lot with that




3. And if there is no gravitational pull from the moon, how can the lunar module use the moons gravity to be thrown back to earth? ( slingshoot )


Who said there was no gravity? You HAVE actually been READING the topic yes? The Skeptics (and NASA) say 1/6th G and we say .64 G but both sides do agree that there IS Gravity



4. If a pen dont fall to the moons surface ( granted that you are standing on the surface of the moon. How does all the dust and small rocks keep still to the ground. Wouldn't the whole moon look like a giant dust ball?


About those pens... you will have to ask those students I quoted, or perhaps their professor... as to the rocks and dust... maybe Newton's Law? As long as you don't stir it up, it will stay put...



OY I need a vacation....


[edit on 22-11-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 04:14 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Sorry, I may have been reading to fast in your second last post. I thougt someone said that there was no gravitational pull on the moon, because that whould have been hillarious ..

That whoud probably eliminate all my questions


But then again, the lunar module burning up in the atmosphere is still questionable if you ask me..

Ps: you probably deserve a vacation as many of you active posters on the ATS



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mudshark
If I may, I would like to clarify the title of this thread.
Mr Lear does *not* have a theory of elementary particles.


Quite true Herr Mudshark Its just Buddha's way of sensationalizing his point...

LOL Its really funny how these 'informed gentlemen' need to mimmic that which they claim to be defenders against

And what cheek! Posting main stream science notions in a conspiracy thread... thats what the science forums are for



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
We have tidal waves because the gravity on the Moon is .64 of Earth...


Unless you insist on looking ridiculous, please prove this claim with experimental results and requisite calculations.


Submarines on the Moon?
John will love that! Can you link us to that please?


A feeble attempt at humor. You know full well that the poster meant terrestrial subs.




2. If there is atmosphere on the moon, why doesn't the apollo lunar module burn up in the decent?


Because the atmosphere is not high enough or dense enough and the gravity is about half of Earth so it would not cause enough friction.


God it's hard to stick to the ATS T&C when replying to that sort of meconium.

The Space Shuttle Columbia burned up at what altitude? Huh? Doctor Zorgon, I demand the number and hopefully some physics (ever heard that word?) to go with it.

"atmosphere is not high enough" is just brilliant in the same way as the "priceless" Mastercard commercials are.


Also the fact that they had ROCKET MOTORS to slow them down might have helped a whole lot with that


Umm, sure, that's why the Soyuz and Apollo descent capsules were so heavily armored against the high temperatures, and the lunar modules, somehow, were pretty much made of foil. My questions is, if you dabble in all things lunar, why are you not paying attention to obvious facts like this?

Speaking of the, the way you put it, "ROCKET MOTORS", how much fuel did they burn? Huh? What's the momentum that the fuel was capable of imparting on the capsule? Huh?

You are so out of your (shallow) depth here it's not even funny anymore.


[edit on 10-12-2007 by buddhasystem]



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Buddha, while I enjoy some of your rejoinders, I am afraid I have to take the other side on this one...

...because, this thread isn't about the Moon, it is about a different theory of elementary particles. Sure, our understanding of Newtonian Laws and Kepler's Laws provided a foundation for those who came later...not only Einstein, Hawking, Sagan, and too many others, many Nobel Laureates...

My point is, science in general, and physics in particular, in this case, we are discussing, are prone to fluidity in that, new discoveries lead to refined theories, or the refining of the theories, if you will.

Galileo 'defined' gravity...except that, it lacked something until Newton came along and invented calculus, a better way to describe what Galileo, and Kepler, and to some extent, Copernicus were trying to describe. A mathematical system that transcended language...it was Math.

That 'language', we call Math, means better understanding regardless of national or ethnic origin.

...now, I must step aside to point out to others, I am not a scientist. And, I fully expect any number of arrows to be aimed at me for this post, but I have a Kevlar vest and am fully ready!

Alright, now here is my point...Buddha, you are a scientist, there is no doubt. BUT, do you have an open mind?

Before you scroll down and answer, consider this: We all know that Einstein struggled to the end to try to find an equation to unite all the 'four' forces...and, he, Einstein, famously, to the end, would not agree to the concept of Quantum Physics. He would not, it seems, agree with Heisenberg.

With the advent of Quantum, has come (sorry if I'm out of sync here) String Theory, the Mulitverse Theory, and the discovery of Super Massive Black Holes at the center of nearly every observed Galaxy (including ours).

I don't have the expertise to write a paper to prove or disprove John Lear's Theory of Elementary Particles...but I can use my critical thinking hat to conclude, based on the last few hundred years, theories are just that....theories. I was taught the basic science of the atom. The smallest particle, we were told. That theory held, until new discoveries resulted in its modification. The 'model' of the atom has changed...theories are proposed, they persist, until new experimental evidence is brought forth, then the theory is adapted.

This is an era of discovery. Even Steven Hawking admitted, after three decades of obstinacy, that he may have been wrong about some of his theories, based on mathematical calculations, not on silly thoughts or conjecture mind you...and he incorporated new findings, from others who he respected, and used this insight to further refine his calculations.

I daresay, there are other physicists who are strong in their respective fields, who do not have the publicity of a Sagan or a Hawking or an Einstein...but that does not diminish their work. I only cite familiar names to make a point.

So, to summarize, please let's keep our minds open to concepts that may seem counter-intuitive, at first. Heck, a hundred years ago, or so, we were told that powered flight was 'impossible'. Oh, and electricity has only been harnessed and used to our advantage in about the same time frame.

Buddha, thanks...hope I didn't bore you.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
That 'language', we call Math, means better understanding regardless of national or ethnic origin.


Dear TJ/WW, Merry Chrismas to you.

I don't see what math has to do with anybody's ethnic origin. Sorry, I just don't. Math is a tools that may or may not help undestanding. It certainly helps, though, to produce numerical results that can be either used for practical purposes (all around you), or put to test in an experiment. The "theory" expounded earlier in this thread, however, doesn't lend itself to mathmatical treatment at all. What's the filed equation of "gravity A", again?


And, I fully expect any number of arrows to be aimed at me for this post, but I have a Kevlar vest and am fully ready!


If you prefer such manner of speech (a bit too agressive to my taste), I will comply and say that I have a Desert Eagle Magum :p


Alright, now here is my point...Buddha, you are a scientist, there is no doubt. BUT, do you have an open mind?


Yes. You see, there is just so much amazing stuff in physics that can often be hard to express in layman's terms, that "having an open mind" gets under your skin in a while. From neutrino oscillations to gravitational lensing -- seriously, do you think that people would conceive of this w/o having open minds? Do you think that I'm somehow arguing with the two "theories" I just mentioned because I'm close minded? No, I'm facscinated and I'm trying to undestand my best.


Before you scroll down and answer, consider this: We all know that Einstein struggled to the end to try to find an equation to unite all the 'four' forces...and, he, Einstein, famously, to the end, would not agree to the concept of Quantum Physics. He would not, it seems, agree with Heisenberg.


The titans may have had their disagreements. However, both of them were quite capable of producing results that passed the test of experiment. Yes, there are many models which are difficult to reconcile conceptually and mathematically. That's the nature of the beast, like the wave/particle dualism of light. Just think about this for a second. Light as a photon and as a wave. Weird. Speak of open-mindedness.


I don't have the expertise to write a paper to prove or disprove John Lear's Theory of Elementary Particles...


Nobody can. I posited a few factual questions from particle physics that cannot be addressed with this alleged "theory". Truth is, it's a fabrication of yet another armchair scientist.


but I can use my critical thinking hat to conclude, based on the last few hundred years, theories are just that....theories. I was taught the basic science of the atom. The smallest particle, we were told. That theory held, until new discoveries resulted in its modification. The 'model' of the atom has changed...theories are proposed, they persist, until new experimental evidence is brought forth, then the theory is adapted.


Dear TJ, you are stating things that are too much on the side of the obvious, imho. Theories MUST match all or most of existing experimental data to begin with, and in case there is a deviation from the data, the theory will be revised. If a theory just plain contradicts the most basic experimental facts, it's just trash to begin with.





new topics
top topics
 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join