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.

 

The Big NASA-Military Cover-up On Gravity And Atmosphere On The Moon!

page: 9
114
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 01:52 PM
link   
I can't believe no one has challenged the OPs statement that Newtonian Gravity is invalid for planetary bodies. Amongst the first things I learned in Physics my first year of college were the Newtonian laws. They are simple and demonstrably true, and have been powerfully predictive of many phenomena over the centuries.

You can't throw out almost 300 years of good, solid physics over some dust clouds in cloudy photographs. If your theory requires that Newtonian physics not apply, then you need to make some serious adjustments.




posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wetware
I can't believe no one has challenged the OPs statement that Newtonian Gravity is invalid for planetary bodies.


It's just a pointless waste of time to try to "debate" anybody in a thread like this. It's overrun by people who have never cracked a physics book or had a physics class, but rather get their education and information from a lot of dubious sources, science fiction, and fuzzy-headed crackpots who also have a poor understanding of basic, commonly-accepted physics.

And then we have to get into the whole mess of how there's a huge conspiracy among the scientific community to maintain the status quo, and how the real truth is only known to a courageous handful of visionaries (crackpots) who are denied a fair hearing.

What a snooze festival. The best thing to do is just try to be amused and if the crap flows a little too heavily, bail out and go do something else. I've never seen it do any good at all to keep beating one's head against the brick wall of ignorance and stupidity.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Of course, having an atmosphere is not just down to gravity anyway. You need a means of keeping it from being blown away by the solar wind (which seems to have been Mars' problem)

science.nasa.gov...

Without our strong magnetic field, the Earth might it's atmosphere in a few hundred million years, irrespective of gravity and replenishment from volcanoes etc.


And, if we believe John Lear, and only half of the Moon (or rather, a little less than half) has an atmosphere, how does that work? Ah, magic .....



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

heres a question i have for those who think the moon cannot have an atmosphere (or that its not possible)

if the moon has enough gravity to collect millions of tons of rocks, why would it not have enough gravity to collect a little bit of gas ?


Why does a balloon filled with helium on Earth float upwards - against the pull of gravity - whereas one filled with nickel does not?



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 02:44 PM
link   
I checked just one "fact" at random from this entire ramble.

The author states that the Moon Buggy had nitrogen inflated tires which would have exploded in a vacuum.

One small problem - the tires are solid:
=====================================
From wiki

The wheels consisted of a spun aluminum hub and a 32 inch diameter, 9 inch wide tire made of zinc coated woven 0.033 inch diameter steel strands attached to the rim and discs of formed aluminum. Titanium chevrons covered 50 percent of the contact area to provide traction. Inside the tire was a 25.5 inch diameter bump stop frame to protect the hub.
=====================================

One of the author's own photos clearly shows the construction of the tire.

Seriously, people are just making this stuff up and the gullible are buying the books are taking it as gospel.

The Moon has 2/3 Earth gravity


[edit on 12-9-2008 by Retseh]



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
according to the alleged moon gravity and atmosphere; Since my vert. on earth is 27 inches, If i were on the moon, I would have a more than a 52.38 inch vert. jump. That means if i jumped strait up and did not bend my legs; there would be more than 4 and a half feet between my heels and the ground. The astronauts aren't getting anywhere close to this in the videos. They're actually not even close to half as high.

Either the videos are fake, the suites are in excess of 300 lbs, the astronauts are in extremely poor shape, OR the data we've been given in regards to the moons atmosphere and gravity is inaccurate.


uhhh... the suits *ARE* said to be that heavy... so that would explain the short jump height.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Nohup
 


Yeah, you're right Nohup.

One thing I just can't resist, though, is this baloney about jumping six feet to get on the ladder. Who started that little gem? I missed it earlier...let's see if I can explain before the exagerration continues.

The bottom rung of the ladder is, maybe about two feet above the pad. The suit legs aren't flexible enough to allow a leg to be raised up that high, as you would here on Earth. But, a slight hop, with assistance of your hands on the ladder rails, and voila! Now you're on the ladder. Whew!!

Nope, not gonna die on the Moon today!

Oh, OK....one more (the LRV wheels have already been done to death).

The 'bootprint picture'. The assertion that there MUST be moisture is patently false, and everyone should realize that from your own experiences. Try it with a pile of dry sawdust, or very fine dry soil. Or powdered sugar. OK?

Now, read my sig...and tune in a Science show on cable now and then, or read a book.

AND (pre-emptive for Zorgon) No, I certainly am not an expert in celestial mechanics, but I do watch science-oriented TV and read a lot. And your little dig about me 'claiming' to be a pilot was uncalled for, petty and childish. Let's go rent a simulator and put your money where your mouth is.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Wetware
 




I think the misunderstanding comes from the fact that Newtons law of gravity is in fact slightly off the mark, when compared to General Relativity.

However, with that said, Newtons law of gravity is tremendously accurate, more than enough to calculate the moon's gravitational pull, more than 99.9% correct in fact. Certainly good enough to calculate a neutral point.

It is only a problem when we use it to predict the position of a celestial body in a distant point in the future, where the error accumulates as this type of calculation integrates many points over time.

-rrr



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickyrrr

However, with that said, Newtons law of gravity is tremendously accurate, more than enough to calculate the moon's gravitational pull, more than 99.9% correct in fact. Certainly good enough to calculate a neutral point.


And please include all of the relevant force and velocity vectors in the calculation. Not just two.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


OOPS ! My bad, not sure wth I was thinking there, you were correct, late nights fog my brain lol. We cannot have a negative pressure, a perfect vacuum would be 0 torr(0 mmHg) and space is not a perfect vacuum.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup

Originally posted by Wetware
I can't believe no one has challenged the OPs statement that Newtonian Gravity is invalid for planetary bodies.


It's just a pointless waste of time to try to "debate" anybody in a thread like this. It's overrun by people who have never cracked a physics book or had a physics class, but rather get their education and information from a lot of dubious sources, science fiction, and fuzzy-headed crackpots who also have a poor understanding of basic, commonly-accepted physics.

And then we have to get into the whole mess of how there's a huge conspiracy among the scientific community to maintain the status quo, and how the real truth is only known to a courageous handful of visionaries (crackpots) who are denied a fair hearing.

What a snooze festival. The best thing to do is just try to be amused and if the crap flows a little too heavily, bail out and go do something else. I've never seen it do any good at all to keep beating one's head against the brick wall of ignorance and stupidity.


Wow, you seem to have a god like perception to know everyones qualification. Why not share your greater knowledge so we can all be enlightened, or was your comment made as you state, out of "ignorance and stupidity" ?



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 05:23 PM
link   
This is why I have said many times the greatest disclosure will be not about aliens and ufos but what we have and the truth of who we are.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grayarea
Wow, you seem to have a god like perception to know everyones qualification. Why not share your greater knowledge so we can all be enlightened, or was your comment made as you state, out of "ignorance and stupidity" ?


My statement was about the general qualifications of the people commenting on the board. Am I wrong? Prove me wrong by posting a copy of your physics degree or what else you have.

Otherwise, go to school.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Nohup
 


Sorry I don't have to prove anything to you. Your passing judgement on others, I think you should prove your qualified to do so.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock
There will be no more posting to the poster.

Discuss the topic.

Thank you.

If mikesingh can not be contact for comments on his post here I can see no point in reading any further.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wetware
I can't believe no one has challenged the OPs statement that Newtonian Gravity is invalid for planetary bodies. Amongst the first things I learned in Physics my first year of college were the Newtonian laws.


Well read "Gravitational Force of the Sun" by Pari Spolter PhD... you will have to relearn it all over again



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker AND, it wasn't (sorry jra) just about jumping....he had his HANDS on the ladder, folks!!! Sheesh!! If you 'weighed' about 65 pounds, couldn't you pull yourself up a little bit?


Ah my dear weedwacker... there is hope for you yet... you realize you just destroyed the skeptics best case moon jump by showing of the hands...

Since there is NO WAY to tell how much was jump and how much was pulling... that example of a high jump is invalid... And so far its the one most commonly used

Great job and thanks for the help... John will be so proud





posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Mike....I've flown commercial jets for almost 22 years.. Guess what? Our tyres are also filled with nitrogen!


You and Phage are so busy educating us on tires... you completely ignored [deliberately
] the question of where is the track from the buggy wheel? I have several others that show this clearly... yet the foot prints are all around them so the ground is NOT solid...

While we are at it... can one of you use that circular slide rule and estimate how fast they can drive on the moon without getting airborne at every little bump?

Shouldn't be TOO hard for you armchair engineers




Go ahead use the calculator


[edit on 12-9-2008 by zorgon]



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
It's easy to tell if the Moon has an atmosphere - just watch it occlude a star.


Ah my favorite retired disinfo agent come weatherman...

Just a question... IF a hypothetical atmosphere on the moon reached say only 2,000 feet... and that atmosphere had no dust and no water vapour... how much occlusion might we expect?



(Unless you're John Lear who, on my pointing this out to him, proceeded to claim only the 'dark side' of the Moon has an atmosphere!
)


I see you still practice your disinfo despite stating you retired.... John never uses 'dark side' In fact he is very adamant about saying there IS no dark side...

And what he says is that the atmosphere is thickest on the FARSIDE because of the gravity anomaly on the Moon that makes the center of gravity NOT the center of the Moon... a fact that NASA agrees with because the gravity is so wacky on the Moon that it really messes with orbits... Just go ask NASA


So if your going to quote someone at least be accurate
BTW That concept is not John's... it came from a highly respected Astronomer Dr Johann Hansen..

Now back to my question to you as a weatherman...


Please explain to me what causes the following effect... We see them as Sunset and Sunrise rays... official name: crepuscular rays




Now please explain to me how it is possible that these are also observed on the Moon?

The following is a page from the notebook of the Apollo 17 Astronauts... why on Earth they didn't use those expensive cameras to snap a photo is beyond me (or perhaps they did and its in those image numbers not released yet




Now NASA has known about these since Surveyor 1... (Mike posted the first view already) Seems it was not important enough to tell anyone until recently...

NASA calls them MOON FOUNTAINS.... gotta love the way NASA names things like "Blueberries" on Mars
Point is even astronomers have seen them from Earth...


"The Moon seems to have a tenuous atmosphere of moving dust particles," Stubbs explains. "We use the word 'fountain' to evoke the idea of a drinking fountain: the arc of water coming out of the spout looks static, but we know the water molecules are in motion." In the same way, individual bits of moondust are constantly leaping up from and falling back to the Moon's surface, giving rise to a "dust atmosphere" that looks static but is composed of dust particles in constant motion.


How about THAT??? Right from the Horse's Mouth


They further state in closing...


Astronauts need to know, because in the years ahead NASA plans to send people back to the Moon, and deep dark craters are places where they might find pockets of frozen water--a crucial resource for any colony. Will they also encounter swarms of electric dust?


science.nasa.gov...

I LOVE IT when NASA sings a different Tune...



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Here are the Surveyor Pictures...

Surveyor 1... sunset rays and atmosphere glow...



Caption:Surveyor 1, 16 minutes after sunset on the Moon June 14,1966," was remarked Gordon Newkirk, of the High Altitude Observatory. "A bright coronal streamer is visible as a thin pencil of light extending out of the brighter inner corona, against which the lunar horizon is silhouetted."

Surveyor 1 - 11,237 images were transmitted to Earth. We have seen less than a dozen...

Surveyor 6... Atmosphere glow along the horizon... This is the 'famous' picture that Hoagland uses as evidence of a glass dome...



Caption: 67-H-1642 November 24, 1967 Sunlight diffracted at Moon's limb as seen in Surveyor VI picture of the horizon west of spacecraft.

Surveyor 6 - - 30,027 images were transmitted to Earth. We have seen less than a dozen...

Surveyor 7... Atmosphere glow...



Courtesy NASA/JPL
Illumination along western horizon approximately 15 minutes after local sunset.



Courtesy NASA/JPL
Illumination along western horizon approximately 90 minutes after local sunset.



Courtesy NASA/JPL
Same field of view of western horizon about 160 minutes after local sunset.

Surveyor 7 - - 21,091 images were transmitted to Earth. We have seen less than a dozen...

Perhaps you doubters would like to take a stab at explaining this?

All the Data is Here



Next Installment

MOON STORMS



new topics

top topics



 
114
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join