|
Post by AtomicDog on Aug 20, 2008 21:42:16 GMT -4
You know, there has to have been a smarter way to shut up Gus Grissom than nearly blowing the whole Apollo program. About 30 days before he was killed Gus hung a lemon over 204 and stated: "This thing ain't going to the moon in 2 years; this thing ain't going to the moon in 10 years." Cite?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 20, 2008 21:42:29 GMT -4
About 30 days before he was killed Gus hung a lemon over 204... Factually incorrect. Grissom hung a lemon on the CM simulator because the simulator was not keeping up fast enough with changes made to the actual spacecraft.
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Aug 20, 2008 21:51:48 GMT -4
Please provide this proof. The Gravitational Force of the Sun by Pari Spolter provides all the proof you need. You can order it through amazon.com or directly from: Orb Publishing Company 11862 Balboa Blvd. #182 Granada Hills, CA 91344-2753 or you wait until I write: The Gravitational Force of the Sun For Dummies. A book is not proof. A (crazy) theory is not proof. Wild, unsupported claims are not proof. What you are suggesting is that every mission beyond the Earth's atmosphere has been faked -- by every country that has sent a probe into space. If gravity works in a way that is fundamentally different than current science understands, then no probe to any planet, comet, moon or asteroid would ever have arrived at its destination. So you are claiming that all space scientists everywhere are in on a hoax of monstrous proportions. Now that's just crazy. You're kidding us, right?
|
|
|
Post by johnlear on Aug 20, 2008 21:56:05 GMT -4
Welcome to the forum john. It's been a while since we've seen anyone who can go beyond, "Nuh-uh! Didn't!" But might I suggest you concentrate on one point at a time? The way I see it, the only reason to throw out multiple claims at the same time is a fear that all of them are weak, and that by being bundled together they somehow become stronger. Your "massive moon" is new and different. I would like to see you have time to defend this idea properly. Thanks nomuse. I was invited this morning by a friend who we were discussing the issue with. I kind of knew what this was going to be like but I agreed to come not to change anybodys mind but to sharpen my debating skills. You have the sharpies here and they can poke the holes. Pari Spolter in her book, "The Gravitational Force of the Sun" has mathematically and scientifically destroyed Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation and Einsteins Theories both General and Special. All three of these formerly revered concepts are dead as a doornail. Scientific change such as what Pari discovered cannot overcome scientific ignorance. Change only comes when the older folks die off and the younger folks are more apt to accept new ideas. I doubt one in hundred here on this forum would order Pari's book, read it carefully and give it a review. Its easier to sit back and complain about how the tides prove Newton was correct. But thanks for the welcome nomuse. Between my duties as a grandfather and chief fixit man around my house, not to mention I am in the middle of a large BLM reclamation project I will try to present a valid case. Pari is a brilliant woman and certainly deserves better than John Lear (that nut!) defending her theories not to mention our disagreement on the moon's gravitational force. But she is stuck. And so am I. Thanks again.
|
|
|
Post by johnlear on Aug 20, 2008 22:15:41 GMT -4
A book is not proof. A (crazy) theory is not proof. Wild, unsupported claims are not proof. No but the ideas and mathematical proof in it are. The data is not crazy and it is substantiated. Let me suggest that you withhold your comments until you know exactly what wild, and unsupported claims you are saying are not proof. You are distorting what I said and I would respectfully request that you withhold your comments until you have read Pari's book. I am not exactly sure what you are calling crazy: your misrepresentation of Pari's theories or my inadequate explanation of them. But whichever it is, no, I am not kidding you. Newtons Theory of Universal Gravitation is as dead as the Gravitational constant. So are Einsteins theories both general and special. Have a nice day.
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Aug 20, 2008 22:17:33 GMT -4
No more proof than I have that the moon has a breathable atmosphere. Ok... so you're saying you have no proof whatsoever of either of those fallacies. As long as we are clear on that. Here's a bit more information you did not know: Uhm... since when...? From Wikipedia - Moon - AtmosphereThat's 10,000 Kg... over the entire surface of the Moon. So while not a true and complete vacuum, it's pretty darn close and it is certainly NOT breathable in any sense of the word. Continuing from Wikipedia - Atmosphere of the MoonI realize that at 18,000 feet (~3 miles), the Earth's atmosphere is pretty thin, but it still has about another 59 miles of gradually thinning atmosphere until the "edge of space" (the Kármán Line) is reached. Actually, what it does do is make your statements nothing more than idle speculation, based upon no evidence, and apparently, no knowledge of the subject you are attempting to debate. No problem... and seeing as you did learn something here today that you had not known previously, perhaps you'll try to look at the information provided by myself and others in a less skeptical eye and hopefully learn where and why your assumptions and speculations are incorrect. Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Aug 20, 2008 22:37:24 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 20, 2008 22:38:19 GMT -4
There was no Apollo program. It was a hoax.
Irrelevant. Murders, or anyone else who acts to commit a crime, typically does so in a way that draws attention away from himself and does not attract undue attention. You are alleging that NASA murdered Gus Grissom, but also two other innocent people, on NASA property, in a NASA spacecraft, in a way that would certainly attract the attention of the FBI and the Congress.
Explain why someone involved in a valid program would risk its success by attracting that kind of attention.
And if it's a hoax, explain why someone would risk greater scrutiny of it by outside agents by attracting that kind of attention.
Hoax or not, the notion that NASA would murder Gus Grissom in the way you outline is simply ludicrous. It's the most stupid way in the world to murder someone.
...stated: "This thing ain't going to the moon in 2 years; this thing ain't going to the moon in 10 years."
You are the only source for this quote. Please document it.
Gus knew it was a hoax...
Allegation of fact: please prove.
...as did many of the other Apollo astronauts
Please prove this allegation of fact.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 20, 2008 22:41:57 GMT -4
You are distorting what I said and I would respectfully request that you withhold your comments until you have read Pari's book.
No, that is not a distortion. It's a valid technique in logical analysis called reductio ad absurdum. If an absurdly false conclusion follows via valid inference from your proposition, then your proposition is refuted.
Any book that reaches the conclusion that the Moon's gravity is 64% that of Earth is simply wrong. The conclusion is refuted directly, so it doesn't matter how fancy the math is. Forestalling discussion so that everyone here can read the book is distractionary. The proposition is directly refuted.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 20, 2008 22:44:51 GMT -4
Thanks Jay. I will get to it eventually.
Please do so immediately. The effort you have expended attempting to shift the burden of proof on this point does not warrant much further quarter over it. You have suggested that the astronaut in a space suit will not fit through the LM forward hatch. I simply require you first to describe what led you to this conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by johnlear on Aug 20, 2008 22:49:22 GMT -4
Read it Cz. I think she is holding up very well.
|
|
|
Post by johnlear on Aug 20, 2008 22:51:06 GMT -4
About 30 days before he was killed Gus hung a lemon over 204... Factually incorrect. Grissom hung a lemon on the CM simulator because the simulator was not keeping up fast enough with changes made to the actual spacecraft. Ah. So then he meant the CM simulator wasn't going to the moon in 2 years; it wasn't even going to the moon in 10 years. That explains everything.
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Aug 20, 2008 22:51:22 GMT -4
A book is not proof. A (crazy) theory is not proof. Wild, unsupported claims are not proof. No but the ideas and mathematical proof in it are. The data is not crazy and it is substantiated. Let me suggest that you withhold your comments until you know exactly what wild, and unsupported claims you are saying are not proof. Ideas are not proof and math based on faulty reasoning is not proof, either. No, you didn't say the above -- but the result of your reasoning would be the above. I will not be purchasing her book any more than I will be purchasing a book about Bigfoot. I'm calling crazy the idea that mainstream science is wrong about gravity, as many, many things (such as interplanetary missions) would not have been possible if the working understanding of how gravity functions was not correct.
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Aug 20, 2008 22:51:28 GMT -4
I did read it... still looks to me like the people who know the math as well as (or better than) she does are "winning", so to speak...
Cz
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 20, 2008 23:31:32 GMT -4
John,
It is considered rude to post emails publicly without the permission of all participants (and just telling me you have their permission is not sufficient). I left the emails and just removed the contact information, but in the future do not post any more emails.
|
|