|
Post by Grand Lunar on Aug 24, 2008 7:53:28 GMT -4
He hasn't been banned yet. Like others have said, if he actually answers the questions put to him, then he won't be banned. I simply asked that since this would be his first ban, that it only be temporary.
Caused by micrometeorite impacts, NOT by a thick atmosphere.
These do not support Mr. Lear's claims of an atmosphere equal to the pressure of 18,000 feet above sea level on Earth. By comparison, Mars's atmosphere is equal to about 100,000 feet.
Can you provide a link for these?
We're listening. But so far, they do not support Mr. Lear's claims.
Source please? In the meantime, refer to the Cuban Missile Crisis, and see if you can still tell me that Russia was a "manufactured" enemy at that time.
I can't read every book someone gets their info from. Perhaps you can provide some info?
I'd trust Gold Bond films more. ;D
No one was asked this by Mr. Lear. Since this is the first time we've seen this (AFAIK), this hardly qualifies as a reason to accuse us of not answering it. Unless you refer to some other board where you asked this. Regardless of pollution or dust content, an atmosphere still refracts the light of a star when it is occulated.
Citation, please?
No, just an amatuer astronomer. However, even amatuer astronomers are educated to know what it looks like when the moon occulates a star or planet.
No offense taken. I invite criticism.
Goes to show we're not associated with the govt, as so many conspiracy theorists claim! ;D
|
|
|
Post by wadefrazier3 on Aug 24, 2008 10:21:59 GMT -4
Hi Zorgon: I think I recognize your alias from ATS. You are free to present evidence on faked moon landings, but the evidence had better be real good, or you will be handed your head. Lear’s post, which I began this thread with, presented arguments for why the Apollo missions did not land on the moon. I was familiar with all of his claims, and none of them stood up, as far as I knew. That high lunar gravity argument was the first one that I encountered and subsequently researched and found wanting. www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#neutralIt was ironically also the last issue that I dealt with, that gave me overlooked evidence that those Apollo missions really landed on the moon: www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#paydirtThe rest of Lear’s claims were quite flimsy, and while he did not defend any of them on this thread, some of his responses showed him to be quite ignorant of the Apollo program, such as believing that hypergolic fuels powered the “flying bedstead” that the astronauts trained with on earth. Once you understand why they used hypergolics, it makes no sense to use them for something like that flying bedstead. This forum’s members know their stuff, and if you are going to present anything, you should first digest the areas where they have spent plenty of time presenting evidence that debunks the many lines of evidence that the hoax believers (HBs) keep rehashing ad infinitum. www.clavius.org/Jay and crew are providing a valuable public service. Hey, my background is having my life wrecked by the people who run the world because I was pursuing free energy: www.ahealedplanet.net/advent.htmI know that plenty is covered up and fabricated on the world stage. Suppressing disruptive technology has been refined to a science, but conspiracism is a mindset that misses the big picture: www.ahealedplanet.net/paradigm.htm#conspiracismGordon Cooper talked about it, and Ed Mitchell still talks about how the ET presence has been covered up. I have gone to see UFO shows, and have not been disappointed: www.ahealedplanet.net/ufo.htmThere is plenty of “conspiratorial” and weird stuff happening, but fabricating the moon landings was not one of them, IMO. Bringing Lear to this forum I hoped would have the effect of having him see the light on the Apollo moon landings, give it up, and maybe influence some of the “conspiratorial” crowd that pursuing evidence of faked moon landings was barking up the wrong tree. It obviously did not turn out as I hoped it would. I could comment plenty on ancillary issues that this thread touched, but I will present just this one…. The greatest adversary of every ruling class of all time has been the people they rule, not the ruling classes in other parts of the globe. The UFO cover-up is embraced by every ruling class on earth, because they know that if the ET presence was acknowledged, they all get knocked down a notch: www.baron-family.net/Documents/How%20the%20CIA%20Views%20the%20UFO%20Phenomenon.htmMarchetti knows what he is talking about. So, on issues of global power, the USSR and the USA had common interests, more often than they publicly admitted. The space race obviously did not have much noble motivation (an exercise in nationalism, etc.), but anybody who wants to convincingly argue that the moon landings were faked has a strenuous task ahead of them. Lear never got beyond announcing what he believed on this thread, and his claims got wilder as he went on, and I have never seen any “the moon landings were faked” evidence that stood up to scrutiny, and most evidence can be understood by laymen like me, although we sometimes need a little help from Jay and friends. So, good luck with participating in this forum. Best wishes, Wade
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 24, 2008 12:10:30 GMT -4
But if the earth is there, wouldn't that tend to close the gap?
It would, in that the Earth's gravity will perturb largely in the retrograde direction.
It sounds to me like more sophisticated algorithms get used, calculating the two-body position/velocity with respect to the near body, then adding the influence of the far body as a perturbation.
Yes, that's what's done where computer power is limited; but it's a matter of opinion whether that constitutes more or less sophistication.
But I figure computers are a lot faster now than in the 1960s, so I can make up for a lack of sophistication in the algorithm with some brute force.
Yes and no. You should always use brute force and simple algorithms until they are shown by evidence to be either too slow or too stupid.
The CDC 6600 was roughly about as powerful in 1969 as a Pentium of a decade ago.
But, what I need to know is, does the craft travel in the earth-moon plane? Or does it leave that plane?
It leaves the plane, but not by much. I recall Apollo 17 had a fairly substantial departure from the Earth-Moon plane.
And does it go in "front" of the moon (that is, does it fly to a position where the moon will be soon...)
Yes. As seen from above Earth's north pole, the Earth-centered orbital segment is counter-clockwise while the Moon-centered segment is clockwise.
With position-velocity information gleaned as soon as the Moon-centered model takes charge, I would expect the computed periapsis to be artificially high simply because it's not flying an unperturbed orbit. The classical elements describe only simple orbits.
I should probably also use a more realistic model of the movement of the earth and moon around each other, but one thing at a time.
I think what you've done so far is pretty laudable and ambitious.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 24, 2008 12:32:42 GMT -4
Wow I finally get in here and John is being banned already?
John Lear has not been banned. He has apparently resigned from the debate after discovering that the pseudoscience he requires to prove his claims does not pass muster.
Never understood a forum that only wanted to hear one side...
This forum exists for no other purpose than to hear the other side. There are three forums in the Apollo category: this one, Apollo Reality, and Clavius. Only Apollo Reality does not allow discussions about the hoax; any such discussion is moved to this forum where it can continue. The Clavius forum is for specific questions, comments, and criticism of my web site linked below. Lunar Orbit has graciously consented to host and moderate that discussion at his forum so that I can be a mere participant and not my own watchman.
The problem is that hearing the other side doesn't mean agreeing with it. Lear's claims were entertained with an open mind (i.e., were not prejudicially rejected); but he failed to engage questions that tested those claims against observations in the real world. Instead of defending his lines of reasoning in the face of observation, he chose to pontificate generally on the alleged pig-headedness of his critics.
How about...?
I can't add much to what my colleagues have said to these points. There is a difference between having the least vestiges of an atmosphere, and having the breathable atmosphere Lear claims, such as to support human life unaided.
Hmmm well Von Braun new it that they were one of America's 'manufactured' enemies...
Are you claiming to know what went on in Wernher von Braun's head? Or do you have documentary evidence that von Braun did not really consider the USSR the military and political enemy of the United States and its chief rival in the Space Race, as seemed from his actions to be the case?
So that both sides could have a reason to arm themselves...
At a substantial and crippling cost to the USSR?
Why do YOU think there was a red phone on each leaders desk?
How about for avoiding destroying the Earth as we know it on the basis of a mistake or misunderstanding?
Can anyone tell me what an atmosphere would look like that has no water vapor, has no dust or pollution in it (despite NASA's dust storms) and is only very low to the ground... what would an atmosphere like this look like?
Are you defining these properties of an atmosphere because you have a validated physically-based model that predicts them in the Moon's case? Or are you definining these properties because you're wishfully trying to make your "air on the Moon" hypothesis fit the observable facts by pure fiat?
Even the clearest air of any useful density refracts light.
Seems no one is willing to answer this...
Seems no one asked it until you did. Your question is stupid. Of course an "atmosphere" arbitrarily defined to avoid all detection will be invisible. But that's just a hopeless appeal to magic. You bear the burden to prove according to physical law that such an atmosphere can exist.
I tell ya though my FBI security check went trough a lot faster than getting on here
Isn't it a little early to be complaining about oppression in your first post?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 24, 2008 12:39:49 GMT -4
I think this is just a frame-of-reference problem. If you were to stay in an Earth-centered reference frame, the trajectory would always be elliptical, but the orbital parameters would be increasingly perturbed as the craft flew past the Moon. The flyby trajectory is only hyperbolic if you look at it in a Moon-centered reference frame. I realize all that. When I referred to the orbit as hyperbolic I meant the moon-centered orbit. Thanks to the data posted by ajv, we now have confirmation of this fact, i.e. eccentricity of 1.533236. I know that eventually the spacecraft will return to Earth in a elliptical orbit because the spacecraft never exceeded the velocity required to escape the Earth-Moon system. The problem I have is with the diagrams of a free return trajectory that show the spacecraft following a nice pretty figure-8 trajectory around the Moon and neatly heading back to Earth. If the spacecraft has as much excess hyperbolic velocity as it appear to have, my feeling is that it is going to fly into some odd direction from the Moon before eventually being overtaken by Earth and bending back into that direction. The diagrams seem to show the return leg looking like a near mirror image of the inbound leg. I simply need to prove to myself that a free return works as neatly as diagrammed. I believe I have the means to model a sample trajectory using a program that wrote several months ago (similar to what lennison described). I'll see what I can do, though it may take me awhile to come up with all the parameters. I'm interested to see the shape of the trajectory. Perhaps the excess velocity is not a great as I fear and the spacecraft will slingshot nicely around the Moon, but I'm not yet convinced.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 24, 2008 12:46:48 GMT -4
I can't read every book someone gets their info from. Perhaps you can provide some info? I think he might be saying that since a former astronaut and former cosmonaut cooperated to write a book together (published in 2006) that there wasn't a cold war. Good book by the way, I've read it.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 24, 2008 12:52:23 GMT -4
Every one seems to be leaving out the fact that any appreciable lunar atmosphere would also be detectable by spectroscopic means. None is.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 24, 2008 13:09:44 GMT -4
Lunar Orbit has graciously consented to host and moderate that discussion at his forum My pleasure, Jay. Apparently I have the ability to know whether someone is a hoax theorist or an Apollo supporter before they even say anything. Or maybe Zorgon is just full of himself and thinks he is known by all.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Aug 24, 2008 13:31:58 GMT -4
The problem I have is with the diagrams of a free return trajectory that show the spacecraft following a nice pretty figure-8 trajectory around the Moon and neatly heading back to Earth. You get the figure-8 by plotting the trajectory in a rotating frame of reference that keeps the earth-moon line fixed. If you use a non-rotating reference, the free-return trajectory looks like two ellipse arcs cobbled together in the region of the moon by a much more curved arc.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Aug 24, 2008 15:24:46 GMT -4
If the data in the info field is correct, then that should read "herself" and "she", LO. The date of publication ought to serve as a clue to Zorgon then as to why this book does not support the claim that Russia was simply a 'manufactured enemy'. Isn't this a case of a person not knowing what life was like before they existed? I.E, kids today have never know a world without PCs and other computers, and so do not seem to comprehend a world without them, IMO. In this case, it seems a person that hasn't lived in the Cold War era at it's height has little idea how close to actual war we came. The DVD 'Nukes in Space' really illustrated this for me, as far as the nuclear aspect.
|
|
|
Post by chrissyo on Aug 24, 2008 15:58:58 GMT -4
Isn't this a case of a person not knowing what life was like before they existed? I.E, kids today have never know a world without PCs and other computers, and so do not seem to comprehend a world without them, IMO. I just had a discussion online with someone who brought up the "do you actually know how limited the amount of RAM on the Apollo computers was? Knowing this, how likely is it that they got to the Moon?!" It's painful.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 24, 2008 16:40:09 GMT -4
Sorry, guys. It looks like I made a big deal out of nothing regarding the free-return trajectory. I’ve modeled a sample trajectory and the simulation shows, despite the excess hyperbolic velocity, that the spacecraft does make a nice loop around the backside of the Moon and heads back toward Earth. Apparently the excess velocity isn’t enough to have a radical effect on the shape of the trajectory. The model I worked out is just a typical sample and not an accurate reproduction of any particular mission trajectory. Below is a “space fixed” plot of my sample trajectory. The Earth is centered on coordinates 0,0 and the Moon is inside the small loop to the bottom right. The numbers are in meters. www.braeunig.us/pics/FRT1.gifNote that the return leg of the trajectory misses Earth by about 7,000 km – this is because I made no special effort to derive a trajectory that intersects Earth. I think this demonstrates, however, that with some tweaking a survivable return trajectory can be achieved. Here is another plot enlarging the loop around the Moon: www.braeunig.us/pics/FRT2.gifIt actually looks nice and neat just like the NASA diagrams I’ve seen. Due to the excess hyperbolic velocity, I was expecting the loop to be more distorted than this (i.e. less deflection of the trajectory as it passes the Moon). Thankfully I’ve been proven wrong. This exercise has demonstrated two things to my satisfaction: (1) the moon-centered trajectory is indeed hyperbolic as I suspected, and (2) a free-return trajectory works just as diagramed by NASA. I can now sleep better at night. Thanks to everyone who responded.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 24, 2008 17:09:06 GMT -4
Well you have to remember that the Berlin Wall came down in Nov 1989, and that the USSR collapsed in 1991. Very few people under 23 would really remember what it was like to live in a world that was on the brink of nuclear war, some have probably never heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis or know about things like Francis Gray Powers being shot down over the USSR on a U-2 spy mission. Even KAL-902 and KAL-007 are likely to be unknown to many of them. They just don't understand how different the world was went both sides had missiles pointing at each other and ready to go on a moment's notice. They're are likely the same ones that didn't get sweaty palms over the latest US/Russia standoff over Georgia...
|
|
|
Post by ajv on Aug 24, 2008 19:08:44 GMT -4
Nice work, Bob.
To close the circle (pun intended) on this thing would it be possible to add an overlay of the equigravisphere and the 40000 statute mile circle to your plot?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 24, 2008 22:04:24 GMT -4
To close the circle (pun intended) on this thing would it be possible to add an overlay of the equigravisphere and the 40000 statute mile circle to your plot? Not easily.
|
|