Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #406986 > unrolled thread

Apollo 11

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-27 10:57 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-27 16:05 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Juliana Auerbach <jaot@tognaenn.org> - 2017-01-28 00:18 +0000
        Re: Apollo 11 JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-27 16:41 -0800
          Re: Apollo 11 Juliana Auerbach <jaot@tognaenn.org> - 2017-01-28 01:14 +0000
            Re: Apollo 11 JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-28 11:33 -0800
              Re: Apollo 11 Juliana Auerbach <jaot@tognaenn.org> - 2017-01-28 20:22 +0000
            Re: Apollo 11 JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-28 11:34 -0800
              Re: Apollo 11 Juliana Auerbach <jaot@tognaenn.org> - 2017-01-28 20:19 +0000
                Re: Apollo 11 JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-28 17:21 -0800
                  Re: Apollo 11 Juanita Forney <iatiet@oetnnrn.org> - 2017-01-30 12:33 +0000
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-27 16:46 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-28 12:48 +1100
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-28 13:16 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-29 13:04 +1100
      Re: Apollo 11 John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-10 17:08 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-28 13:24 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-28 13:34 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-29 07:36 +0100
      Re: Apollo 11 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-29 03:20 -0800
        Re: Apollo 11 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-29 20:16 +0100
          Re: Apollo 11 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-29 12:07 -0800
            Re: Apollo 11 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-02-01 06:24 +0100
          Re: Apollo 11 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-01-29 22:43 +0100
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-29 12:05 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-29 15:27 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-29 15:40 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-30 12:37 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-31 11:18 +1100
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-30 15:58 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-30 16:18 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-31 11:22 +1100
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-30 16:42 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-31 12:13 +1100
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-31 10:01 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-01 12:14 +1100
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-31 14:51 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-01 12:24 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-02 12:11 +1100
      Re: Apollo 11 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-02-01 21:35 -0800
        Re: Apollo 11 "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-01 22:05 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-01 15:39 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-02 11:37 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-03 09:40 +1100
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-02 15:22 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-03 11:52 +1100
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-03 11:55 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-04 11:44 +1100
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-03 15:25 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-04 12:49 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-05 12:07 +1100
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-05 12:16 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-06 08:35 +1100
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-06 11:49 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-07 10:58 +1100
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-07 13:32 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-08 12:49 +1100
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-08 11:13 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 12:34 +1100
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-09 11:11 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-10 10:53 +1100
      Re: Apollo 11 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-02-12 11:09 -0800
        Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-13 11:52 +1100
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-10 11:01 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-11 11:42 +1100
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 11:21 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-12 12:00 +1100
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-12 11:44 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-13 11:51 +1100
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-12 13:43 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-13 10:23 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-14 09:54 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-15 14:26 +1100
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-14 10:49 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-14 10:52 -0800

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#406986 — Apollo 11

The Apollo 11 mission did not land on the surface of the moon. If the moon landing was performed, a test probe would have been first sent to the surface of the moon to test the gravity of the moon. NASA is assuming that Newton's gravity equation is valid but moon has a radius of approximately one quarter of the earth's radius which is justification that a probe would be first used to test the gravity at the surface of the moon since the .16 g gravity of the moon surface that .25 g then the landing of the moon would be beyond the fuel capacity of the lunar lander.  Also, if the lunar lander landed on the moon then one person would have been used to save weight. In addition, in the film that depicted the decent of the lunar lander to the surface of the moon the lunar lander is propagating in the horizontal direction yet the reaction control thrusters are located on the accent stage; consequently, a thrust from the accent stage would cause the lunar lander to tip down ward. The varying center of gravity of the lunar lander caused by the reduction of the fuel weight would making the lunar lander propagating horizontally as depicted in the film highly unlikely. Also, in the films of the decent there is  no dust cloud caused by the engine upon landing and the roar of the decent rockets would not allow for the audio feed that is used in the film to be possible. In addition, the close up photographs of the landing pads after the lunar lander is on the surface of the moon do not have any dust from the surface of the moon that would be expected after the intense thrust of the engine disturbing the dust matter on the surface of the moon. Furthermore, the surface of the moon does not contain an atmosphere; consequently, there is no moisture on the surface of the moon yet the photographs taken on the surface of the moon that  In the photographs take on the moon, the shadows appear to be created by more than one light source since the shadow in the described photographs appear to be in different directions and the moon photographs do not include stars since the pattern of the stars would prove that the astronaut were never on the surface of the moon since the pattern of the celestial universe represent a specific time and position that the photograph was taken. No photographs were taken of the stellar universe from the surface of the moon and in an interview with the Apollo astronaut  Neil Armstrong stated that he did not recall the stars of the celestial universe while on the surface of the moon but one of the most spectacular view form the surface of the moon would be the brilliance and clarity of the stars.  Furthermore, the surface of the moon does not contain an atmosphere; consequently, there is no moisture on the surface of the moon yet the photographs taken on the surface of the moon that represents a boot print of the astronaut represents a boot print that is formed at the earth since the dust on the surface of the moon has no moisture and cannot produce the boot print that is depicted in the described photograph.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#407018

On Friday, January 27, 2017 at 10:57:11 AM UTC-8, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> The Apollo 11 mission did not land on the surface of the moon.

It did.

Next topic?

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407021

JanPB wrote:

> On Friday, January 27, 2017 at 10:57:11 AM UTC-8, numbernu...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>> The Apollo 11 mission did not land on the surface of the moon.
> 
> It did. Next topic?

Impossible, and you can't even prove. They already admitted they faked the 
son of the bitch. Moreover, the time that goes inherently proves that you 
can't prove. Thus in fact, we don't need you coming out with proofs.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407023

On Friday, January 27, 2017 at 4:18:07 PM UTC-8, Juliana Auerbach wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> 
> > On Friday, January 27, 2017 at 10:57:11 AM UTC-8, numbernu...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> >> The Apollo 11 mission did not land on the surface of the moon.
> > 
> > It did. Next topic?
> 
> Impossible, and you can't even prove.

Oh stop this nonsense. You make the idiotic claim, you prove it.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407028

JanPB wrote:

> On Friday, January 27, 2017 at 4:18:07 PM UTC-8, Juliana Auerbach wrote:
>> JanPB wrote:
>> 
>> > On Friday, January 27, 2017 at 10:57:11 AM UTC-8,
>> > numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> The Apollo 11 mission did not land on the surface of the moon.
>> > 
>> > It did. Next topic?
>> 
>> Impossible, and you can't even prove.
> 
> Oh stop this nonsense. You make the idiotic claim, you prove it.

Fair enough. Prove that the Portuguese did not landed on planet Mars from 
1965 to 1968 several times, where after they decided not to continue 
because it is not cheap.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407069

On Friday, January 27, 2017 at 5:14:25 PM UTC-8, Juliana Auerbach wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> 
> > On Friday, January 27, 2017 at 4:18:07 PM UTC-8, Juliana Auerbach wrote:
> >> JanPB wrote:
> >> 
> >> > On Friday, January 27, 2017 at 10:57:11 AM UTC-8,
> >> > numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> The Apollo 11 mission did not land on the surface of the moon.
> >> > 
> >> > It did. Next topic?
> >> 
> >> Impossible, and you can't even prove.
> > 
> > Oh stop this nonsense. You make the idiotic claim, you prove it.
> 
> Fair enough. Prove that the Portuguese did not landed on planet Mars from 
> 1965 to 1968 several times, where after they decided not to continue 
> because it is not cheap.

No, this is not how life works in general. It is up to YOU to back up and extraordinary
claim, not up to me to prove it.

Another standard example: it is not up to ME to disprove that Jupiter is NOT in fact
moved along its orbit around the Sun by a large invisible elephant wearing a polka dots
cravatte.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407075

JanPB wrote:

>> > Oh stop this nonsense. You make the idiotic claim, you prove it.
>> 
>> Fair enough. Prove that the Portuguese did not landed on planet Mars
>> from 1965 to 1968 several times, where after they decided not to
>> continue because it is not cheap.
> 
> No, this is not how life works in general. It is up to YOU to back up
> and extraordinary claim, not up to me to prove it.

You just advised people to prove the landing didn't happened. Do the same 
with the claim of the Portuguese.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407070

On Friday, January 27, 2017 at 5:14:25 PM UTC-8, Juliana Auerbach wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> 
> > On Friday, January 27, 2017 at 4:18:07 PM UTC-8, Juliana Auerbach wrote:
> >> JanPB wrote:
> >> 
> >> > On Friday, January 27, 2017 at 10:57:11 AM UTC-8,
> >> > numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> The Apollo 11 mission did not land on the surface of the moon.
> >> > 
> >> > It did. Next topic?
> >> 
> >> Impossible, and you can't even prove.
> > 
> > Oh stop this nonsense. You make the idiotic claim, you prove it.
> 
> Fair enough. Prove that the Portuguese did not landed on planet Mars from 
> 1965 to 1968 several times, where after they decided not to continue 
> because it is not cheap.

No, this is not how life works in general. It is up to YOU to back up and extraordinary 
claim, not up to me to DISprove it. 

Another standard example: it is not up to ME to disprove that Jupiter is NOT in fact 
moved along its orbit around the Sun by a large invisible elephant wearing a polka dots 
cravatte. 

-- 
Jan 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407074

JanPB wrote:

>> >> Impossible, and you can't even prove.
>> > 
>> > Oh stop this nonsense. You make the idiotic claim, you prove it.
>> 
>> Fair enough. Prove that the Portuguese did not landed on planet Mars
>> from 1965 to 1968 several times, where after they decided not to
>> continue because it is not cheap.
> 
> No, this is not how life works in general. It is up to YOU to back up
> and extraordinary claim, not up to me to DISprove it.

Landing on Moon is not extraordinary?? You are claiming it. Prove it or 
stfu.

> Another standard example: it is not up to ME to disprove that Jupiter is
> NOT in fact moved along its orbit around the Sun by a large invisible
> elephant wearing a polka dots cravatte.

But your postulated extraordinary achievement demands your extraordinary 
proof. This is how science works, stupid. Make a claim, then prove it. 
What an idiot. Unexpected.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407091

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 12:19:27 PM UTC-8, Juliana Auerbach wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> 
> >> >> Impossible, and you can't even prove.
> >> > 
> >> > Oh stop this nonsense. You make the idiotic claim, you prove it.
> >> 
> >> Fair enough. Prove that the Portuguese did not landed on planet Mars
> >> from 1965 to 1968 several times, where after they decided not to
> >> continue because it is not cheap.
> > 
> > No, this is not how life works in general. It is up to YOU to back up
> > and extraordinary claim, not up to me to DISprove it.
> 
> Landing on Moon is not extraordinary??

No. In the engineering sense not at all. It was difficult, yes but it was not anywhere near
so extraordinary as to warrant even an _approximation_ of the ludicrous claims like the
"hoax". 

(I'm leaving aside the elephant in the room, namely the simple fact that to fake such a thing
without any leaks for almost 60 years is INFINITELY more difficult than going to the Moon
in the first place.)

(I'm also leaving aside a few more elephants in the room:

1. The Soviets were for obvious reasons very keen on having the American space program,
Apollo very much included, under close electronic surveillance. And after the Berlin Wall
and the Soviet Union went down, parts of the Soviet spy archives were made public. One
item int hose archives is electronic monitoring of the Apollo 11 Moon flight. And it says
there black on white that the TV signals from the landing DID originate from the Moon.
Obviously, if the Soviets at the time had the _slightest_ reason to doubt in the authenticity
of any of it, they would have printed it in huge letters on the first pages of "Pravda" and
"Izvestia", as there was nothing in the world they wanted more than to humiliate the US
and its space program.

2. Who put the retroreflectors there that we've been using ever since for lunar ranging?

> You are claiming it. Prove it or stfu.

No. You have a garbage nonsense claim, you prove it. I was alive at the time this was
happening and there was absolutely nothing unusual or unbelievable about it. It was
all very methodical, step-by-step, and people waited for each next installment holding
their breath in excitement. Very, very interesting, suspenseful, an NO FUNNY BUSINESS
WHATSOEVER.

It's all an invention of later generations, mostly Americans who apparently have lost the
ability to use any common sense. (Proof: the existence of Wonder Bread. Case closed :-) )

> > Another standard example: it is not up to ME to disprove that Jupiter is
> > NOT in fact moved along its orbit around the Sun by a large invisible
> > elephant wearing a polka dots cravatte.
> 
> But your postulated extraordinary achievement 

It wasn't extraordinary. Do some research for goodness sake. If you weren't' alive at the
time, listen to the witnesses.

The sheer stupidity of the "faking" claim is mind boggling, truly mind boggling. It simply
takes one's breath away to see this sort of total fantasy written out with a straight face.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407198

JanPB wrote:

> 2. Who put the retroreflectors there that we've been using ever since
> for lunar ranging?

A rock can serves as reflector. But is not about reflectors, then stfu and
sit down. You have to come up with a good reason on why you demand proofs
from some others, but not from some others you like.

Also, that you allow yourself to put illegally Natural Phenomena in the
same bucket together with rockets and travels, just stfu and sit down.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407024

The Apollo 11 mission lunar lander did not land on the surface of the moon. If the moon landing was performed, a test probe would have been initially sent to the surface of the moon to test the gravity of the moon. NASA is assuming that Newton's gravity equation is valid in the derivation of the mass of the moon but Newton's gravity equation is invalid since mass do not attract. The moon has a radius of approximately one quarter of the earth's radius. NASA determined the gravity at the surface of the moon using Newton's gravity equation to derive the mass of the moon forming a gravity of .16 g but the moon that has a radius of one quarter the radius of the earth would form a .25 g gravity would be beyond the fuel capacity of the lunar lander for a successful moon landing; consequently, an initial probe would have been vital to determine the gravity of the moon. In addition, in the film that depicts the decent of the lunar lander to the surface of the moon the lunar lander is propagating in the horizontal direction yet the reaction control thrusters are located on the accent stage; consequently, a thrust from the thruster located on the accent stage would cause the lunar lander to tip down ward which would result in the spin of the lander. The varying center of gravity of the lunar lander caused by the reduction of the fuel weight, during the decent, would making the lunar lander propagating in the horizontal direction highly unlikely. Also, in the  film of the decent of the lunar lander there is no dust cloud caused by the primary thruster engine upon landing and the roar of the decent thruster rocket would be extremely loud and not allow for the audio feed that is presented in the decent film. In addition, the close up photographs of the landing pads after the lunar lander is on the surface of the moon do not have any dust on the pads that would be expected after the intense thrust of the primary engine disturbing the dust matter on the surface of the moon. The most important factor in disputing the moon landing is the photographs of the lunar lander do not show a blast crater that would be produced by the 1,000 pound thrust of the primary thruster during the decent of the lunar lander onto the surface of the moon. Furthermore, the surface of the moon does not contain an atmosphere; consequently, there is no moisture on the surface of the moon yet the photographs taken on the surface of the moon that represents a boot print of the astronaut represents a boot print but to form a boot print would require moisture that is not present in the dust on the surface of the moon. In the photographs take on the moon, the shadows appear to be created by more than one light source since the shadow in the moon surface photographs are in different directions. The ostensible photographs taken on the moon do not include stars since the pattern of the stars would prove that the astronaut were never on the surface of the moon since the extremely intricate pattern of the celestial universe represent a specific time and position that the photograph was taken. No photographs were taken of the stellar universe from the surface of the moon and in an interview with the Apollo astronaut Neil Armstrong, Mr. Armstrong stated that he did not recall the stars of the celestial universe while on the surface of the moon but one of the most spectacular view form the surface of the moon would be the brilliance and clarity of the stars. The Apollo 11 astronauts appear extremely disturbed in the interview when the star question was asked. Neil Armstrong never gave an on camera interview after his first initial interview that included the star question. The gravity of the moon .16 g is based on Newton's equations that is used to determine the mass of the moon but Newton's gravity equation are physically invalid since masses do not attract. Example, two rocks do not attract and Cavidish's experiment is invalid (section 34).  The lunar lander mission to the moon would verify Newton's gravity equation but the physical evidence contradicts NASA claim that the Apollo mission successfully landed on the moon. Furthermore, the total dry weight of the accent module is 4,187 lb and the fuel weight is 10,000 lb but if the moon gravity is .25 g the weight of the accent module would be comparable to 1300 lb being launch from the surface of the earth which would require approximately 20,000 lb of fuel which proves that the lunar lander mission is physically invalid since Newton gravity law is based on masses that do not attract. The attraction of the planets to the sun that cause the rotation of the planets is caused by the velocity of the planets, the magnetic field and rotation of the planets.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407031

On 28/01/2017 5:57 AM, numbernumber1964@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> The Apollo 11 mission did not land on the surface of the moon. If the
> moon landing was performed, a test probe would have been first sent
> to the surface of the moon to test the gravity of the moon. NASA is
> assuming that Newton's gravity equation is valid

Yes, because it has never been found to be wrong (beyond the slight 
modification by general relativity for the orbit of Mercury). In any 
case, any discrepancy would have shown up with Apollo 8 and especially 
with Apollo 10.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407079

Kepler (1619) proved that the planets that orbit the sun are propagating in an elliptical path (Kepler, p. 408). Newton's gravity equation that is physically invalid is used with Kepler's law to determine the mass of a planet but masses do not attract. Cavendish detected a gravitational force of 2 μg which is equivalent to the weight of a single dust particle but the weight measurement uncertainty in 1797 was 1 mg. Cavendish is measuring a force 1,000 times smaller than the weight (force) measurement uncertainty in 1797 which proves Cavendish's experiment is physically invalid. In an experiment, a 73 kg lead sphere is suspended using a thin titanium wire and place .3 mm from a larger lead sphere (15,008 kg). A laser is used to detect the change in the angle of the wire that is suspending the 73 kg lead sphere. As the 15,008 kg lead sphere is moved away (d = 2 m) from the smaller suspended lead sphere no measureable change in the angle of the wire that is suspending the 73 kg lead sphere is detected which Newton's gravity equation is physically invalid. 

"we may find a scientist willing to ignore the limitations of numerical facts for the sake of correct idea or theory, even to the extent of saying that certain numbers probably should be made a little bit bigger, others a little smaller, and so on. ............they imply a special virtue "fudging" the evidence or "cooking" the data, and they warn us that we must not ever tell our science students that discoveries have been made in this way." (Suppe, p. 300).



Maybe Syvia Else and JanPB could get together and play Barbies. Eat some cake and have a whopping time since it is Saturday.





..



.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407092

On 29/01/2017 8:16 AM, numbernumber1964@gmail.com wrote:
> Kepler (1619) proved that the planets that orbit the sun are
> propagating in an elliptical path (Kepler, p. 408). Newton's gravity
> equation that is physically invalid is used with Kepler's law to
> determine the mass of a planet but masses do not attract. Cavendish
> detected a gravitational force of 2 μg which is equivalent to the
> weight of a single dust particle but the weight measurement
> uncertainty in 1797 was 1 mg.

Why is that relevant?

Cavendish is measuring a force 1,000
> times smaller than the weight (force) measurement uncertainty in 1797
> which proves Cavendish's experiment is physically invalid. In an
> experiment, a 73 kg lead sphere is suspended using a thin titanium
> wire and place .3 mm from a larger lead sphere (15,008 kg). A laser
> is used to detect the change in the angle of the wire that is
> suspending the 73 kg lead sphere. As the 15,008 kg lead sphere is
> moved away (d = 2 m) from the smaller suspended lead sphere no
> measureable change in the angle of the wire that is suspending the 73
> kg lead sphere is detected which Newton's gravity equation is
> physically invalid.

Cavendish was using lasers in 1797?

Anyway, none of the above is relevant to the Apollo 11 mission. Whether 
or not the gravitational law had a supportable theoretical derivation, 
it had still stood the test of time, and there was no reasonable fear 
that it would happen to be invalidated by Apollo 11.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#408784

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 3:16:51 PM UTC-6, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> Kepler (1619) proved that the planets that orbit the sun are propagating in an elliptical path (Kepler, p. 408). Newton's gravity equation that is physically invalid is used with Kepler's law to determine the mass of a planet but masses do not attract. Cavendish detected a gravitational force of 2 μg which is equivalent to the weight of a single dust particle but the weight measurement uncertainty in 1797 was 1 mg. Cavendish is measuring a force 1,000 times smaller than the weight (force) measurement uncertainty in 1797 which proves Cavendish's experiment is physically invalid. In an experiment, a 73 kg lead sphere is suspended using a thin titanium wire and place .3 mm from a larger lead sphere (15,008 kg). A laser is used to detect the change in the angle of the wire that is suspending the 73 kg lead sphere. As the 15,008 kg lead sphere is moved away (d = 2 m) from the smaller suspended lead sphere no measureable change in the angle of the wire that is suspending the 73 kg lead sphere is detected which Newton's gravity equation is physically invalid. 
> 
> "we may find a scientist willing to ignore the limitations of numerical facts for the sake of correct idea or theory, even to the extent of saying that certain numbers probably should be made a little bit bigger, others a little smaller, and so on. ............they imply a special virtue "fudging" the evidence or "cooking" the data, and they warn us that we must not ever tell our science students that discoveries have been made in this way." (Suppe, p. 300).
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe Syvia Else and JanPB could get together and play Barbies. Eat some cake and have a whopping time since it is Saturday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..
> 
> 
> 
> .

It is one thing to have a theory- it is another to accuse our greatest hero's of the 20th century (really 21st because we have upside out) of lying that that didn't make this trip. I dare you. This is not the same as believing in ufo's and Santa Claus.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407080

Get some party hats and those little horns that you blow into where that paper thing comes out. You could hit each other with it and giggle and have such a great time. Love ben ben

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407081

Get some Pastel de Nata and a bottle of Bacalhoa Moscatel de Setubal. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407111

Am 27.01.2017 19:57, schrieb numbernumber1964@gmail.com:
>
>
>
> The Apollo 11 mission did not land on the surface of the moon. If the moon landing was performed, a test probe would have been first sent to the surface of the moon to test the gravity of the moon.

I personally think, the USA has actually sent people to the Moon, but 
not with that craft shown on TV in the 60th.

This was a show and filmed in a studio, while the real craft looked very 
different.

Actually I think, that NASA had used devices similar to what the Nazis 
had called 'Haunebu IV'.

Those are commonly called 'UFOs' or 'Flying saucers', but are actually 
man-made and build under US authority.

As presenter of the fake they used top-Nazi Wernher von Braun.

That was one of the worst suckers, the Nazis had to offer, since he was 
in fact responsible for concentration camp 'Dora Mittelbau'.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Dora+Mittelbau


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407121

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 11:36:16 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> Am 27.01.2017 19:57, schrieb numbernumber1964@gmail.com:
> >
> > The Apollo 11 mission did not land on the surface of the moon. If the
> > moon landing was performed, a test probe would have been first sent to
> > the surface of the moon to test the gravity of the moon.

They did, in 1966 through 1968:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/

But it was not necessary to land a probe first.  Apollo 8 and 10 went into
orbit around the moon and returned to earth, so the mass of the moon was
known from the characteristics of those orbits.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo.html

> I personally think, the USA has actually sent people to the Moon, but 
> not with that craft shown on TV in the 60th.
> 
> This was a show and filmed in a studio, while the real craft looked very 
> different.
> 
> Actually I think, that NASA had used devices similar to what the Nazis 
> had called 'Haunebu IV'.
> 
> Those are commonly called 'UFOs' or 'Flying saucers', but are actually 
> man-made and build under US authority.
> 
> As presenter of the fake they used top-Nazi Wernher von Braun.
> 
> That was one of the worst suckers, the Nazis had to offer, since he was 
> in fact responsible for concentration camp 'Dora Mittelbau'.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Dora+Mittelbau
> 
> 
> TH

Both of you guys are totally bananas.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web