There IS no gravity.

[tas8831]

You have my sympathy because I get frustrated with people who are convinced they know what they're talking about when they are defending. They have just enough indoctrination into established lies to thoroughly dismiss legitimate evidence that challenges their values position amongst their equally ignorant and pseudo-educated peers.

The projection is hilarious.

 

[Kaon]

The projection is hilarious.

Can you tell me why the moon gravity as shown in post #478 is 200% larger than than the theoretical value of the gravity of the moon?

 

[tas8831]

Can you tell me why the moon gravity as shown in post #478 is 200% larger than than the theoretical value of the gravity of the moon?

You mean as shown in a youtube video?

Can you show us where NASA had to alter their trajectories and such because of this 200% greater gravity than was expected?

 

[Kaon]

You mean as shown in a youtube video?

Can you show us where NASA had to alter their trajectories and such because of this 200% greater gravity then was expected?

You can calculate the gravity of the moon from that video. It is 200% larger than the theoretical value of the gravity on the moon.

Can you explain why it is 2x theoretical gravity?

 

[Kaon]

Can @tas8831 or anyone else explain the discrepancy of the apparent gravity in the video, and the theoretical gravity?

I saw a lot of people talking about others who don't know science, a lot of (not so) subtle name calling, and insinuations that one does not know science if one does not follow the status quo.

Here is an opportunity to ignore the fluff, and consider the raw physics - as well as discussion. Why is the apparent gravity show in Post #478 twice the theoretical value of gravity on the moon? 200% isn't a simple error - it is a grossly incorrect value compared to the theoretical value.

I would be happy to civilly and respectfully discuss the error analysis of this - once someone verifies the results for themselves. I have given my assumptions in post #478 already. But, I do find it terribly hackneyed to keep spewing the same "you are anti-science" when only speaking about superficiality. Here is something superficial in rigor, but poignant to discuss - and there have been crickets from the most vocal in several threads for which my question was posed.

 

[tas8831]

Can @tas8831 or anyone else explain the discrepancy of the apparent gravity in the video, and the theoretical gravity?

Already did, you just want to think that your youtube video estimate proves that the moon has twice the gravity it does.

And somehow, nobody has noticed this.

Civility? How about a little humility?

 

[tas8831]

You can calculate the gravity of the moon from that video. It is 200% larger than the theoretical value of the gravity on the moon.

Can you explain why it is 2x theoretical gravity?

Yes - your methodology was insufficient.

What was the frame rate of the original film?

 

[Kaon]

Already did, you just want to think that your youtube video estimate proves that the moon has twice the gravity it does.

And somehow, nobody has noticed this.

Civility? How about a little humility?

Wait, show me where you came up with a value for the gravity as presented in the video.

You can calculate the gravity from the video; stop saying that the video is the problem - as that is absolutely disingenuous.

What did you use for your parameters? What value - according to the video - did you get for the gravity?


If I dropped a ball from the Empire State Building, and you knew I was 1.8 m tall, would you claim that a video recording the drop is erroneous? Or, would you be able to calculate the gravity from the video? You don't believe a video of free-fall could be used to verify earth gravity?

 

[Kaon]

Yes - your methodology was insufficient.

What was the frame rate of the original film?

You have said several time that my method was insufficient without even providing the parameters you would use, as well as the value of gravity you calculated.

I am not going to go back and forth with you because you have demonstrated how insincere you are. I watched you on the threads before I commented, and I wanted to be sure to get you to expose yourself - as you have done. Notice some of your other more learned peers in the sciences have not yet responded - not even with the sophomoric arguments you have given in an attempt to disprove something.

Let me ask you this: do you even know how to find the gravity using physics?

 

[Kaon]

I will even post my work - with error analysis, and the basic calculus behind it. But, I would need to have an actual and genuine exchange, and I have not seen that. So far, I have been providing the details (mathematics and physics) while the other party simply states whether they believe it is wrong or right - with no guarantee that these same entities actually know what they are talking about.

(I am not just talking about this thread, or topic.)

 

[Kaon]

Already did, you just want to think that your youtube video estimate proves that the moon has twice the gravity it does.

And somehow, nobody has noticed this.

Civility? How about a little humility?

I am being humble; I haven't even posted my work. I asked people to verify my results - why the experimental quantity was 100% off - and even gave my own assumptions so that whoever wants to check can know what values I used.

That is how you communicate science. "Hey, I got 2x gravity for the moon. Can somebody check this for me? Here is what I used."

How is that arrogant? I think it is arrogant to tell people to go back to their momma's basement, but then when asked a sincere physics question you convoluted the purpose, and set up straw-men to deflect from the subject.

 

[Rick Otto]

The projection is hilarious.

IK, R?

 

[Rick Otto]

I am being humble; I haven't even posted my work. I asked people to verify my results - why the experimental quantity was 100% off - and even gave my own assumptions so that whoever wants to check can know what values I used.

That is how you communicate science. "Hey, I got 2x gravity for the moon. Can somebody check this for me? Here is what I used."

How is that arrogant? I think it is arrogant to tell people to go back to their momma's basement, but then when asked a sincere physics question you convoluted the purpose, and set up straw-men to deflect from the subject.

Selective amnesia greases the hysteria.
The panic is from the actual challenge to think instead of out-snark. Be careful when you point out alleged blemishes on anti-CT posters. Just sayin'. Strident impunity.

 

[Rick Otto]

I will even post my work - with error analysis, and the basic calculus behind it. But, I would need to have an actual and genuine exchange, and I have not seen that. So far, I have been providing the details (mathematics and physics) while the other party simply states whether they believe it is wrong or right - with no guarantee that these same entities actually know what they are talking about.

(I am not just talking about this thread, or topic.)

witness to that.

 

[Rick Otto]

You mean as shown in a youtube video?

Can you show us where NASA had to alter their trajectories and such because of this 200% greater gravity than was expected?

LOL... even better than dignifying her post with an answer!
Clever lad. Well played.

 

[tas8831]

Selective amnesia greases the hysteria.
The panic is from the actual challenge to think instead of out-snark. Be careful when you point out alleged blemishes on anti-CT posters. Just sayin'. Strident impunity.

So precious.

 

[tas8831]

Yes - your methodology was insufficient.

What was the frame rate of the original film?

Ignore the reply, play martyr.

 

[tas8831]

LOL... even better than dignifying her post with an answer!
Clever lad. Well played.

Not as clever as ignoring my answer and whining about not getting one. Heck - you even goaded me with a smiley emotion for it. Not clever enough to see the answer, I guess.

 

[patrick jane]

NO EXPERIMENT CAN DETECT EARTH'S MOTION - Part 1


14 minutes

NO EXPERIMENT CAN DETECT EARTH'S MOTION - Part 2


23 minutes - watch the whole thing !!!

NO EXPERIMENT CAN DETECT EARTH'S MOTION - Part 3




6 minutes

No experiment has ever been performed with such excruciating persistence and meticulous precision, and in every conceivable manner, than that of trying to detect and measure the motion of the Earth. Yet they have all consistently and continually yielded a velocity for the Earth of exactly ZERO mph.


The toil of thousands of exasperated researchers, in the extremely varied experiments of Arago, De Coudre's induction, Fizeau, Fresnell drag, Hoek, Jaseja's lasers, Jenkins, Klinkerfuess, Michelson-Morley interferometry, Lord Rayleigh's polarimetry, Troughton-Noble torque, and the famous 'Airy's Failure' experiment, all conclusively failed to show any rotational or translational movement for the earth, whatsoever."


"They want you to believe that the Moon's rotation is perfectly synchronized with its orbit so that's why we only ever see one side of the Moon, rather than conclude the obvious - that the Moon is simply NOT rotating. Moreover, they had to slow down the Moon's speed by 58,870 mph AND reverse its direction to West-East to successfully sell their phony heliocentricity system to a gullible public.


I don't think there is one person in many, many thousands - regardless of education - who knows that the Copernican Model had to turn the Moon's observable direction around and give it a new speed to accommodate the phases and eclipses." -Marshall Hall


Of course, Airy's water-filled instrument did not deliver the desired proof of the Copernican paradigm. Agreeing with somewhat similar tests already performed by Hoek and Klinkerfusz, the experiment demonstrated exactly the opposite outcome of that which had to be confidently expected.


Actually the most careful measurements gave the same angle of aberration for a telescope with water as for one filled with air. Airy put water in the telescope to test Bradley's claim that the moving Earth caused aberration; he saw no change in aberration angle with the water added.


This was termed a ‘failure’, since Bradley’s theory of receiver motion predicted a change with the index of refraction – n. CONCLUSION: The deflection of starlight known as stellar aberration is NOT due to the Earth’s motion, but is an external bending of light before reaching the telescope.