Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 05:03:30 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #400 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Mon, 9 Nov 92 Volume 15 : Issue 400 Today's Topics: clarke's law GPS Satellite Info? Hubble's mirror Media report on Swift-Tuttle threat. Metric again NASA Coverup (7 msgs) Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 00:42:31 GMT From: Mark Brader Subject: clarke's law Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.physics.fusion > > > Someone recently posted Clarke's law. The one about > > > if a senior scientist says possible ... > > Funny, the one I learned as "Clarke's Law" is: > > "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." > Clarke is allowed to have many laws. Both of these are known as > "Clarke's Law." No, these are Clarke's First Law (which *was* Clarke's Law when it was the only one), and Clarke's Third Law. Incidentally, in his recent book "How the World Was One", he refers to a case where the First Law bit *him*. Here's an old article of mine which made it into the FAQ list for the newsgroup rec.arts.sf.written: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Clarke's Law, later Clarke's First Law, can be found in the essay "Hazards of Prophecy: The Failure of Imagination", in the collection "Profiles of the Future", 1962, revised 1973, Harper & Row, paperback by Popular Library, ISBN 0-445-04061-0. It reads: # [1] When a distinguished but elderly scientist # states that something is possible, he is almost # certainly right. When he states that something # is impossible, he is very probably wrong. Note that the adverbs in the two sentences are different. Clarke continues: # Perhaps the adjective "elderly" requires definition. In physics, # mathematics, and astronautics it means over thirty; in the other # disciplines, senile decay is sometimes postponed to the forties. # There are, of course, glorious exceptions; but as every researcher # just out of college knows, scientists of over fifty are good for # nothing but board meetings, and should at all costs be kept out # of the laboratory! Isaac Asimov added a further comment with Asimov's Corollary to Clarke's Law, which he expounded in an essay logically titled "Asimov's Corollary". This appeared in the February 1977 issue of F&SF, and can be found in the collection "Quasar, Quasar, Burning Bright", 1978, Doubleday; no ISBN on my copy. Asimov's Corollary reads: % [1AC] When, however, the lay public rallies round an % idea that is denounced by distinguished but elderly % scientists and supports that idea with great fervor % and emotion -- the distinguished but elderly % scientists are then, after all, probably right. So much for Clarke's First Law. A few pages later on, in the final paragraph of the same essay, Clarke writes: # [2] But the only way of discovering the limits of the # possible is to venture a little way past them into # the impossible. To this he attaches a footnote: # The French edition of [presumably, the first edition of] this # book rather surprised me by calling this Clarke's Second Law. # (See page [number] for the First, which is now rather well- # known.) I accept the label, and have also formulated a Third: # # [3] Any sufficiently advanced technology is # indistinguishable from magic. # # As three laws were good enough for Newton, I have modestly # decided to stop there. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The original poster asked for email, not posted answers, and I am emailing this article to him also. -- Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com We can design a system that's proof against accident and stupidity; but we CAN'T design one that's proof against deliberate malice. -- a spaceship designer in Arthur C. Clarke's "2001: A Space Odyssey" This article is in the public domain. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Nov 92 22:28:46 GMT From: "John S. Novak III" Subject: GPS Satellite Info? Newsgroups: sci.space Hi. I would greatly appreciate it if someone could point me to a recent list (ideally, a completely up to date list) of which GPS satellites have been launched, and which satellites are still in operation. The most recent list I've found on my own initiative is dated from 1986. Email or post, I'll see it either way. Thanks, -- "What did I tell you last semester... When you think you're rightm stand your ground, and slap him in the head until he listens." -Steve Gutschlag to Carrie Weissberg. 01-28-92 John S. Novak, III darknite@camelot.bradley.edu ------------------------------ Date: 8 Nov 92 23:25:47 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Hubble's mirror Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space In article stick@lopez.marquette.MI.US (Stick,CommoSigop) writes: >In gerry@bluemoon.rn.com (Gerard M. Foley) writes: >>dhl@mrdog.msl.com (Donald H. Locker) writes: > >>> Now that I know a little about mirror-making, I'd like to hear again >>> how the Hubble mirror contractor messed up the figure of the main >>> mirror. I understand it has spherical aberration, but wonder how >>> [Rockwell?] managed to do that. >>> >>It wasn't Rockwell (I forget axactly who it was, but it was an >>otherwise reputable New England outfit) and put briefly, they >>fouled up the test, performing it incorrectly, and never >>checked by any independent method. > > According to Dr. Steve Maran, who works on the HST project at the >Goddard Flight Center, and who was recently a guest lecturer at my college, >none of the above is true. The company that ground the mirror did it >exactly to the specs they were given. > > The specs were wrong. According to the NASA investigation of the Hubble mirror problem, there was nothing wrong with the specs. The backup mirror built to the same specs by Kodak is *perfect*. The problem was that Perkin-Elmer bollixed up the testing of the figure of the mirror and ignored the results of a Foucault test that showed the mirror to have spherical abberations because their primary test was supposed to give more accurate results. Unfortunately, they installed a fixture backwards when making the primary measurements and got the *wrong* result. Gary ------------------------------ Date: 8 Nov 92 22:35:57 GMT From: Steinn Sigurdsson Subject: Media report on Swift-Tuttle threat. Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro In article <721220577snx@syzygy.DIALix.oz.au> cam@syzygy.DIALix.oz.au (Cameron Newham) writes: Well, I've just had a good laugh after reading a half page article on the possible Swift-Tuttle impact in our Sunday paper. Although the article contains the usual misinformation, speculation and ... In it he is quoted as saying "A chance of one in 400 is not small when you are talking about the extinction of the human race." 1 in 400? Where did this figure come from? I thought it was 1 in 10000, and that at a back-of-the-envelope calculation. Has the knowledge about Swift- Tuttle's non-gravitational forces suddenly taken a gigantic leap forward? Hardly. The 1:400 seems to be a consequence of someone noting that if P/S-T crosses the ecliptic sometime on August 14th 2126 then there is still a 1:400 chance it will miss assuming a uniform error. ie it takes it about 1/400 of a day to cross an Earth diameter. .. The article goes on to say that the "International Astronomical Union then warned its member nations that Swift-Tuttle would cross earth's path in August 2126." News to me! Anyone care to comment? Well, it does have a significant probability of crossing the ecliptic either in late July or early August, and this was stated in an IAUC... At this point it would perhaps be best to hold off until a few months after perihelion, about this time next year we will have a much better orbit and will know with some degree of confidence how close it will come next time around. * Steinn Sigurdsson Lick Observatory * * steinly@lick.ucsc.edu "standard disclaimer" * * The laws of gravity are very,very strict * * And you're just bending them for your own benefit - B.B. 1988* ------------------------------ Date: 8 Nov 92 22:22:19 GMT From: Steve Linton Subject: Metric again Newsgroups: sci.space In article <17268@mindlink.bc.ca>, Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes: |> > John Roberts writes: |> > |> > By the way, I think you'll be much happier in the long run if you do your |> > calculations in SI (metric) units. I often do simple calculations in |> > standard |> > units, but the tough problems are much more easily handled using SI. |> |> |> I am delighted to find that NASA seem finally to be moving toward |> metric, not just in theory but in reality. Ron Baalke's postings about |> various spacecraft now use metric units as the primary system, with |> traditional American units in brackets. About a week ago I joined a public |> tour through the Goddard Space Flight Center (just north of Washington DC). |> Goddard has a backup Shuttle mission control center which can take over |> Shuttle operations if the Houston center is down. There was a Shuttle up at |> the time, and data related to the mission were being displayed in real time |> on a large display at the front of the control room (the tour saw the room |> from behind a glass wall). Shuttle altitute was listed in km, and velocity |> was listed in km/sec. |> Does anyone know if NASA uses degrees C for reporting things like the |> Shuttle cabin temperature and the temperature of experiments? Of course they should use Kelvins (:-)). My main beef about NASA metrication concerns precision. How often have you seen "This tiny widget, only about 1 inch (2.54cm) across"? If the diameter is given as "about 1 inch" the implied precision is about +-25%. As such, the proper metric form is "two or three centimeters" or "a couple of centimeters". 2.54cm implies a precision that just isn't there. ------------------------------ Date: 8 Nov 92 22:19:46 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: NASA Coverup Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.conspiracy In article <4600@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us> snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes: > > Let me here define "Neutral Point" : > > The neutral point is that point in a lunar spacecraft's trajectory, > measured by the straight line distance from the moon's center in miles, > where the force of gravitational influence in the direction of the moon , > measured in pounds of "pull" on the spacecraft,is equal to the force of > influence toward the direction of the earth, also measured in pounds of > "pull". > > I believe that the direct quotation from the July 25,1969 Time magazine > article would be helpful here: > > "At a point 43,495 from the moon, lunar gravity exerted a force [on the > spacecraft] equal to the gravity of the Earth , then some 200,000 miles > distant." > > I would conclude from the inclusion of the distance remaining to go to > the moon (200,000 miles) that the author knew exactly which units he was > talking about . > > I did a search for other sources which would help us analyse just what is > meant by " neutral point" , and where it might be located along the > flight path of the Apollo . > > In "Project Apollo: Man to the Moon" by Thomas J. Alexander (Harper and > Row , 1964 ) ,the author states: > > "At a point some 40,000 miles from the Moon ,when the craft is poking > along at about 2000 mph, it crosses THE LINE where the moon's gravity > exceeds that of the earth . That's the second part of the trjectory." > (caps mine). > > In Buzz Aldrin's book, "Men From Earth" (1989) , the author states on > page 231: > > "After two full days into the mission we were 150,000 miles from earth > and our speed was less than 3000 miles an hour. The moon was > approximately 30 hours and 90,000 miles distant." > > Here we have a "horse's mouth" space jockey's description of his ship's > situation well before reaching either of two postulated neutral points. > > If we rule out the possibility that Apollo 11 was undergoing some kind > of continuous thrusting which would keep this 3000 mph velocity > constant,we are then left with the conclusion that the neutral point was > approximately 1/2 way between his position at that time and the moon > which was 90,000 miles away. Here again we arrive at a Neutral point > figure close to the 43,595 miles AS SPECIFIED BY TIME , VON BRAUN , and > ALEXANDER. > > I repeat again this is data from direct experimental evidence (the > actual moon flights) that the moon's gravity cannot be 1/6 if one > calculates the relative pulls of the earth and moon based on the proven > accurate inverse square law . In pre - Apollo Astronomy , it is admitted > that the exact determination of the moon's mass , therefore the position > of the neutral point could not be determined unless one was able to > observe the actual trajectories of lunar spacecraft. Ah, you've fallen into a particularly common trap. You are taking simplified "pop" science statements and treating them as if they meant something else. This is the kind of thing that makes real orbital mechanics grit their teeth in frustration when they read them in the papers. All the statements you quote are true in a limited context, but don't tell the story sufficiently for the calculations you have attempted. References to speed and distance in space are of very limited usefulness. You have to ask yourself, "What component of the velocity vector are they referencing?", and "Reference to what body is the measurement being made?" Remember that to reach the Moon from low Earth orbit, we can't travel in a "straight" line unless we have some magical engine that can thrust continously. Instead, we do a burn in LEO that changes the shape of our orbit from a low circular one to a highly eccentric ellipse with it's low point at LEO and it's high point at Lunar orbit. The point on the Lunar orbit where the transfer ellipse meets will be empty at firing time because the Moon is a moving target. Three days later, when the capsule reaches Lunar orbital height, the Moon will have moved about it's orbit so that it will be there too. Thus the timing of the firing is critical. A second burn is then done to transfer the probe from an elliptical orbit around Earth to a nearly circular orbit around the Moon, or in the case of Ranger, to a highly elliptical orbit around the Moon with it's perilune at the surface. So, since both bodies are in orbits with an intercecting point, you must always ask when you see speeds quoted, "Speed relative to what?" The probe is moving along an orbital ellipse with a velocity that generates the exact amount of centripedal force to cancel the effect of the Earth's gravity *at every point* in it's orbit barring the influence of a third body. At any point in the transfer orbit, the vector component of it's velocity *toward the Moon* is a function of the geometry of the orbits and the timing along the orbit. The *neutral point* referred to in this case is the point where the gravitational attraction of the Moon *adds* just enough to the centripedal force generated by the probe's motion *along it's orbit* to warp that orbit toward a Lunar trajectory. Thus this point is much further from the Moon than your simple "tug of war" analysis would show because you've neglected the orbital motion of the bodies. Gary ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 23:21:56 GMT From: Soh Kam Hung Subject: NASA Coverup Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space,alt.conspiracy I been lied to by the damned physicists! I thought gravity was more or less constant close to the surface of the Earth but I've found proof to the contrary. The gravity at the top of a stair well must be much higher than I thought: I can't jump a fraction of an inch after walking up three flights of stairs! Humour for the smiley impaired. -- Soh Kam Hung, Network Management Research, | h.soh@trl.oz.au TRL, POB 249 Clayton, Victoria 3168, Australia | +61 3 253 6638 ------------------------------ Date: 8 Nov 92 23:16:45 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: NASA Coverup Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.conspiracy In article <4603@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us> snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes: > > TEN EMBARRASSING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MOON > > 1.) Where did the moon come from , and how did it attain it's present > orbit? > > Scientists have generally offered three major theories to account for > the moon in orbit around our planet. All three are in serious trouble. > Amazingly, the least likely theory prior to the Apollo missions emerges > as the "favorite" theory. Evidence gathered by the Apollo program > indicate that the moon and the earth differ greatly in composition, > thereby degrading the two theories that prevailed prior to these flights. > The first and most popular idea among these scientists was that the moon > had been born alongside the earth out of the same cloud of gas and dust > about 4.6 billion years ago. Another theory was that the moon was the > earth's "child", ripped out of the Pacific basin ,possibly. > > However,evidence gathered by the Apollo missions indicates that the > moon and earth differ greatly in composition. Scientists now tend to > lean toward the third theory - that the moon was "captured" by the > Earth's gravitational field and locked into orbit ages ago. There are > incredibly difficult celestial mechanics involved in such a > capture,however. If the moon just "happened" to wander into the earth's > vicinity ,Newton's Laws of gravitation would almost certainly have > assured an acceleration great enough to send it out into the depths of > space again. The logically consistent, but socially unacceptable > alternative to this conclusion is that a steering or braking "manuever" > had been performed by some mechanism "aboard" the moon. NASA Scientist > Dr. Robin Brett sums it up best: "It seems much easier to explain the > nonexistence of the moon than it's existence". A capture theory requires the influence of a third body, or as you state, artificially generated thrust. Both are extremely unlikely. Currently, the most popular theory is that the Moon is a result of a collision with the primordial Earth by a third body similar in mass to the present day Mars. The result of the collision is the much smaller present day Earth and the Moon. There is ample evidence throughout the solar system for such collisions in the early solar system. The Lunar surface composition is consistent with being formed from the primordial Earth's mantle. > 2. Is the " apparent " size similarity (as viewed from earth) of the > sun and moon a mere coincidence? > > Yes. The fact that the moon subtends an angle of arc, as viewed from the > earth , equal to that of the sun ,is a " coincidence" which causes the > occasional solar eclipse spectacle . Only the Earth , alone of all the > planets in the solar system , is known to harbor life and a satellite > with this peculiar quality . The theory that the moon was placed here by > intelligent being(s) as a sort of "planet marker " , is only a theory . > As we all know , theories are not necessarily the same thing as > "Science." Indeed, Occam's Razor says coincidence is sufficient explanation without calling on putative "aliens." When looking at any sufficiently large number of random actions, remarkable coincidences can always be found. When you roll the dice, *some* number has to come up. We find the number that came up remarkable only because we are here to observe it. This is the anthropic principle at work. > 3. Why are moon rocks so much older than earth rocks? > > 99 percent of moon rocks brought back turned out upon analysis to be > older than 90 percent of the oldest rocks that can be found on earth . If > we assume that the moon came from a different area of the solar system, > where the component material might have been different ,this assumption > would still not account for the disparity in the average age of the > matter composing the two bodies. It's not a different age of "matter", it's a difference in the average age of *surface* rocks. Since the Moon is a smaller body and cooled earlier, it has no ongoing subduction processes to bury old rock, and since it has no sensible atmosphere, there are no weathering processes going on. Thus it's obvious why early rocks are still available on it's surface long after such rocks have weathered or been subducted on Earth. > The first rock picked up by Neil Armstrong after landing on the Sea of > Tranquility turned out to be more than 3.6 billion years old . Other > rocks turned out to be even older; 4.3 , 4.5 ,4.6 and one alleged to be > 5.3 billion years old. The oldest rocks found on earth are about 3.7 > billion years old. Based on such evidence ,some scientists have > concluded that the moon was formed among the stars long before our sun > was born. Obviously not geologists with any understanding of the weathering and subduction processes on Earth. > 4. Why are the "maria" or "lunar seas" located almost entirely on one side > of the moon? > > The dark areas on the moon are known as "maria" ,some of which form the > familiar "man in the moon". Maria are significantly absent on the far > side of the moon. The ones on the near side area consist mainly of lunar > soil and smaller rocks. Astronauts found it extremely difficult to drill > into the surface of these dark, plain - like areas. Soil samples weer > loaded with rare metals and elements like titanium, zirconium, yttruim, > and berylium. How the moon could have been formed by some random process > with such high concentrations of rare elements has never been > satisfactorily explained. This is simply wrong. The surface minerals found on the Moon are consistent with elemental concentrations in the Earth's upper mantle, *if* you subtract the heavy elements in the Earth's mantle present due to subduction mixing. Titanium is not rare in the Earth's mantle. The other elements mentioned are rare in both bodies. What's remarkably missing from the Moon rocks is *iron*. Iron is a highly abundant element in the cores of rocky bodies formed by accretion. It's absence from the Lunar material is significant since it shows that the Lunar material must have come from a *differentiated* body such as the primordial Earth. > 5. Was rustproof iron found on the moon ? > > Samples brought back to earth by both Soviet and American Space Probes > contain particles of pure iron. The Soviets announced that pure iron > particles brought back by the remote controlled lunar probe Zond 20 have > not oxidized even after several years on earth. Pure iron particles that > do not rust are unheard of in the strange world of science, although > there is a solid pillar of iron of unknown age near New Delhi ,India, > that has never rusted ,and no one knows why . Simply wrong. A lie from _Chariots of the Gods_. > 6 . Is the core of the moon hot or cold ? > > When the Apollo 15 astronauts used thermal equipment to measure > temperatures below the surface , they got unusually high readings, which > indicated high subsurface temperatures near the Apennine mountains. It > was speculated that , since the presumed density of the moon would > preclude the possibility of lava flows, magma and the like (volcanism has > never been observed on the moon) that the high readings could be > explained by highly radioactive elements just under the surface. > Actually, the amount of radioactive materials on the SURFACE of the moon > is "embarrassingly high" . Where did all of this hot ,radioactive > material ( uranium and thorium ) come from ? And if it came from the > interior of the moon (very unlikely) ,how did it get to the moon's > surface? There are no "embarrassingly high" levels of uranium and thorium in the Lunar samples. In fact the levels are "embarrassingly low" for any Lunar formation theory except collision calving from a differentiated body. Subsurface temperatures are unusually high only until you realize the insulating properties of the lunar regolith and note the absence of water and atmosphere to fill the vacuum voids in the material and carry heat away by any process except radiation. Once you understand the thermodynamics of the situation, it would be unusual if subsurface temperatures were *lower* than those measured. > 7. Were immense clouds of water vapor ever observed on the moon? > > The few lunar excursions indicate that the moon is a very dry world. > One Lunar expert said that the moon was "a million times as dry as the > Gobi Desert" . The early Apollo missions did not even find the slightest > trace of water. But after Apollo 15, NASA experts were stunned when a > cloud of water vapor more than 100 square miles in size was detected on > the moon's surface. NASA officials suggested that two tiny tanks, > abandoned on the moon by U.S. Astronauts, had somehow ruptured. But the > contents of these tanks could not have produced a cloud of such > magnitude. The water vapor appears to have come from the moon's interior. > Mists, clouds and surface changes have been allegedly seen over the years > by astronomers . For instance , six astronomers in the last century > claimed to have seen a mist which obscured the details on the floor of > the crater Plato. Clouds of any kind would be an extremely odd phenomena > on the moon, because of the supposed low gravity, which presumably could > not hold an atmosphere. Water trapped beneath the surface, then venting > by some unknown process , is one possible explanation - but then what (or > WHO) is "letting off steam"? Strange "clouds" have been observed on the Moon for hundreds of years, since the availability of telescopes. It should be noted that the Moon has no sensible atmosphere so the "clouds" are considerably different phenomina than the clouds seen in Earth's *atmosphere*. Ten kilograms of sodium vapor was released in Earth orbit and created a visible "cloud" over half of Earth for a short time. The same kind of process in the vacuum of the Moon can allow a small outgassing to generate a huge "cloud" that's visible from Earth. Even after exposure to vacuum and high surface temperatures due to solar heating for 5 billion years, it would be remarkable if *all* volatiles were missing from the Moon. Small pockets, either in permanent shadow or insulated by Lunar regolith should still exist on the Moon. Heat "creep" via conduction through the poorly conducting Lunar soil should occasionally volatilize a remaining pocket and cause a small outgassing. This is the same mechanism that gives comets their tail. > 8. What caused the "Glaze" on the lunar surface? > > Lunar explorations have revealed that much of the lunar surface is > covered with a glassy glaze , which indicates that the moon's surface has > been scorched by an unknown source of intense heat . Expert's analysis > shows that this did not result from massive meteorite impactings . One > explanation forwarded was that an intense solar flare, of awesome > proportions , scorched the moon some 30,000 years ago. Scientists have > remarked that the glaze is similar to the glaze created by atomic weapons > on earth soil. If a solar flare sufficient to remelt Lunar soil occurred 30,000 years ago, there would be no life on Earth. This is nonsense. The maria are the result of basaltic flows formed during the initial cooling of the Moon. Since there is neither weathering nor subduction to disturb it, the Lunar surface most resembles a *fresh* volcanic flow on Earth. If you observe a fresh volcanic flow, you'll find the characteristic "glassy" look to the rocks. The "front" of the Moon is protected to some extent from heavy meteoric bombardment by the orbital mechanics of the Earth-Luna system. Thus there are fewer impact craters on this side of the Moon than on the "outside" side. > 9. What are "mascons" and how did they get there? > > In 1968 ,tracking data of lunar orbiters first indicated that massive > concentrations (mascons) existed under the surface of the circular lunar > maria. NASA even reported that the gravitational pull caused by themwas > so pronounced that the spacecraft overhead dipped slightly and > accellerated when flitting by the lunar plain , thus revealing the > existence of these hidden structures, whatever they are. Calculations > show that they are enormous concentrations of dense heavy matter centered > like a bull's eye under the lunar maria. NASA has never offered an > explanation of their existence. Of course they have. *Every* rocky body in the solar system has mascons. The Earth does, and Venus is presently being gravity mapped for mascons. There are several processes that can cause mascons. The most common is cooled magma chambers. Another is buried remains of large meteor strikes. On bodies with active vulcanism, subduction has erased all traces of primeval meteor strikes and magma chambers, replacing them with contemporary vulcanism. But on Luna, the body has completely cooled from it's formation and these features are frozen in time from it's creation. They are all the more striking because of the lack of a differentiated core in the Moon. Gary ------------------------------ Date: 8 Nov 92 19:27:49 GMT From: Dennis Wicks Subject: NASA Coverup Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space,alt.conspiracy In article <1992Nov5.035726.7541@leland.Stanford.EDU> ledwards@leland.Stanford.EDU (Laurence James Edwards) writes: > >by the way, this is all one long running joke, right? > >Larry Edwards Nope, they are serious! This is alt.conspiracy, after all! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 08 Nov 92 12:04:00 PST From: snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us Subject: NASA Coverup Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.conspiracy I rented a videotape called "Man to the Moon" ,produced by CBS news. Timing Buzz Aldrin's leap from the 3 foot bottom rung of the Lunar Module ladder , I come up with about 1 second ,which would be consistent with a lunar gravity of 1/6. Although he still to be holding on to the ladder throughout the leap , it seems that it is just to steady himself , not to slow the fall. On this basis then, I concede that the lunar gravity is 1/6 . ______________________________________________________________ I apologize ,publicly , over the net, to the general class of people known as "NASA Scientists" who I accused of concealing the truth about the lunar gravity. I thank all of those who posted private responses via E-mail in an effort to explain / debate the conclusion that the Neutral point figure revealed a higher gravity. I will continue , however to point out alternative theories to account for various facts of nature. Theories are not science, but merely suggestions of possible explanations for observed phenomena . An alternate theory need only be logically and mathematically consistent to be as viable as relativity , or any other theory. I am , at least,gratified to learn that Velikovsky's idea of planetary collisions , long scorned and ridiculed by the scientific community , is now the prevailing theory explaining the origin of the moon. More on this later. snarfy ------------------------------ Date: 9 Nov 1992 01:43:06 GMT From: "Blair P. Houghton" Subject: NASA Coverup Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space,alt.conspiracy In article <1992Nov8.232156.18262@trl.oz.au> soh@tmp_ip_003.trl.OZ.AU (Soh Kam Hung) writes: >I been lied to by the damned physicists! I thought gravity was [...] Gravity is a cologne. --Blair "And it better not stink, because I want some bad." ------------------------------ Date: 9 Nov 92 02:29:04 GMT From: "Vaughan R. Pratt" Subject: NASA Coverup Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space,alt.conspiracy In article <1dkfnaINNffg@chnews.intel.com> bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes: >In article <1992Nov8.232156.18262@trl.oz.au> soh@tmp_ip_003.trl.OZ.AU (Soh Kam Hung) writes: >>I been lied to by the damned physicists! I thought gravity was [...] > >Gravity is a cologne. And quantum gravity is a questiogne mark. -- Vaughan Pratt ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 400 ------------------------------