Subject: French Republical Calendar (Was: Comet calendar)
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <Bwv83y.Jp9.1@cs.cmu.edu| roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:
|
|-From: flb@flb.optiplan.fi ("F.Baube x554")
|-Subject: Comet =| Millennial Madness ?
|-Date: 27 Oct 92 12:16:49 GMT
|
|-Let's not be too Euro-centric here.
|
|-Does anyone know whether Wednesday 14 August 2126
|-corresponds to any nice, round number in any *other*
|-calendar systems ?
|
|-I'm thinking, something like 31 Urgtember 4999.
|
|If I recall my 10th-grade history class correctly, sometime around the time
|of the French Revolution, France was experimenting with a weird "metric"
|calendar (probably ten months per year). The only month I ever heard the
|name of was "Thermidor"(sp?), around July or August. Apparently it didn't
|catch on.
|
|Perhaps some of the French readers of sci.space could comment.
|
|John Roberts
|roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
There is someone over at soc.history who knows more about the French
Republical Calendar than I do, but it looks like he doesn't read this
newsgroup..
The calendar was introduced in 1793, during the revolution, as a
substitute for the Gregorian. Among reasons for adoption was to
substitute a rational, scientific calendar for one less so.
There were twelve months each containing 3 decades of ten days each.
with 5 supplementary days in ordinary years and 6 days in leap years.
(not metric, still 365/366 days)
Autumn months:
Vendemiaire = vintage
Brumaire = mist
Frimaire = frost
Winter months:
Nivose = snow
Pluviose = rain
Ventose = wind
Spring months:
Germinal = seed-time
Floreal = blossom
Prairial = meadow
Summer months:
Messidor = harvest
Thermidor = heat
Fructidor = fruits
It an attractive idea--getting rid of the Roman Emperors and the
numerals that have lost their meaning.
The names fit only the northern hemisphere (and really only Europe--
Here in Colorado, it rarely rains in the winter and there is no
mist in autumn and we don't have wind, we have *wind*.)
1 Vendemaire, "Year 1 of Liberty", started on Sept 22, 1793. The
calendar was used, almost exclusively by administrative bodies,
usually with the Gregorian date along side until 1805 when France
went back to the Gregorian. While the calendar didn't take,
the metric system of weights and measures did.
--
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom) Tumbra, Zorkovick; Sparkula zoom krackadomando.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 16:59:23 GMT
From: aalpern@hamp.hampshire.edu
Subject: Hubble's mirror
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space
In article <PXiye-Go3@lopez.marquette.MI.US>, stick@lopez.marquette.MI.US (Stick,CommoSigop) writes:
>
> 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 what I have heard from my optics professor, this is the
proper account. The Hubble mirror is the most precise mirror ever made wrong.
--
Adam Alpern * "All that is gold does not glitter, not all *AAlpern@hamp.hampshire.edu * those who wander are lost." - JRR Tolkien * * "When I look in the mirror I see the days to * * come, and my face is just a trace of where * * I'm coming from." - Ani DiFranco *
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 92 12:55:38 -0600
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Interesting text on UFO's.
That's it. The last straw. I will no longer refrain from posting
interesting multimedia/graphics files to sci.space. If it
can hold megabytes upon megabytes of bullshit from William
Cooper, it can put up with smaller files that are more
pertinent and truthful.
Phil
------------------------------
Date: 6 Nov 92 01:18:00 GMT
From: snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
Subject: NASA Coverup
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.conspiracy
I've been getting a lot of E-mail flak about my NASA coverup postings.
My own time schedule does not allow me to answer all these individually,
so I'll try to deal with the more typical objections herein.
Generally the objections fall into seven categories:
1. I'm confusing the Neutral point with Lagrange points or other points
along a spacecraft's trajectory.
2. The figures given by Time or Von Braun are typos or mistakes.
3. The figures given by Time or Von Braun confuse miles with kilometers.
4. The explanation for the apparent lack of jumping ability of the
astronauts is that the suits were as heavy as claimed , and simple
judicious caution on their part prevented more spectacular leaping.
{I am willing to concede this point due to lack of DIRECT evidence to the
contrary, while I still would like to give further circumstantial
evidence that indicates that the issue is ,at least , unresolved.}
5. Known positions of the earth-moon barycenter preclude the mass of the
moon from being higher than claimed therefore it's presumed gravity is
fixed at 1/6.
6. NASA could not fake the moon landings and get away with it.
(Actually, I do not claim that the Moon Landings were faked-just
that the technology used to accomplish them is different than that
alleged publicly)
7. I ,snarfy , have an impolite, beligerent, obnoxious and generally
bad attitude, and my error in transposing terms in the equation 180/6 =
30 indicates that I am also stupid and unqualified to address this
newsgroup.
I am willing to cop to my attitude problems ,point # 7. I'm working on
my character defects , and will try to tone it down in future postings.
But please don't push me with taunts or ridicule. On my part then there
will be no need to "bite back". As I said earlier ,I'm a sensitive guy. I
make mistakes , like everybody else. But I'm not stupid . I pay for my
own access to this newsgroup ,and therefore constitutionally I can say
whatever I want . Invoke your Kill file if you want to tune me out.
Ok, back to work:
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.
to be continued..............
------------------------------
Date: 6 Nov 92 23:37:31 GMT
From: snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
Subject: NASA Coverup
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.conspiracy
As promised ,here come the ...
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".
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."
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.
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.
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.
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 .
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?
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"?
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.
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.
10. Is there anything "funny" about the moon?
People who seem to be overly "obsessed" about the moon will often tell
you that the moon is indeed endowed with "strange" powers that have an
effect on thier lives. These people are sometimes called "lunatics." The
fact that you have been reading these "NASA Moon Coverup" articles
through to this point indicates that YOU may have undiagnosed lunatic
"tendencies", and should ,perhaps ,see your doctor immediately (just for
a check-up). Your doctor can prescribe precise dosages of the "correct"
drugs needed to overcome the effect of such unusual notions as suggested
in this series of postings. These drugs will assure that your opinions
conform comfortably to those currently accepted by the government, and
will result in many opportunities for career advancement.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 16:02:01 GMT
From: "John D. Boggs" <jboggs@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu>
Subject: NASA Coverup
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.conspiracy
From article <4603@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us>, by snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us:
>
> As promised ,here come the ...
>
> TEN EMBARRASSING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MOON
>
> 1.) Where did the moon come from , and how did it attain it's present
> orbit?
> 2. Is the " apparent " size similarity (as viewed from earth) of the
> sun and moon a mere coincidence?
> 3. Why are moon rocks so much older than earth rocks?
> 4. Why are the "maria" or "lunar seas" located almost entirely on one side
> of the moon?
> 5. Was rustproof iron found on the moon ?
> 6 . Is the core of the moon hot or cold ?
> 7. Were immense clouds of water vapor ever observed on the moon?
> 8. What caused the "Glaze" on the lunar surface?
> 9. What are "mascons" and how did they get there?
> 10. Is there anything "funny" about the moon?
>
While interesting (and I do want to find references in something other than
a Frank Edwards book to that pillar of unrustable iron in India), what does
all this have to do with a coverup of some super propulsion system? Please,
give some sort of references for some of your points, as it is, this post reads
very much like the aforementioned Frank Edwards book (and others in the genre).
-John D. Boggs john-boggs@uiowa.edu
------------------------------
Date: 7 Nov 92 17:25:12 GMT
From: Seth Bradley <sbradley@scic.intel.com>
Subject: NASA Coverup
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.conspiracy
In article <4603@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us> snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes:
> there is a solid pillar of iron of unknown age near New Delhi ,India,
> that has never rusted ,and no one knows why .
This is a popular myth promoted by Van Daniken. The pillar does indeed
rust. It is regularly cleaned of said rust. End of mystery.
--
Seth J. Bradley, Senior System Administrator, Intel SCIC
