• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Scientific Publications

Ghostisfort said:
rynner2 said:
The spacecraft is always going uphill from Earth and downhill to the moon. (Gravitational fields are taken to be infinite in extent, so the spacecraft is always under the influence of both Earth and Moon, from lift-off to touch-down.)

The 'neutral point' where the field strengths are equal (and opposite) is of no real physical significance. It's just numerology; nothing happens there, and any spacecraft placed there would need power to remain there. This is because the point co-rotates with the Earth and Moon about their barycentre (their common centre of gravity).

Lagrange points, however, take this rotation into account by factoring in centrifugal forces, which is why bodies placed there will remain there. That's why they are the only physically meaningful neutral points.
That's fine, but this is what these links are about and nothing to do with L!. L1 I'm told, is an Earth/Sun position whereas the neutral point is within the orbit of the Moon and is effective in any position of the Moon.

"Lagrange points are the only physically meaningful neutral points".
They are meaningful in the context of this thread in that they appear to be anomalous which by default makes gravity theory appear anomalous.
It has been reported that the astronauts experienced a jolt. Wernher von Braun saw fit to report the phenomenon to the press.
You always revert to your default position which is one of ignorance. :evil:

"L1 I'm told, is an Earth/Sun position whereas the neutral point is within the orbit of the Moon and is effective in any position of the Moon."
No, L1 is a position between any large mass and a smaller one revolving around their common barycentre.
"Lagrange points are the only physically meaningful neutral points".
They are meaningful in the context of this thread in that they appear to be anomalous which by default makes gravity theory appear anomalous.
In which way are they anomalous? They've been understood and accepted by science for over 200 years!
It has been reported that the astronauts experienced a jolt. Wernher von Braun saw fit to report the phenomenon to the press.
Reported where? References?
I'd bet my life that this is another of your misinterpretations of crap website data.

No doubt the astronauts received a few jolts along the way, but I'm absolutely sure that none of them were due to Langrange points or 'pseudo' neutral points such as you posit.
 
Ghostisfort said:
....It has been reported that the astronauts experienced a jolt. Wernher von Braun saw fit to report the phenomenon to the press.

This is the science of anomalistics, a bona fide part of Forteana.

Where does it say that the astronauts experienced a jolt? Preferably not referencing a conspiracy website.

BTW: 24000 nautical miles is 44448 km; 24000 statute miles is 38624 km. I think the reporter in the Werner von Braun quotation from the Time article has mixed up miles and kilometres, or there's been poor subbing.

*EDIT: Hi Rynner I was writing this at the same time as your comment. Didn't mean to repeat your question.*
 
Ghostisfort said:
I have already tried to engage several physicists in conversation, but all they seem to want to talk about is their qualifications and how good they are at math's.
Which physicists have you engaged, care to name names.?
 
rynner is attempting total emersion in that river in Egypt.
None of this thread regarding the neutral point (the equigravisphere) has anything what-so-ever to do with Lagrange points. But in the time honoured way of the sceptic, if it don't fit the philosophy, change it for something that does. He thinks no one has noticed, poor soul. Love, light and blessings.

Timble, sharp as an eye surgeon's scalpel as always.
I am aware of the nautical and statutory mile problem. But think about it for a while: all of this information has to originate with NASA. It has to be NASA that gave the data to von Braun and similarly to Encyclopaedia Britannica. Where else would they get the information?

If NASA chooses to withhold the info, not for the first time, then what hope for the rest of us?
Lunar Laser Ranging experiment
The distance continually changes for a number of reasons, but averages about 384,467 kilometers (238,897 miles). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Lase ... experiment
(the average distance from the Earth to the Moon is about 385,000 kilometers). http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/ ... ments/lrr/

NASA with laser ranging
Metric: 384,400 km
English: 238,855 miles
Scientific Notation: 3.844 x 105 km (2.570 x 10-3 A.U.) http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/pro ... bject=Moon
Measuring the Moon's Distance Laser Ranging
the round-trip travel time that gives the distance between the two bodies at any time to an accuracy of about 3 centimeters.
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html
Even with all of the above we are not told if the distances are surface to surface or centre to centre?
In answer to the original question: I think we can be pretty sure that the miles are English ones.
 
Ronson8 said:
Ghostisfort said:
I have already tried to engage several physicists in conversation, but all they seem to want to talk about is their qualifications and how good they are at math's.
Which physicists have you engaged, care to name names.?
I'm sure I've been through this before and I'm expecting a trouncing from rynner for it, but here goes again.

When I link other peoples sites to mine, I write to them and ask if it's OK.
This is standard and good manners.
I wrote to Professor Donald Simanek physicist, to tell him that his pages on logic and John Keely were rubbish. http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/home.htm
He did make some changes to Keely but it basically remains the same.

We Emailed each other for some time and he seems to be a nice guy. I asked him if I could publish the letters and he said no, and that's how it should be. He was not very forthcoming and seemed disinterested in my questions about physics. All he seemed to want to talk about was the time he spent with van Allen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Van_Allen

I also get Emails from a forum called The Sceptic Teacher or some such. It's like FT forum only everyone is a rynner. They have been Emailing me for about a year, but I cant seem to engage in any kind of meaningful conversation. They only want to talk about math's. I spammed them a couple of weeks ago.
 
Ghostisfort said:
rynner is attempting total emersion in that river in Egypt.
None of this thread regarding the neutral point (the equigravisphere) has anything what-so-ever to do with Lagrange points. But in the time honoured way of the sceptic, if it don't fit the philosophy, change it for something that does. He thinks no one has noticed, poor soul. Love, light and blessings.
At least I know how to spell immersion! 8)

And now you drag in 'equigravisphere'. According to http://dictionary.reference.com/ :
equigravisphere - no dictionary results
Oh dear!
And Wikipedia doesn't have it (or gravisphere) either.

I did find a few mentions on the web, however, but they all seemed to be on websites or message boards where people don't know what they are talking about...

You seem to equate it with a 'neutral point'. Now neutral points (however they are defined) do not make up the surface of a sphere - they are just points in space, in the plane of two bodies orbiting each other. (Although we often say the Moon orbits the Earth, it's more accurate to say that both orbit their barycentre, which is displaced 3000 miles from the centre of the Earth towards the Moon.)

In the case of Lagrange points (which allow for this revolution) there are five well-known points.

But if you define a neutral point as a point where the two gravitational fields are equal, without allowing for revolution, the case is different. There are just two points, roughly analogous to L1 and L2, but at different distances.

But I'll say no more until you enlarge on equigravisphere...
 
rynner2 said:
But if you define a neutral point as a point where the two gravitational fields are equal, without allowing for revolution, the case is different. There are just two points, roughly analogous to L1 and L2, but at different distances.
I've just been double checking the maths, and in fact there is only one neutral point in this case, between Earth and Moon, where the gravitational forces are in opposite directions. Beyond the Moon, both forces act in the same direction, so there can never be a neutral point.

(But in the L2 case, there is outward centrifugal force to balance the inward gravitational forces. This is why Lagrange points are the only useful neutral points.)
 
Apollo 12 entered the Moon's sphere of influence or equigravisphere at 68 hours, 30 minutes 22 seconds. Handover is taking place now.
http://history.nasa.gov/ap12fj/10day4_loi.htm

/index.cgi?board=apollo&action=print&thread=1383
The Equigravisphere, or "sphere of influence", is the boundary where the spacecraft trajectory is considered to transition from earth-centered to moon-centered, which NASA defines as being 40,000 statute miles (64,374 kilometers) from the center of the Moon. This arbitrary definition is not to be confused with the commonly held definition of the equigravisphere being all points in space where Earth and lunar gravity are equal, the so-called "neutral point."
http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/free-return.htm
None of this thread regarding the neutral point (Earth/Moon) (the equigravisphere) has anything what-so-ever to do with Lagrange points.
 
A lot of confusing usage there! There is only one 'neutral point' where Earth's gavity is equal and opposite to that of the Moon. Equating that with a 'sphere' is frankly a nonsense.

There are other points where the two gravity fields are equal, but they would be angled to each other. They can even be parallel, in the case of the far side of the moon but equality of strength occurs at a greater distance than on the near side, and since the forces act together this is by no means a neutral point. So the equigravisphere is not a neutral point, and neither is it a sphere.

NASA invented all kinds of high-falutin' jargon for their equipment and proceedures, and equigravisphere sounds like another one. They admit the definition is 'arbitrary': it just means 'near the moon'. If asked where you live, you'd probably reply something like "Near Cardiff", rather than give the Grid Reference!

But the point I've been trying to get across is that Gif's definition of a neutral point has no practical use. Gravitational forces may balance there, but nothing happens when you cross the point, and nothing can remain there without using thrust.

I really don't see why you keep banging on about such an insignificant point in space when there are far more interesting and practical ones to discuss - did I mention Lagrange Points? ;)
 
The original point before we were diverted by totally unnecessary Lagrangian blather was about the different positions given for the neutral point of Earth/Moon gravity and the reason. Not being able to sit on a neutral point is irrelevant.
We have established that the miles are English and originally came from NASA.
We still have the original anomaly.
 
Ghostisfort said:
The original point before we were diverted by totally unnecessary Lagrangian blather was about the different positions given for the neutral point of Earth/Moon gravity and the reason.
The reason seems to come from the confusion of definitions of what people are actually talking about, and the further confusion that has arisen in the minds of non-experts that try to discuss it.

Since this pseudo neutral point (pnp) has no particular properties, apart from being 'near the Moon', it's hardly surprising that nobody's bothered to pin it down too precisely. Anyone who chose to link it to the L1 point was at least relying on some tried and tested science.

FWIW, my calculations put the pseudo neutral point (pnp) at nearly 24,000 M from the Moon (one tenth of the Earth-Moon distance, a figure mentioned on the thread before).
For comparison, L1 is currently at 36,220 M, and NASA's (arbitrary) definition of the 'equigravisphere' was 40,000 M from the Moon's centre, which is well outside the other two.
(Note that L1 has to be closer to Earth than the pnp to allow for the 'centrifugal force' in the rotating reference frame of the Earth-Moon system.)

Make of that what you will!
 
Ghostisfort said:
I also get Emails from a forum called The Sceptic Teacher or some such....I spammed them a couple of weeks ago.
An impressive admission of trolling.

I bothered temporarily un-ignoring to see what the fuss was about. I see I can safely turn that back on.
 
The property of the neutral point is that it's free from gravitational influence because the Earth/Moon's gravity cancell each other out, pulling equally in both directions. For this reason it cannot be a pseudo phenomenon but a gravitational interaction.

The Lagrange points just muddy the water for anyone looking at the neutral point and need to be ignored in order to make any sense of this thread.

"A procession of the damned.
By the damned, I mean the excluded.
We shall have a procession of data that Science has excluded."
Charles Fort
 
Ghostisfort said:
The Lagrange points just muddy the water for anyone looking at the neutral point and need to be ignored in order to make any sense of this thread.
Are you suggesting we simply ignore facts that don't fit in with your theories? Some might say that's what the "science establishment" does with theories it finds threaten the status quo. You know the sort of thing, someone proposes something that invalidates the prevailing theory, and so they just pretend it doesn't exist, without actually addressing the problems exposed by the new theory or evidence.
 
Ghostisfort said:
The property of the neutral point is that it's free from gravitational influence because the Earth/Moon's gravity cancell each other out, pulling equally in both directions. For this reason it cannot be a pseudo phenomenon but a gravitational interaction.

The Lagrange points just muddy the water for anyone looking at the neutral point and need to be ignored in order to make any sense of this thread.
Au contraire, mon brave!
For anyone wanting to understand orbital dynamics, it's focussing on the pnp that muddies the waters. Just looking at a null point in the gravitational field, and ignoring the dynamical aspect of the situation is an oversimplification which tells us little more than "it's near the Moon!", and hardly "makes sense" of anything!

Since "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink", I'll leave this topic now, and let Gif enjoy his LP-free universe!
 
Finding it impossible to find agreement as to the distance to the neutral point, I thought I'd look at how the actual Moon distance compares with the neutral point figures:

This looks promising.
By beaming laser pulses at the reflector from Earth, scientists have been able to determine the round-trip travel time that gives the distance between the two bodies at any time to an accuracy of about 3 centimeters...WOW...
...From the ranging experiments, scientists know that the average distance between the centers of the Earth and the Moon is 385,000 kilometers with an accuracy of better than one part in 10 billion.
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html
But from another NASA page we get...
(Moon) Average Distance from Earth Metric: 384,400 km English: 238,855 miles
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/pro ... bject=Moon
Several peer-reviewed papers have been written about the impact of Universe Today in space-related news:
The average distance from the centre of the Earth to the center of the Moon is 384,403 km (238,857 miles). http://www.universetoday.com/19426/dist ... -the-moon/
Wiki is different again:
The distance between the moon and the Earth varies from around 356,400 km to 406,700 km at the extreme perigees (closest) and apogees (farthest) average 381,550km. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
This does not bode well with the claims of extreme accuracy in astronomy or other sciences, something taken for granted and I assume never checked? :roll:
rynner, which one did you use for your calculation?

The Moon seems to be 2160 miles (3476 km) mean diameter.
The Earth seems to be 12742 km mean diameter, for those who like to do math', but I suppose it also needs checking?
 
All that suggests is that one source is right (probably not wikipedia). Some 'rounding up may' be going on also. No big mystery.
 
Jerry_B said:
All that suggests is that one source is right (probably not wikipedia). Some 'rounding up may' be going on also. No big mystery.
You will need to explain a rounding up process that results in 381,550km, 384,403 km and 385,000 km?
The 384,403 would have to be rounded down by the usual method and 381,550 is so far away as to defy any explanation.
Maybe you can settle all of this by giving us the true value and its source?

Also, I recall posting a study that concluded that Wiki was no worse than any other encyclopaedia. Why the prejudice, NASA stands for never a straight answer? :kissers:
 
Ghostisfort said:
You will need to explain a rounding up process that results in 381,550km, 384,403 km and 385,000 km?
The 384,403 would have to be rounded down by the usual method and 381,550 is so far away as to defy any explanation.
It's less than 1% away from the median measurement. Hardly a long stretch. The distance from the Earth to the Moon varies by more (about 10%) during the normal month. So it would depend on exactly when each measurement was made as to how much variance you could expect.

This is, of course, ignoring any number of variables that might sneak into the measurements and result in a 1% (or even larger) change in the calculation. With only the three values and no context for how (and when) each measurement was made, it's kind of hard to tell what the expected variance might be.
 
Ghostisfort said:
You will need to explain a rounding up process that results in 381,550km, 384,403 km and 385,000 km?
The 384,403 would have to be rounded down by the usual method and 381,550 is so far away as to defy any explanation.
Maybe you can settle all of this by giving us the true value and its source?

Refer to Anome's post above.

Also, I recall posting a study that concluded that Wiki was no worse than any other encyclopaedia. Why the prejudice, NASA stands for never a straight answer? :kissers:

If NASA's various webpages don't match, that may just mean shoddy web management, and not some exercise in obfuscation. To try and infer there is an anomaly from this would be unwise.
 
rynner, which [lunar distance] did you use for your calculation?
None of them! Or, to put it another way, any of them!

What I did was to calculate the proportion of the distance between the two centres to where the pnp lies. Taking the Earth's mass as 81 times that of the moon (quite a good approximation) it turns out (by a mathematical fluke - no tables or calculator required!) to be exactly nine tenths of the lunar distance. In other words, the pnp is one tenth of the distance from the Moon's centre. Taking the lunar distance to be a ballpark figure of 240,000 miles thus puts the pnp at 24,000 miles from the Moon.

In fact, the Earth's mass is 81.3 times that of the Moon, which would put the pnp slightly closer to the Moon, but (as they say in the text books) I leave the calculation of the exact proportion as an exercise for the reader! Then pick a lunar distance out of the hat, apply the proportion, and there's your answer, in miles, leagues, fathoms, or light-years to choice.

Similarly, one could calculate the pnp's between any two of the Sun and the planets, but it would be a pointless exercise, since all of them are moving about and none of them have any more physical importance than the one between Earth and Moon!
 
Anome_ said:
It's less than 1% away from the median measurement. Hardly a long stretch. The distance from the Earth to the Moon varies by more (about 10%) during the normal month. So it would depend on exactly when each measurement was made as to how much variance you could expect.

This is, of course, ignoring any number of variables that might sneak into the measurements and result in a 1% (or even larger) change in the calculation. With only the three values and no context for how (and when) each measurement was made, it's kind of hard to tell what the expected variance might be.

There's quite a lot of wriggling going on I see.
The figures I gave in the thread above are averaged maximum/minimum orbits, as it clearly says and it would be interesting to know just what the other variables are.
In addition we have the quote from NASA:

By beaming laser pulses at the reflector from Earth, scientists have been able to determine the round-trip travel time that gives the distance between the two bodies at any time to an accuracy of about 3 centimeters.
...From the ranging experiments, scientists know that the average distance between the centers of the Earth and the Moon is 385,000 kilometers with an accuracy of better than one part in 10 billion.
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html

And so the distance is known, but they're not telling us?

rynner2 said:
Taking the Earth's mass as 81 times that of the moon (quite a good approximation) it turns out (by a mathematical fluke - no tables or calculator required!) to be exactly nine tenths of the lunar distance. In other words, the pnp is one tenth of the distance from the Moon's centre. Taking the lunar distance to be a ballpark figure of 240,000 miles thus puts the pnp at 24,000 miles from the Moon.

How do you know that it works out "exactly" if no one knows what "exactly" is? This is a joke, yes?

Let's increase our perspective at this point and consider the distance of the outer planets, a distance exponentially greater than Anome's 1%?
There had always been a problem with position - the outer planets were never where they were predicted by theory to be.

Enter NASA, and an article I read three or four years ago. It claimed there was no longer a problem as the astronomers had the distance wrong.
NASA had corrected the distance error and the outer planets performed like well trained circus horses - job done.

By changing the figures used in the formula, they had shoe-horned the outer planets into conformity....exactly, no matter about accuracy of distance.

This sounds a lot like rynner's "exactly".

Returning to Anome's 1%, we have the problem of landing a space vehicle on the Moon with an error of 1% of the total distance from Earth to Moon. It works out at around 4000km, not exactly, nor even with rynner's 'exact according to who knows who's figures' would it be possible.
This begins to explain why the early Moon shots failed. ;)
 
Ghostisfort said:
rynner2 said:
Taking the Earth's mass as 81 times that of the moon (quite a good approximation) it turns out (by a mathematical fluke - no tables or calculator required!) to be exactly nine tenths of the lunar distance. In other words, the pnp is one tenth of the distance from the Moon's centre. Taking the lunar distance to be a ballpark figure of 240,000 miles thus puts the pnp at 24,000 miles from the Moon.
How do you know that it works out "exactly" if no one knows what "exactly" is? This is a joke, yes?
No! Pay attention.

I said that using an input of 81 for the mass ratio gives an exact answer for the distance ratios of 9 to 1.

But I also pointed out that using a more precise mass ratio (eg 81.3) would give a slightly different answer, with the pnp slightly nearer the moon than one tenth of the lunar distance.

(For those who wonder how the first answer came out to such a neat figure, the clue is that it involves taking the SQR of the mass ratio. And the SQR of 81 is 9 precisely! Just a mathematical fluke, as I said. 8) )
 
This is circular reasoning:
"What I did was to calculate the proportion of the distance between the two centres to where the pnp lies."
If you don't know the Moon/Earth distance to start with, you can't do the calculation. We have established that the Moon/Earth distance is unavailable.

If you took one of the arbitrary distances, we are back to the start of the thread asking which neutral point distance is correct.

"it turns out (by a mathematical fluke - no tables or calculator required!) to be exactly nine tenths of the lunar distance."

Again it cannot be established that the above is correct because we don't have the lunar distance.
The whole point of starting this thread was to show that if the neutral point is out of place, then the Moons gravity cannot be the usual stated value.
What you seem to be doing is using standard calculations to prove standard calculations, something that ignores the information given by von Braun and others. This is why I said you were in denial.

In the 1969 edition of History of Rocketry & Space Travel by Wernher von Braun and Frederick I. Ordway III, the following statement is made concerning Apollo 11:
The approach to the Moon was so precise that the midcourse correction scheduled for 8:26 a.m. (EDT) on the 19th was cancelled. At a distance of 43,495 miles from the Moon, Apollo 11 passed the so-called "neutral" point, beyond which the Lunar gravitational field dominated that of Earth.
The problem with all of this is, a neutral point of 43,495 miles would make the moon with not 1/6th (16%) the Earth's gravity, but 64%.
Encyclopedia Britannica reported the neutral point to be 20,520 miles from the Moon.
A Moon with 1/6 Earth's gravity should have a Neutral Point between 22,078 - 25,193 miles from the Moons surface.
http://www.xenophilia.com/zb0003u.htm
Now, either the above statement and calculation is right or it's wrong?
What is not an option on this particular thread is to handwave the lunar distance of von Braun and others away as being preposterous.
 
Isaac Newton
“I deduced that the forces which keep the planets in their orbs must [be] reciprocally as the squares of their distances from the centers about which they revolve: and thereby compared the force requisite to keep the Moon in her Orb with the force of gravity at the surface of the Earth; and found them answer pretty nearly."
Newton's theory enjoyed its greatest success when it was used to predict the existence of Neptune based on motions of Uranus that could not be accounted for by the actions of the other planets. Calculations by both John Couch Adams and Urbain Le Verrier predicted the general position of the planet, and Le Verrier's calculations are what led Johann Gottfried Galle to the discovery of Neptune.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation

The Discovery of Neptune according to Charles Fort
Leverrier calculated that the hypothetical planet was at a distance from the sun, within the limits of 35 and 37.9 times this earth's distance from the sun. The new planet was found in a position said to be 30 times this earth's distance from the sun. The discrepancy was so great (25%) that, in the United States, astronomers refused to accept that Neptune had been discovered by means of calculation: see such publications as the American Journal of Science, of the period. Upon August 29, 1849, Dr. Babinet read, to the French Academy a paper in which he showed that, by observations of three years, the revolution of Neptune would have to be placed at 165 years. Between the limits of 207 and 233 years was the period that Leverrier had calculated. Simultaneously, in England, Adams had calculated. Upon Sept. 2, 1846, after he had, for at least a month, been charting the stars in the region toward which Adams had pointed, Prof. Challis wrote to Sir George Airy that this work would occupy his time for three more months. This indicates the extent of the region toward which Adams had pointed. Charles Fort, New Lands.
 
Ghostisfort said:
This is circular reasoning:
"What I did was to calculate the proportion of the distance between the two centres to where the pnp lies."
If you don't know the Moon/Earth distance to start with, you can't do the calculation. We have established that the Moon/Earth distance is unavailable.

If you took one of the arbitrary distances, we are back to the start of the thread asking which neutral point distance is correct.
Absolute rubbish! Once again you betray your lack of scientific and mathematical understanding.

The proportions of the distances are determined by the proportions of the masses - and that's all. If we could somehow move the moon out beyond the orbit of Pluto, the pnp would still be at nine tenths of the new Earth Moon distance (assuming a mass ratio of 81).

Imagine making a random mark on a length of elastic: it divides the elastic into two lengths, and we can find the ratio of these lengths by measurement. Now stretch the elastic - the actual lengths change, but the ratio remains constant, as each length is stretched in proportion.


I had thought of presenting my entire working, but clearly that would be too advanced for Gif to understand! But for those interested, the strength of a gravitational field at a distance d from a mass M is

GM/(d^2) (Gravity is an inverse-square law.)

G is the universal gravitational constant, but you don't need to know anything about that, because when you put the fields of Earth and Moon equal, the G's cancel out!
I suggest you call the Earth-pnp distance x, and the Moon-pnp distance y. Then about three lines of simple algebra gives you the ratio of x to y. Simples!
 
Attempting to make irrelevance into an art-form is probably a worthy quest for someone who wants desperately to change the subject.
As I recall, you had no idea what the neutral point was at the start of the thread, assuming it to be a reference to the Lagrange point L1.

The thread is about anomalous distance measurements of the position of the neutral point of gravity Earth/Moon mentioned by Von Braun and others.

Quoting idealised text book formulae has nothing to do with the pursuit of anomalies and is unhelpful to the context...off topic. ;)
 
Ghostisfort said:
The thread is about anomalous distance measurements of the position of the neutral point of gravity Earth/Moon mentioned by von Braun and others.
No it's not!

I've just looked through the first page of this thread, and there's no mention of Von Braun or a neutral point of gravity, anomalous or not.
(It was about your less than successful search for some article.)

How we got onto von Braun, etc, I don't care to recall, but it fits the pattern of all your other rambling threads. When you lose an argument on one point, you drop it and move on to something else....
 
It's unusual for me to forget something I've written, but I don't recall losing an argument? Remind me?
 
Ghostisfort said:
It's unusual for me to forget something I've written, but I don't recall losing an argument? Remind me?
Most recently, you challenged me on my calculation of the position of the neutral point, although you were wrong because you didn't understand the maths (even if you don't admit it to yourself).

Then there was the time you thought atomic clocks had something to do with radioactivity. (And I don't think you're clear yet on the relationship between atomic time and ephemeris time.)

You don't recall losing any arguments because your default position is always carp, criticise, deny, ignore, nit-pick, and lay out smoke-screens of irrelevent quotations while you rapidly change course for somewhere safer.

I could say more, but I don't want to seem even more of a brute!
 
Back
Top