Speed of Gravity

[rynner2]

Right, that's all settled then, Gif is right as usual.

The rest of us might as well go home, we're no bloody use here!

 

[Monstrosa]

[O'Brien - "The large difference between the post-flight analysis and the critical, low-fuel situation that appeared to exist - but didn't - was due to fuel sloshing in the tanks. As Neil pitched the LM over to fly past the crater, the propellant-quantity measuring devices could not accurately gauge the amount left in the tanks. Anti-slosh baffles were quickly fabricated and installed on all subsequent LMs, beginning with Apollo 12."]

[Fjeld - "Despite the installation of small baffles in the propellant tanks for Apollo 12, the slosh problem recurred, with lots of wiggling around the deadband and an early low-level warning.]

["At the time of Apollo 11, each of the tanks had a small cruciform baffle near the anti-vortex can at the base, right next to the hole for the Propellant Quantity Gauge. Studies were done, early in LEM development, with a clear plastic tank half full that revealed that the slosh dynamics were not too severe and that the small vortex baffles were sufficient to keep propellant slosh at bay.]

["Well, we all know what happened on Apollo 11. Slosh uncovered the Quantity Gauge, latching the light early, losing the crew half a minute of flight time. It also made the LPD unreliable. Apollo 12 flew with the same configuration and its Quantity light came on early, exactly the same way! Worse, Pete actually used the LPD to redesignate his landing, but he maneuvered away from his target because the slosh was messing up his view through the grid. He popped out of P64 and tried to slam on the brakes but it was too late ("Gosh! I went by it!"), so he had to make his heroic flight around the crater, scaring Al a bit. He would have been better off never using the LPD, letting the flight path settle out, switching to manual just before the crater, and landing at his 'parking lot', uprange and north of the crater!]

["Engineers rigged a high-rate data path for Aquarius to get data on the slosh dynamics; but, of course, Apollo 13 never delivered this precious data. So Grumman engineers rigged an ingenious tank test and discovered that, not only did the tanks slosh in ring mode and lateral mode, but did so in a plunger fashion as well. It was a very complex situation, but they were able to come up with a baffle design that would rduce sloshing to an acceptable level. However, with a solution in hand, how were they going to put big baffles in propellant tanks that were never going to be rebuilt - because the contractor responsible had gotten out of the business by then? The answer was: Ship-in-a-Bottle style.]

["At White Sands, two Grumman techs demonstrated assembling and welding(!) a complex baffle system through the two inch Quantity System hole. NASA and Grumman management were seated around them for the demonstration and when the techs succeeded, they stood and cheered. So Antares had the baffles first and Ed Mitchell remarked how smooth and quiet the early part of the ride was (no RCS bangin')."]

Doesn't look like it was known to be as big a problem as it was. Oh if you wouldn't want to use Apollo 11 to show that gravity downs spacecraft, why did you choose it?

 

[Jerry_B]

Jerry_B: wants proof and seems not to realise that all of science is opinion.

No, it's only so in your opinion. You're just choosing to dodge actually justifying your statements with actual proof. Same ol' same ol'.

He's also hoping I will be banned for exposing his secret identity.
Way to go Batman!

Nope. I'm just pointing out speculations that sort will result in you being banned.

I'd prefer you not to get banned and instead actually prove your statement that 'Heavy landings on Earth are not caused by gravity because the formulas have been patched-up for earthly use'.

 

[Ghostisfort]

However, I don't think Voyager needed such gravity calculations, just pointing them at the next target.

Wrong again, as usual.

The Voyagers were powered enough to reach Jupiter, and from then on they used the slingshot effect of Jupiter's gravity (a gravity assist) to reach Saturn, and then a similar process to reach Uranus and Neptune, and then on out forever, having achieved solar escape velocity. So gravity calculations were a crucial part of the mission. (At that time, the gas giants were arranged suitably for this to be attempted, so two probes were sent to take maximum advantage of the situation.)

Your comment about 'pointing them at the next target' suggests you think the probes were under power all the time. Not so - that's why they had to use gravity assists, as the probes could never have carried enough fuel for such a journey.

Where do you get all these assumptions? Certainly not from what I've written.
"Pointing them" refers to optical navigation by stars.
Inserting the word gravity does nothing for the argument that it's the misunderstanding of gravity that causes problems with landers.
Gravity assist is using an orbit to save fuel and again nothing to do with landing.

 

[Ghostisfort]

Jerry_B: wants proof and seems not to realise that all of science is opinion.

No, it's only so in your opinion. You're just choosing to dodge actually justifying your statements with actual proof. Same ol' same ol'.

He's also hoping I will be banned for exposing his secret identity.
Way to go Batman!

Nope. I'm just pointing out speculations that sort will result in you being banned.

I'd prefer you not to get banned and instead actually prove your statement that 'Heavy landings on Earth are not caused by gravity because the formulas have been patched-up for earthly use'.

As usual, you are taking a sentence out of context and nit-picking something everyone else understands.
Of course everything hits the ground on Earth is as a result of gravity, but the original cause is not due to dodgy gravity calculations.

I already said that I will be examining the early Moon landers, most of which either crashed or missed the Moon altogether.
The central theme being that most actually got to their destination but failed on landing. The most logical cause being that they had no idea where the surface was.

 

[Electric_Monk]

Inserting the word gravity does nothing for the argument that it's the misunderstanding of gravity that causes problems with landers.
Gravity assist is using an orbit to save fuel and again nothing to do with landing.

Both landing and gravity assists require the very gravity calculations being discussed to function, so I'd say in this context they're virtually identical, not "nothing to do" with each other.

Further, landing (and take off) are the most dangerous times even here on Earth. It's very difficult to do, even moreso in an automated setting like a space probe, so I'd expect a crash landing to be highly likely. There's been plenty of aeroplane crashes on earth where the pilots thought they were higher or lower than they actually were and hit the runway too soon, hit the landing lights at the end of the runway, etc. The moon landers were manned, increasing their chances of success, but it had never been done before, so the chances were still similar to those early manned aircraft flights where crashes were common.

I don't even understand why you're worried about them not knowing where the surface was - I'd assume that after traveling the large distance they'd only have a very approximate idea, so indeed they wouldn't actually know for sure. Hence having built-in ground-detecting radar to measure their distance, as featured (and malfunctioned) on the lunar landers.

 

[Stormkhan]

Jerry_B: wants proof and seems not to realise that all of science is opinion.

Point of order: Science isn't opinion per se. Science is consensus of opinion reached by observable, repeatable results of experimentation. Thus, it may change as science itself develops and re-assesses experimental data or creates new data with which to re-evaluate the initial proposition.

Science isn't a matter of the latest theory put out on the internet. Opinion is, really, a point of view which is highly subjective and can be influenced by anything including flawed data.

For instance, gravity - and it's position regarding it being a constant - can be regarded as "fact" all the time that any other reviewed data doesn't change it's relevant position in the physical world.

On the other hand, my thinking that GiF is a twat is purely opinion and, as such, is no fact or proof of said fact.

Science doesn't pick and choose the resulting data to fit into a theory. Science looks at data and tries to make sense of it.

 

[Ghostisfort]

Oh if you wouldn't want to use Apollo 11 to show that gravity downs spacecraft, why did you choose it?

I didn't, I gave a much wider choice, but the thread whent onto Apollo 11:

Just as with the early Moon missions, the problems with Mars missions are due to gravity and a failure to land on the planet because the lander doesn't know where the planet is.

?? Can you give any examples where this has actually happened??

There are lots of hard landings on Earth, is that due to gravitational anomalies too?

If you look at the unmanned Moon landers you will find that it is landing that causes the majority of the problems.
Armstrong was forced to make a manual landing with Apollo 11 due to "computer failure". The same excuse is used several times even on Mars landings.
http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewt ... c&start=60

This is also just about what I said in the last of my posts.

 

[Ghostisfort]

Jerry_B: wants proof and seems not to realise that all of science is opinion.

Point of order: Science isn't opinion per se. Science is consensus of opinion reached by observable, repeatable results of experimentation. Thus, it may change as science itself develops and re-assesses experimental data or creates new data with which to re-evaluate the initial proposition.

Science isn't a matter of the latest theory put out on the internet. Opinion is, really, a point of view which is highly subjective and can be influenced by anything including flawed data.

For instance, gravity - and it's position regarding it being a constant - can be regarded as "fact" all the time that any other reviewed data doesn't change it's relevant position in the physical world.

On the other hand, my thinking that GiF is a twat is purely opinion and, as such, is no fact or proof of said fact.

Science doesn't pick and choose the resulting data to fit into a theory. Science looks at data and tries to make sense of it.

This guy really has it bad.
Can I assume that you just qualified or that you are in a particularly deep hypnosis?
It's all mythology!

Just a couple of questions:
1. How do you get repeatable results from experimentation in astronomy, cosmology and evolution for example? There are more.
2. How can you lay claim to repeatable, experimental results for the speed of light?
3. How do you get observable, repeatable results in an experiment for a scientific proof that time exists? (I keep asking this one in the hope that I may get an answer... I'm not holding my breath.)

You will note that questions two and three are crucial elements in physics.
I asked several times recently what physics had done in the past thirty years that was of benefit to mankind in general. No one answered because not one item of technology attributable to modern physics can be found in the shops or can be said to be generally useful to anyone, apart from keeping a physicist in a job.

Science picks and chooses data or anything else that supports its theories.
Theories are the most important criteria to the exclusion of facts.

Scientific Rationale
All rational thinking is assumed to be scientific and information not derived from such a source or labelled scientific is deemed unreliable; rationale is assumed to be universal. The logic behind this is circular, it being, that scientific rationale is supported by science and science by its own rationale. The original rationale derived from and supported by a minority group of ultra-conservative and self-serving senior scientists.
A.Twat 2010
http://www.n-atlantis.com/science.htm

 

[Anome]

Anome_: This post is boringly, about my not understanding something or other

Well, only about your inability to understand anything. Apparently including grammar.

Anome: "Aldrin did all the calculations for deceleration burns without even an electronic calculator." Well that's amazing, but it's what everyone did before calculators.

A particularly impressive feat since you claim that we can't actually make these calculations at all. (Oh, and by the way, that particular post wasn't directed at you, it was an observation made to lighten the mood. Sorry for taking attention away from you and your complete idiocy.)

Apollo 11 and the transcript is not the best example or the one I would choose to show that gravity downs spacecraft.

Then why did you bring it up? You seem to keep introducing evidence to support your claims only to dismiss it when someone points out that youve misinterpreted it, or left something out of it, or generally got something wrong. Maybe you need to go away, put your thoughts into order, do some research that takes longer than 30 seconds on Wikipedia and the like, and consider your argument before posting any further on this.

I know you won't do that

 

[kamalktk]

Anome_: This post is boringly, about my not understanding something or other

Well, only about your inability to understand anything. Apparently including grammar.

Anome: "Aldrin did all the calculations for deceleration burns without even an electronic calculator." Well that's amazing, but it's what everyone did before calculators.

A particularly impressive feat since you claim that we can't actually make these calculations at all. (Oh, and by the way, that particular post wasn't directed at you, it was an observation made to lighten the mood. Sorry for taking attention away from you and your complete idiocy.)

Apollo 11 and the transcript is not the best example or the one I would choose to show that gravity downs spacecraft.

Then why did you bring it up? You seem to keep introducing evidence to support your claims only to dismiss it when someone points out that youve misinterpreted it, or left something out of it, or generally got something wrong.

Amusingly, GiF quoted me pointing out him doing exactly that, in this thread, in an attempt at a misdirection by trying to steer discussion to the topic of another thread, where he was also caught out doing the same

Quote kamalktk:

I see this sort of thing regularly on other forums. Poster makes claim, proceeds to have to back down in face of evidence otherwise and posits backup claim, repeat until poster is able to make backup claim that circles around to original claim. Poster claims victory despite losing every point of debate.

As we can see, GiF has made several claims, most recently pointing to Apollo 11 after having to back down from others. Faced with overwhelming evidence otherwise, GiF has backed down again in the face of evidence, now claiming that Apollo 11 wasn't really a good example. He's now to positing the backup claim, it was really earlier moon landers that show his claim. Soon we will have finished circling around and GiF will claim victory.

 

[Ghostisfort]

Anome_: This post is boringly, about my not understanding something or other
Well, only about your inability to understand anything. Apparently including grammar.

Anome: "Aldrin did all the calculations for deceleration burns without even an electronic calculator." Well that's amazing, but it's what everyone did before calculators.
A particularly impressive feat since you claim that we can't actually make these calculations at all. (Oh, and by the way, that particular post wasn't directed at you, it was an observation made to lighten the mood. Sorry for taking attention away from you and your complete idiocy.)

Apollo 11 and the transcript is not the best example or the one I would choose to show that gravity downs spacecraft.
Then why did you bring it up? You seem to keep introducing evidence to support your claims only to dismiss it when someone points out that youve misinterpreted it, or left something out of it, or generally got something wrong. Maybe you need to go away, put your thoughts into order, do some research that takes longer than 30 seconds on Wikipedia and the like, and consider your argument before posting any further on this.

I know you won't do that

Obviously someone who only reads his own posts. I answered the Apollo issue two posts above!
Anyroadup, when they start critiquing my grammar I know I've rattled a cage or two.

I recall posting something to the effect that an academic survey found Wiki to be no worse than any other encyclopaedia? I use it because everyone else uses it and because it's convenient to find a reference. PM insisted long ago that I reference all of my assertions.

I can only assume that my "inability to understanding about anything" refers to understanding in the academic sense of parrot fashion authoritarian repetition of dubious facts. I have explored many of these facts and the results can be found on my web site.
You will see copious research has been carried out and that the "facts" are presented in a manner in order that the reader can decide for him/herself.
I often ask for any mistakes to be reported.

My message, if there is one, is for everyone to examine the "facts" for themselves and to question everything the academic scientists tell them. This should not cause a problem for a science that claims to do likewise. It should also not be a problem to expose some charlatan with an "inability to understanding about anything"?

I love this kind of post because it highlights the complete closed minded intransigence of some of those who post here. The amazing thing about this is that they seem to claim a right to their walled mental existence on a Fortean forum with scant concern for Fortean philosophy. This is exactly the kind of attitude that Forts books expose and ridicule.

 

[Ghostisfort]

Anome_: This post is boringly, about my not understanding something or other
Well, only about your inability to understand anything. Apparently including grammar.

Anome: "Aldrin did all the calculations for deceleration burns without even an electronic calculator." Well that's amazing, but it's what everyone did before calculators.
A particularly impressive feat since you claim that we can't actually make these calculations at all. (Oh, and by the way, that particular post wasn't directed at you, it was an observation made to lighten the mood. Sorry for taking attention away from you and your complete idiocy.)

Apollo 11 and the transcript is not the best example or the one I would choose to show that gravity downs spacecraft.

Then why did you bring it up? You seem to keep introducing evidence to support your claims only to dismiss it when someone points out that youve misinterpreted it, or left something out of it, or generally got something wrong.
Amusingly, GiF quoted me pointing out him doing exactly that, in this thread, in an attempt at a misdirection by trying to steer discussion to the topic of another thread, where he was also caught out doing the same

Quote kamalktk:

I see this sort of thing regularly on other forums. Poster makes claim, proceeds to have to back down in face of evidence otherwise and posits backup claim, repeat until poster is able to make backup claim that circles around to original claim. Poster claims victory despite losing every point of debate.

As we can see, GiF has made several claims, most recently pointing to Apollo 11 after having to back down from others. Faced with overwhelming evidence otherwise, GiF has backed down again in the face of evidence, now claiming that Apollo 11 wasn't really a good example. He's now to positing the backup claim, it was really earlier moon landers that show his claim. Soon we will have finished circling around and GiF will claim victory.

I was not aware that it was a war, but if that's what you want?
I was under the impression that these forums are for discussion. However in the case of New Science one is supposed to accept everything Scientific with a spoon-full of sugar.
Not on your life.

 

[Ghostisfort]

OK, let's try it your way?

Let's suppose, for the sake of this exercise that NASA, unlike any other organisation or large company, do tell the truth about their mistakes and disasters?

We will assume that the mass concentrations are the cause of probes and Apollo 11 being out of position and the cause of crashes and Moon misses.

We can be sure that by Apollo 12, there is insufficient data to plot all of the gravity anomalies that this would throw-up. We can also assume that the Apollo 12 would not have the computing power to contain a map of all gravity anomalies that are likely to be encountered during a landing.

We must now ask how Apollo 12 managed to land with so much more accuracy than Apollo 11?
I'm afraid that we are back to square one with the only possible assumption, that they jettisoned all gravity measurements and relied on radar Doppler and optical instruments for altitude and position.
It still brings us back to faulty gravity calculations unless someone can tell us that the "FIX" was done otherwise.

 

[kamalktk]

I'm afraid that we are back to square one with the only possible assumption, that they jettisoned all gravity measurements and relied on radar Doppler and optical instruments for altitude and position.
It still brings us back to faulty gravity calculations unless someone can tell us that the "FIX" was done otherwise.

As can be seen, they were navigating by landmarks with constant alarms from the computer and incorrect data from all the other instruments.

So... which is it again? On Apollo 12 they used instruments like radar because on Apollo 11 instruments like radar were wrong? You've triumphantly declared a point that contradicts your own previous point.

As rynner2 posted on page 6 of this thread (09-12-2011 10:53 ), they did indeed figure out a fix for the mascons, and this fix was applied to Apollo 12, allowing it to land 160 meters from the target, a previous spacecraft.

As we can see, GiF has made several claims, most recently pointing to Apollo 11 after having to back down from others. Faced with overwhelming evidence otherwise, GiF has backed down again in the face of evidence, now claiming that Apollo 11 wasn't really a good example. He's now to positing the backup claim, it was really earlier moon landers that show his claim. Soon we will have finished circling around and GiF will claim victory.

Well, you've finished circling around, we passed earlier landers and went right to subsequent landers. Fortunately, I need put no effort into debunking your claim, and merely need to quote you debunking your own claim.

 

[kamalktk]

GiF, your posts are better suited to the conspiracy subforum, since everything you posit seems to rely on a conspiracy.

 

[wembley9]

wembley9: seems unaware that the gravimeter measures a downward pull of gravity and it's variations. This has little or nothing to do with Newton's original formulas being incomplete and basically not working.

Yeah, I always thought gravimeters were for measuring gravy - now I know better thanks to you!

Can you explain your comment about Newton's formalae being incomplete and not working? Apart from relativistic corrections, they seem to work extremely well as far as I know...

Also you seem a bit confused about mascons. They're not something mysterious, you get them on Earth, and I linked to a rather neat map of Mars graviational pattern earlier.

 

[rynner2]

Also you seem a bit confused about mascons. They're not something mysterious, you get them on Earth, and I linked to a rather neat map of Mars graviational pattern earlier.

Research into the Moon's gravity continues (the more you learn, the more you have to find out!).
The GRAIL mission is currently en route, and should arrive there at the end of the month:

To the moon
MIT-led GRAIL mission to map the lunar gravitational field.
John Tylko, MIT News correspondent
September 8, 2011

Saturday’s launch of NASA’s Gravity Recovery And Interior Laboratory (GRAIL) twin spacecraft, a carefully choreographed mission to precisely map the moon’s gravitational field, could help scientists understand fundamental questions about the moon’s composition, internal structure and evolution.

GRAIL’s principal investigator — Maria Zuber, the Earle A. Griswold Professor of Geophysics and Planetary Science at MIT — becomes the first woman to lead a planetary spacecraft mission.

Following the launch of the twin GRAIL spacecraft and a four-month journey, GRAIL-A is scheduled to enter orbit around the moon Dec. 31; GRAIL-B will enter lunar orbit the following day. GRAIL’s 90-day scientific mapping mission will begin in March 2012.

“Technologically, it is blazing the trail for other planetary missions,” says Zuber, the head of MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences. “Using dual spacecraft in tight-formation flight, doing precise timing and gravity measurement, you could envision future planetary missions to Europa [one of Jupiter’s moons] to map currents in its subsurface ocean; to Venus to map the circulation of its atmosphere; and to Mars to observe the seasonal carbon dioxide cycle between its atmosphere and its surface.”

Analysis of data from the paired spacecraft will allow GRAIL to map the lunar gravitational field with unprecedented accuracy and resolution. The precise distance between the two spacecraft can be accurately measured using radio interferometry and tracking beacons with ultra-stable oscillators.

By precisely measuring changes in the distance between the twin orbiting spacecraft as they traverse the moon’s gravitational field, scientists expect to create a lunar gravity model up to 1,000 times more accurate than previous models. “The ability to calibrate observations in space and time brings a lot of value to scientific investigation,” Zuber says.

Dating back to the Apollo lunar program in the 1960s, the trajectories of unmanned orbiters circling the moon have been perturbed by its uneven gravitational field. These gravitational anomalies are believed to be caused primarily by subsurface geological features that could date back to the moon’s origin.

The detailed lunar-gravity model obtained from GRAIL will be compared to topographical models developed using the high-resolution laser altimeter on the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) mission launched in 2009 — a project for which Zuber serves as the deputy principal investigator. “We have over four billion measurements of elevation on the moon from the LRO altimeter,” Zuber says, “so we will be correlating these two data sets. What we stand to learn in terms of crustal structure of the moon is really going to be unprecedented in planetary science.”

etc...

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/grai ... -0908.html

 

[rynner2]

As for early moonshots, I have a book called "Race for the Moon", by Martin Caidin. It was published in 1960, so it refers to stuff that happened before manned space flight. It should serve as a useful cross-check on anything Gif should choose to lob at us!

It's quite a detailed book, illustrated, and it sold in the UK at 36s, which would have bought you about 18 pints of beer in those days! 8)

 

[wembley9]

I asked several times recently what physics had done in the past thirty years that was of benefit to mankind in general. No one answered because not one item of technology attributable to modern physics can be found in the shops

Er, like GPS?

Wanna start a thread and see where it gets to?

 

[rynner2]

I asked several times recently what physics had done in the past thirty years that was of benefit to mankind in general. No one answered because not one item of technology attributable to modern physics can be found in the shops

Er, like GPS?

Wanna start a thread and see where it gets to?

NO-O-O-O!!!

We've already been there - whatever is suggested, Gif disses it, as he doesn't work by the same rules as anyone else.

(As I've remarked elsewhere, he has a Humpty Dumpty attitude, where words mean whatever he wants them to mean. And evidence only supports whatever mad theory he's pushing at the time, even if other people see it differently... )

 

[Monstrosa]

Hmm, first commercial MRI scanner was available in 1980, and had taken about 10 years to develop, so that's out.

 

[Monstrosa]

Hah, got one! Quantum key distribution encryption.

Ooh, got another Back scatter Xray machines!

 

[kamalktk]

Hmm, first commercial MRI scanner was available in 1980, and had taken about 10 years to develop, so that's out.

Please take it over to the Scientific Publications thread. Where you can give everything since the 1930's, which is what GiF said.

 

[Monstrosa]

Unfortunately(or should that be fortunately) the Scientific Publications thread is still locked.

 

[Pete Younger]

He's gone quiet, has he been switched off?

 

[Ghostisfort]

I'm afraid that we are back to square one with the only possible assumption, that they jettisoned all gravity measurements and relied on radar Doppler and optical instruments for altitude and position.
It still brings us back to faulty gravity calculations unless someone can tell us that the "FIX" was done otherwise.

As can be seen, they were navigating by landmarks with constant alarms from the computer and incorrect data from all the other instruments.

So... which is it again? On Apollo 12 they used instruments like radar because on Apollo 11 instruments like radar were wrong? You've triumphantly declared a point that contradicts your own previous point.

As rynner2 posted on page 6 of this thread (09-12-2011 10:53 ), they did indeed figure out a fix for the mascons, and this fix was applied to Apollo 12, allowing it to land 160 meters from the target, a previous spacecraft.

As we can see, GiF has made several claims, most recently pointing to Apollo 11 after having to back down from others. Faced with overwhelming evidence otherwise, GiF has backed down again in the face of evidence, now claiming that Apollo 11 wasn't really a good example. He's now to positing the backup claim, it was really earlier moon landers that show his claim. Soon we will have finished circling around and GiF will claim victory.

Well, you've finished circling around, we passed earlier landers and went right to subsequent landers. Fortunately, I need put no effort into debunking your claim, and merely need to quote you debunking your own claim.

I have tried to lead readers to the obvious conclusion that the instrument readings were in conflict with gravity calculations, but they don't seem to have the imagination to read between the lines? I was expecting someone to answer the question for themselves.

I'll lay it out in words of few syllables:
We can't seriously expect a Moon lander computer to go to the Moon without a scientific theory and accompanying math's installed, which in this case would obviously be gravity. The math' would be built into the computer as a check against actual real time instrument readings.

When the instruments started playing up, it's a fair conclusion to draw, that this was because the input from instruments was at odds with theory(gravity), hence the reboot?
If the problem was not gravity then what else could it possibly be?
The "FIX" is not explained.

Then Apollo 12 lands with ten times the accuracy. I'm saying that the gravity calculations were removed from the computer and all was well.
This fits all of the facts except the mysterious fix, about which nothing is said.
Also, the instruments were giving accurate measurements but were ignored because of gravity error in the computer.
No contradictions on my part and no debunk on yours.

Conspiracy theory is the basis of democracy, but you seem to imagine that tacking the word onto a post immediately disqualifies it...wrong.

 

[Ghostisfort]

I asked several times recently what physics had done in the past thirty years that was of benefit to mankind in general. No one answered because not one item of technology attributable to modern physics can be found in the shops

Er, like GPS?

Wanna start a thread and see where it gets to?

Had you read any of the recent threads, you would have noticed that we did GPS, and no it isn't. I've covered this on my website page at http://www.n-atlantis.com/vanflandern.htm
Search down to GPS.
I wouldn't recommend that you start a thread as you will find no support from physics, I've looked, but the choice is yours. Good luck.

Hmm, first commercial MRI scanner was available in 1980, and had taken about 10 years to develop, so that's out.

Read about MRI(NMR) here: http://www.n-atlantis.com/mri.htm
The roots and original ideas behind all modern day technology originate pre 1930's.

Hmm, first commercial MRI scanner was available in 1980, and had taken about 10 years to develop, so that's out.

Read about MRI(NMR) here: http://www.n-atlantis.com/mri.htm
The roots and original ideas behind all modern day technology originate pre 1930's.

Hah, got one! Quantum key distribution encryption.

I specifically asked for usefull applications, as you will see in my post - something that works and is a benefit to us all.

While I like the science of quantum cryptography — my undergraduate degree was in physics — I don't see any commercial value in it. I don't believe it solves any security problem that needs solving. I don't believe that it's worth paying for, and I can't imagine anyone but a few technophiles buying and deploying it. Systems that use it don't magically become unbreakable, because the quantum part doesn't address the weak points of the system.
http://www.wired.com/politics/security/ ... tters_1016

Do you know who first discovered X-rays? http://www.n-atlantis.com/televisionhistory.htm
We are looking for new and useful concepts by the physics community and not developments.
I can say with certainty that for example, Einstein's relativity theories have contributed absolutely nothing of use to anyone living on this planet.

 

[Pete Younger]

Oh dear, someone switched him on again.

 

[Ghostisfort]

Oh dear, someone switched him on again.

Why not try contributing...how about a cut and paste or even an opinion...wow?
Go on, make you feel good to run with the pack rather than lurking.