Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon
landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He
also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus show it falling slowly.
Apes were so naive then and are still so gullible now.
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon
landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He
also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus show it
falling slowly.
There was the dropped hammer and feather experiment performed by
Apollo 15 astronaut David Scott.
Apollo 16 astronauts John Young and Charlie Duke were able to jump
around four feet. While they could theoretically jump much higher,
they jumped shorter distances due to the extra weight of their
spacesuits and the need to avoid falling off balance or damaging
their equipment.
Charlie Duke eventually fell and landed on his life support system
so they stopped doing that.
Apes were so naive then and are still so gullible now.
Delusional crackpots know nothing, including history.
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 22:45:04 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon
landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He
also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus show it >>> falling slowly.
There was the dropped hammer and feather experiment performed by
Apollo 15 astronaut David Scott.
Why did they not jump up at least two feet up in Apollo 11? They really
would have to do that if they really were on the Moon, could not help
doing so as they were fit men weighing only 60 Kg say?
Woof woof, the capacity of apes to believe in the most outrageous
nonsenses is awesome!
Woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
Apollo 16 astronauts John Young and Charlie Duke were able to jump
around four feet. While they could theoretically jump much higher,
they jumped shorter distances due to the extra weight of their
spacesuits and the need to avoid falling off balance or damaging
their equipment.
Charlie Duke eventually fell and landed on his life support system
so they stopped doing that.
Apes were so naive then and are still so gullible now.
Delusional crackpots know nothing, including history.
--
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 22:45:04 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon
landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He >>>> also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus show it >>>> falling slowly.
There was the dropped hammer and feather experiment performed by
Apollo 15 astronaut David Scott.
Why did they not jump up at least two feet up in Apollo 11? They really
would have to do that if they really were on the Moon, could not help
doing so as they were fit men weighing only 60 Kg say?
They had other things to do,
damaging the suits, the suits were not designed for gymnastics and the
suits were heavier than the occupants.
You mean other than that, crackpot?
Actually the Apollo 11 astronauts had to make a jump of 3.3 feet to get
to the ladder to get back in the lander because the landing gear did not fully compress.
Woof woof, the capacity of apes to believe in the most outrageous
nonsenses is awesome!
Outrageous nonsenses is all that you post, Arindam.
Woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
Apollo 16 astronauts John Young and Charlie Duke were able to jump
around four feet. While they could theoretically jump much higher,
they jumped shorter distances due to the extra weight of their
spacesuits and the need to avoid falling off balance or damaging
their equipment.
Charlie Duke eventually fell and landed on his life support system
so they stopped doing that.
Apes were so naive then and are still so gullible now.
Delusional crackpots know nothing, including history.
--
On Sun, 8 Jun 2025 4:05:16 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 22:45:04 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon >>>>> landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He >>>>> also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus show it >>>>> falling slowly.
There was the dropped hammer and feather experiment performed by
Apollo 15 astronaut David Scott.
Why did they not jump up at least two feet up in Apollo 11? They really
would have to do that if they really were on the Moon, could not help
doing so as they were fit men weighing only 60 Kg say?
They had other things to do,
Whatever they did they should have far more lightly and peacefully
instead of shuffling and clomping around flags waving in the breeze.
there was the fear of falling down and
damaging the suits, the suits were not designed for gymnastics and the
suits were heavier than the occupants.
Har har har har. Worthy objections if they were shuffling under piano
wires on Earth, with threat of them coming undone. But on the Moon they
would go up slowly and come down slowly with no damage done. And nothing prevented them from throwing one of the moon rocks up to show how slowly
it went up or down.
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon
landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He
also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus show it falling slowly.
On 6/7/25 18:23, Bertitaylor wrote:
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon
landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He
also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus show it
falling slowly.
When they jump, once their feet leave the surface, their acceleration is determined by the gravity of whatever they jumped up from. If you
measure how high they jumped and how long it took to get to that height,
you can calculate their acceleration due to gravity and compare it with
the acceleration due to gravity at Earth's surface.
On 6/7/25 18:23, Bertitaylor wrote:
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon
landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He
also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus show it
falling slowly.
When they jump, once their feet leave the surface, their acceleration is determined by the gravity of whatever they jumped up from. If you
measure how high they jumped and how long it took to get to that height,
you can calculate their acceleration due to gravity and compare it with
the acceleration due to gravity at Earth's surface.
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 16:45:44 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/7/25 18:23, Bertitaylor wrote:
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon
landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He
also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus show it >>> falling slowly.
When they jump, once their feet leave the surface, their acceleration is
determined by the gravity of whatever they jumped up from. If you
measure how high they jumped and how long it took to get to that height,
you can calculate their acceleration due to gravity and compare it with
the acceleration due to gravity at Earth's surface.
As they were on Earth they merely shuffled leaving deep prints.
Woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
On 6/9/25 18:10, Bertitaylor wrote:
As they were on Earth they merely shuffled leaving deep prints.
If you make stuff up about the evidence instead of looking at the
evidence, you can remain proudly wrong for the rest of your life.
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 16:45:44 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/7/25 18:23, Bertitaylor wrote:
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon
landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He
also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus show it >>> falling slowly.
When they jump, once their feet leave the surface, their acceleration is
determined by the gravity of whatever they jumped up from. If you
measure how high they jumped and how long it took to get to that height,
you can calculate their acceleration due to gravity and compare it with
the acceleration due to gravity at Earth's surface.
As they were on Earth they merely shuffled leaving deep prints.
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 16:45:44 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/7/25 18:23, Bertitaylor wrote:
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon
landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He >>>> also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus show it >>>> falling slowly.
When they jump, once their feet leave the surface, their acceleration is >>> determined by the gravity of whatever they jumped up from. If you
measure how high they jumped and how long it took to get to that height, >>> you can calculate their acceleration due to gravity and compare it with
the acceleration due to gravity at Earth's surface.
As they were on Earth they merely shuffled leaving deep prints.
Actually they all hopped around because it was good exercise and easier
to do than to walk in the bulky suits in low gravity, crackpot.
Woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
On 10/06/25 09:21, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/9/25 18:10, Bertitaylor wrote:
As they were on Earth they merely shuffled leaving deep prints.
If you make stuff up about the evidence instead of looking at the
evidence, you can remain proudly wrong for the rest of your life.
That would be an excellent slogan for the MAGA crowd: "Proud to be
wrong".
But back to the person you are replying to. I have sometimes suspected
that he is only pretending to be a crackpot, and is laughing at all of
us for taking the bait. We'll probably never know.
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 16:45:44 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/7/25 18:23, Bertitaylor wrote:
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon
landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He >>>> also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus show it >>>> falling slowly.
When they jump, once their feet leave the surface, their acceleration is >>> determined by the gravity of whatever they jumped up from. If you
measure how high they jumped and how long it took to get to that height, >>> you can calculate their acceleration due to gravity and compare it with
the acceleration due to gravity at Earth's surface.
As they were on Earth they merely shuffled leaving deep prints.
Actually they all hopped around because it was good exercise and easier
to do than to walk in the bulky suits in low gravity, crackpot.
Woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
On 6/9/25 3:15 PM, William Hyde wrote:
Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics David Canzi <[email protected]> wrote:Also, I don't recall anyone at the time worrying that people would not
On 6/7/25 18:23, Bertitaylor wrote:
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon >>>>> landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He >>>>> also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus
show it
falling slowly.
When they jump, once their feet leave the surface, their acceleration is >>>> determined by the gravity of whatever they jumped up from. If you
measure how high they jumped and how long it took to get to that height, >>>> you can calculate their acceleration due to gravity and compare it with >>>> the acceleration due to gravity at Earth's surface.
True enough. However, all their time, and especially during the first
mission, was tightly scheduled and there was no item on the schedule to
perform hijinks.
believe this was happening.
Given the tens of thousands who built the vehicle, the tens of thousands
who saw its takeoff with their own eyes, the tracking of the vehicle by
various countries and even amateurs, the thought that people would be
crazy enough to say "this didn't happen", simply didn't occur.
Not that we didn't have crazy people in those days. But in that distant
past they confined their gibbering to communist conspiracies,
demon-infested politicians, and being Napoleon.
Any day now I expect to hear of a "D-day" didn't happen conspiracy.
William Hyde
No, you're missing the main point. The tragedy.
The tragedy isn't if Moon landing was real, but the fact that you're not those people and this country isn't the country that achieved Moon
landing.
Those people and that system and that government that did that don't
exist anymore.
Their achievements have nothing to do with you.
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 22:52:34 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 16:45:44 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/7/25 18:23, Bertitaylor wrote:
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon >>>>> landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He >>>>> also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus show it >>>>> falling slowly.
When they jump, once their feet leave the surface, their acceleration is >>>> determined by the gravity of whatever they jumped up from. If you
measure how high they jumped and how long it took to get to that height, >>>> you can calculate their acceleration due to gravity and compare it with >>>> the acceleration due to gravity at Earth's surface.
As they were on Earth they merely shuffled leaving deep prints.
Actually they all hopped around because it was good exercise and easier
to do than to walk in the bulky suits in low gravity, crackpot.
The shuffling seen was mostly done in their bulky suits
But back to the person you are replying to. I have sometimes suspected
that he is only pretending to be a crackpot, and is laughing at all of
us for taking the bait.
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 22:52:34 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 16:45:44 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/7/25 18:23, Bertitaylor wrote:
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon >>>>> landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He >>>>> also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus show it >>>>> falling slowly.
When they jump, once their feet leave the surface, their acceleration is >>>> determined by the gravity of whatever they jumped up from. If you
measure how high they jumped and how long it took to get to that height, >>>> you can calculate their acceleration due to gravity and compare it with >>>> the acceleration due to gravity at Earth's surface.
As they were on Earth they merely shuffled leaving deep prints.
Actually they all hopped around because it was good exercise and easier
to do than to walk in the bulky suits in low gravity, crackpot.
Hopping was shown as that could be done with cranes pulling them up or
down as per direction.
Why did they not throw a moon rock UP and show how slowly it went up and
came down?
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 3:08:55 +0000, occam wrote:
On 10/06/2025 01:48, Peter Moylan wrote:
But back to the person you are replying to. I have sometimes suspected
that he is only pretending to be a crackpot, and is laughing at all of
us for taking the bait.
That's a generous view to take of Arindam, and it gives him an escape
clause in future should he decide to come clean.
You worthless apes are not fit to lick the feet of Arindam (bin Einstein
ban Gandhi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all time and sole god among
lotsa devils.
In reality Arindam (& his dog) are broken beyond repair.
In reality BigDog Arindam, being blessed by the MahaDevi, is the kindest
and greatest genius of all time, despite the full suppression efforts of apes_allsorts.
He is a waste
of time and space. Crackpot theories in physics are one thing,
Arindam throws out the wrong and regressive theories of thermodynamics
and the ridiculous nonsenses of quantum and relativity.
being a
sycophantic admirer of Trump is an altogether another level of broken.
Arindam admires Trump as Trump is brave and nationalistic; kicks ass as necessary; is fundamentally constructive; is not a puppet; quite frank
and amusing; dislikes senseless killing as egged on by academic types in Ukraine;
academics whom Arindam finds utterly revolting scum.
"A space-time waster" is an apt Einsteinian epiteth he deserves on his
gravestone.
The call to kill Arindam gets louder and louder from the parasites.
Really when one says that two and two makes four, that amounts to the
risk of getting murdered in a perfectly evil world of lies, run by
liars.
So it is that we dead dogs cavorting in low Heaven, being dead, can dare
to support Arindam.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
Woo
--
On 10/06/2025 01:48, Peter Moylan wrote:
But back to the person you are replying to. I have sometimes suspected
that he is only pretending to be a crackpot, and is laughing at all of
us for taking the bait.
That's a generous view to take of Arindam, and it gives him an escape
clause in future should he decide to come clean.
In reality Arindam (& his dog) are broken beyond repair.
of time and space. Crackpot theories in physics are one thing,
sycophantic admirer of Trump is an altogether another level of broken.
"A space-time waster" is an apt Einsteinian epiteth he deserves on his gravestone.
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 0:04:23 +0000, Physfitfreak wrote:
On 6/9/25 3:15 PM, William Hyde wrote:
Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics David Canzi <[email protected]> wrote:Also, I don't recall anyone at the time worrying that people would not
On 6/7/25 18:23, Bertitaylor wrote:
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon >>>>> landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He >>>>> also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus
show it
falling slowly.
When they jump, once their feet leave the surface, their acceleration is >>>> determined by the gravity of whatever they jumped up from.� If you
measure how high they jumped and how long it took to get to that height, >>>> you can calculate their acceleration due to gravity and compare it with >>>> the acceleration due to gravity at Earth's surface.
True enough. However, all their time, and especially during the first
mission, was tightly scheduled and there was no item on the schedule to >>> perform hijinks.
believe this was happening.
Given the tens of thousands who built the vehicle, the tens of thousands >> who saw its takeoff with their own eyes, the tracking of the vehicle by
various countries and even amateurs, the thought that people would be
crazy enough to say "this didn't happen", simply didn't occur.
Not that we didn't have crazy people in those days.� But in that distant >> past they confined their gibbering to communist conspiracies,
demon-infested politicians, and being Napoleon.
Any day now I expect to hear of a "D-day" didn't happen conspiracy.
William Hyde
No, you're missing the main point. The tragedy.
What ho, Roachie. Your life is one unending tragedy entirely of your
making. Being Einsteinian is a pain unless you are aligned with the
ruling fatcats who give visions of crumbs and then kick you out of
sight.
The tragedy isn't if Moon landing was real, but the fact that you're not those people and this country isn't the country that achieved Moon
landing.
No fear, Roachie, the footprints were on Earth and they merely littered
the Moon with rubbish, not being content with polluting just the Earth
Those people and that system and that government that did that don't
exist anymore.
They so do, Roachie. They are as evil as ever. They stole the money made
from Arindam's great book, the unsurpassed crown of English literature. Thieves! Lying is their forte.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
Their achievements have nothing to do with you.
--
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 22:45:04 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon
landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He >>>> also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus show it >>>> falling slowly.
There was the dropped hammer and feather experiment performed by
Apollo 15 astronaut David Scott.
Why did they not jump up at least two feet up in Apollo 11? They really
would have to do that if they really were on the Moon, could not help
doing so as they were fit men weighing only 60 Kg say?
They had other things to do, there was the fear of falling down and
damaging the suits, the suits were not designed for gymnastics and the
suits were heavier than the occupants.
You mean other than that, crackpot?
Actually the Apollo 11 astronauts had to make a jump of 3.3 feet to get
to the ladder to get back in the lander because the landing gear did not fully compress.
Woof woof, the capacity of apes to believe in the most outrageous
nonsenses is awesome!
Outrageous nonsenses is all that you post, Arindam.
Woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
Apollo 16 astronauts John Young and Charlie Duke were able to jump
around four feet. While they could theoretically jump much higher,
they jumped shorter distances due to the extra weight of their
spacesuits and the need to avoid falling off balance or damaging
their equipment.
Charlie Duke eventually fell and landed on his life support system
so they stopped doing that.
Apes were so naive then and are still so gullible now.
Delusional crackpots know nothing, including history.
--
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 01:38:12 +0000
[email protected] (Bertitaylor) wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 0:04:23 +0000, Physfitfreak wrote:
On 6/9/25 3:15 PM, William Hyde wrote:
Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics David Canzi <[email protected]> wrote:Also, I don't recall anyone at the time worrying that people would not >>>> believe this was happening.
On 6/7/25 18:23, Bertitaylor wrote:
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon >>>>>>> landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet.. He
also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus >>>>>>> show it
falling slowly.
When they jump, once their feet leave the surface, their acceleration is >>>>>> determined by the gravity of whatever they jumped up from. If you >>>>>> measure how high they jumped and how long it took to get to that height, >>>>>> you can calculate their acceleration due to gravity and compare it with >>>>>> the acceleration due to gravity at Earth's surface.
True enough. However, all their time, and especially during the first >>>>> mission, was tightly scheduled and there was no item on the schedule to >>>>> perform hijinks.
Given the tens of thousands who built the vehicle, the tens of thousands >>>> who saw its takeoff with their own eyes, the tracking of the vehicle by >>>> various countries and even amateurs, the thought that people would be
crazy enough to say "this didn't happen", simply didn't occur.
Not that we didn't have crazy people in those days. But in that distant >>>> past they confined their gibbering to communist conspiracies,
demon-infested politicians, and being Napoleon.
Any day now I expect to hear of a "D-day" didn't happen conspiracy.
William Hyde
No, you're missing the main point. The tragedy.
What ho, Roachie. Your life is one unending tragedy entirely of your
making. Being Einsteinian is a pain unless you are aligned with the
ruling fatcats who give visions of crumbs and then kick you out of
sight.
The tragedy isn't if Moon landing was real, but the fact that you're not >>> those people and this country isn't the country that achieved Moon
landing.
No fear, Roachie, the footprints were on Earth and they merely littered
the Moon with rubbish, not being content with polluting just the Earth
Those people and that system and that government that did that don't
exist anymore.
They so do, Roachie. They are as evil as ever. They stole the money made
from Arindam's great book, the unsurpassed crown of English literature.
Thieves! Lying is their forte.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
Their achievements have nothing to do with you.
--
Please stop xposting this crackpot's broken physics to aue.
Or better still KF to avoid the temptation to reply.
fu to aue ONLY.
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 22:52:34 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 16:45:44 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/7/25 18:23, Bertitaylor wrote:
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon >>>>>> landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He >>>>>> also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus show it >>>>>> falling slowly.
When they jump, once their feet leave the surface, their acceleration is >>>>> determined by the gravity of whatever they jumped up from. If you
measure how high they jumped and how long it took to get to that height, >>>>> you can calculate their acceleration due to gravity and compare it with >>>>> the acceleration due to gravity at Earth's surface.
As they were on Earth they merely shuffled leaving deep prints.
Actually they all hopped around because it was good exercise and easier
to do than to walk in the bulky suits in low gravity, crackpot.
The shuffling seen was mostly done in their bulky suits
It was actually hopping that was seen by everyone except for you and of course they were ALWAYS in their suits when outside the lander.
You are getting more insane every day, crackpot.
On Sun, 8 Jun 2025 4:05:16 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 22:45:04 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon >>>>> landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He >>>>> also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus show it >>>>> falling slowly.
There was the dropped hammer and feather experiment performed by
Apollo 15 astronaut David Scott.
Why did they not jump up at least two feet up in Apollo 11? They really
would have to do that if they really were on the Moon, could not help
doing so as they were fit men weighing only 60 Kg say?
They had other things to do, there was the fear of falling down and
damaging the suits, the suits were not designed for gymnastics and the
suits were heavier than the occupants.
You mean other than that, crackpot?
Actually the Apollo 11 astronauts had to make a jump of 3.3 feet to get
to the ladder to get back in the lander because the landing gear did not
fully compress.
Woof woof, the capacity of apes to believe in the most outrageous
nonsenses is awesome!
Outrageous nonsenses is all that you post, Arindam.
Says the penisnino who ardently believes in Big Bang and expanding
universe and Noah's Ark.
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 2:49:01 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 22:52:34 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 16:45:44 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/7/25 18:23, Bertitaylor wrote:
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon >>>>>>> landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He >>>>>>> also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus show it
falling slowly.
When they jump, once their feet leave the surface, their acceleration is >>>>>> determined by the gravity of whatever they jumped up from. If you >>>>>> measure how high they jumped and how long it took to get to that height, >>>>>> you can calculate their acceleration due to gravity and compare it with >>>>>> the acceleration due to gravity at Earth's surface.
As they were on Earth they merely shuffled leaving deep prints.
Actually they all hopped around because it was good exercise and easier >>>> to do than to walk in the bulky suits in low gravity, crackpot.
The shuffling seen was mostly done in their bulky suits
It was actually hopping that was seen by everyone except for you and of
course they were ALWAYS in their suits when outside the lander.
Hopping was possible with cranes, piano wires, etc. Jumping up say six
feet and coming down slowly would have not been easy, back in 1969.
On 10/06/25 09:21, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/9/25 18:10, Bertitaylor wrote:
As they were on Earth they merely shuffled leaving deep prints.
If you make stuff up about the evidence instead of looking at the
evidence, you can remain proudly wrong for the rest of your life.
That would be an excellent slogan for the MAGA crowd: "Proud to be wrong".
But back to the person you are replying to. I have sometimes suspected
that he is only pretending to be a crackpot, and is laughing at all of
us for taking the bait. We'll probably never know.
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 23:48:57 +0000, Peter Moylan wrote:
On 10/06/25 09:21, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/9/25 18:10, Bertitaylor wrote:
As they were on Earth they merely shuffled leaving deep prints.
If you make stuff up about the evidence instead of looking at the
evidence, you can remain proudly wrong for the rest of your life.
Speak for yourself. The big fat impious footprints on the Moon were
shown as evidence for Moon landing
Arindam wondered why they were that deep. Surely some 50 Kg of thrust
spread out wide could not create that depth?
Hopping was possible with cranes, piano wires, etc. Jumping up say six
feet and coming down slowly would have not been easy, back in 1969.
Camerawork got better after Apollo 11. They learnt to slow the video
speed to try to make it look authentic. Still, the deficiencies are
pretty stark. Waving flags, strange shadows, terrifc photos taken with
fat gloves, who took the picture of one guy showing up another not
taking his picture, C Rock, no stars, no sweepout from blast, big fat footprints, bent posture as if of heavy weight, shuffling around instead
of prancing lightheartedly... does the evidence of fraud build up
colossally!
Now with AI and graphics anything can be "proved".
On 6/9/25 19:48, Peter Moylan wrote:
On 10/06/25 09:21, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/9/25 18:10, Bertitaylor wrote:
As they were on Earth they merely shuffled leaving deep prints.
If you make stuff up about the evidence instead of looking at the
evidence, you can remain proudly wrong for the rest of your life.
That would be an excellent slogan for the MAGA crowd: "Proud to be
wrong".
But back to the person you are replying to. I have sometimes suspected
that he is only pretending to be a crackpot, and is laughing at all of
us for taking the bait. We'll probably never know.
Given his extensive knowledge of Arindam Banerjee's innermost thoughts,
I believe that he and Arindam are sharing the same brain.
In sci.physics Bertietaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jun 2025 4:05:16 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 22:45:04 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon >>>>>> landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He >>>>>> also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus show it >>>>>> falling slowly.
There was the dropped hammer and feather experiment performed by
Apollo 15 astronaut David Scott.
Why did they not jump up at least two feet up in Apollo 11? They really >>>> would have to do that if they really were on the Moon, could not help
doing so as they were fit men weighing only 60 Kg say?
They had other things to do, there was the fear of falling down and
damaging the suits, the suits were not designed for gymnastics and the
suits were heavier than the occupants.
You mean other than that, crackpot?
Actually the Apollo 11 astronauts had to make a jump of 3.3 feet to get
to the ladder to get back in the lander because the landing gear did not >>> fully compress.
Woof woof, the capacity of apes to believe in the most outrageous
nonsenses is awesome!
Outrageous nonsenses is all that you post, Arindam.
Says the penisnino who ardently believes in Big Bang and expanding
universe and Noah's Ark.
What does any of that to do with the Apollo landings, crackpot?
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 12:49:03 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertietaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jun 2025 4:05:16 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 22:45:04 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon >>>>>>> landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He >>>>>>> also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus show it
falling slowly.
There was the dropped hammer and feather experiment performed by
Apollo 15 astronaut David Scott.
Why did they not jump up at least two feet up in Apollo 11? They really >>>>> would have to do that if they really were on the Moon, could not help >>>>> doing so as they were fit men weighing only 60 Kg say?
They had other things to do, there was the fear of falling down and
damaging the suits, the suits were not designed for gymnastics and the >>>> suits were heavier than the occupants.
You mean other than that, crackpot?
Actually the Apollo 11 astronauts had to make a jump of 3.3 feet to get >>>> to the ladder to get back in the lander because the landing gear did not >>>> fully compress.
Woof woof, the capacity of apes to believe in the most outrageous
nonsenses is awesome!
Outrageous nonsenses is all that you post, Arindam.
Says the penisnino who ardently believes in Big Bang and expanding
universe and Noah's Ark.
What does any of that to do with the Apollo landings, crackpot?
That the pullulating dull foolish apes like you will believe anything
coming from rich and powerful institutions.
Woof woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
--
On 6/9/25 20:46, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 23:48:57 +0000, Peter Moylan wrote:
On 10/06/25 09:21, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/9/25 18:10, Bertitaylor wrote:
As they were on Earth they merely shuffled leaving deep prints.
If you make stuff up about the evidence instead of looking at the
evidence, you can remain proudly wrong for the rest of your life.
Speak for yourself. The big fat impious footprints on the Moon were
shown as evidence for Moon landing
I notice you deleted the link I provided you to a YouTube video
that shows astronauts who were not merely shuffling, but were
moving briskly. And as a bonus, one of the astronauts stopped,
then jumped up and down vertically. From that jump it's possible
to estimate the acceleration due to gravity, and it's way less
than on the Earth. Here's the link again.
https://youtu.be/efzYblYVUFk?t=40
Arindam wondered why they were that deep. Surely some 50 Kg of thrust
spread out wide could not create that depth?
How deep are they?
the footprints based on the image of them.
they be?
the astronaut's feet exerted on the dust, and how soft that
dust is.
On 6/9/25 19:48, Peter Moylan wrote:
On 10/06/25 09:21, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/9/25 18:10, Bertitaylor wrote:
As they were on Earth they merely shuffled leaving deep prints.
If you make stuff up about the evidence instead of looking at the
evidence, you can remain proudly wrong for the rest of your life.
That would be an excellent slogan for the MAGA crowd: "Proud to be
wrong".
But back to the person you are replying to. I have sometimes suspected
that he is only pretending to be a crackpot, and is laughing at all of
us for taking the bait. We'll probably never know.
Given his extensive knowledge of Arindam Banerjee's innermost thoughts,
I believe that he and Arindam are sharing the same brain.
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 22:52:34 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 16:45:44 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/7/25 18:23, Bertitaylor wrote:
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon >>>>> landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three
feet. He
also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus
show it
falling slowly.
When they jump, once their feet leave the surface, their
acceleration is
determined by the gravity of whatever they jumped up from. If you
measure how high they jumped and how long it took to get to that
height,
you can calculate their acceleration due to gravity and compare it with >>>> the acceleration due to gravity at Earth's surface.
As they were on Earth they merely shuffled leaving deep prints.
Actually they all hopped around because it was good exercise and easier
to do than to walk in the bulky suits in low gravity, crackpot.
The shuffling seen was mostly done in their bulky suits - wow just look
at their bent posture before the merrily waving flag - and the hopping
was due to suspension from cranes using piano wires. With later
"flights" there was better camera work so Apollo 11 is the most
instructive about the US character, then under the leadership of "Tricky Dick" Nixon.
As the Moon has not atmosphere, the lander 'Eagle' had to 'kill'
inertia by 'reversed acceleration' by firing their only engine
backwards.
This is, of course, VERY(!) difficult, because it is like balancing a
broom on one hand, while riding a horse.
On 11/06/25 15:48, Thomas Heger wrote:
As the Moon has not atmosphere, the lander 'Eagle' had to 'kill'
inertia by 'reversed acceleration' by firing their only engine
backwards.
This is, of course, VERY(!) difficult, because it is like
balancing a
broom on one hand, while riding a horse.
This is like the final examination in Witch Academy. To pass, the
trainee witch has to balance a horse on one hand while riding a
broom.
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 19:37:11 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/9/25 20:46, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 23:48:57 +0000, Peter Moylan wrote:
On 10/06/25 09:21, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/9/25 18:10, Bertitaylor wrote:
As they were on Earth they merely shuffled leaving deep prints.
If you make stuff up about the evidence instead of looking at the
evidence, you can remain proudly wrong for the rest of your life.
Speak for yourself. The big fat impious footprints on the Moon were
shown as evidence for Moon landing
I notice you deleted the link I provided you to a YouTube video
that shows astronauts who were not merely shuffling, but were
moving briskly. And as a bonus, one of the astronauts stopped,
then jumped up and down vertically. From that jump it's possible
to estimate the acceleration due to gravity, and it's way less
than on the Earth. Here's the link again.
https://youtu.be/efzYblYVUFk?t=40
Arindam wondered why they were that deep. Surely some 50 Kg of thrust
spread out wide could not create that depth?
How deep are they?
Deeper than 115 Kg Arindam's prints upon a sandy by each.
Explain how you estimated the depth of
the footprints based on the image of them.
See the length, should be 30cm. Looks like the depth is easily more than
1 cm as that looks 1/30th of the length. Really deep.
How deep should
they be?
As they weighed with suits not more than 60Kg and as Arindam's prints on
sand is not more than 5 mm deep they should be say be no more than 3mm
deep.
Explain how you know how much downward pressure
the astronaut's feet exerted on the dust, and how soft that
dust is.
--
On 11/06/2025 07:01, Peter Moylan wrote:
On 11/06/25 15:48, Thomas Heger wrote:
As the Moon has not atmosphere, the lander 'Eagle' had to 'kill'
inertia by 'reversed acceleration' by firing their only engine
backwards.
This is, of course, VERY(!) difficult, because it is like
balancing a
�broom on one hand, while riding a horse.
This is like the final examination in Witch Academy. To pass, the
trainee witch has to balance a horse on one hand while riding a
broom.
So? I can do that. Can't everybody?
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 17:30:40 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/9/25 19:48, Peter Moylan wrote:
On 10/06/25 09:21, David Canzi wrote:Given his extensive knowledge of Arindam Banerjee's innermost thoughts,
I believe that he and Arindam are sharing the same brain.
Like Arindam, Moylan too lives in Australia but beyond that they have
nothing in common. Arindam is Vedic-Soviet-Bihari-Bengali whereas Moylan
is a jealous sort. Arindam is a brilliant original genius whereas Moylan
is an Einsteinian academic.
On 6/10/25 18:03, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 17:30:40 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/9/25 19:48, Peter Moylan wrote:
On 10/06/25 09:21, David Canzi wrote:Given his extensive knowledge of Arindam Banerjee's innermost thoughts,
I believe that he and Arindam are sharing the same brain.
Like Arindam, Moylan too lives in Australia but beyond that they have
nothing in common. Arindam is Vedic-Soviet-Bihari-Bengali whereas Moylan
is a jealous sort. Arindam is a brilliant original genius whereas Moylan
is an Einsteinian academic.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small
minds discuss people.
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 18:03:00 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/10/25 18:03, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 17:30:40 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/9/25 19:48, Peter Moylan wrote:
On 10/06/25 09:21, David Canzi wrote:Given his extensive knowledge of Arindam Banerjee's innermost thoughts, >>>> I believe that he and Arindam are sharing the same brain.
Like Arindam, Moylan too lives in Australia but beyond that they have
nothing in common. Arindam is Vedic-Soviet-Bihari-Bengali whereas Moylan >>> is a jealous sort. Arindam is a brilliant original genius whereas Moylan >>> is an Einsteinian academic.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small
minds discuss people.
No greater ideas have emanated than from the mind of the BigDog, Arindam
(bin Einstein ban Gandhi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all time and sole
god among lotsa devils.
Oy fuckwit Penisnino, millions drool over what we write... You do
garnish it with your very dull wit, excellent contrast, what. Keep it
up, fool.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 2:28:07 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 19:37:11 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/9/25 20:46, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 23:48:57 +0000, Peter Moylan wrote:
On 10/06/25 09:21, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/9/25 18:10, Bertitaylor wrote:
As they were on Earth they merely shuffled leaving deep prints.
If you make stuff up about the evidence instead of looking at the
evidence, you can remain proudly wrong for the rest of your life.
Speak for yourself. The big fat impious footprints on the Moon were
shown as evidence for Moon landing
I notice you deleted the link I provided you to a YouTube video
that shows astronauts who were not merely shuffling, but were
moving briskly. And as a bonus, one of the astronauts stopped,
then jumped up and down vertically. From that jump it's possible
to estimate the acceleration due to gravity, and it's way less
than on the Earth. Here's the link again.
https://youtu.be/efzYblYVUFk?t=40
Arindam wondered why they were that deep. Surely some 50 Kg of thrust
spread out wide could not create that depth?
How deep are they?
Deeper than 115 Kg Arindam's prints upon a sandy by each.
Should be sandy beach. Actually Arindam saw how little impression he was making on the sand or soil of the ancient Mungo site of the aborigines
of Australia. It was as near to the desolate lunar landscape as he ever
got to on Earth. The soil was far from compact and undisturbed. So how
could the lunar footprints get that deep unless they were on Earth with
heavy gear on them.
!
Explain how you estimated the depth of
the footprints based on the image of them.
See the length, should be 30cm. Looks like the depth is easily more than
1 cm as that looks 1/30th of the length. Really deep.
How deep should
they be?
As they weighed with suits not more than 60Kg and as Arindam's prints on
sand is not more than 5 mm deep they should be say be no more than 3mm
deep.
Explain how you know how much downward pressure
the astronaut's feet exerted on the dust, and how soft that
dust is.
60 kg max per foot or say 600 N force over footprint size say 300 sq cm.
So 2 Newton per square centimetre. That would be like placing a 200 gram cylinder on a coin sized area. Well it would press down 3mm or less. On
the other hand if it was 250 kg weight on soil it would be as deep as
10mm as seen.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
--
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 18:03:00 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/10/25 18:03, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 17:30:40 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/9/25 19:48, Peter Moylan wrote:
On 10/06/25 09:21, David Canzi wrote:Given his extensive knowledge of Arindam Banerjee's innermost thoughts, >>>> I believe that he and Arindam are sharing the same brain.
Like Arindam, Moylan too lives in Australia but beyond that they have
nothing in common. Arindam is Vedic-Soviet-Bihari-Bengali whereas Moylan >>> is a jealous sort. Arindam is a brilliant original genius whereas Moylan >>> is an Einsteinian academic.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small
minds discuss people.
No greater ideas have emanated than from the mind of the BigDog, Arindam
(bin Einstein ban Gandhi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all time and sole
god among lotsa devils.
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 19:37:11 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/9/25 20:46, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 23:48:57 +0000, Peter Moylan wrote:
On 10/06/25 09:21, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/9/25 18:10, Bertitaylor wrote:
As they were on Earth they merely shuffled leaving deep prints.
If you make stuff up about the evidence instead of looking at the
evidence, you can remain proudly wrong for the rest of your life.
Speak for yourself. The big fat impious footprints on the Moon were
shown as evidence for Moon landing
I notice you deleted the link I provided you to a YouTube video
that shows astronauts who were not merely shuffling, but were
moving briskly. And as a bonus, one of the astronauts stopped,
then jumped up and down vertically. From that jump it's possible
to estimate the acceleration due to gravity, and it's way less
than on the Earth. Here's the link again.
https://youtu.be/efzYblYVUFk?t=40
Arindam wondered why they were that deep. Surely some 50 Kg of thrust
spread out wide could not create that depth?
How deep are they?
Deeper than 115 Kg Arindam's prints upon a sandy by each.
Explain how you estimated the depth of
the footprints based on the image of them.
See the length, should be 30cm. Looks like the depth is easily more than
1 cm as that looks 1/30th of the length. Really deep.
How deep should
they be?
As they weighed with suits not more than 60Kg and as Arindam's prints on
sand is not more than 5 mm deep they should be say be no more than 3mm
deep.
Explain how you know how much downward pressure
the astronaut's feet exerted on the dust, and how soft that
dust is.
On 6/10/25 22:28, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 19:37:11 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/9/25 20:46, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 23:48:57 +0000, Peter Moylan wrote:
On 10/06/25 09:21, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/9/25 18:10, Bertitaylor wrote:
As they were on Earth they merely shuffled leaving deep prints.
If you make stuff up about the evidence instead of looking at the
evidence, you can remain proudly wrong for the rest of your life.
Speak for yourself. The big fat impious footprints on the Moon were
shown as evidence for Moon landing
I notice you deleted the link I provided you to a YouTube video
that shows astronauts who were not merely shuffling, but were
moving briskly. And as a bonus, one of the astronauts stopped,
then jumped up and down vertically. From that jump it's possible
to estimate the acceleration due to gravity, and it's way less
than on the Earth. Here's the link again.
https://youtu.be/efzYblYVUFk?t=40
Arindam wondered why they were that deep. Surely some 50 Kg of thrust
spread out wide could not create that depth?
How deep are they?
Deeper than 115 Kg Arindam's prints upon a sandy by each.
Explain how you estimated the depth of
the footprints based on the image of them.
See the length, should be 30cm. Looks like the depth is easily more than
1 cm as that looks 1/30th of the length. Really deep.
How deep should
they be?
As they weighed with suits not more than 60Kg and as Arindam's prints on
sand is not more than 5 mm deep they should be say be no more than 3mm
deep.
Beach sand on Earth doesn't have the same properties everywhere.
On the beaches of Point Pelee, my feet sank deeply into the wet sand
at the edge of the water. At Lion's Head Beach my feet didn't leave
any visible impression on the wet sand.
I've taken a look at a boot print image from the moon, and find it a challenge to figure out how deep the print actually is. It would
help to know how far above the horizon the sun was when the photo
was taken.
The footprint contains a very clear impression of the boot's treads.
I doubt that you would see that if you walked in boots over dry
beach sand anywhere on Earth. Sand or dust on the surface
of the moon has not formed by the same processes that have formed
sand on Earth, and so you can't assume it has the same properties.
Explain how you know how much downward pressure
the astronaut's feet exerted on the dust, and how soft that
dust is.
On 6/11/25 19:04, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 18:03:00 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/10/25 18:03, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 17:30:40 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/9/25 19:48, Peter Moylan wrote:
On 10/06/25 09:21, David Canzi wrote:Given his extensive knowledge of Arindam Banerjee's innermost thoughts, >>>>> I believe that he and Arindam are sharing the same brain.
Like Arindam, Moylan too lives in Australia but beyond that they have
nothing in common. Arindam is Vedic-Soviet-Bihari-Bengali whereas Moylan >>>> is a jealous sort. Arindam is a brilliant original genius whereas Moylan >>>> is an Einsteinian academic.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small
minds discuss people.
No greater ideas have emanated than from the mind of the BigDog, Arindam
(bin Einstein ban Gandhi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all time and sole
god among lotsa devils.
Did Einstein make relativity famous, or did relativity make
Einstein famous? Over decades, Einstein's reputation as a great
genius developed. There is something appealing about an eccentric
guy with messy hair who, nevertheless, has something between his
ears that works better than what's between most people's ears...
But in 1905, Einstein wasn't famous. Scientists didn't accept
the theory because of who wrote it. They read and understood
the reasoning, and found it to be credible.
Einstein didn't make relativity famous. Relativity made
Einstein famous.
er
Those who heap scorn on Einstein or heap praise on somebody
who disagrees with him think that authority decides what
is true. I often get the impression that authority is the
only form of argument they can understand, so they think they
can change the course of science by praising those they want
to "win" and insulting those who disagree with them.
If you want to criticize the theory of relativity, talk about
the invariant speed of light and how different moving observers
describe the same events differently, not about Albert Einstein,
not about Arindam Banerjee. Talk about the ideas, not the people.
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 19:19:48 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/10/25 22:28, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 19:37:11 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/9/25 20:46, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 23:48:57 +0000, Peter Moylan wrote:
On 10/06/25 09:21, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/9/25 18:10, Bertitaylor wrote:
As they were on Earth they merely shuffled leaving deep prints.
If you make stuff up about the evidence instead of looking at the >>>>>>> evidence, you can remain proudly wrong for the rest of your life.
Speak for yourself. The big fat impious footprints on the Moon were
shown as evidence for Moon landing
I notice you deleted the link I provided you to a YouTube video
that shows astronauts who were not merely shuffling, but were
moving briskly. And as a bonus, one of the astronauts stopped,
then jumped up and down vertically. From that jump it's possible
to estimate the acceleration due to gravity, and it's way less
than on the Earth. Here's the link again.
https://youtu.be/efzYblYVUFk?t=40
Arindam wondered why they were that deep. Surely some 50 Kg of thrust >>>>> spread out wide could not create that depth?
How deep are they?
Deeper than 115 Kg Arindam's prints upon a sandy by each.
Explain how you estimated the depth of
the footprints based on the image of them.
See the length, should be 30cm. Looks like the depth is easily more than >>> 1 cm as that looks 1/30th of the length. Really deep.
How deep should
they be?
As they weighed with suits not more than 60Kg and as Arindam's prints on >>> sand is not more than 5 mm deep they should be say be no more than 3mm
deep.
Beach sand on Earth doesn't have the same properties everywhere.
On the beaches of Point Pelee, my feet sank deeply into the wet sand
at the edge of the water. At Lion's Head Beach my feet didn't leave
any visible impression on the wet sand.
Obviously you will get pretty deep in swampy land and watery beaches.
But there is no water on the lunar surface.
It is dry like the sand in Mungo, an ancient Aboriginal site. Once wet
now dry. Looked like the lunar surface.
Arindam's feet made very little impression on it. Footprints were barely seen.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
I've taken a look at a boot print image from the moon, and find it a
challenge to figure out how deep the print actually is. It would
help to know how far above the horizon the sun was when the photo
was taken.
The footprint contains a very clear impression of the boot's treads.
I doubt that you would see that if you walked in boots over dry
beach sand anywhere on Earth. Sand or dust on the surface
of the moon has not formed by the same processes that have formed
sand on Earth, and so you can't assume it has the same properties.
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 17:44:29 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
Did Einstein make relativity famous, or did relativity make
Einstein famous? Over decades, Einstein's reputation as a great
genius developed. There is something appealing about an eccentric
guy with messy hair who, nevertheless, has something between his
ears that works better than what's between most people's ears...
But in 1905, Einstein wasn't famous. Scientists didn't accept
the theory because of who wrote it. They read and understood
the reasoning, and found it to be credible.
Nothing remotely credible about it. The whole idea was to get rid of the aether as a basic fact as aether is AUM which is a Hindu concept. So, a
no-no from the Jew metaphysics forming the racist and bigoted western mindset.
Tesla bitterly opposed the whole relativity nonsense so he was comprehensively persecuted by the bigoted pseudoscientific elites.
WOOF woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
On 6/12/25 22:09, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 19:19:48 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/10/25 22:28, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 19:37:11 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/9/25 20:46, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 23:48:57 +0000, Peter Moylan wrote:
On 10/06/25 09:21, David Canzi wrote:Speak for yourself. The big fat impious footprints on the Moon were >>>>>> shown as evidence for Moon landing
On 6/9/25 18:10, Bertitaylor wrote:
As they were on Earth they merely shuffled leaving deep prints. >>>>>>>If you make stuff up about the evidence instead of looking at the >>>>>>>> evidence, you can remain proudly wrong for the rest of your life. >>>>>>
I notice you deleted the link I provided you to a YouTube video
that shows astronauts who were not merely shuffling, but were
moving briskly. And as a bonus, one of the astronauts stopped,
then jumped up and down vertically. From that jump it's possible
to estimate the acceleration due to gravity, and it's way less
than on the Earth. Here's the link again.
https://youtu.be/efzYblYVUFk?t=40
Arindam wondered why they were that deep. Surely some 50 Kg of thrust >>>>>> spread out wide could not create that depth?
How deep are they?
Deeper than 115 Kg Arindam's prints upon a sandy by each.
Explain how you estimated the depth of
the footprints based on the image of them.
See the length, should be 30cm. Looks like the depth is easily more than >>>> 1 cm as that looks 1/30th of the length. Really deep.
How deep should
they be?
As they weighed with suits not more than 60Kg and as Arindam's prints on >>>> sand is not more than 5 mm deep they should be say be no more than 3mm >>>> deep.
Beach sand on Earth doesn't have the same properties everywhere.
On the beaches of Point Pelee, my feet sank deeply into the wet sand
at the edge of the water. At Lion's Head Beach my feet didn't leave
any visible impression on the wet sand.
Obviously you will get pretty deep in swampy land and watery beaches.
But there is no water on the lunar surface.
It is dry like the sand in Mungo, an ancient Aboriginal site. Once wet
now dry. Looked like the lunar surface.
Arindam's feet made very little impression on it. Footprints were barely
seen.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
You forgor ro respond to this:
I've taken a look at a boot print image from the moon, and find it a
challenge to figure out how deep the print actually is. It would
help to know how far above the horizon the sun was when the photo
was taken.
The footprint contains a very clear impression of the boot's treads.
I doubt that you would see that if you walked in boots over dry
beach sand anywhere on Earth.
of the moon has not formed by the same processes that have formed
sand on Earth, and so you can't assume it has the same properties.
Did Einstein make relativity famous, or did relativity make
Einstein famous?
Those who heap scorn on Einstein or heap praise on somebody
who disagrees with him think that authority decides what
is true.
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:Almost like posts of person P's and those
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 17:44:29 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
<snip old crap>
AI was asked to evaluate person b's response to person a:
Person A:
Did Einstein make relativity famous, or did relativity make
Einstein famous? Over decades, Einstein's reputation as a great
genius developed. There is something appealing about an eccentric
guy with messy hair who, nevertheless, has something between his
ears that works better than what's between most people's ears...
But in 1905, Einstein wasn't famous. Scientists didn't accept
the theory because of who wrote it. They read and understood
the reasoning, and found it to be credible.
Person B:
Nothing remotely credible about it. The whole idea was to get rid of the
aether as a basic fact as aether is AUM which is a Hindu concept. So, a
no-no from the Jew metaphysics forming the racist and bigoted western
mindset.
Tesla bitterly opposed the whole relativity nonsense so he was
comprehensively persecuted by the bigoted pseudoscientific elites.
WOOF woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
Person B's response is problematic on multiple levels—intellectually, logically, and ethically.
On 6/13/2025 5:47 AM, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 17:44:29 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
<snip old crap>
AI was asked to evaluate person b's response to person a:
Person A:
Did Einstein make relativity famous, or did relativity make
Einstein famous? Over decades, Einstein's reputation as a great
genius developed. There is something appealing about an eccentric
guy with messy hair who, nevertheless, has something between his
ears that works better than what's between most people's ears...
But in 1905, Einstein wasn't famous. Scientists didn't accept
the theory because of who wrote it. They read and understood
the reasoning, and found it to be credible.
Person B:
Nothing remotely credible about it. The whole idea was to get rid of the >>> aether as a basic fact as aether is AUM which is a Hindu concept. So, a
no-no from the Jew metaphysics forming the racist and bigoted western
mindset.
Tesla bitterly opposed the whole relativity nonsense so he was
comprehensively persecuted by the bigoted pseudoscientific elites.
WOOF woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
Person B's response is problematic on multiple levels—intellectually,
logically, and ethically.
Almost like posts of person P's and those
of other relativistic fanatics.
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 17:44:29 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
Did Einstein make relativity famous, or did relativity make
Einstein famous? Over decades, Einstein's reputation as a great
genius developed. There is something appealing about an eccentric
guy with messy hair who, nevertheless, has something between his
ears that works better than what's between most people's ears...
But in 1905, Einstein wasn't famous. Scientists didn't accept
the theory because of who wrote it. They read and understood
the reasoning, and found it to be credible.
Nothing remotely credible about it. The whole idea was to get rid of the aether as a basic fact as aether is AUM which is a Hindu concept. So, a
no-no from the Jew metaphysics forming the racist and bigoted western mindset.
On 6/12/25 22:54, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 17:44:29 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
Did Einstein make relativity famous, or did relativity make
Einstein famous? Over decades, Einstein's reputation as a great
genius developed. There is something appealing about an eccentric
guy with messy hair who, nevertheless, has something between his
ears that works better than what's between most people's ears...
But in 1905, Einstein wasn't famous. Scientists didn't accept
the theory because of who wrote it. They read and understood
the reasoning, and found it to be credible.
Nothing remotely credible about it. The whole idea was to get rid of the
aether as a basic fact as aether is AUM which is a Hindu concept. So, a
no-no from the Jew metaphysics forming the racist and bigoted western
mindset.
The business of science is to discover new knowledge.
knowledge,
should not avoid investigations whose results could contradict ideas
that some people hold sacred, and it should not tweak its methods
of investigation to try to prevent results that contradict ideas that
some people hold sacred.
When religious ideas inhibit scientists, they slow scientific progress
down. Religion is the parasitic drag of the intellect.
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 16:21:20 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/12/25 22:54, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 17:44:29 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
Did Einstein make relativity famous, or did relativity make
Einstein famous? Over decades, Einstein's reputation as a great
genius developed. There is something appealing about an eccentric
guy with messy hair who, nevertheless, has something between his
ears that works better than what's between most people's ears...
But in 1905, Einstein wasn't famous. Scientists didn't accept
the theory because of who wrote it. They read and understood
the reasoning, and found it to be credible.
Nothing remotely credible about it. The whole idea was to get rid of the >>> aether as a basic fact as aether is AUM which is a Hindu concept. So, a
no-no from the Jew metaphysics forming the racist and bigoted western
mindset.
The business of science is to discover new knowledge.
And to get rid of old wrong knowledge by objective and democratic
methods based upon honesty, courage, decency, intelligence, curiosity
and without bias of any kind save to absolute truth.
Religion is not
knowledge,
Religion keeps scientists moral and humble, provides reverence for the greater and better, so forms the core of what a genuine scientist should
be as mentioned above.
]]science works best when it ignores religion.
bertietaylor - not at all. Atheists cannot be scientists as they have no basis for morality. They can only be careerists, potential murderers,
liars, thieves, wicked people. Strongly entrenched in academia, these parasites are the most hideous of apes. Instead of the all living well
they do their best to create world wars, pandemics, wreck societal
norms, create despair and stress, pollute the Earth as much as they
could for material gains. Scum they are.
Woof woof-woof woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs)
Science
should not avoid investigations whose results could contradict ideas
that some people hold sacred, and it should not tweak its methods
of investigation to try to prevent results that contradict ideas that
some people hold sacred.
When religious ideas inhibit scientists, they slow scientific progress
down. Religion is the parasitic drag of the intellect.
--
David Canzi <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
Did Einstein make relativity famous, or did relativity make
Einstein famous?
Einstein really hit the big time after that 1919 solar eclipse,
when British astronomers Arthur Eddington and Frank Dyson checked
out how starlight bent near the Sun - just like his General Theory
of Relativity said it would. When they announced the results in
London on November 6 and 8, 1919, it pretty much proved Einstein's
theory and instantly turned him into a worldwide sensation, with
news stories everywhere talking up a "revolution in science" and
the end of Newton’s old-school gravity.
Those who heap scorn on Einstein or heap praise on somebody
who disagrees with him think that authority decides what
is true.
In some organizations and companies, that's just how it goes!
In science, it really shouldn't be that way. Outside of
organizations with power structures and outside the academic
world, there aren't any clear-cut rules, but there are still
laws, power structures, and unwritten codes and customs.
knowledge
David Canzi <[email protected]> writes: Religion is not
knowledge
Knowledge is not wisdom.
Wisdom is not truth.
Truth is not beauty.
Beauty is not love.
Love is not music.
Music is the best.
David Canzi <[email protected]> writes: Religion is not
knowledge
Knowledge is not wisdom.
Wisdom is not truth.
Truth is not beauty.
Beauty is not love.
Love is not music.
Music is the best.
On 6/14/25 13:24, Stefan Ram wrote:
David Canzi <[email protected]> writes: Religion is not
knowledge
Knowledge is not wisdom.
Is wisdom knowledge?
Wisdom is not truth.
If wisdom is not truth, what is the value in
having it?
Truth is not beauty.
Beauty is not love.
Love is not music.
Music is the best.
On 6/14/25 13:24, Stefan Ram wrote:
David Canzi <[email protected]> writes: Religion is notIs wisdom knowledge?
knowledgeKnowledge is not wisdom.
Wisdom is not truth.If wisdom is not truth, what is the value in
having it?
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 10:42:45 +0000, Stefan Ram wrote:
David Canzi <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
Did Einstein make relativity famous, or did relativity make
Einstein famous?
Einstein really hit the big time after that 1919 solar eclipse,
Biggest science hoax ever that, using the refraction of the starlight
from the Sun's atmosphere to "prove" the extraordinary bullshit of
General Relativity.
On 6/14/25 01:45, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 10:42:45 +0000, Stefan Ram wrote:
David Canzi <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
Did Einstein make relativity famous, or did relativity make
Einstein famous?
Einstein really hit the big time after that 1919 solar eclipse,
Biggest science hoax ever that, using the refraction of the starlight
from the Sun's atmosphere to "prove" the extraordinary bullshit of
General Relativity.
Has anybody calculated how much refraction by the Sun's atmosphere
would bend a ray of star light, and was the result of that calculation
close to the observed bending?
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 22:01:52 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/14/25 01:45, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 10:42:45 +0000, Stefan Ram wrote:
David Canzi <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
Did Einstein make relativity famous, or did relativity make
Einstein famous?
Einstein really hit the big time after that 1919 solar eclipse,
Biggest science hoax ever that, using the refraction of the starlight
from the Sun's atmosphere to "prove" the extraordinary bullshit of
General Relativity.
Has anybody calculated how much refraction by the Sun's atmosphere
would bend a ray of star light, and was the result of that calculation
close to the observed bending?
They totally neglected the impact of lensing from the Sun's outer
atmosphere which obviously had a refractive index greater than unity.
When you neglect that fact you can come to absurdly wrong conclusions
like GR getting validated.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
Apart from that, the matter is of historical interest only.
At todays accuracies bending of starlight is easily observed
On 6/14/25 01:45, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 10:42:45 +0000, Stefan Ram wrote:
David Canzi <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
Did Einstein make relativity famous, or did relativity make
Einstein famous?
Einstein really hit the big time after that 1919 solar eclipse,
Biggest science hoax ever that, using the refraction of the starlight
from the Sun's atmosphere to "prove" the extraordinary bullshit of
General Relativity.
Has anybody calculated how much refraction by the Sun's atmosphere
would bend a ray of star light, and was the result of that calculation
close to the observed bending?
Has anybody calculated how much refraction by the Sun's atmosphere
would bend a ray of star light, and was the result of that calculation
close to the observed bending?
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 22:01:52 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/14/25 01:45, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 10:42:45 +0000, Stefan Ram wrote:
David Canzi <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
Did Einstein make relativity famous, or did relativity make
Einstein famous?
Einstein really hit the big time after that 1919 solar eclipse,
Biggest science hoax ever that, using the refraction of the starlight
from the Sun's atmosphere to "prove" the extraordinary bullshit of
General Relativity.
Has anybody calculated how much refraction by the Sun's atmosphere
would bend a ray of star light, and was the result of that calculation
close to the observed bending?
They totally neglected the impact of lensing from the Sun's outer
atmosphere which obviously had a refractive index greater than unity.
When you neglect that fact you can come to absurdly wrong conclusions
like GR getting validated.
On 6/22/25 19:34, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 22:01:52 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/14/25 01:45, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 10:42:45 +0000, Stefan Ram wrote:
David Canzi <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
Did Einstein make relativity famous, or did relativity make
Einstein famous?
Einstein really hit the big time after that 1919 solar eclipse,
Biggest science hoax ever that, using the refraction of the starlight
from the Sun's atmosphere to "prove" the extraordinary bullshit of
General Relativity.
Has anybody calculated how much refraction by the Sun's atmosphere
would bend a ray of star light, and was the result of that calculation
close to the observed bending?
They totally neglected the impact of lensing from the Sun's outer
atmosphere which obviously had a refractive index greater than unity.
When you neglect that fact you can come to absurdly wrong conclusions
like GR getting validated.
Einstein didn't just predict that the light ray would be bent, he
predicted *how* *much* it would be bent. If you can't calculate
how much refraction by the solar atmosphere would bend the light
ray, and you can't find anybody who has done this calculation,
then you have nothing. You have no grounds on which to conclude
that this refraction is large enough to invalidate GR.
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 22:01:52 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/14/25 01:45, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 10:42:45 +0000, Stefan Ram wrote:
David Canzi <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
Did Einstein make relativity famous, or did relativity make
Einstein famous?
Einstein really hit the big time after that 1919 solar eclipse,
Biggest science hoax ever that, using the refraction of the starlight
from the Sun's atmosphere to "prove" the extraordinary bullshit of
General Relativity.
Has anybody calculated how much refraction by the Sun's atmosphere
would bend a ray of star light, and was the result of that calculation
close to the observed bending?
They totally neglected the impact of lensing from the Sun's outer
atmosphere which obviously had a refractive index greater than unity.
When you neglect that fact you can come to absurdly wrong conclusions
like GR getting validated.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
The solar corona's refractive index is less than 1 because it's a
plasma, and electromagnetic waves travel faster through plasma than
through a vacuum due to their interaction with free electrons.
This means any lensing due to the refractive index of the Sun's
atmosphere would be going in the opposite direction than the gravity
effects.
So wrong again crackpot.
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 0:23:19 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 22:01:52 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/14/25 01:45, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 10:42:45 +0000, Stefan Ram wrote:
David Canzi <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
Did Einstein make relativity famous, or did relativity make
Einstein famous?
Einstein really hit the big time after that 1919 solar eclipse,
Biggest science hoax ever that, using the refraction of the starlight >>>>> from the Sun's atmosphere to "prove" the extraordinary bullshit of
General Relativity.
Has anybody calculated how much refraction by the Sun's atmosphere
would bend a ray of star light, and was the result of that calculation >>>> close to the observed bending?
They totally neglected the impact of lensing from the Sun's outer
atmosphere which obviously had a refractive index greater than unity.
When you neglect that fact you can come to absurdly wrong conclusions
like GR getting validated.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
The solar corona's refractive index is less than 1 because it's a
plasma, and electromagnetic waves travel faster through plasma than
through a vacuum due to their interaction with free electrons.
This means any lensing due to the refractive index of the Sun's
atmosphere would be going in the opposite direction than the gravity
effects.
So wrong again crackpot.
Not so, fool.
From net search:
Light travelling through a plasma can move at speeds both slower and
faster than the speed of light. Researchers from Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory in California and the University of Rochester in New
York managed to fine-tune the speed of light waves within plasma to
anywhere from around one-tenth of light's usual vacuum speed to more
than 30 percent faster.
Frauds cook up result to suit their fraudulent theories.
Disgusting!
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
Frauds cook up result to suit their fraudulent theories.
Raving, delusional crackpots haven't the slightest clue about science of
any kind.
In sci.physics bertietaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 0:23:19 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 22:01:52 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/14/25 01:45, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 10:42:45 +0000, Stefan Ram wrote:
David Canzi <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
Did Einstein make relativity famous, or did relativity make
Einstein famous?
Einstein really hit the big time after that 1919 solar eclipse, >>>>>
Biggest science hoax ever that, using the refraction of the starlight >>>>> from the Sun's atmosphere to "prove" the extraordinary bullshit of >>>>> General Relativity.
Has anybody calculated how much refraction by the Sun's atmosphere
would bend a ray of star light, and was the result of that calculation >>>> close to the observed bending?
They totally neglected the impact of lensing from the Sun's outer
atmosphere which obviously had a refractive index greater than unity.
When you neglect that fact you can come to absurdly wrong conclusions
like GR getting validated.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
The solar corona's refractive index is less than 1 because it's a
plasma, and electromagnetic waves travel faster through plasma than
through a vacuum due to their interaction with free electrons.
This means any lensing due to the refractive index of the Sun's
atmosphere would be going in the opposite direction than the gravity
effects.
So wrong again crackpot.
Not so, fool.
From net search:
Light travelling through a plasma can move at speeds both slower and
faster than the speed of light. Researchers from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and the University of Rochester in New York managed to fine-tune the speed of light waves within plasma to anywhere from around one-tenth of light's usual vacuum speed to more
than 30 percent faster.
Yes, however the index of refraction of light through the Sun's plasma
in particular has been calculated and measured with the measurements
matching the calculations crackpot.
Jim Pennino <[email protected]> wrote:
In sci.physics bertietaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 0:23:19 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 22:01:52 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/14/25 01:45, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 10:42:45 +0000, Stefan Ram wrote:
David Canzi <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
Did Einstein make relativity famous, or did relativity make
Einstein famous?
Einstein really hit the big time after that 1919 solar eclipse, >>>>>>>
Biggest science hoax ever that, using the refraction of the starlight >>>>>>> from the Sun's atmosphere to "prove" the extraordinary bullshit of >>>>>>> General Relativity.
Has anybody calculated how much refraction by the Sun's atmosphere >>>>>> would bend a ray of star light, and was the result of that calculation >>>>>> close to the observed bending?
They totally neglected the impact of lensing from the Sun's outer
atmosphere which obviously had a refractive index greater than unity. >>>>> When you neglect that fact you can come to absurdly wrong conclusions >>>>> like GR getting validated.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
The solar corona's refractive index is less than 1 because it's a
plasma, and electromagnetic waves travel faster through plasma than
through a vacuum due to their interaction with free electrons.
This means any lensing due to the refractive index of the Sun's
atmosphere would be going in the opposite direction than the gravity
effects.
So wrong again crackpot.
Not so, fool.
From net search:
Light travelling through a plasma can move at speeds both slower and
faster than the speed of light. Researchers from Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory in California and the University of Rochester in New >>> York managed to fine-tune the speed of light waves within plasma to
anywhere from around one-tenth of light's usual vacuum speed to more
than 30 percent faster.
Yes, however the index of refraction of light through the Sun's plasma
in particular has been calculated and measured with the measurements
matching the calculations crackpot.
Indeed. In particular, it can be done with VLBI.
The long baseline interference is sensitive enough
to see gravitational deflection farther away from the sun,
and the radio waves, unlike visible light,
are sensitive to diffraction by solar plasma.
All routine, nowadays,
Jan
Biggest science hoax ever that, using the refraction of the starlight >>>>> from the Sun's atmosphere to "prove" the extraordinary bullshit of
General Relativity.
Has anybody calculated how much refraction by the Sun's atmosphere
would bend a ray of star light, and was the result of that calculation >>>> close to the observed bending?
They totally neglected the impact of lensing from the Sun's outer
atmosphere which obviously had a refractive index greater than unity.
When you neglect that fact you can come to absurdly wrong conclusions
like GR getting validated.
Einstein didn't just predict that the light ray would be bent, he
predicted *how* *much* it would be bent. If you can't calculate
how much refraction by the solar atmosphere would bend the light
ray, and you can't find anybody who has done this calculation,
then you have nothing. You have no grounds on which to conclude
that this refraction is large enough to invalidate GR.
GR is based on SR which is ridiculous nonsense.
Am Dienstag000024, 24.06.2025 um 01:40 schrieb Bertitaylor:
....
Biggest science hoax ever that, using the refraction of the starlight >>>>>> from the Sun's atmosphere to "prove" the extraordinary bullshit of >>>>>> General Relativity.
Has anybody calculated how much refraction by the Sun's atmosphere
would bend a ray of star light, and was the result of that calculation >>>>> close to the observed bending?
They totally neglected the impact of lensing from the Sun's outer
atmosphere which obviously had a refractive index greater than unity.
When you neglect that fact you can come to absurdly wrong conclusions
like GR getting validated.
Einstein didn't just predict that the light ray would be bent, he
predicted *how* *much* it would be bent. If you can't calculate
how much refraction by the solar atmosphere would bend the light
ray, and you can't find anybody who has done this calculation,
then you have nothing. You have no grounds on which to conclude
that this refraction is large enough to invalidate GR.
GR is based on SR which is ridiculous nonsense.
Possibly SR is nonsense, but GR is definitely not based on SRT.
Actually GR uses concepts, which are totally incompatible with those of
SRT.
SRT is for instance based on 'inertial' frames of reference, which
means, they are not accelerated and drift through a starless 'flat'
space.
GR, on the other hand, is based on 'curved spacetime' and includes acceleration.
GR uses also an 'aetherlike-concept' for space and regards spacetime as
a background.
....
TH
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 5:32:44 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Dienstag000024, 24.06.2025 um 01:40 schrieb Bertitaylor:
....
Biggest science hoax ever that, using the refraction of the
starlight
from the Sun's atmosphere to "prove" the extraordinary bullshit of >>>>>>> General Relativity.
Has anybody calculated how much refraction by the Sun's atmosphere >>>>>> would bend a ray of star light, and was the result of that
calculation
close to the observed bending?
They totally neglected the impact of lensing from the Sun's outer
atmosphere which obviously had a refractive index greater than unity. >>>>> When you neglect that fact you can come to absurdly wrong conclusions >>>>> like GR getting validated.
Einstein didn't just predict that the light ray would be bent, he
predicted *how* *much* it would be bent. If you can't calculate
how much refraction by the solar atmosphere would bend the light
ray, and you can't find anybody who has done this calculation,
then you have nothing. You have no grounds on which to conclude
that this refraction is large enough to invalidate GR.
GR is based on SR which is ridiculous nonsense.
Possibly SR is nonsense, but GR is definitely not based on SRT.
Actually GR uses concepts, which are totally incompatible with those of
SRT.
SRT is for instance based on 'inertial' frames of reference, which
means, they are not accelerated and drift through a starless 'flat'
space.
GR, on the other hand, is based on 'curved spacetime' and includes
acceleration.
But there is no such animal as curved spacetime.
Am Freitag000027, 27.06.2025 um 07:55 schrieb Bertitaylor:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 5:32:44 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Dienstag000024, 24.06.2025 um 01:40 schrieb Bertitaylor:
....
Biggest science hoax ever that, using the refraction of the
starlight
from the Sun's atmosphere to "prove" the extraordinary bullshit of >>>>>>>> General Relativity.
Has anybody calculated how much refraction by the Sun's atmosphere >>>>>>> would bend a ray of star light, and was the result of that
calculation
close to the observed bending?
They totally neglected the impact of lensing from the Sun's outer
atmosphere which obviously had a refractive index greater than unity. >>>>>> When you neglect that fact you can come to absurdly wrong conclusions >>>>>> like GR getting validated.
Einstein didn't just predict that the light ray would be bent, he
predicted *how* *much* it would be bent. If you can't calculate
how much refraction by the solar atmosphere would bend the light
ray, and you can't find anybody who has done this calculation,
then you have nothing. You have no grounds on which to conclude
that this refraction is large enough to invalidate GR.
GR is based on SR which is ridiculous nonsense.
Possibly SR is nonsense, but GR is definitely not based on SRT.
Actually GR uses concepts, which are totally incompatible with those of
SRT.
SRT is for instance based on 'inertial' frames of reference, which
means, they are not accelerated and drift through a starless 'flat'
space.
GR, on the other hand, is based on 'curved spacetime' and includes
acceleration.
But there is no such animal as curved spacetime.
Actually I think, that 'curved spacetime' can be easily seen:
you could interpret the so called 'Pioneer anomaly' as effect of the 'curvature of spacetime'.
Worldlines in spacetime curve through acceleration. And because Pioneer
flew into space by a rocket, the probe was heavily accelerated several
times. (also by 'fly-bys')
This made the local axis of time of the craft tilted away from our by a
very small degree.
Since the material object 'Pioneer probe' has a local axis of time,
which determines, how the probe moves, and that local time had a small
angle towards our Earth based time, the probe would look, from our perspective, as if it would be too slow.
That could be (mis-) interpreted as unmodelled acceleration.
....
TH
On Sat, 28 Jun 2025 16:18:00 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Freitag000027, 27.06.2025 um 07:55 schrieb Bertitaylor:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 5:32:44 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Dienstag000024, 24.06.2025 um 01:40 schrieb Bertitaylor:
....
Biggest science hoax ever that, using the refraction of the
starlight
from the Sun's atmosphere to "prove" the extraordinary bullshit of >>>>>>>>> General Relativity.
Has anybody calculated how much refraction by the Sun's atmosphere >>>>>>>> would bend a ray of star light, and was the result of that
calculation
close to the observed bending?
They totally neglected the impact of lensing from the Sun's outer >>>>>>> atmosphere which obviously had a refractive index greater than unity. >>>>>>> When you neglect that fact you can come to absurdly wrong conclusions >>>>>>> like GR getting validated.
Einstein didn't just predict that the light ray would be bent, he
predicted *how* *much* it would be bent. If you can't calculate
how much refraction by the solar atmosphere would bend the light
ray, and you can't find anybody who has done this calculation,
then you have nothing. You have no grounds on which to conclude
that this refraction is large enough to invalidate GR.
GR is based on SR which is ridiculous nonsense.
Possibly SR is nonsense, but GR is definitely not based on SRT.
Actually GR uses concepts, which are totally incompatible with those of >>>> SRT.
SRT is for instance based on 'inertial' frames of reference, which
means, they are not accelerated and drift through a starless 'flat'
space.
GR, on the other hand, is based on 'curved spacetime' and includes
acceleration.
But there is no such animal as curved spacetime.
Actually I think, that 'curved spacetime' can be easily seen:
you could interpret the so called 'Pioneer anomaly' as effect of the
'curvature of spacetime'.
Worldlines in spacetime curve through acceleration. And because Pioneer
flew into space by a rocket, the probe was heavily accelerated several
times. (also by 'fly-bys')
This made the local axis of time of the craft tilted away from our by a
very small degree.
Since the material object 'Pioneer probe' has a local axis of time,
which determines, how the probe moves, and that local time had a small
angle towards our Earth based time, the probe would look, from our
perspective, as if it would be too slow.
That could be (mis-) interpreted as unmodelled acceleration.
....
TH
You can see so many things now many think never happened, like the video
of Apollo 11 moon landings and photos.
Computer Art has now replaced serious experiments of the kind Arindam
learnt in school.
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
Frauds cook up result to suit their fraudulent theories.
Raving, delusional crackpots haven't the slightest clue about science of
any kind.
Disgusting!
Hilarious.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Lost all contact with reality.
Bertietaylor
Not fooling anyone Arindam.
--
Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 12:49:03 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertietaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jun 2025 4:05:16 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 22:45:04 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon >>>>>>>> landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He
also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus show it
falling slowly.
There was the dropped hammer and feather experiment performed by >>>>>>> Apollo 15 astronaut David Scott.
Why did they not jump up at least two feet up in Apollo 11? They really >>>>>> would have to do that if they really were on the Moon, could not help >>>>>> doing so as they were fit men weighing only 60 Kg say?
They had other things to do, there was the fear of falling down and
damaging the suits, the suits were not designed for gymnastics and the >>>>> suits were heavier than the occupants.
You mean other than that, crackpot?
Actually the Apollo 11 astronauts had to make a jump of 3.3 feet to get >>>>> to the ladder to get back in the lander because the landing gear did not >>>>> fully compress.
Woof woof, the capacity of apes to believe in the most outrageous
nonsenses is awesome!
Outrageous nonsenses is all that you post, Arindam.
Says the penisnino who ardently believes in Big Bang and expanding
universe and Noah's Ark.
What does any of that to do with the Apollo landings, crackpot?
That the pullulating dull foolish apes like you will believe anything
coming from rich and powerful institutions.
Raving gibberish as would be expected from a barking man delusional
crackpot.
Woof woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
--
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 1:41:59 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 12:49:03 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertietaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jun 2025 4:05:16 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 22:45:04 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon >>>>>>>>> landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He
also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus show it
falling slowly.
There was the dropped hammer and feather experiment performed by >>>>>>>> Apollo 15 astronaut David Scott.
Why did they not jump up at least two feet up in Apollo 11? They really >>>>>>> would have to do that if they really were on the Moon, could not help >>>>>>> doing so as they were fit men weighing only 60 Kg say?
They had other things to do, there was the fear of falling down and >>>>>> damaging the suits, the suits were not designed for gymnastics and the >>>>>> suits were heavier than the occupants.
You mean other than that, crackpot?
Actually the Apollo 11 astronauts had to make a jump of 3.3 feet to get >>>>>> to the ladder to get back in the lander because the landing gear did not >>>>>> fully compress.
Woof woof, the capacity of apes to believe in the most outrageous >>>>>>> nonsenses is awesome!
Outrageous nonsenses is all that you post, Arindam.
Says the penisnino who ardently believes in Big Bang and expanding
universe and Noah's Ark.
What does any of that to do with the Apollo landings, crackpot?
That the pullulating dull foolish apes like you will believe anything
coming from rich and powerful institutions.
Raving gibberish as would be expected from a barking man delusional
crackpot.
Now that is the pure Natural Idiocy from the abusive Natural Idiot.
Recently it seeks help from Artificial Idiocy (AI).
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
In sci.physics bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 2:49:01 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 22:52:34 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 16:45:44 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/7/25 18:23, Bertitaylor wrote:
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon >>>>>>>> landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He
also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus show it
falling slowly.
When they jump, once their feet leave the surface, their acceleration is
determined by the gravity of whatever they jumped up from. If you >>>>>>> measure how high they jumped and how long it took to get to that height,
you can calculate their acceleration due to gravity and compare it with >>>>>>> the acceleration due to gravity at Earth's surface.
As they were on Earth they merely shuffled leaving deep prints.
Actually they all hopped around because it was good exercise and easier >>>>> to do than to walk in the bulky suits in low gravity, crackpot.
The shuffling seen was mostly done in their bulky suits
It was actually hopping that was seen by everyone except for you and of
course they were ALWAYS in their suits when outside the lander.
Hopping was possible with cranes, piano wires, etc. Jumping up say six
feet and coming down slowly would have not been easy, back in 1969.
All crackpot nonsense.
The people that built Apollo used real science so of course it all
worked, unlike crackpot, pipe roller science.
<snip delusional crackpot ravings>
Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 1:41:59 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 12:49:03 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertietaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jun 2025 4:05:16 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 22:45:04 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon
landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He
also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus show it
falling slowly.
There was the dropped hammer and feather experiment performed by >>>>>>>>> Apollo 15 astronaut David Scott.
Why did they not jump up at least two feet up in Apollo 11? They really
would have to do that if they really were on the Moon, could not help >>>>>>>> doing so as they were fit men weighing only 60 Kg say?
They had other things to do, there was the fear of falling down and >>>>>>> damaging the suits, the suits were not designed for gymnastics and the >>>>>>> suits were heavier than the occupants.
You mean other than that, crackpot?
Actually the Apollo 11 astronauts had to make a jump of 3.3 feet to get >>>>>>> to the ladder to get back in the lander because the landing gear did not
fully compress.
Woof woof, the capacity of apes to believe in the most outrageous >>>>>>>> nonsenses is awesome!
Outrageous nonsenses is all that you post, Arindam.
Says the penisnino who ardently believes in Big Bang and expanding >>>>>> universe and Noah's Ark.
What does any of that to do with the Apollo landings, crackpot?
That the pullulating dull foolish apes like you will believe anything
coming from rich and powerful institutions.
Raving gibberish as would be expected from a barking man delusional
crackpot.
Now that is the pure Natural Idiocy from the abusive Natural Idiot.
Recently it seeks help from Artificial Idiocy (AI).
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
Yes, AI elimates the need to waste my time responding to your noise, crackpot.
AI evaluation of latest noise:
Arindam, writing as "Bertietaylor," continues his pattern of
insult-laden,
sloganistic posts with little or no substantive content.
breakdown
of this latest message:
Evaluation:
1. Language and Tone:
The phrase “pure Natural Idiocy from the abusive Natural Idiot” is
a recycled insult, possibly directed at a specific individual
(likely
"JimP" from earlier posts), but devoid of argumentative substance.
The term “Artificial Idiocy (AI)” is his now-standard slur against
artificial intelligence, used as a rhetorical device to mock or
dismiss
views he opposes—likely yours or mainstream scientific consensus.
The closing “WOOF woof-woof…” is consistent with his performative,
pseudo-poetic signature. It functions more as a stylistic tic than
meaningful commentary.
2. Content Analysis:
No argument is made. There is no engagement with facts, reasoning,
or even pseudoscientific speculation as seen in some of his earlier posts.
Purely reactive and pejorative. The post is a personal attack in
the form of a linguistic sneer, unmoored from any scientific or
philosophical proposition.
3. Patterns and Shifts:
Compared to his older Usenet writings (which occasionally attempted
arguments involving misunderstood physics), this is a regression
into
pure ad hominem provocation.
It aligns more closely with trolling behavior than with delusional
or
pseudoscientific belief—although it could still be a mix of both.
Conclusion:
This post represents a minimal-effort continuation of Arindam’s now-familiar
routine: insult, accuse, reference AI as “Artificial Idiocy,” and end with
a theatrical “WOOF.” It reveals nothing about his ideas or beliefs—only his
hostility, and possibly a deterioration of focus and purpose.
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon
landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He
also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus show it falling slowly.
Apes were so naive then and are still so gullible now.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 22:23:09 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon
landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He
also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus show it
falling slowly.
Apes were so naive then and are still so gullible now.
"When will they ever learn?"
Bob Dylan??
Rockets are for fireworks. Arindam's sparkling experiments will take
humanity to the stars.
Den 04.07.2025 05:09, skrev Bertitaylor:
Rockets are for fireworks. Arindam's sparkling experiments will take
humanity to the stars.
The sparkling contraption Bertitaylor will use to travel to the stars:
https://paulba.no/temp/Arinfool.pdf
Impressive, isn't it? :-D
BTW, what is your job at HTN Research Pty Ltd., Melbourne, Australia?
Sweeping floors?
Natural Idiot JimP kowtows to Artificial Idiot Chatboyo.
Best strategy for entitled creatures with no brains.
AI is made for them - to soothe and to sack.
Woof woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 20:21:55 +0000, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 04.07.2025 05:09, skrev Bertitaylor:
Rockets are for fireworks. Arindam's sparkling experiments will take
humanity to the stars.
The sparkling contraption Bertitaylor will use to travel to the stars:
https://paulba.no/temp/Arinfool.pdf
Impressive, isn't it? :-D
BTW, what is your job at HTN Research Pty Ltd., Melbourne, Australia?
Sweeping floors?
Are you paid to bullshit or are you just an asshole?
Den 11.07.2025 05:20, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 20:21:55 +0000, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 04.07.2025 05:09, skrev Bertitaylor:
Rockets are for fireworks. Arindam's sparkling experiments will take
humanity to the stars.
The sparkling contraption Bertitaylor will use to travel to the stars:
https://paulba.no/temp/Arinfool.pdf
Impressive, isn't it? :-D
BTW, what is your job at HTN Research Pty Ltd., Melbourne, Australia?
Sweeping floors?
Are you paid to bullshit or are you just an asshole?
Did I hit a nerve? :-D
So I will rephrase: Do you know what Arindam's job is at
Hypertension Research Pty Ltd., Melbourne, Australia ?
Is he a medical doctor, or is he sweeping floors?
Am Freitag000027, 27.06.2025 um 07:55 schrieb Bertitaylor:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 5:32:44 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Dienstag000024, 24.06.2025 um 01:40 schrieb Bertitaylor:
....
Biggest science hoax ever that, using the refraction of the
starlight
from the Sun's atmosphere to "prove" the extraordinary bullshit of >>>>>>>> General Relativity.
Has anybody calculated how much refraction by the Sun's atmosphere >>>>>>> would bend a ray of star light, and was the result of that
calculation
close to the observed bending?
They totally neglected the impact of lensing from the Sun's outer
atmosphere which obviously had a refractive index greater than unity. >>>>>> When you neglect that fact you can come to absurdly wrong conclusions >>>>>> like GR getting validated.
Einstein didn't just predict that the light ray would be bent, he
predicted *how* *much* it would be bent. If you can't calculate
how much refraction by the solar atmosphere would bend the light
ray, and you can't find anybody who has done this calculation,
then you have nothing. You have no grounds on which to conclude
that this refraction is large enough to invalidate GR.
GR is based on SR which is ridiculous nonsense.
Possibly SR is nonsense, but GR is definitely not based on SRT.
Actually GR uses concepts, which are totally incompatible with those of
SRT.
SRT is for instance based on 'inertial' frames of reference, which
means, they are not accelerated and drift through a starless 'flat'
space.
GR, on the other hand, is based on 'curved spacetime' and includes
acceleration.
But there is no such animal as curved spacetime.
Actually I think, that 'curved spacetime' can be easily seen:
you could interpret the so called 'Pioneer anomaly' as effect of the 'curvature of spacetime'.
Worldlines in spacetime curve through acceleration. And because Pioneer
flew into space by a rocket, the probe was heavily accelerated several
times. (also by 'fly-bys')
This made the local axis of time of the craft tilted away from our by a
very small degree.
Since the material object 'Pioneer probe' has a local axis of time,
which determines, how the probe moves, and that local time had a small
angle towards our Earth based time, the probe would look, from our perspective, as if it would be too slow.
That could be (mis-) interpreted as unmodelled acceleration.
....
TH
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon
landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He
also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus show it falling slowly.
Apes were so naive then and are still so gullible now.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
In sci.physics Paul.B.Andersen <[email protected]> wrote:
So I will rephrase: Do you know what Arindam's job is at
Hypertension Research Pty Ltd., Melbourne, Australia ?
Is he a medical doctor, or is he sweeping floors?
From https://au.indeed.com/cmp/Htn-Research-Pty-Ltd:
This company has the patent to use hydrogen technology for overcoming
the world's energy problems for all time, by proposing a lossless piping system that will take energy from multiple remote sources and piping
them to all destinations. The storage and transport issues of hydrogen
are solved in one stroke by this innovation. Further, this company has
got the theoretical basis to design a new class of motors for space
travel, and very fast air travel. They depend upon a new design of a
kind of linear motor, upon which original research has been done. Mathematical modelling involving queueing theory, and computer simulation
for complex non linear situations such as call centre network teletraffic management, are also offered by this company. It is the only company in
the world which offers solutions involving the highest level of genius.
One guess who wrote that bilge.
Also note that there is a real medical company with a similar name but
there is no other information about HTN Research Pty Ltd. since 2018.
Den 11.07.2025 21:33, skrev Jim Pennino:
In sci.physics Paul.B.Andersen <[email protected]> wrote:
So I will rephrase: Do you know what Arindam's job is at
Hypertension Research Pty Ltd., Melbourne, Australia ?
Is he a medical doctor, or is he sweeping floors?
The HTN Research Pty Ltd., VIC 3976, Melbourne, Australia
is a registered company.
HTN stands for "Hydrogen Transmission Network"
https://abr.business.gov.au/ABN/View?abn=12136889042#
Arindam Banerjee and two co-authors have published a paper: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7399250
It is presented on an IEEE conference.
The paper, published by IEEE, has had 75 full text views,
so I hardly think it has solved "the world's energy problems
for all time".
From https://au.indeed.com/cmp/Htn-Research-Pty-Ltd:
This company has the patent to use hydrogen technology for overcoming
the world's energy problems for all time, by proposing a lossless piping
system that will take energy from multiple remote sources and piping
them to all destinations. The storage and transport issues of hydrogen
are solved in one stroke by this innovation. Further, this company has
got the theoretical basis to design a new class of motors for space
travel, and very fast air travel. They depend upon a new design of a
kind of linear motor, upon which original research has been done.
Mathematical modelling involving queueing theory, and computer
simulation
for complex non linear situations such as call centre network
teletraffic
management, are also offered by this company. It is the only company in
the world which offers solutions involving the highest level of genius.
One guess who wrote that bilge.
The Director and single employee Arindam Banerjee aka Bertitaylor.
Also note that there is a real medical company with a similar name but
there is no other information about HTN Research Pty Ltd. since 2018.
Well, my guess of what HTN stands for was a bit off the mark!
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon
landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He
also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus show it
falling slowly.
There was the dropped hammer and feather experiment performed by
Apollo 15 astronaut David Scott.
Apollo 16 astronauts John Young and Charlie Duke were able to jump
around four feet. While they could theoretically jump much higher,
they jumped shorter distances due to the extra weight of their
spacesuits and the need to avoid falling off balance or damaging
their equipment.
Charlie Duke eventually fell and landed on his life support system
so they stopped doing that.
Apes were so naive then and are still so gullible now.
Delusional crackpots know nothing, including history.
In sci.physics Paul.B.Andersen <[email protected]> wrote:
Den 11.07.2025 05:20, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 20:21:55 +0000, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 04.07.2025 05:09, skrev Bertitaylor:
Rockets are for fireworks. Arindam's sparkling experiments will take >>>>> humanity to the stars.
The sparkling contraption Bertitaylor will use to travel to the stars: >>>>
https://paulba.no/temp/Arinfool.pdf
Impressive, isn't it? :-D
BTW, what is your job at HTN Research Pty Ltd., Melbourne, Australia?
Sweeping floors?
Are you paid to bullshit or are you just an asshole?
Did I hit a nerve? :-D
So I will rephrase: Do you know what Arindam's job is at
Hypertension Research Pty Ltd., Melbourne, Australia ?
Is he a medical doctor, or is he sweeping floors?
From https://au.indeed.com/cmp/Htn-Research-Pty-Ltd:
This company has the patent to use hydrogen technology for overcoming
the world's energy problems for all time, by proposing a lossless piping system that will take energy from multiple remote sources and piping
them to all destinations. The storage and transport issues of hydrogen
are solved in one stroke by this innovation. Further, this company has
got the theoretical basis to design a new class of motors for space
travel, and very fast air travel. They depend upon a new design of a
kind of linear motor, upon which original research has been done. Mathematical modelling involving queueing theory, and computer
simulation
for complex non linear situations such as call centre network
teletraffic
management, are also offered by this company. It is the only company in
the world which offers solutions involving the highest level of genius.
One guess who wrote that bilge.
Also note that there is a real medical company with a similar name but
there is no other information about HTN Research Pty Ltd. since 2018.
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 19:33:26 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Paul.B.Andersen <[email protected]> wrote:
Den 11.07.2025 05:20, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 20:21:55 +0000, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 04.07.2025 05:09, skrev Bertitaylor:
Rockets are for fireworks. Arindam's sparkling experiments will take >>>>>> humanity to the stars.
The sparkling contraption Bertitaylor will use to travel to the stars: >>>>>
https://paulba.no/temp/Arinfool.pdf
Impressive, isn't it? :-D
BTW, what is your job at HTN Research Pty Ltd., Melbourne, Australia? >>>>>
Sweeping floors?
Are you paid to bullshit or are you just an asshole?
Did I hit a nerve? :-D
Just asking. A question in reply is no answer.
So I will rephrase: Do you know what Arindam's job is at
Hypertension Research Pty Ltd., Melbourne, Australia ?
Is he a medical doctor, or is he sweeping floors?
Neither.
From https://au.indeed.com/cmp/Htn-Research-Pty-Ltd:
This company has the patent to use hydrogen technology for overcoming
the world's energy problems for all time, by proposing a lossless piping
system that will take energy from multiple remote sources and piping
them to all destinations. The storage and transport issues of hydrogen
are solved in one stroke by this innovation. Further, this company has
got the theoretical basis to design a new class of motors for space
travel, and very fast air travel. They depend upon a new design of a
kind of linear motor, upon which original research has been done.
Mathematical modelling involving queueing theory, and computer
simulation
for complex non linear situations such as call centre network
teletraffic
management, are also offered by this company. It is the only company in
the world which offers solutions involving the highest level of genius.
That is it. Robots are good at finding information. Not that they have
the faintest clue about genius.
One guess who wrote that bilge.
Try. Looks like a quote.
Also note that there is a real medical company with a similar name but
there is no other information about HTN Research Pty Ltd. since 2018.
Htnresearch.com gives details.
Arindam will make the HTN or Hydrogen Transmission Network happen,
sooner or later. Cheap hydrogen available everywhere to replace fossil
fuels. Heh, the elites love the idea :-))))
The world needs it.
Currently it is stalled for lack of funding. That lack is to be overcome
by more immediate inventions.
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 22:45:04 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon
landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He
also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus show it >>> falling slowly.
There was the dropped hammer and feather experiment performed by
Apollo 15 astronaut David Scott.
Apollo 16 astronauts John Young and Charlie Duke were able to jump
around four feet. While they could theoretically jump much higher,
they jumped shorter distances due to the extra weight of their
spacesuits and the need to avoid falling off balance or damaging
their equipment.
Charlie Duke eventually fell and landed on his life support system
so they stopped doing that.
Apes were so naive then and are still so gullible now.
Delusional crackpots know nothing, including history.
Chandrayan photos of Apollo 11 have shown no sign of the US flag on the
Moon. The fluttering flag installation as shown in the overkill Moon
photos was done on a breezy day on Earth.
Now see what your master the robot has to say about this, wannabe robot Penisnino.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
Natural Idiot JimP kowtows to Artificial Idiot Chatboyo.
Best strategy for entitled creatures with no brains.
AI is made for them - to soothe and to sack.
Woof woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
Still no rational arguement for anything, just the usual delusional
raving
Arindam.
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 3:52:35 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
Natural Idiot JimP kowtows to Artificial Idiot Chatboyo.
Best strategy for entitled creatures with no brains.
AI is made for them - to soothe and to sack.
Woof woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
Still no rational arguement for anything, just the usual delusional
raving
Arindam.
At least he has not run to his master Chat this time.
--
Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 3:52:35 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
Natural Idiot JimP kowtows to Artificial Idiot Chatboyo.
Best strategy for entitled creatures with no brains.
AI is made for them - to soothe and to sack.
Woof woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
Still no rational arguement for anything, just the usual delusional
raving
Arindam.
At least he has not run to his master Chat this time.
--
Interprete the changes to Arindam's postings over the years:
The most plausible interpretation is a gradual descent into
embitterment,
ideological rigidity, and emotional volatility, likely fueled by
long-term
rejection and social isolation. Whether this is due to personality
traits,
untreated mental illness, or the echo-chamber effect of online
discourse,
the trajectory is consistent with known patterns in fringe scientific communities:
Initial idealism → public indifference → hostility and persecution complex → radicalization and rhetorical aggression.
If he truly believes what he’s writing today, it reflects not only scientific misunderstanding but a potentially impaired or distressed psychological state.
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 1:20:21 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 3:52:35 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
Natural Idiot JimP kowtows to Artificial Idiot Chatboyo.
Best strategy for entitled creatures with no brains.
AI is made for them - to soothe and to sack.
Woof woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
Still no rational arguement for anything, just the usual delusional
raving
Arindam.
At least he has not run to his master Chat this time.
--
Interprete the changes to Arindam's postings over the years:
Idiotic rants below.
The most plausible interpretation is a gradual descent into
embitterment,
ideological rigidity, and emotional volatility, likely fueled by
long-term
rejection and social isolation. Whether this is due to personality
traits,
untreated mental illness, or the echo-chamber effect of online
discourse,
the trajectory is consistent with known patterns in fringe scientific
communities:
Ad hom is the only science for the penisninos. Anything to not repeat Arindam's rail gun experiments!
Initial idealism → public indifference → hostility and persecution >> complex → radicalization and rhetorical aggression.
Idealism continues. So rhetorical aggression against moral and
intellectual cowards corrupt to their cores.
If he truly believes what he’s writing today, it reflects not only
scientific misunderstanding but a potentially impaired or distressed
psychological state.
He revolutionises science and that the fully corrupt lying
establishments cannot stomach. Much as Newton and Galileo, his peers.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 1:20:21 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 3:52:35 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
Natural Idiot JimP kowtows to Artificial Idiot Chatboyo.
Best strategy for entitled creatures with no brains.
AI is made for them - to soothe and to sack.
Woof woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
Still no rational arguement for anything, just the usual delusional
raving
Arindam.
At least he has not run to his master Chat this time.
--
Interprete the changes to Arindam's postings over the years:
Idiotic rants below.
The most plausible interpretation is a gradual descent into
embitterment,
ideological rigidity, and emotional volatility, likely fueled by
long-term
rejection and social isolation. Whether this is due to personality
traits,
untreated mental illness, or the echo-chamber effect of online
discourse,
the trajectory is consistent with known patterns in fringe scientific
communities:
Ad hom is the only science for the penisninos. Anything to not repeat
Arindam's rail gun experiments!
As there is no detailed textual description of your low speed pipe
roller, it would be difficult for others to repeat Arindam.
Initial idealism → public indifference → hostility and persecution >>> complex → radicalization and rhetorical aggression.
Idealism continues. So rhetorical aggression against moral and
intellectual cowards corrupt to their cores.
Delusional.
If he truly believes what he’s writing today, it reflects not only
scientific misunderstanding but a potentially impaired or distressed
psychological state.
He revolutionises science and that the fully corrupt lying
establishments cannot stomach. Much as Newton and Galileo, his peers.
Neither of Newton or Galileo were delusional crackpots
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 19:33:26 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Paul.B.Andersen <[email protected]> wrote:
Den 11.07.2025 05:20, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 20:21:55 +0000, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 04.07.2025 05:09, skrev Bertitaylor:
Rockets are for fireworks. Arindam's sparkling experiments will take >>>>>>> humanity to the stars.
The sparkling contraption Bertitaylor will use to travel to the stars: >>>>>>
https://paulba.no/temp/Arinfool.pdf
Impressive, isn't it? :-D
BTW, what is your job at HTN Research Pty Ltd., Melbourne, Australia? >>>>>>
Sweeping floors?
Are you paid to bullshit or are you just an asshole?
Did I hit a nerve? :-D
Just asking. A question in reply is no answer.
So I will rephrase: Do you know what Arindam's job is at
Hypertension Research Pty Ltd., Melbourne, Australia ?
Is he a medical doctor, or is he sweeping floors?
Neither.
From https://au.indeed.com/cmp/Htn-Research-Pty-Ltd:
This company has the patent to use hydrogen technology for overcoming
the world's energy problems for all time, by proposing a lossless piping >>> system that will take energy from multiple remote sources and piping
them to all destinations. The storage and transport issues of hydrogen
are solved in one stroke by this innovation. Further, this company has
got the theoretical basis to design a new class of motors for space
travel, and very fast air travel. They depend upon a new design of a
kind of linear motor, upon which original research has been done.
Mathematical modelling involving queueing theory, and computer
simulation
for complex non linear situations such as call centre network
teletraffic
management, are also offered by this company. It is the only company in
the world which offers solutions involving the highest level of genius.
That is it. Robots are good at finding information. Not that they have
the faintest clue about genius.
One guess who wrote that bilge.
Try. Looks like a quote.
Also note that there is a real medical company with a similar name but
there is no other information about HTN Research Pty Ltd. since 2018.
Htnresearch.com gives details.
Arindam will make the HTN or Hydrogen Transmission Network happen,
sooner or later. Cheap hydrogen available everywhere to replace fossil
fuels. Heh, the elites love the idea :-))))
The world needs it.
Currently it is stalled for lack of funding. That lack is to be overcome
by more immediate inventions.
Mostly it is stalled for lack of sanity. That lack can only be overcome
with intensive therapy Arindam.
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 1:20:21 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 3:52:35 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
Natural Idiot JimP kowtows to Artificial Idiot Chatboyo.
Best strategy for entitled creatures with no brains.
AI is made for them - to soothe and to sack.
Woof woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
Still no rational arguement for anything, just the usual delusional
raving
Arindam.
At least he has not run to his master Chat this time.
--
Interprete the changes to Arindam's postings over the years:
Idiotic rants below.
The most plausible interpretation is a gradual descent into
embitterment,
ideological rigidity, and emotional volatility, likely fueled by
long-term
rejection and social isolation. Whether this is due to personality
traits,
untreated mental illness, or the echo-chamber effect of online
discourse,
the trajectory is consistent with known patterns in fringe scientific
communities:
Ad hom is the only science for the penisninos. Anything to not repeat
Arindam's rail gun experiments!
As there is no detailed textual description of your low speed pipe
roller, it would be difficult for others to repeat Arindam.
Initial idealism → public indifference → hostility and persecution >>> complex → radicalization and rhetorical aggression.
Idealism continues. So rhetorical aggression against moral and
intellectual cowards corrupt to their cores.
Delusional.
If he truly believes what he’s writing today, it reflects not only
scientific misunderstanding but a potentially impaired or distressed
psychological state.
He revolutionises science and that the fully corrupt lying
establishments cannot stomach. Much as Newton and Galileo, his peers.
Neither of Newton or Galileo were delusional crackpots, Arindam, and
both published their experiments in a form such that others could repeat them, totally unlike you.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 22:45:04 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon
landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He
also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus show it >>> falling slowly.
There was the dropped hammer and feather experiment performed by
Apollo 15 astronaut David Scott.
Apollo 16 astronauts John Young and Charlie Duke were able to jump
around four feet. While they could theoretically jump much higher,
they jumped shorter distances due to the extra weight of their
spacesuits and the need to avoid falling off balance or damaging
their equipment.
Am Sonntag000013, 13.07.2025 um 01:05 schrieb Bertitaylor:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 22:45:04 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon
landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He >>>> also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus
show it
falling slowly.
There was the dropped hammer and feather experiment performed by
Apollo 15 astronaut David Scott.
Apollo 16 astronauts John Young and Charlie Duke were able to jump
around four feet. While they could theoretically jump much higher,
they jumped shorter distances due to the extra weight of their
spacesuits and the need to avoid falling off balance or damaging
their equipment.
"Apollo 16 Full Mission (Day 6) - Moon Walk 1"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPEvizJS5VQ
There are a few anomalies in this video:
1) the tv-camera, which recorded this video, was actually taking
pictures in color.
It's not easy to see color. But e.g. there was a red ring around the
legs of the astronauts and that was actually red after transmission.
Also the ribbon towards that 'tech device' was red and was transmitted
in red.
But if they used a color camera, than why were other items not in color?
2) at the top of these 'back-backs' there is something blinking (occasionally). What was that?
3) the tv-camera pans, tilts and zooms and was placed on a tripod.
But how did they do this?
Am Sonntag000013, 13.07.2025 um 11:51 schrieb Thomas Heger:
Am Sonntag000013, 13.07.2025 um 01:05 schrieb Bertitaylor:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 22:45:04 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon >>>> landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He >>>> also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus
show it
falling slowly.
There was the dropped hammer and feather experiment performed by
Apollo 15 astronaut David Scott.
Apollo 16 astronauts John Young and Charlie Duke were able to jump
around four feet. While they could theoretically jump much higher,
they jumped shorter distances due to the extra weight of their
spacesuits and the need to avoid falling off balance or damaging
their equipment.
"Apollo 16 Full Mission (Day 6) - Moon Walk 1"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPEvizJS5VQ
There are a few anomalies in this video:
1) the tv-camera, which recorded this video, was actually taking
pictures in color.
It's not easy to see color. But e.g. there was a red ring around the
legs of the astronauts and that was actually red after transmission.
Also the ribbon towards that 'tech device' was red and was transmitted
in red.
Also the golden foil around the lander shines reddish.
This can be seen at 3:27, for instance.
This is rather strange, because if a color camera was actually used,
than it would be rather logic, to turn the others color channels (green
and blue) up, too.
But the pictures look like composed from a luminosity channel and a red channel, while green and blue were missing.
Btw:
a little earlier (at 3:09) there is a drawing of the 'Moon rover'.
This diagram shows, that the rover had no hinges in its frame, what
would make the vehicle difficult to stow into the lander.
But if they used a color camera, than why were other items not in color?
Usually you would be proud about nice pictures from such remote places
like the Moon and would not cripple them intentionally.
2) at the top of these 'back-backs' there is something blinking (occasionally). What was that?
3) the tv-camera pans, tilts and zooms and was placed on a tripod.
But how did they do this?
Tilt, pan and zoom require little motors and those a remote control.
Since the astronauts could not do that themselves (e.g. because they
were actually filmed, had other things to do and wore clumsy
spacesuits), the question remains, who else controlled the camera
movements and how.
TH
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 22:23:07 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon
landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He
also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus show it
falling slowly.
Apes were so naive then and are still so gullible now.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
Facebook shows an Indian photo of the Apollo 11 and 12 Landers on the
Moon. Pretty clear, especially the shadows.
On 12/07/2025 07:26, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 22:23:07 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon
landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He
also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus show it >>> falling slowly.
Apes were so naive then and are still so gullible now.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
Facebook shows an Indian photo of the Apollo 11 and 12 Landers on the
Moon. Pretty clear, especially the shadows.
Eh? Doesn't the fact that it was an Indian photo tell you that you were looking at a photoshopped image, you ridiculous eejit? Where were the
Indians when the photo was taken? The local tandoori take-away?
On 6/22/25 19:34, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 22:01:52 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/14/25 01:45, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 10:42:45 +0000, Stefan Ram wrote:
David Canzi <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
Did Einstein make relativity famous, or did relativity make
Einstein famous?
Einstein really hit the big time after that 1919 solar eclipse,
Biggest science hoax ever that, using the refraction of the starlight
from the Sun's atmosphere to "prove" the extraordinary bullshit of
General Relativity.
Has anybody calculated how much refraction by the Sun's atmosphere
would bend a ray of star light, and was the result of that calculation
close to the observed bending?
They totally neglected the impact of lensing from the Sun's outer
atmosphere which obviously had a refractive index greater than unity.
When you neglect that fact you can come to absurdly wrong conclusions
like GR getting validated.
Einstein didn't just predict that the light ray would be bent, he
predicted *how* *much* it would be bent. If you can't calculate
how much refraction by the solar atmosphere would bend the light
ray, and you can't find anybody who has done this calculation,
then you have nothing. You have no grounds on which to conclude
that this refraction is large enough to invalidate GR.
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 11:08:46 +0000, occam wrote:
On 12/07/2025 07:26, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 22:23:07 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon
landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He >>>> also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus show it >>>> falling slowly.
Apes were so naive then and are still so gullible now.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
Facebook shows an Indian photo of the Apollo 11 and 12 Landers on the
Moon. Pretty clear, especially the shadows.
Eh? Doesn't the fact that it was an Indian photo tell you that you were
looking at a photoshopped image, you ridiculous eejit? Where were the
Indians when the photo was taken? The local tandoori take-away?
Taken by Moon mission Chandrayan recently and posted on Facebook where
no dissenting sounds were heard. The absence of the non fluttering flag
was noted. It reminded Arindam of lines he wrote to one Mike Morris in misc.writing? many moons ago:
Turn, Morris, turn the Hubble, the Hubble Deep Space telescope
Upon the flag, the flag - not fluttering - on the Apollo lunarscope.
Using the heroic style employed by Macaulay.
Woof woof
--
Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 22:52:34 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 16:45:44 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/7/25 18:23, Bertitaylor wrote:
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon >>>>>> landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He >>>>>> also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus show it >>>>>> falling slowly.
When they jump, once their feet leave the surface, their acceleration is >>>>> determined by the gravity of whatever they jumped up from. If you
measure how high they jumped and how long it took to get to that height, >>>>> you can calculate their acceleration due to gravity and compare it with >>>>> the acceleration due to gravity at Earth's surface.
As they were on Earth they merely shuffled leaving deep prints.
Actually they all hopped around because it was good exercise and easier
to do than to walk in the bulky suits in low gravity, crackpot.
Hopping was shown as that could be done with cranes pulling them up or
down as per direction.
Insane nonsense.
Why did they not throw a moon rock UP and show how slowly it went up and
came down?
It wasn't on their schedule, they weren't teenagers on a joy ride to
make an internet video, and how fast a thrown object goes up has little
to nothing to do with gravity and almost everything to do with the
thrower.
You are getting more insane by the day.
<snip insane nonsense>
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 2:53:39 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 22:52:34 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 16:45:44 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/7/25 18:23, Bertitaylor wrote:
Arindam remembers his father wondering after watching the Apollo moon >>>>>>> landing video in 1969, why they did not jump up at least three feet. He >>>>>>> also thought they could at least have thrown a stone up and thus show it
falling slowly.
When they jump, once their feet leave the surface, their acceleration is >>>>>> determined by the gravity of whatever they jumped up from. If you >>>>>> measure how high they jumped and how long it took to get to that height, >>>>>> you can calculate their acceleration due to gravity and compare it with >>>>>> the acceleration due to gravity at Earth's surface.
As they were on Earth they merely shuffled leaving deep prints.
Actually they all hopped around because it was good exercise and easier >>>> to do than to walk in the bulky suits in low gravity, crackpot.
Hopping was shown as that could be done with cranes pulling them up or
down as per direction.
Insane nonsense.
Not at all. Best they could do when simulating on Earth. They got better
at that in the later Apollo missions.
Why did they not throw a moon rock UP and show how slowly it went up and >>> came down?
It wasn't on their schedule, they weren't teenagers on a joy ride to
make an internet video, and how fast a thrown object goes up has little
to nothing to do with gravity and almost everything to do with the
thrower.
An object thrown on the Moon would go up high and fast and come down
slowly as compared to the same action done on Earth.
That is possible on Earth with camera work and software these days. Not
in 1969.
Anyway the Indian lunar probe found no flag near Apollo 11 lunar module.
That settles it. Men have never walked on the Moon.
That will happen with Arindam's internal force engines.
WOOF woof woof-woof woof woof
Bertietaylor
NASA lies do not explain why the Indian probe Chandrayan did not find
the US flag nor any sign of footprints near the Apollo 11 lander. That
thing was dropped there by remote control and likely used for the laser return apparatus for distance estimations.
So while they may have gone around the Moon they never walked on the
Moon.
They could easily use the Hubble or Webb to show the flag and
footprints.
Why don't they? If they can find planets around stars surely they can
show the footprints and flag on the Moon - of course, with an impartial
and incorrupt audience.
Woof woof-woof woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
--
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 17:24:34 +0000, David Canzi wrote:
On 6/22/25 19:34, Bertitaylor wrote:
They totally neglected the impact of lensing from the Sun's outer
atmosphere which obviously had a refractive index greater than unity.
When you neglect that fact you can come to absurdly wrong conclusions
like GR getting validated.
Einstein didn't just predict that the light ray would be bent, he
predicted *how* *much* it would be bent. If you can't calculate
how much refraction by the solar atmosphere would bend the light
ray, and you can't find anybody who has done this calculation,
then you have nothing. You have no grounds on which to conclude
that this refraction is large enough to invalidate GR.
It should be pretty simple to reverse calculate knowing the angle of
lensing found by observation. Consider the extent of the Sun's corona radially away from the surface. Should be several thousands of
kilometres pointing to and perpendicular to Earth. Then find out how
much the refractive index would do that and then see how plausible that should be.
Yes, they totally neglected the fact that light must bend due to the
greater than unity refractive index of the Sun's corona.
Most successful hoax in human history, absolutely terrific palmjob.
Woof woof woof-woof woof apes know how to profit from lies.
Bertietaylor
--
On 10/06/2025 01:48, Peter Moylan wrote:
But back to the person you are replying to. I have sometimes suspected
that he is only pretending to be a crackpot, and is laughing at all of
us for taking the bait.
That's a generous view to take of Arindam, and it gives him an escape
clause in future should he decide to come clean.
In reality Arindam (& his dog) are broken beyond repair. He is a waste
of time and space. Crackpot theories in physics are one thing,
sycophantic admirer of Trump is an altogether another level of broken.
"A space-time waster" is an apt Einsteinian epiteth he deserves on his gravestone.
David Canzi <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/14/25 01:45, Bertitaylor wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 10:42:45 +0000, Stefan Ram wrote:
David Canzi <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
Did Einstein make relativity famous, or did relativity make
Einstein famous?
Einstein really hit the big time after that 1919 solar eclipse,
Biggest science hoax ever that, using the refraction of the starlight
from the Sun's atmosphere to "prove" the extraordinary bullshit of
General Relativity.
Has anybody calculated how much refraction by the Sun's atmosphere
would bend a ray of star light, and was the result of that calculation
close to the observed bending?
Yes, of course. Eddington and friends already did that.
The answer is that there is no way of explaining the bending of
starlight by refraction in the Sun's atmosphere.
The density is far too low for that.
Apart from that, the matter is of historical interest only.
At todays accuracies bending of starlight is easily observed
all over the sky. (except for diametrically opposite of course)
So for example at 90 degrees away from the Sun,
for starlight that has never been closer to the Sun than the Earth.
Not unusual in science: what starts out as the highest science of the
utmost technical difficulty ends up a hundred years later
as a routinely applied engineering correction,
(with the Hipparcos and GAIA astrometric satellites for example)
Stellar positions are nowadays measured to -micro- arcseconds,
with parallaxes out to 10 000 light years.
Jan
[1] Do have a look at the original 1919 photographs.
The observed stars are well outside the corona.
Arindam is the greatest genius of all time and sole god among lotsaBertie is apparently following the advice "If you can't be a good
devils. [...]
Arindam will be cremated and thus will his physical matter merge back
into aether. No gravestone required. His physics will open up the
universe.
Woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
Woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Le 16/07/2025 à 02:49, Bertitaylor a écrit :
Bertie is apparently following the advice "If you can't be a good
Arindam is the greatest genius of all time and sole god among lotsa
devils. [...]
Arindam will be cremated and thus will his physical matter merge back
into aether. No gravestone required. His physics will open up the
universe.
Woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
Woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
example, try to be a horrible warning."
Am Sonntag000013, 13.07.2025 um 11:51 schrieb Thomas Heger:
It's not easy to see color. But e.g. there was a red ring around the
legs of the astronauts and that was actually red after transmission.
Also the ribbon towards that 'tech device' was red and was transmitted
in red.
Also the golden foil around the lander shines reddish.
This can be seen at 3:27, for instance.
This is rather strange, because if a color camera was actually used,
than it would be rather logic, to turn the others color channels (green
and blue) up, too.
But the pictures look like composed from a luminosity channel and a red channel, while green and blue were missing.
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 8:44:28 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
David Canzi <[email protected]> wrote:
Has anybody calculated how much refraction by the Sun's atmosphere
would bend a ray of star light, and was the result of that calculation
close to the observed bending?
Yes, of course. Eddington and friends already did that.
The answer is that there is no way of explaining the bending of
starlight by refraction in the Sun's atmosphere.
The density is far too low for that.
No, the density near the surface must be much higher than air on Earth's surface. Solar flares exist. They scatter mass all around. The
atmosphere around the Sun must stretch for hundreds of not thousands of kilometres. Then there is the size of the Sun overall a very huge
optical lens.
Found this in the internet:
|Could the displacement of star images near the sun be caused
|by refraction in the atmosphere of the Sun, not by general
|relativity?
|
|No. Long wavelength electromagnetic radio waves are, in fact,
|refracted by the plasma in the solar photosphere, chromosphere
|and corona, but this effect can be accounted for, leaving a |frequency-independent bending of the amount predicted by
|general relativity.
|
|In 1974-75 a series of radio observations were made of the
|occultation by the sun of the quasars 3C273 and 3C279 by
|astronomers Fomalont and Sramek. The measurements were made at
|2.7 and 8.1 gigacycles. Because refraction from the solar
|corona varies with the square of the observing frequency as
|n^2 - 1, where n is the plasma index of refraction, it is
|possible from a 2-frequency observation to eliminate most of
|the effects caused by refraction in the solar atmosphere.
|General relativity predicts that the 'lensing' of light by a
|gravitational field does NOT depend on the frequency of the
|light, unlike lensing of light by optical means.
|
quoted from the internet.
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
According to GR the gravitational deflection of
EM-radiation by the Sun is:
θ = (2GM/(AU⋅c²))⋅((1+cosφ)/sinφ)
where:
θ is the deflection of the star as observed from the Earth
G is the gravitational constant
M is the mass of the Sun
AU an astronomical unit (distance Sun-Earth)
c is the speed of light in vacuum
φ is the angle star-Sun as observed from the Earth
When φ = 90⁰ the predicted deflection is θ = 0.000407".
The closest approach to the Sun of the ray from
the star to the Earth is then 149,597,871 km.
The radius of the corona is ~ 8,000,000 km so the the ray
that hit the Earth is _far_ from the corona.
GR's prediction for φ = 90⁰ is confirmed by several experiments:
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
Measurements for φ from 1⁰ to 179⁰. (FIG. 1)
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
Measurement for φ from 45⁰ to 135⁰. (Figure 2.)
https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf
Yes, they totally neglected the fact that light must bend due to the
greater than unity refractive index of the Sun's corona.
Most successful hoax in human history, absolutely terrific palmjob.
Wimp wimp wimp-wimp wimp.
Bertietaylor
--
The vast majority of the measured gravitational deflections
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=122222366660155666&set=a.122141150270155666&comment_id=1284100823227094¬if_id=1752522829024202¬if_t=feedback_reaction_generic&ref=notif
"Turn, Morris, turn the Hubble, the Hubble Deep Space Telescope
Upon the flag, the flag not fluttering, on the Apollo lunarscope." -
Arindam
Woof-woof, can anyone see flag or footprints near the lunar lander?
Bertietaylor
--
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=122222366660155666&set=a.122141150270155666&comment_id=1284100823227094¬if_id=1752522829024202¬if_t=feedback_reaction_generic&ref=notif
"Turn, Morris, turn the Hubble, the Hubble Deep Space Telescope
Upon the flag, the flag not fluttering, on the Apollo lunarscope." -
Arindam
Woof-woof, can anyone see flag or footprints near the lunar lander?
Bertietaylor
--
Hubble and Webb can find so called black holes and planets light years
away but cannot show a footprint on the Moon!
Joke.
Woof woof woof-woof what scoundrels these apes be!
--
Hubble and Webb can find so called black holes and planets light years
away but cannot show a footprint on the Moon!
Joke.
On 14/07/2025 4:18 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Sonntag000013, 13.07.2025 um 11:51 schrieb Thomas Heger:
It's not easy to see color. But e.g. there was a red ring around the
legs of the astronauts and that was actually red after transmission.
Also the ribbon towards that 'tech device' was red and was
transmitted in red.
Also the golden foil around the lander shines reddish.
This can be seen at 3:27, for instance.
This is rather strange, because if a color camera was actually used,
than it would be rather logic, to turn the others color channels
(green and blue) up, too.
But the pictures look like composed from a luminosity channel and a
red channel, while green and blue were missing.
Over such a long distance, bandwidth is a problem. You can deal with
this by deliberately cutting out some of the information, e.g. some of
the colour information. Alternatively, you can try to transmit a full-
colour picture, and let the gods of information theory degrade your signal.
Den 16.07.2025 07:06, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 8:44:28 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
David Canzi <[email protected]> wrote:
Has anybody calculated how much refraction by the Sun's atmosphere
would bend a ray of star light, and was the result of that calculation >>> close to the observed bending?
Yes, of course. Eddington and friends already did that.
The answer is that there is no way of explaining the bending of
starlight by refraction in the Sun's atmosphere.
The density is far too low for that.
No, the density near the surface must be much higher than air on Earth's surface. Solar flares exist. They scatter mass all around. The
atmosphere around the Sun must stretch for hundreds of not thousands of kilometres. Then there is the size of the Sun overall a very huge
optical lens.
The radius of the solar corona is 8 million km.
That is 7.3 million km outside of the Sun,
much more than your "if not thousands of kilometres".
But when the angle star-Sun is ? > 3.2? the ray from
the star that hits the Earth is never inside of the corona.
The vast majority of the measured gravitational deflections
are made at higher angles than that.
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
Measurements for ? from 1? to 179?. (FIG. 1)
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
Measurement for ? from 45? to 135?. (Figure 2.)
The solar eclipse measurements where the ray goes through
the corona are of historic interest only.
David Canzi <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
On 6/14/25 13:24, Stefan Ram wrote:
David Canzi <[email protected]> writes: Religion is notIs wisdom knowledge?
knowledgeKnowledge is not wisdom.
Wisdom is the ability to use knowledge, experience, understanding,
common sense, and insight to make good judgments and decisions.
Wisdom is not truth.If wisdom is not truth, what is the value in
having it?
Even if wisdom is not truth itself, it is deeply valuable
because wisdom helps apply truths. Truths are often abstract
or difficult to use. Wisdom helps us apply truths in practical,
ethical, or meaningful ways.
Paul.B.Andersen <[email protected]> wrote:
Den 16.07.2025 07:06, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 8:44:28 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
David Canzi <[email protected]> wrote:
Has anybody calculated how much refraction by the Sun's atmosphere
would bend a ray of star light, and was the result of that calculation >>>>> close to the observed bending?
Yes, of course. Eddington and friends already did that.
The answer is that there is no way of explaining the bending of
starlight by refraction in the Sun's atmosphere.
The density is far too low for that.
No, the density near the surface must be much higher than air on Earth's >>> surface. Solar flares exist. They scatter mass all around. The
atmosphere around the Sun must stretch for hundreds of not thousands of
kilometres. Then there is the size of the Sun overall a very huge
optical lens.
The radius of the solar corona is 8 million km.
That is 7.3 million km outside of the Sun,
much more than your "if not thousands of kilometres".
But when the angle star-Sun is ? > 3.2? the ray from
the star that hits the Earth is never inside of the corona.
The vast majority of the measured gravitational deflections
are made at higher angles than that.
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
Measurements for ? from 1? to 179?. (FIG. 1)
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
Measurement for ? from 45? to 135?. (Figure 2.)
The solar eclipse measurements where the ray goes through
the corona are of historic interest only.
And for the kiddies: The corona is a plasma.
The index of refraction of a plasma is well understood.
It has a noticeable index of refraction at radio wavelengths.
(but the deflection of radio waves can be measured accurately
far away from the sun.
Le 18/07/2025 à 06:22, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
On 7/17/2025 9:43 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Paul.B.Andersen <[email protected]> wrote:
Den 16.07.2025 07:06, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 8:44:28 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
David Canzi <[email protected]> wrote:
Has anybody calculated how much refraction by the Sun's atmosphere >>>>>>> would bend a ray of star light, and was the result of that
calculation
close to the observed bending?
Yes, of course. Eddington and friends already did that.
The answer is that there is no way of explaining the bending of
starlight by refraction in the Sun's atmosphere.
The density is far too low for that.
No, the density near the surface must be much higher than air on
Earth's
surface. Solar flares exist. They scatter mass all around. The
atmosphere around the Sun must stretch for hundreds of not
thousands of
kilometres. Then there is the size of the Sun overall a very huge
optical lens.
The radius of the solar corona is 8 million km.
That is 7.3 million km outside of the Sun,
much more than your "if not thousands of kilometres".
But when the angle star-Sun is ? > 3.2? the ray from
the star that hits the Earth is never inside of the corona.
The vast majority of the measured gravitational deflections
are made at higher angles than that.
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
Measurements for ? from 1? to 179?. (FIG. 1)
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
Measurement for ? from 45? to 135?. (Figure 2.)
The solar eclipse measurements where the ray goes through
the corona are of historic interest only.
And for the kiddies: The corona is a plasma.
The index of refraction of a plasma is well understood.
It has a noticeable index of refraction at radio wavelengths.
(but the deflection of radio waves can be measured accurately
far away from the sun.
And for the kiddies too: The Shit of Einstein
has predicted no deflection, according to
the idiot light [in vacuum] takes always
straight/geodesic paths.
Are you repeating this fallacy because you are incompetent or because
you are dishonest Maciej? Given that you are both the answer to my
question is not obvious.
On 7/17/2025 9:43 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Paul.B.Andersen <[email protected]> wrote:
Den 16.07.2025 07:06, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 8:44:28 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
David Canzi <[email protected]> wrote:
Has anybody calculated how much refraction by the Sun's atmosphere >>>>>> would bend a ray of star light, and was the result of that calculation >>>>>> close to the observed bending?
Yes, of course. Eddington and friends already did that.
The answer is that there is no way of explaining the bending of
starlight by refraction in the Sun's atmosphere.
The density is far too low for that.
No, the density near the surface must be much higher than air on Earth's >>>> surface. Solar flares exist. They scatter mass all around. The
atmosphere around the Sun must stretch for hundreds of not thousands of >>>> kilometres. Then there is the size of the Sun overall a very huge
optical lens.
The radius of the solar corona is 8 million km.
That is 7.3 million km outside of the Sun,
much more than your "if not thousands of kilometres".
But when the angle star-Sun is ? > 3.2? the ray from
the star that hits the Earth is never inside of the corona.
The vast majority of the measured gravitational deflections
are made at higher angles than that.
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
Measurements for ? from 1? to 179?. (FIG. 1)
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
Measurement for ? from 45? to 135?. (Figure 2.)
The solar eclipse measurements where the ray goes through
the corona are of historic interest only.
And for the kiddies: The corona is a plasma.
The index of refraction of a plasma is well understood.
It has a noticeable index of refraction at radio wavelengths.
(but the deflection of radio waves can be measured accurately
far away from the sun.
And for the kiddies too: The Shit of Einstein
has predicted no deflection, according to
the idiot light [in vacuum] takes always
straight/geodesic paths.
On 7/18/2025 3:32 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/07/2025 à 06:22, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
On 7/17/2025 9:43 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Paul.B.Andersen <[email protected]> wrote:
Den 16.07.2025 07:06, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 8:44:28 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
David Canzi <[email protected]> wrote:
Has anybody calculated how much refraction by the Sun's atmosphere >>>>>>>> would bend a ray of star light, and was the result of that
calculation
close to the observed bending?
Yes, of course. Eddington and friends already did that.
The answer is that there is no way of explaining the bending of
starlight by refraction in the Sun's atmosphere.
The density is far too low for that.
No, the density near the surface must be much higher than air on
Earth's
surface. Solar flares exist. They scatter mass all around. The
atmosphere around the Sun must stretch for hundreds of not
thousands of
kilometres. Then there is the size of the Sun overall a very huge
optical lens.
The radius of the solar corona is 8 million km.
That is 7.3 million km outside of the Sun,
much more than your "if not thousands of kilometres".
But when the angle star-Sun is ? > 3.2? the ray from
the star that hits the Earth is never inside of the corona.
The vast majority of the measured gravitational deflections
are made at higher angles than that.
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
Measurements for ? from 1? to 179?. (FIG. 1)
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
Measurement for ? from 45? to 135?. (Figure 2.)
The solar eclipse measurements where the ray goes through
the corona are of historic interest only.
And for the kiddies: The corona is a plasma.
The index of refraction of a plasma is well understood.
It has a noticeable index of refraction at radio wavelengths.
(but the deflection of radio waves can be measured accurately
far away from the sun.
And for the kiddies too: The Shit of Einstein
has predicted no deflection, according to
the idiot light [in vacuum] takes always
straight/geodesic paths.
Are you repeating this fallacy because you are incompetent or because
you are dishonest Maciej? Given that you are both the answer to my
question is not obvious.
It's not a fallacy
Le 18/07/2025 à 15:35, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
On 7/18/2025 3:32 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/07/2025 à 06:22, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
On 7/17/2025 9:43 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Paul.B.Andersen <[email protected]> wrote:
Den 16.07.2025 07:06, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 8:44:28 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
David Canzi <[email protected]> wrote:
Has anybody calculated how much refraction by the Sun's atmosphere >>>>>>>>> would bend a ray of star light, and was the result of that
calculation
close to the observed bending?
Yes, of course. Eddington and friends already did that.
The answer is that there is no way of explaining the bending of >>>>>>>> starlight by refraction in the Sun's atmosphere.
The density is far too low for that.
No, the density near the surface must be much higher than air on >>>>>>> Earth's
surface. Solar flares exist. They scatter mass all around. The
atmosphere around the Sun must stretch for hundreds of not
thousands of
kilometres. Then there is the size of the Sun overall a very huge >>>>>>> optical lens.
The radius of the solar corona is 8 million km.
That is 7.3 million km outside of the Sun,
much more than your "if not thousands of kilometres".
But when the angle star-Sun is ? > 3.2? the ray from
the star that hits the Earth is never inside of the corona.
The vast majority of the measured gravitational deflections
are made at higher angles than that.
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
Measurements for ? from 1? to 179?. (FIG. 1)
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
Measurement for ? from 45? to 135?. (Figure 2.)
The solar eclipse measurements where the ray goes through
the corona are of historic interest only.
And for the kiddies: The corona is a plasma.
The index of refraction of a plasma is well understood.
It has a noticeable index of refraction at radio wavelengths.
(but the deflection of radio waves can be measured accurately
far away from the sun.
And for the kiddies too: The Shit of Einstein
has predicted no deflection, according to
the idiot light [in vacuum] takes always
straight/geodesic paths.
Are you repeating this fallacy because you are incompetent or because
you are dishonest Maciej? Given that you are both the answer to my
question is not obvious.
It's not a fallacy
It is.
On 7/18/2025 3:40 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/07/2025 à 15:35, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
On 7/18/2025 3:32 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/07/2025 à 06:22, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
On 7/17/2025 9:43 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Paul.B.Andersen <[email protected]> wrote:
Den 16.07.2025 07:06, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 8:44:28 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
David Canzi <[email protected]> wrote:
Has anybody calculated how much refraction by the Sun's atmosphere >>>>>>>>>> would bend a ray of star light, and was the result of that >>>>>>>>>> calculation
close to the observed bending?
Yes, of course. Eddington and friends already did that.
The answer is that there is no way of explaining the bending of >>>>>>>>> starlight by refraction in the Sun's atmosphere.
The density is far too low for that.
No, the density near the surface must be much higher than air on >>>>>>>> Earth's
surface. Solar flares exist. They scatter mass all around. The >>>>>>>> atmosphere around the Sun must stretch for hundreds of not
thousands of
kilometres. Then there is the size of the Sun overall a very huge >>>>>>>> optical lens.
The radius of the solar corona is 8 million km.
That is 7.3 million km outside of the Sun,
much more than your "if not thousands of kilometres".
But when the angle star-Sun is ? > 3.2? the ray from
the star that hits the Earth is never inside of the corona.
The vast majority of the measured gravitational deflections
are made at higher angles than that.
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
Measurements for ? from 1? to 179?. (FIG. 1)
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
Measurement for ? from 45? to 135?. (Figure 2.)
The solar eclipse measurements where the ray goes through
the corona are of historic interest only.
And for the kiddies: The corona is a plasma.
The index of refraction of a plasma is well understood.
It has a noticeable index of refraction at radio wavelengths.
(but the deflection of radio waves can be measured accurately
far away from the sun.
And for the kiddies too: The Shit of Einstein
has predicted no deflection, according to
the idiot light [in vacuum] takes always
straight/geodesic paths.
Are you repeating this fallacy because you are incompetent or because
you are dishonest Maciej? Given that you are both the answer to my
question is not obvious.
It's not a fallacy
It is.
No it is not
Le 18/07/2025 à 15:43, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :atmosphere
On 7/18/2025 3:40 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/07/2025 à 15:35, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
On 7/18/2025 3:32 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/07/2025 à 06:22, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
On 7/17/2025 9:43 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Paul.B.Andersen <[email protected]> wrote:
Den 16.07.2025 07:06, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 8:44:28 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
David Canzi <[email protected]> wrote:
Has anybody calculated how much refraction by the Sun's
on Earth'swould bend a ray of star light, and was the result of that calculation
close to the observed bending?
Yes, of course. Eddington and friends already did that.
The answer is that there is no way of explaining the bending of
starlight by refraction in the Sun's atmosphere.
The density is far too low for that.
No, the density near the surface must be much higher than air
thousands ofsurface. Solar flares exist. They scatter mass all around. The
atmosphere around the Sun must stretch for hundreds of not
because you are dishonest Maciej? Given that you are both the answer tokilometres. Then there is the size of the Sun overall a very huge
optical lens.
The radius of the solar corona is 8 million km.
That is 7.3 million km outside of the Sun,
much more than your "if not thousands of kilometres".
But when the angle star-Sun is ? > 3.2? the ray from
the star that hits the Earth is never inside of the corona.
The vast majority of the measured gravitational deflections
are made at higher angles than that.
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
Measurements for ? from 1? to 179?. (FIG. 1)
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
Measurement for ? from 45? to 135?. (Figure 2.)
The solar eclipse measurements where the ray goes through
the corona are of historic interest only.
And for the kiddies: The corona is a plasma.
The index of refraction of a plasma is well understood.
It has a noticeable index of refraction at radio wavelengths.
(but the deflection of radio waves can be measured accurately
far away from the sun.
And for the kiddies too: The Shit of Einstein
has predicted no deflection, according to
the idiot light [in vacuum] takes always
straight/geodesic paths.
Are you repeating this fallacy because you are incompetent or
It's not a fallacy
It is.
No it is not
It is. http://pico.oabo.inaf.it/~massimo/teaching/2017/notes/lecture1.pdf
On 7/18/2025 3:46 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/07/2025 à 15:43, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :on Earth's
On 7/18/2025 3:40 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/07/2025 à 15:35, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
On 7/18/2025 3:32 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/07/2025 à 06:22, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
On 7/17/2025 9:43 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Paul.B.Andersen <[email protected]> wrote:
Den 16.07.2025 07:06, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 8:44:28 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
David Canzi <[email protected]> wrote:
Has anybody calculated how much refraction by the Sun's atmosphere
would bend a ray of star light, and was the result of that calculation
close to the observed bending?
Yes, of course. Eddington and friends already did that.
The answer is that there is no way of explaining the bending of
starlight by refraction in the Sun's atmosphere.
The density is far too low for that.
No, the density near the surface must be much higher than air
because you are dishonest Maciej? Given that you are both the answer tosurface. Solar flares exist. They scatter mass all around. The
atmosphere around the Sun must stretch for hundreds of not thousands of
kilometres. Then there is the size of the Sun overall a very huge
optical lens.
The radius of the solar corona is 8 million km.
That is 7.3 million km outside of the Sun,
much more than your "if not thousands of kilometres".
But when the angle star-Sun is ? > 3.2? the ray from
the star that hits the Earth is never inside of the corona.
The vast majority of the measured gravitational deflections
are made at higher angles than that.
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
Measurements for ? from 1? to 179?. (FIG. 1)
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
Measurement for ? from 45? to 135?. (Figure 2.)
The solar eclipse measurements where the ray goes through
the corona are of historic interest only.
And for the kiddies: The corona is a plasma.
The index of refraction of a plasma is well understood.
It has a noticeable index of refraction at radio wavelengths.
(but the deflection of radio waves can be measured accurately
far away from the sun.
And for the kiddies too: The Shit of Einstein
has predicted no deflection, according to
the idiot light [in vacuum] takes always
straight/geodesic paths.
Are you repeating this fallacy because you are incompetent or
my question is not obvious.
It's not a fallacy
It is.
No it is not
It is. http://pico.oabo.inaf.it/~massimo/teaching/2017/notes/lecture1.pdf
Another incompetent idiot may easily
support your ignorant opinion; the
facts remain, and they are: according to
your idiot guru light/radio waves in
vacuum take always straight/geodesic
paths. No deflection predicted.
I've asked you some times already:
how does your moronic Shit recognize
a straight/geodesic line of space
(not of spacetime) - and you've
never answerred. Of course, poor
trash.
Le 18/07/2025 à 16:11, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
On 7/18/2025 3:46 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/07/2025 à 15:43, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :atmosphere
On 7/18/2025 3:40 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/07/2025 à 15:35, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
On 7/18/2025 3:32 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/07/2025 à 06:22, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
On 7/17/2025 9:43 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Paul.B.Andersen <[email protected]> wrote:
;
Den 16.07.2025 07:06, skrev Bertitaylor:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 8:44:28 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
;
David Canzi <[email protected]> wrote:
;
;
Has anybody calculated how much refraction by the Sun's
that calculationwould bend a ray of star light, and was the result of
bending of;close to the observed bending?
;
Yes, of course. Eddington and friends already did that.
The answer is that there is no way of explaining the
air on Earth's;starlight by refraction in the Sun's atmosphere.
The density is far too low for that.
;
No, the density near the surface must be much higher than
thousands ofsurface. Solar flares exist. They scatter mass all around. The >> >>>>>>>>> atmosphere around the Sun must stretch for hundreds of not
very hugekilometres. Then there is the size of the Sun overall a
because you are dishonest Maciej? Given that you are both the answer;;;optical lens.;
The radius of the solar corona is 8 million km.
That is 7.3 million km outside of the Sun,
much more than your "if not thousands of kilometres".
;
But when the angle star-Sun is ? > 3.2? the ray from
the star that hits the Earth is never inside of the corona.
;
The vast majority of the measured gravitational deflections
are made at higher angles than that.
;
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
Measurements for ? from 1? to 179?. (FIG. 1)
;
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
Measurement for ? from 45? to 135?. (Figure 2.)
;
The solar eclipse measurements where the ray goes through
the corona are of historic interest only.
And for the kiddies: The corona is a plasma.
The index of refraction of a plasma is well understood.
;
It has a noticeable index of refraction at radio wavelengths.
(but the deflection of radio waves can be measured accurately
far away from the sun.
And for the kiddies too: The Shit of Einstein
has predicted no deflection, according to
the idiot light [in vacuum] takes always
straight/geodesic paths.
Are you repeating this fallacy because you are incompetent or
to my question is not obvious.
lecture1.pdf;;;;
It's not a fallacy
It is.
;
No it is not
It is. http://pico.oabo.inaf.it/~massimo/teaching/2017/notes/
Another incompetent idiot may easily
support your ignorant opinion; the
facts remain, and they are: according to
your idiot guru light/radio waves in
vacuum take always straight/geodesic
paths. No deflection predicted.
I've asked you some times already:
how does your moronic Shit recognize
a straight/geodesic line of space
(not of spacetime) - and you've
never answerred. Of course, poor
trash.
I got my answer : both incompetence and dishonesty. Thanks Maciej!
David Canzi <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
On 6/14/25 13:24, Stefan Ram wrote:
David Canzi <[email protected]> writes: Religion is notIs wisdom knowledge?
knowledgeKnowledge is not wisdom.
Wisdom is the ability to use knowledge, experience, understanding,
common sense, and insight to make good judgments and decisions.
Wisdom is not truth.If wisdom is not truth, what is the value in
having it?
Even if wisdom is not truth itself, it is deeply valuable
because wisdom helps apply truths. Truths are often abstract
or difficult to use. Wisdom helps us apply truths in practical,
ethical, or meaningful ways.
As lies to make money as do physicists, professors, politicians,
plutocrats, pimps, presstitutes and prostitutes. [...]
Le 19/07/2025 à 01:00, Bertitaylor a écrit :
As lies to make money as do physicists, professors, politicians,
plutocrats, pimps, presstitutes and prostitutes. [...]
That's just content-free insults and abuse.
Usenet resort to when they have no evidence. It makes their case look
limp and false.
It's a dog barking at the caravan as it passes. Woof.
If you want to convince, then I suggest you review your rhetoric - or,
better still, align your position with the evidence.
'Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings' - <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings>
'How do we know that we went to the Moon?' - <https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/moon/how-do-we-know-we-went-to-the-moon>
Etc..
On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 8:01:00 +0000, Hibou wrote:
'Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings' -
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-
party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings>
'How do we know that we went to the Moon?' -
<https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/moon/how-do-we-know-we-went-to-
the-moon>
The witness for the tavern keeper is the drunkard - Bengali proverb.
Turn, Morris turn the Hubble...
Woof woof
On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 11:00:13 +0000, Hibou wrote:
Le 19/07/2025 à 09:45, Bertitaylor a écrit :
On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 8:01:00 +0000, Hibou wrote:
'Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings' -
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-
party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings>
'How do we know that we went to the Moon?' -
<https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/moon/how-do-we-know-we-went-to-
the-moon>
The witness for the tavern keeper is the drunkard - Bengali proverb.
Very good - but not really evidence against the Moon landings.
The fluttering flag, lack of stars, not jumping up four feet at least, bending forward with the whole weight, C rock, missing negatives, not throwing up a rock, deep footprints, strange shadows...all these are
dodgy. Clincher is the photo of the Apollo 11 site with no sign of flag
or footprints as shown by the Indian space mission, Chandrayan, which appeared in Facebook and was not called fake.
Turn, Morris, turn the Hubble...
Le 19/07/2025 à 09:45, Bertitaylor a écrit :
On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 8:01:00 +0000, Hibou wrote:
'Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings' -
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-
party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings>
'How do we know that we went to the Moon?' -
<https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/moon/how-do-we-know-we-went-to-
the-moon>
The witness for the tavern keeper is the drunkard - Bengali proverb.
Very good - but not really evidence against the Moon landings.
Turn, Morris turn the Hubble...
Woof woof
On a point of language (since this thread is in aue for some reason that escapes me),
incorrigible (literally, that one can't scrape the shit off - the
crotte). B. est indécrottable etc.. Has a certain ring to it, doesn't
it? Better than 'Woof!'
Den 17.07.2025 02:18, skrev Bertitaylor:moon/
Hubble and Webb can find so called black holes and planets light years
away but cannot show a footprint on the Moon!
Joke.
Hubble photos of Moon.
https://science.nasa.gov/asset/hubble/moon/
The best Hubble can do: https://science.nasa.gov/asset/hubble/close-up-of-crater-copernicus-on-earths-
"Hubble can resolve features as small as 280 feet across."
Ad hom is the only science for the penisninos.
Paul.B.Andersen <[email protected]> wrote:
Den 17.07.2025 02:18, skrev Bertitaylor:moon/
Hubble and Webb can find so called black holes and planets light years
away but cannot show a footprint on the Moon!
Joke.
Hubble photos of Moon.
https://science.nasa.gov/asset/hubble/moon/
The best Hubble can do:
https://science.nasa.gov/asset/hubble/close-up-of-crater-copernicus-on-earths-
"Hubble can resolve features as small as 280 feet across."
Just what you expect, given that Hubble is diffraction-limited,
Jan
On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 21:01:27 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Paul.B.Andersen <[email protected]> wrote:
Den 17.07.2025 02:18, skrev Bertitaylor:moon/
Hubble and Webb can find so called black holes and planets light years >>>> away but cannot show a footprint on the Moon!
Joke.
Hubble photos of Moon.
https://science.nasa.gov/asset/hubble/moon/
The best Hubble can do:
https://science.nasa.gov/asset/hubble/close-up-of-crater-copernicus-on-earths-
"Hubble can resolve features as small as 280 feet across."
Even smaller. Much smaller if it can detect a planet 75 light years
away.
Woof woof
On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 11:00:13 +0000, Hibou wrote:
Le 19/07/2025 à 09:45, Bertitaylor a écrit :
On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 8:01:00 +0000, Hibou wrote:
'Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings' -
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-
party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings>
'How do we know that we went to the Moon?' -
<https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/moon/how-do-we-know-we-went-to-
the-moon>
The witness for the tavern keeper is the drunkard - Bengali proverb.
Very good - but not really evidence against the Moon landings.
The fluttering flag, lack of stars, not jumping up four feet at least, bending forward with the whole weight, C rock, missing negatives, not throwing up a rock, deep footprints, strange shadows...all these are
dodgy. Clincher is the photo of the Apollo 11 site with no sign of flag
or footprints as shown by the Indian space mission, Chandrayan, which appeared in Facebook and was not called fake. [...]
Le 19/07/2025 à 15:20, Bertitaylor a écrit :
On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 11:00:13 +0000, Hibou wrote:
Le 19/07/2025 à 09:45, Bertitaylor a écrit :
On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 8:01:00 +0000, Hibou wrote:
'Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings' -
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-
party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings>
'How do we know that we went to the Moon?' -
<https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/moon/how-do-we-know-we-went-to- >>>>> the-moon>
The witness for the tavern keeper is the drunkard - Bengali proverb.
Very good - but not really evidence against the Moon landings.
The fluttering flag, lack of stars, not jumping up four feet at least,
bending forward with the whole weight, C rock, missing negatives, not
throwing up a rock, deep footprints, strange shadows...all these are
dodgy. Clincher is the photo of the Apollo 11 site with no sign of flag
or footprints as shown by the Indian space mission, Chandrayan, which
appeared in Facebook and was not called fake. [...]
I don't see anything there that really puts the landings in doubt. I
remember discussing one of the photographs with a bloke in
fr.soc.religion some years ago. I just couldn't see in it what he
thought he saw.
No, what I see in such quibbles is evidence of social misfits trying to
give themselves a sense of importance by questioning accepted views.
Your Arindam seems to be a particularly desperate case, with his rail
gun, his perpetual motion, his rubbishing of Einstein, the moon
landings, and I don't know what.
He attacks on all fronts. He thinks himself a genius, a hero, and a
martyr, and all the stupid, corrupt world's agin him. Unfortunately,
he's not going to convince rational people of this. We can just apply
Occam's Razor: which is more likely: that most physics is wrong and most physicists charlatans, or that Arindam is a bit funny in the head?
Turn, Morris turn the Hubble...
On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 5:05:09 +0000, Hibou wrote:
Le 19/07/2025 à 15:20, Bertitaylor a écrit :
On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 11:00:13 +0000, Hibou wrote:
Le 19/07/2025 à 09:45, Bertitaylor a écrit :
On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 8:01:00 +0000, Hibou wrote:
'Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings' -
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-
party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings>
'How do we know that we went to the Moon?' -
<https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/moon/how-do-we-know-we-went-to- >>>>>> the-moon>
The witness for the tavern keeper is the drunkard - Bengali proverb.
Very good - but not really evidence against the Moon landings.
The fluttering flag, lack of stars, not jumping up four feet at least,
bending forward with the whole weight, C rock, missing negatives, not
throwing up a rock, deep footprints, strange shadows...all these are
dodgy. Clincher is the photo of the Apollo 11 site with no sign of flag
or footprints as shown by the Indian space mission, Chandrayan, which
appeared in Facebook and was not called fake. [...]
I don't see anything there that really puts the landings in doubt. I
remember discussing one of the photographs with a bloke in
fr.soc.religion some years ago. I just couldn't see in it what he
thought he saw.
No, what I see in such quibbles is evidence of social misfits trying to
give themselves a sense of importance by questioning accepted views.
Your Arindam seems to be a particularly desperate case, with his rail
gun, his perpetual motion, his rubbishing of Einstein, the moon
landings, and I don't know what.
Nice diversion. Each to his own and that also goes for Arindam who is
the greatest genius of all time. Being that he must be original. Genius
plays with what talent cannot even see.
We doggies note that you are merely demeaning him on no basis save bias
and established wisdom. When that latter is under attack, on logical
basis, as Arindam is always logical, repeating establishment wisdom as defence is dishonest.
Not that such dishonesty is not amusing in its way, when one ceases to
be disgusted - as is the case.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
He attacks on all fronts. He thinks himself a genius, a hero, and a
martyr, and all the stupid, corrupt world's agin him. Unfortunately,
he's not going to convince rational people of this. We can just apply
Occam's Razor: which is more likely: that most physics is wrong and most
physicists charlatans,
--
Hubble can see objects less than a centimetre in size on the Moon if
properly utilised.
It could easily show the footprints in fair detail and the flag of
course had it really been planted on the Moon.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof with application of middle school
level arithmetic.
Bertietaylor
--
Hubble should be able to detect centimetre sized objects on the Moon.
Simple arithmetic will show that.
Now Webb could tell the shoe size as well.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
--
Hubble should be able to detect centimetre sized objects on the Moon.
Simple arithmetic will show that.
Hubble can see objects less than a centimetre in size on the Moon if
properly utilised.
It could easily show the footprints in fair detail and the flag of
course had it really been planted on the Moon.
Le 20/07/2025 à 14:36, [email protected] (Bertitaylor) a écrit :
Hubble should be able to detect centimetre sized objects on the Moon.
Simple arithmetic will show that.
Show it.
Looks like chaps here are far too stupid to apply middle school maths.
No wonder they worship Chat not that they can grasp it's vomit.
Sad.
Woof
--
On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 19:37:41 +0000, Python wrote:
Le 20/07/2025 à 14:36, [email protected] (Bertitaylor) a écrit : >>> Hubble should be able to detect centimetre sized objects on the Moon.
Simple arithmetic will show that.
Show it.
You try. We have given enough hints.
WOOF
--
Le 19/07/2025 à 01:00, Bertitaylor a écrit :
As lies to make money as do physicists, professors, politicians,
plutocrats, pimps, presstitutes and prostitutes. [...]
That's just content-free insults and abuse. It's what contributors to
Usenet resort to when they have no evidence. It makes their case look
limp and false.
It's a dog barking at the caravan as it passes. Woof.
If you want to convince, then I suggest you review your rhetoric - or,
better still, align your position with the evidence.
'Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings' - <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third- party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings>
'How do we know that we went to the Moon?' - <https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/moon/how-do-we-know-we-went-to-the- moon>
Am Samstag000019, 19.07.2025 um 10:01 schrieb Hibou:
Le 19/07/2025 à 01:00, Bertitaylor a écrit :
As lies to make money as do physicists, professors, politicians,
plutocrats, pimps, presstitutes and prostitutes. [...]
That's just content-free insults and abuse. It's what contributors to
Usenet resort to when they have no evidence. It makes their case look
limp and false.
It's a dog barking at the caravan as it passes. Woof.
If you want to convince, then I suggest you review your rhetoric - or,
better still, align your position with the evidence.
'Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings' -
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-
party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings>
'How do we know that we went to the Moon?' -
<https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/moon/how-do-we-know-we-went-to-the-
moon>
Actually I assume, that people went to the Moon.
The question was NOT 'if' but 'how'.
I assume, that the Nazis had already so called 'Haunebus', which were incorrectly named 'Ufos'.
Those could actually fly to the Moon and most likely did.
The problem:
the Haunebus were powered by a 'Hans-Kohler-Generator', which belongs
into a class called 'free-energy-devices'.
This knowledge had to suppressed at all costs.
That's why the entire thing was filmed with cheap props in a studio and somewhere in the desert.
You can actually see this in certain pictures.
E.g. there exists a photo of the crew of Apollo 17 (afaik), where the astronauts pose without helmet (but with their lunar 'dune-buggy').
Also suspicious is the sandy landscape on the Moon, because to create
sand you usually need water.
I actually calculated the amount of fuel needed to land the 'Eagle' and restart to orbit.
The fuel would be imho enough to bring the lander to a halt upon the
Moon, but not enough for a restart.
(and so forth)
....
TH
Den 20.07.2025 22:34, skrev Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 20.07.2025 15:27, skrev Bertitaylor:
Hubble can see objects less than a centimetre in size on the Moon if
properly utilised.
Why do you guess (or lie) about what is easily checked?
Isn't that stupid?
WFPC2 - Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2
-----------------------------------------
pixel size in Planet Camera mode 0.0455 arcseconds
equivalent to 84.5 m = 277 feet on the Moon
WFC3 - Wide Field Camera 3 (replacing WFPC2)
--------------------------
pixel size 0.04 arcseconds
equivalent to 75.5 m on the Moon
ACS - Advanced Camera for Surveys
---------------------------------
pixel size 0.025 arcseconds
equivalent to 46.6 m on the Moon
Note that the resolution can never be better than the pixel size,
but in most cases it will be worse, because the pixel size
will be made so that it doesn't limit the resolution.
The resolution of a telescope is θ = 1.22⋅λ/D
where
θ = angular resolution
λ = wavelength
D = diameter of aperture of telescope
For visible light λ is in the order of 5000e-10 m
θ = 2.54e-7 rad = 97.5 m on the Moon
However, there are a lot of bandpass filters for the Hubble telescope.
https://svo2.cab.inta-csic.es/svo/theory/fps3/index.php?mode=browse&gname=hst&gname2=ACS_HRC&asttype=
For example, for the ACS_HRC there is a bandpass filter with
centre frequency 2254.44e-10 m. This is far UV.
θ = 1.146e-7 rad = 44 m on the Moon
So the small pixel size isn't as pointless as it may appear.
If we use a bandpass filter with centre frequency
4087.81e-10 m (visible violet) for the WFPC2-PC
θ = 2.078e-7 rad = 80 m one the Moon
Can too, can too, can too, So there! 😂
It could easily show the footprints in fair detail and the flag of
course had it really been planted on the Moon.
Looks like chaps here are far too stupid to apply middle school maths.Did you really believe that this idiotic remark would make
Sad.
--
On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 19:37:41 +0000, Python wrote:
Le 20/07/2025 à 14:36, [email protected] (Bertitaylor) a écrit : >>> Hubble should be able to detect centimetre sized objects on the Moon.
Simple arithmetic will show that.
Show it.
You try. We have given enough hints.
Mathematically
MV + mv is momentum before collision for armature M and system m.
Vel(m + M) is momentum after collision.
And Vel = (MV + mv)/(M+m)
So this is what busts the inertia.
Am Samstag000019, 19.07.2025 um 10:01 schrieb Hibou:
Le 19/07/2025 à 01:00, Bertitaylor a écrit :
As lies to make money as do physicists, professors, politicians,
plutocrats, pimps, presstitutes and prostitutes. [...]
That's just content-free insults and abuse. It's what contributors to
Usenet resort to when they have no evidence. It makes their case look
limp and false.
It's a dog barking at the caravan as it passes. Woof.
If you want to convince, then I suggest you review your rhetoric - or,
better still, align your position with the evidence.
'Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings' -
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-
party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings>
'How do we know that we went to the Moon?' -
<https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/moon/how-do-we-know-we-went-to-the-
moon>
Actually I assume, that people went to the Moon.
The question was NOT 'if' but 'how'.
I assume, that the Nazis had already so called 'Haunebus', which were incorrectly named 'Ufos'.
Those could actually fly to the Moon and most likely did.
The problem:
the Haunebus were powered by a 'Hans-Kohler-Generator', which belongs
into a class called 'free-energy-devices'.
This knowledge had to suppressed at all costs.
That's why the entire thing was filmed with cheap props in a studio and somewhere in the desert.
You can actually see this in certain pictures.
E.g. there exists a photo of the crew of Apollo 17 (afaik), where the astronauts pose without helmet (but with their lunar 'dune-buggy').
Also suspicious is the sandy landscape on the Moon, because to create
sand you usually need water.
I actually calculated the amount of fuel needed to land the 'Eagle' and restart to orbit.
The fuel would be imho enough to bring the lander to a halt upon the
Moon, but not enough for a restart.
(and so forth)
...
TH
Am Samstag000019, 19.07.2025 um 10:01 schrieb Hibou:
Le 19/07/2025 � 01:00, Bertitaylor a écrit :
As lies to make money as do physicists, professors, politicians,
plutocrats, pimps, presstitutes and prostitutes. [...]
That's just content-free insults and abuse. It's what contributors to Usenet resort to when they have no evidence. It makes their case look
limp and false.
It's a dog barking at the caravan as it passes. Woof.
If you want to convince, then I suggest you review your rhetoric - or, better still, align your position with the evidence.
'Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings' - <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third- party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings>
'How do we know that we went to the Moon?' - <https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/moon/how-do-we-know-we-went-to-the- moon>
Actually I assume, that people went to the Moon.
The question was NOT 'if' but 'how'.
I assume, that the Nazis had already so called 'Haunebus', which were incorrectly named 'Ufos'.
Those could actually fly to the Moon and most likely did.
The problem:
the Haunebus were powered by a 'Hans-Kohler-Generator', which belongs
into a class called 'free-energy-devices'.
This knowledge had to suppressed at all costs.
That's why the entire thing was filmed with cheap props in a studio and somewhere in the desert.
You can actually see this in certain pictures.
E.g. there exists a photo of the crew of Apollo 17 (afaik), where the astronauts pose without helmet (but with their lunar 'dune-buggy').
Also suspicious is the sandy landscape on the Moon, because to create
sand you usually need water.
I actually calculated the amount of fuel needed to land the 'Eagle' and restart to orbit.
The fuel would be imho enough to bring the lander to a halt upon the
Moon, but not enough for a restart.
(and so forth)
...
TH
Paul.B.Andersen <[email protected]> wrote:
"Hubble can resolve features as small as 280 feet across."
Even smaller. Much smaller if it can detect a planet 75 light years
away.
It's a dog barking at the caravan as it passes. Woof.
If you want to convince, then I suggest you review your rhetoric - or,
better still, align your position with the evidence.
'Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings' -
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-
party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings>
'How do we know that we went to the Moon?' -
<https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/moon/how-do-we-know-we-went-to-the- >>> moon>
Actually I assume, that people went to the Moon.
Your assumption would be valid if they behaved more convincingly there.
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Samstag000019, 19.07.2025 um 10:01 schrieb Hibou:
Le 19/07/2025 à 01:00, Bertitaylor a écrit :
As lies to make money as do physicists, professors, politicians,
plutocrats, pimps, presstitutes and prostitutes. [...]
That's just content-free insults and abuse. It's what contributors to
Usenet resort to when they have no evidence. It makes their case look
limp and false.
It's a dog barking at the caravan as it passes. Woof.
If you want to convince, then I suggest you review your rhetoric - or,
better still, align your position with the evidence.
'Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings' -
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-
party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings>
'How do we know that we went to the Moon?' -
<https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/moon/how-do-we-know-we-went-to-the- >>> moon>
Actually I assume, that people went to the Moon.
The question was NOT 'if' but 'how'.
I assume, that the Nazis had already so called 'Haunebus', which were
incorrectly named 'Ufos'.
Those could actually fly to the Moon and most likely did.
The problem:
the Haunebus were powered by a 'Hans-Kohler-Generator', which belongs
into a class called 'free-energy-devices'.
This knowledge had to suppressed at all costs.
That's why the entire thing was filmed with cheap props in a studio and
somewhere in the desert.
You can actually see this in certain pictures.
E.g. there exists a photo of the crew of Apollo 17 (afaik), where the
astronauts pose without helmet (but with their lunar 'dune-buggy').
Also suspicious is the sandy landscape on the Moon, because to create
sand you usually need water.
I actually calculated the amount of fuel needed to land the 'Eagle' and
restart to orbit.
The fuel would be imho enough to bring the lander to a halt upon the
Moon, but not enough for a restart.
(and so forth)
...
TH
I don't understand, if you simply want proof of "The Apollo moon
landings", can you just not use a telescope to see the stuff left
behind?
i mean, the moon ain't that far...it ain't at the end of the universe...
it's right up there!
FUCKING BIG AS LIFE!!!!
don't they sell telescopes on Amazon????
Look! Look at what I see!!!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Charlie_Duke%27s_family_portrait_left_on_the_surface_of_the_moon.jpg
In sci.physics Thomas Heger <[email protected]> wrote:
Am Samstag000019, 19.07.2025 um 10:01 schrieb Hibou:
Le 19/07/2025 à 01:00, Bertitaylor a écrit :
As lies to make money as do physicists, professors, politicians,
plutocrats, pimps, presstitutes and prostitutes. [...]
That's just content-free insults and abuse. It's what contributors to
Usenet resort to when they have no evidence. It makes their case look
limp and false.
It's a dog barking at the caravan as it passes. Woof.
If you want to convince, then I suggest you review your rhetoric - or,
better still, align your position with the evidence.
'Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings' -
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-
party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings>
'How do we know that we went to the Moon?' -
<https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/moon/how-do-we-know-we-went-to-the- >>> moon>
Actually I assume, that people went to the Moon.
The question was NOT 'if' but 'how'.
I assume, that the Nazis had already so called 'Haunebus', which were
incorrectly named 'Ufos'.
Those could actually fly to the Moon and most likely did.
The problem:
the Haunebus were powered by a 'Hans-Kohler-Generator', which belongs
into a class called 'free-energy-devices'.
This knowledge had to suppressed at all costs.
That's why the entire thing was filmed with cheap props in a studio and
somewhere in the desert.
You can actually see this in certain pictures.
E.g. there exists a photo of the crew of Apollo 17 (afaik), where the
astronauts pose without helmet (but with their lunar 'dune-buggy').
Also suspicious is the sandy landscape on the Moon, because to create
sand you usually need water.
I actually calculated the amount of fuel needed to land the 'Eagle' and
restart to orbit.
The fuel would be imho enough to bring the lander to a halt upon the
Moon, but not enough for a restart.
(and so forth)
...
TH
Thomas Heger's post is a textbook case of conspiracy theorist rhetoric wrapped in pseudoscientific claims and speculative historical revisionism. Here's a breakdown and analysis of its components:
1. Framing the Issue ("The question was NOT 'if' but 'how'")
Technique: Shifts the debate away from evidence-based discussion
("did it happen?") to speculation about alternate explanations
("how did it happen?").
Purpose: This rhetorical move is typical in conspiracy circles—it
presumes the conclusion and then retrofits an explanation to fit it.
2. Nazi Haunebu and UFO Technology
"I assume, that the Nazis had already so called 'Haunebus', which
were incorrectly named 'Ufos'."
Claim: Nazis developed advanced anti-gravity spacecraft called "Haunebus."
Analysis: The Haunebu myth originates from post-war conspiracy
literature and fictional Nazi UFO lore. No credible historical or
technical evidence supports the existence of such crafts. These claims
are heavily reliant on fabricated documents and hoaxes.
Red Flag: Use of "assume" as a foundation for a sweeping historical
technological claim.
3. Free Energy and Suppression
"Hans-Kohler-Generator" ... "free-energy-devices" ... "had to be
suppressed at all costs."
Claim: A secret Nazi energy device capable of powering lunar travel
exists and was hidden to maintain control over energy resources.
Analysis: "Free energy" devices violate fundamental laws of
thermodynamics (especially the First and Second Laws). No such device
has ever been demonstrated to work under scientific scrutiny.
Conspiracy Marker: Claims of suppression of "dangerous knowledge" are
a hallmark of pseudoscience—usually used to preemptively dismiss the
absence of supporting evidence.
4. Studio Filming Accusation
"filmed with cheap props in a studio and somewhere in the desert."
Claim: The Moon landings were faked using sets.
Analysis: This repeats a well-debunked trope dating back to Bill
Kaysing and popularized by works like Capricorn One or Room 237.
There is overwhelming physical, photographic, telemetry, and eyewitness
evidence of Apollo missions’ success.
Error: Misrepresents the technical sophistication of Apollo footage
and fails to account for the extensive third-party tracking of Apollo
flights (e.g., by Jodrell Bank, the Soviets, etc.).
5. Misinterpretation of Photos
"photo of the crew of Apollo 17... pose without helmet..."
Likely Misunderstanding: This refers to photos taken on Earth during
training or PR events. No authenticated lunar surface photos exist
showing astronauts helmetless.
Technique: Classic example of misattribution of context—taking
terrestrial photos and presenting them as lunar evidence.
6. Pseudoscientific Critique of Lunar Soil
"sandy landscape on the Moon, because to create sand you usually
need water."
Claim: The Moon can't have sand without water.
Analysis: Lunar "regolith" is not terrestrial sand. It is formed by
micrometeorite impacts over billions of years, not by weathering via
water. This is basic planetary science.
Error: Demonstrates a lack of understanding of geophysical processes.
7. Calculations of Fuel Capacity
"I actually calculated the amount of fuel..."
Claim: The lander didn’t have enough fuel to return to orbit.
Analysis: This is a common claim from those misunderstanding or
oversimplifying rocket mechanics. The Apollo Lunar Module ascent
stage was explicitly designed with sufficient Δv (change in velocity)
to reach lunar orbit. NASA’s calculations have been confirmed repeatedly.
Red Flag: No data or math shown. Appeals to authority via “I
calculated...” without evidence.
Overall Characteristics of the Post
Feature Example
Assumptive Language "I assume...", "most likely..."
Pseudoscientific "free energy devices", "fuel not enough..."
Myth Repackaging Haunebu UFOs, studio faking
Selective Evidence Misused Apollo 17 photo, regolith skepticism
Conspiracy Appeal Suppression of truth, hidden technologies
Lack of Citations No sources, no data, vague references
Conclusion
Thomas Heger's post is a blend of science fiction, conspiracy narrative,
and superficial skepticism, posing as a reasoned critique of the Apollo program. It reflects a pattern where personal belief and historical
fantasy override physical evidence and scientific understanding.
If evaluated in terms of epistemic reliability, the post scores extremely low—it relies on unverified assertions, misinterpretations of science,
and discredited historical myths.
Am Montag000021, 21.07.2025 um 14:44 schrieb Jim Pennino:
In sci.physics Thomas Heger <[email protected]> wrote:
Am Samstag000019, 19.07.2025 um 10:01 schrieb Hibou:
Le 19/07/2025 à 01:00, Bertitaylor a écrit :
As lies to make money as do physicists, professors, politicians,
plutocrats, pimps, presstitutes and prostitutes. [...]
That's just content-free insults and abuse. It's what contributors to
Usenet resort to when they have no evidence. It makes their case look
limp and false.
It's a dog barking at the caravan as it passes. Woof.
If you want to convince, then I suggest you review your rhetoric - or, >>>> better still, align your position with the evidence.
'Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings' -
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-
party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings>
'How do we know that we went to the Moon?' -
<https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/moon/how-do-we-know-we-went-to-the- >>>> moon>
Actually I assume, that people went to the Moon.
The question was NOT 'if' but 'how'.
I assume, that the Nazis had already so called 'Haunebus', which were
incorrectly named 'Ufos'.
Those could actually fly to the Moon and most likely did.
The problem:
the Haunebus were powered by a 'Hans-Kohler-Generator', which belongs
into a class called 'free-energy-devices'.
This knowledge had to suppressed at all costs.
That's why the entire thing was filmed with cheap props in a studio and
somewhere in the desert.
You can actually see this in certain pictures.
E.g. there exists a photo of the crew of Apollo 17 (afaik), where the
astronauts pose without helmet (but with their lunar 'dune-buggy').
Also suspicious is the sandy landscape on the Moon, because to create
sand you usually need water.
I actually calculated the amount of fuel needed to land the 'Eagle' and
restart to orbit.
The fuel would be imho enough to bring the lander to a halt upon the
Moon, but not enough for a restart.
(and so forth)
...
TH
Thomas Heger's post is a textbook case of conspiracy theorist rhetoric
wrapped in pseudoscientific claims and speculative historical revisionism. >> Here's a breakdown and analysis of its components:
1. Framing the Issue ("The question was NOT 'if' but 'how'")
Technique: Shifts the debate away from evidence-based discussion
("did it happen?") to speculation about alternate explanations
("how did it happen?").
Purpose: This rhetorical move is typical in conspiracy circles—it
presumes the conclusion and then retrofits an explanation to fit it.
2. Nazi Haunebu and UFO Technology
"I assume, that the Nazis had already so called 'Haunebus', which
were incorrectly named 'Ufos'."
Claim: Nazis developed advanced anti-gravity spacecraft called "Haunebus."
Analysis: The Haunebu myth originates from post-war conspiracy
literature and fictional Nazi UFO lore. No credible historical or
technical evidence supports the existence of such crafts. These claims >> are heavily reliant on fabricated documents and hoaxes.
Red Flag: Use of "assume" as a foundation for a sweeping historical
technological claim.
3. Free Energy and Suppression
"Hans-Kohler-Generator" ... "free-energy-devices" ... "had to be
suppressed at all costs."
Claim: A secret Nazi energy device capable of powering lunar travel
exists and was hidden to maintain control over energy resources.
Analysis: "Free energy" devices violate fundamental laws of
thermodynamics (especially the First and Second Laws). No such device >> has ever been demonstrated to work under scientific scrutiny.
Conspiracy Marker: Claims of suppression of "dangerous knowledge" are >> a hallmark of pseudoscience—usually used to preemptively dismiss the >> absence of supporting evidence.
4. Studio Filming Accusation
"filmed with cheap props in a studio and somewhere in the desert."
Claim: The Moon landings were faked using sets.
Analysis: This repeats a well-debunked trope dating back to Bill
Kaysing and popularized by works like Capricorn One or Room 237.
There is overwhelming physical, photographic, telemetry, and eyewitness >> evidence of Apollo missions’ success.
Error: Misrepresents the technical sophistication of Apollo footage
and fails to account for the extensive third-party tracking of Apollo >> flights (e.g., by Jodrell Bank, the Soviets, etc.).
5. Misinterpretation of Photos
"photo of the crew of Apollo 17... pose without helmet..."
Likely Misunderstanding: This refers to photos taken on Earth during
training or PR events. No authenticated lunar surface photos exist
showing astronauts helmetless.
Technique: Classic example of misattribution of context—taking
terrestrial photos and presenting them as lunar evidence.
6. Pseudoscientific Critique of Lunar Soil
"sandy landscape on the Moon, because to create sand you usually
need water."
Claim: The Moon can't have sand without water.
Analysis: Lunar "regolith" is not terrestrial sand. It is formed by
micrometeorite impacts over billions of years, not by weathering via
water. This is basic planetary science.
Error: Demonstrates a lack of understanding of geophysical processes. >>
7. Calculations of Fuel Capacity
"I actually calculated the amount of fuel..."
Claim: The lander didn’t have enough fuel to return to orbit.
Analysis: This is a common claim from those misunderstanding or
oversimplifying rocket mechanics. The Apollo Lunar Module ascent
stage was explicitly designed with sufficient Δv (change in velocity) >> to reach lunar orbit. NASA’s calculations have been confirmed repeatedly.
Red Flag: No data or math shown. Appeals to authority via “I
calculated...” without evidence.
Overall Characteristics of the Post
Feature Example
Assumptive Language "I assume...", "most likely..."
Pseudoscientific "free energy devices", "fuel not enough..."
Myth Repackaging Haunebu UFOs, studio faking
Selective Evidence Misused Apollo 17 photo, regolith skepticism
Conspiracy Appeal Suppression of truth, hidden technologies
Lack of Citations No sources, no data, vague references
Conclusion
Thomas Heger's post is a blend of science fiction, conspiracy narrative,
and superficial skepticism, posing as a reasoned critique of the Apollo
program. It reflects a pattern where personal belief and historical
fantasy override physical evidence and scientific understanding.
If evaluated in terms of epistemic reliability, the post scores extremely
low—it relies on unverified assertions, misinterpretations of science,
and discredited historical myths.
Actually I had tried to figure out the amount of fuel, which the 'Eagle' would need to land on the surface of the Moon.
This fuel was necessary, because the Moon has (almost) no atmosphere and therefore a craft landing there needed reverted thrust, to bring the
craft to a halt in respect to the Moon's surface.
This would require fuel and the amount could be calculated.
To do this I used the theory of Tsiolkowski.
It was a little tricky, because the usual case for a rocket launch
didn't fit here.
But finally I have found a result and found, that the 'Eagle' had enough
fuel on board to land. But it had only enough fuel to land and non for restart and to accelerate the capsule back to the orbit.
The restart manouver itself was certainly difficult, because it could
not be assited by any kind of ground control or external navigation
system, because there were none.
Since the capsule had only one engine, it would also be extremely
difficult to keep that craft upright, since that would require to
maintain the center of mass exactly above the engine's nozzle.
That would be extremely difficult, bause the astronouts were living
beings and could eventually move.
They also brought stones with them, which also had mass and therefore
needed to be distributed with extreme care.
Any tiny error would make the capsule tip over to the side and that
would have been fatal.
The next collosal problem would have been to make the 'rendezvous' with
the command module in Moon's orbit.
That was so insanely difficult, that I cannot believe it would have been possible at all (supposed they had enough fuel, what they hadn't).
So, in effect, I agreed with many sceptics and thought, the pictures
were fake and fabricated in a studio.
But I assumed, that only the pictures were a fake and that had to do
with secrecy of military developments (-> hidden military technology).
The Nasa guys had actually been to the Moon, but not with those cheep props.
TH
Am Montag000021, 21.07.2025 um 19:41 schrieb The Starmaker:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Samstag000019, 19.07.2025 um 10:01 schrieb Hibou:
Le 19/07/2025 à 01:00, Bertitaylor a écrit :
As lies to make money as do physicists, professors, politicians,
plutocrats, pimps, presstitutes and prostitutes. [...]
That's just content-free insults and abuse. It's what contributors to
Usenet resort to when they have no evidence. It makes their case look
limp and false.
It's a dog barking at the caravan as it passes. Woof.
If you want to convince, then I suggest you review your rhetoric - or, >>>> better still, align your position with the evidence.
'Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings' -
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-
party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings>
'How do we know that we went to the Moon?' -
<https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/moon/how-do-we-know-we-went-to-the- >>>>
moon>
Actually I assume, that people went to the Moon.
The question was NOT 'if' but 'how'.
I assume, that the Nazis had already so called 'Haunebus', which were
incorrectly named 'Ufos'.
Those could actually fly to the Moon and most likely did.
The problem:
the Haunebus were powered by a 'Hans-Kohler-Generator', which belongs
into a class called 'free-energy-devices'.
This knowledge had to suppressed at all costs.
That's why the entire thing was filmed with cheap props in a studio and
somewhere in the desert.
You can actually see this in certain pictures.
E.g. there exists a photo of the crew of Apollo 17 (afaik), where the
astronauts pose without helmet (but with their lunar 'dune-buggy').
Also suspicious is the sandy landscape on the Moon, because to create
sand you usually need water.
I actually calculated the amount of fuel needed to land the 'Eagle' and
restart to orbit.
The fuel would be imho enough to bring the lander to a halt upon the
Moon, but not enough for a restart.
(and so forth)
...
TH
I don't understand, if you simply want proof of "The Apollo moon
landings", can you just not use a telescope to see the stuff left
behind?
i mean, the moon ain't that far...it ain't at the end of the universe...
it's right up there!
FUCKING BIG AS LIFE!!!!
don't they sell telescopes on Amazon????
Look! Look at what I see!!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Charlie_Duke%27s_family_portrait_left_on_the_surface_of_the_moon.jpg
Look at this picture:
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/ap16-72-HC-57.jpg
And ask yourself: what do you see?
I see a 'Dune Buggy' wrapped in golden and silvery plastic foil, which
seemly was cramped into a compartment, into which it wouldn't fit.
Engineers (like me) have kind of six' sense for what would fit and what
would not.
And I would think, it wouldn't fit.
-------------------------------
TH
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 14:58:09 |
| Calls: | 12,102 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 15,004 |
| Messages: | 6,518,041 |
