## jeudi 1 juillet 2010

### "Moontruth"? Why?

Back when I was writing at Antimodernism, an MSN Group that was closed along with the others in February 2009, I posted a video called Moontruth, which showed how the pictures of Armstrong on Moon could have been faked, if fake.

Why, precisely, should specifically Geocentrics be interested in that, may one ask?

Well, let us put it like this: Geocentrism or static Earth means Universe is revolving at a very high speed every 24 h. around us. "Distant stars" - distant as measured by parallax, which is contestable with a Geocentric view, see previous posts - would be revolving at speeds higher than "the speed of light" as given by the experts.

I calculated that the limit for astronomical objects to be below that speed if rotating daily would be surpassed by Neptune - each and every day. And for Planets, it is not parallax, but angle of reflections of sunlight on planet, which makes the angles triangulation depends on:

First step: triangulate Moon distance by two points of Earth; on Equator: angles of sighting moon.

Second step: triangulate Sun distance by this reflection method, distance of Earth-Moon at that moment being known.

Third step: calculate planetary distances, including up to Neptune, by this method, distance Earth-Sun at that moment being an already known length. So, a method of mathematics called triangulation (which I have never questioned as such), and accepting that angle of light can be measured by light/shade configuration of planetary roundness, accepting also daily orbit of Neptune would on Geocentric terms be faster than given speeds of light, assumed in Einsteinian theory to be the fastest speed possible for all Universe. If a Geocentric - as I do - does not accept Einstein, that is no problem.

But even Moon would be moving very much faster around Earth than usually assumed by Astronomers, if Armstrong really landed there, and Earth is static, how did he survive? Hence the spontaneous interest of the video called "Moontruth".

BUT.

Other day I was thinking: yes, assuming Moon revolves, with Universe, around us daily, does add one speed to Moon. But in other respects Geocentrism takes away some speeds. On Moon too, since its supposed share in orbital speed of Earth is not existent if Geocentrism is true. Notably, heliocentrism adds to speeds we supposedly have to survive down here on Earth each day.

Wikipedia gives the speed references on article Earth as follows:
• Average orbital speed: 29.78 km/s or 107,200 km/h
• Equatorial rotation velocity: 1,674.4 km/h

Adding them up for a place on Equator at a time when the speeds add up rather than cancel gives 108,874.4 km/h and when they cancel out leaves us with supposedly 105,525.6 km/h to support.

But if I was right about Geocentrism, and wrong about posting Moontruth video - but was I? - what does that make Armstrong supporting when there?

Wikipedia gives Moon as distant diversely between:
• 363,104 km
and:
• 405,696 km

which would make the mean diametre of Moon's daily circle around Earth 768.800 km and the periphery, hence orbit, that times pi, I get 2,413,032 km mean orbit of Moon per day. Since a day or rather night and day has 24 h. it is easily seen that we have to divide by 24 in order to get the speed - about same as the one Heliocentrics suppose we endure every day.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque Universitaire
de Paris X - Nanterre
Octava Nativitatis S.
Iohannis Baptistae
et Festum Pretiossissimi
Sanguinis Dni Ni Iesu Christi
1/VII/2010

Bonus question for astronomically interested readers: according to Heliocentrism, at mornings and evenings the orbital speed and equatorial rotation speed neither add up nor cancel, since at right angles. The highest and lowest speeds would be either midnight and noon or noon and midnight. Which one is it? Right now I am too tired to figure that one out, it is after all hot here!

#### 13 commentaires:

Hans Georg Lundahl a dit…

This previous post explains the difference between trusting triangualation in general and trusting a triangulation made on Parallax, that being as interpreted by astronomers, a heliocentric assumption.

Hans Georg Lundahl a dit…

This one is in French, but has a bonus in diagrams, plus another diagram stating the causalities that an atheist materialist and a Christian differ on, as possible for movements.

Hans Georg Lundahl a dit…

IONS=Institute of Noetic Sciences cofounded by Edgar Mitchell who also walked on the moon as the story goes.

To me Gagarin and Mitchell are no theologians or correct philosophers. And Star Trek, Star Wars, Valérian and Laureline are no Bibles.

HGL a dit…

Without even hearing, I link to a video saying the one I linked to previously back before I left Sweden in 2004 on another site was wrong.

HERE is a message with a VIDEO on it

Let us see if anyone reads this before I get a chance to hear that video, and let us see if the video answers the point I am making NOW, here above.

HGL a dit…

And let us see if they publish my comment:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am linking to a blog entry on my site. Saying basically “moon hoax” is not scientifically necessary for geocentrism to be possible.

However, I find last comment #66 (Neil Haggath) including a very silly answer to #27 (Mr. White).

If, as you and Kaysing’s solitary ( and probably imaginary ) geologist believe, the Apollo samples were faked in a lab on Earth, then please explain how their isotopic composition, and the age derived from it, has proved to be entirely consistent with the currently favoured theory of the Moon’s formation – a theory which wasn’t formulated until 12 years after the Apollo missions ended!!!! ( The theory was not formulated from studies of the samples, but independently of them. )

If one goes out of one’s way to fake a sample, why would one then not be able, both financially and morally to fake a coherence between a theory and that sample and fake the independence of the theory vis-à-vis the faked sample?

“Why don’t they teach logic in these schools?” (character in CSL’s famous Lion, Witch and Wordrobe romance)

Hans Georg Lundahl a dit…

HERE is an argument Apollo landings could not have been faked - final argument very reminiscent of argument for believing the Resurrection of Our Lord and God Jesus Christ. Though the theological argument is stronger.

NASA chose these companies to do the work, because they had the expertise to do it; if Grumman was asked to design and build the LM, then the company’s engineers would investigate all the problems involved in landing on the Moon, and set out to solve them. The inevitable result is that between them, the contractors would end up actually producing a spacecraft which worked! And if they managed to do that , then there was no reason why NASA couldn’t carry out the Apollo missions for real, and hence no need for any conspiracy at all!

I buy that the spacecraft worked. Problem is - does the astronomy of it? Above I have argued, that maybe, yes it does even if Geocentrism is true. But was NASA all that confident?

In Resurrection story, there is no such loophole.

"And once 500 people saw him, most of whom are still alive" wrote St Paul.

If these early witnesses and believers did not exist, how could a conspiracy have convinced later believers they had met such?

And if these later "fooled" believers were fooled about existnce of witnesses, they were the first ones, and how do you convince the "real first" they had met earlier ones and those witnessing Resurrection if these earlier ones did not exist?

About the witnesses, there is a very clear contrast with the alternative "big scenario" in the argument. Try to find it out ...

Hans Georg Lundahl a dit…

HERE is an argument Apollo landings could not have been faked - final argument very reminiscent of argument for believing the Resurrection of Our Lord and God Jesus Christ. Though the theological argument is stronger.

NASA chose these companies to do the work, because they had the expertise to do it; if Grumman was asked to design and build the LM, then the company’s engineers would investigate all the problems involved in landing on the Moon, and set out to solve them. The inevitable result is that between them, the contractors would end up actually producing a spacecraft which worked! And if they managed to do that , then there was no reason why NASA couldn’t carry out the Apollo missions for real, and hence no need for any conspiracy at all!

I buy that the spacecraft worked. Problem is - does the astronomy of it? Above I have argued, that maybe, yes it does even if Geocentrism is true. But was NASA all that confident?

In Resurrection story, there is no such loophole.

"And once 500 people saw him, most of whom are still alive" wrote St Paul.

If these early witnesses and believers did not exist, how could a conspiracy have convinced later believers they had met such?

And if these later "fooled" believers were fooled about existnce of witnesses, they were the first ones, and how do you convince the "real first" they had met earlier ones and those witnessing Resurrection if these earlier ones did not exist?

About the witnesses, there is a very clear contrast with the alternative "big scenario" in the argument. Try to find it out ...

HGL a dit…

PS: my comment was published!

Hans-Georg Lundahl a dit…

The author of above quote has on the comments thread of my first link #89 made clear he does not wish to be associated with my ridiculous beliefs.

Now this is forwarded, and remember, it is really, really not his fault I quoted him, I only used the right of quotation within limits I judged reasonable.

Hans Georg Lundahl a dit…

As for the 500, I have met the challenge of one Dan Barker on Atheist League in this blogpost.

As to Neil Armstrong, feel free to read this. It is not an eulogy, nor a curse, simply a memento of important things.

Hans Georg Lundahl a dit…

Since two links in above (one at least recurring) are short links, and they are blocked, the new short links are:

- for this message http://ppt.li/29
- for the message by Neil Haggath on which I comment http://ppt.li/2a

Hans Georg Lundahl a dit…

http://ppt.li/rrxn

somewhere else : What a blooper, Dan Barker from Atheist League!
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2011/04/what-blooper-dan-barker-from-atheist.html

And first a link to the first in the series, now I am a bit less in a hurry:

The Question of Contemporary Evidence
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/2011/03/question-of-contemporary-evidence.html

Back to implications of blog post itself: if Geocentrism is true, Mars might be a lot rockire ride than the Moon as calculated above./HGL

Hans Georg Lundahl a dit…

And when I wrote I "calculated" anything about speeds of objects the distance of Neptune, I got the info from another man and then either checked it with a calculation I do not recall (though I would have been able to) or did not.