Topic: The Mystery of Puma Punku (Read 5373 times)

I think AIC is better. The basic idea is that when comparing multiple models of reality, both how well the prediction fits the observations and how complicated the model is should be taken into account. This is superior to occam's razor because  there is an actual equation backed with proofs and simulations.

You should explain Occam's Razor. (interestingly, the example used is planetary motion.)

The gist of it is that the sun is like a giant balloon that (driven by an as yet undiscovered force) inflates and moves higher in the sky in the summer while it deflates and descends in the winter. The earth is still spinning, but stays in one place relative to the sun. I don't remember how the motion of the planets was explained.

wut.

How does s/he explain planetary motion, then? Back to crystal spheres?

I have a family member who doesn't even accept heliocentrism (not due to religion, just thinks physicists all have it wrong and just parrot each other), so this is me looking for thanksgiving dinner material.

If you do and enter into an exchange with one or both of them I'd be very grateful to know how it turns-out.

Thanks, good luck and cheers!

Hm ok, I will try. At this point it looks like her theory explains less about gravity than the one that incorporates mass.

Let me restate my issue with it:
Her number she is calculating for the "gravitational force due to the sun" is simply the Standard Gravitational Parameter. If we also calculate the "gravitational force due to the earth" and divide both by their respective masses (which differ by orders of magnitude), we will get the same number, this constant "G". You can do the same for jupiter and its moons. For that reason I believe mass is related to gravitational force.

This can all be gathered from observations you can do at home with a cheap telescope and basic algebra.

Edit: Well actually you would have to do something like the Cavendish Experiment to measure the mass of earth from home, and most people seem to be calculating the mass from newtons laws... so maybe there is still room for error here.

Wow 113, glad you're having some fun with it as you're obviously capable of entertaining the material on a technical level.

You're asking the wrong guy regarding physics at such a level but from what I understand mass is irrelevant in calculating gravitational force but as far as a constant somehow derived to use... It's "French" to me 113, and I know a little bit of rudimentary French.  

I'm sure you can contact Pari somehow and you can most certainly contact John Lear anytime.  He's a very affable guy and would be delighted to discuss this with you at length or at least liase with Pari if he can't entertain your questions adequately.  John actually has an open offer out to anyone that wants to bring some cigars over to his house in Vegas and discuss any of the multitudes of things he researches.  I've had some correspondence with him myself over the years and if I ever go to Vegas hopefully he'll still be alive and kicking.  He's not only a pretty sharp guy but has done, seen and heard some amazing stuff, rubbed shoulders with many noteworthy people as well as being a bit of a legend of aviation.  Hell, his name has been banned from Wikipedia, that is very cool.  Neither of these people are "snake oil salesman" in my eyes and I'm sure they'd love to speak and/or correspond with you about it.

Thanks and good luck!

So I read this:
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/08PDF_Files/New_Concepts_in_Gravitation.pdf

The main point seems to be this (quoting John Lear's summary):

Mass of the sun: 1.9855E+30 kg
Gravitational Constant (G): 6.67384E-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2

Mass of sun  X G X pi= 4.1629E+20 m s^-2 m^2

So her position (not explicitly stated in what I read) is that people are using her number but multiplying mass of the sun by an arbitrary constant in order to incorporate mass into the model.




How does she explain that the same constant can be multiplied by the earth's mass to explain the orbit of the moon?

Mass of the earth: 5.9736E+24 kg
Gravitational Constant (G): 6.67384E-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2

Mass of earth  X G X pi= 1.25245E+15 m s^-2 m^2

Her equation of F= pi*a*v^2 (used to get that 4.16 number for things orbiting the sun earlier) yields 1.261345E+15

a=Semi-Major Axis of Moon =384399 km
v=average orbital velocity of moon=1.02 m/s

Does she address this issue at all?

O.k.  Maybe neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light at the LHC is more "related".  Regardless, there's boatloads of stuff out there on Einstein being wrong, the Big Bang theory being malarkey, scientists having no idea how the universe actually works in general, etc., etc., etc.  The brightest minds on the planet can't even figure-out what gravity actually is.


Just for posterity's sake:

Gravitational Force Of The Sun


What If Einstein Was Wrong? (1/3)

What If Einstein Was Wrong? (2/3)

What If Einstein Was Wrong? (3/3)

What we believe and think we know is continually being turned on it's ear it seems.

The theory rests on the assumption that speed of light in a vacuum is constant... so that isn't really related.

 Pari Spolter looks interesting.

Well 113, I'm not necessarily convinced as much as both mainstream science and I know that the speed of light is not a constant in the universe for instance.  I'm not a physicist or mathematician by any stretch so I can't confirm anything.  However, scientists have slowed the speed of light down to ft/s in the laboratory using modern scientific equipment so there, in a small way I myself just proved Einstein wrong by referencing it.  

If you'd like to look into it yourself, a lady named Pari Spolter did all the work on this and wrote a fascinating book (even for the physics and mathematically inept) as well.  Gravitational Force Of The Sun.  Her work has been peer reviewed but obviously nothing has been officially published or accepted.  Apparently she does a job on Newton and his law of gravity too.  You can search it yourself if you like as there's some info and interviews out there.  John Lear references this and has some good coverage of it on thelivingmoon.com as well as a bunch of other really interesting stuff.  If you have an interest in Martian and Lunar anomalies, etc. you will enjoy the fraction of his research he has put up on the site.

Even Einstein admitted that he could be off with some of his theoretical assumptions.  Some of his work and the credit he was given was actually essentially ripped-off from James Clerk Maxwell (among others who cam-up with "relativity" and many other theoretical concepts used by Einstein) in the first place from what I gather.

This is the first I have heard of this. What is the source that convinced you?

Good point. That second picture is MUCH better, and I'd say it's just an old gully with wind-blown dunes. That Mars DID have water at some point in fairly recent (geologically speaking) history is, IIRC, a solid fact at this point.

As for the face, it certainly is more plausible that it is just a mountain. I think it does look like a half primate half lion though, and the connection to the sphinx makes it interesting.

As for the tubes. Find a picture of a lava tube that looks like that. Its not a lava tube, maybe an old gully with sand dunes. Here is a different martian gully:




Looks like dredger tailings too though.
http://wikimapia.org/5696331/Gold-Dredge-tailings-at-Klondike-River-near-Dawson-city


It costs $2.5 Billion to send something to check one of these things out. Well its probably a non-optimal landing site, so lets send 5 making it $10 billion

A mountain. Even the photomanipulations look like mountains, not faces.
Lava tubes.

I dunno, geologists and anthropologists disagree on the age of the sphinx. Pretty much every civilization loves a good great flood myth, plus there is all this weird stuff on mars:

The face:


Left side looks like a primate face, right a lion face:



wierd tubes:


Its totally possible stuff was going on before the last ice age we know little about.

I do what interests me.

That documentary is also quite fascinating and I enjoyed it a lot.

Words cannot contain how hard I laughed at 1:08

Sure but interesting that it was held as mainstream truth to be flat many hundreds of years later though eh?

Which brings-up another interesting and very relevant point, or perhaps a "dilemma".  What do the ritualistic, occultist elite class who run this planet (and always have) know that the masses don't and by design at that?  

By the way Gabi, what significance is there in your "ignore" link being shaded yellow?