The enigma of the reasons for supporting the myth of the conquest of the moon remains a mystery as long as it is considered in isolation from the general context of managing the development of science on Earth. This complex of events has shown itself especially clearly since the end of the nineteenth century.
All natural sciences, first of all physics, chemistry, geology and astronomy, have undergone such procedures of dogmatization, emasculation of the essence and bringing to the point of absurdity that now any correctly performed experiment always shows a discrepancy with official theories. In order to preserve the status quo of the prevailing theories, after each such result, a whole range of measures is taken to adjust publications, counter the dissemination of information, suppression or criticism, depending on the situation; or, in extreme cases, especially fortunate naturalists have to be gagged quickly.
The most effective way to conceal the facts of the discrepancy between modern scientific theories and reality is the complete commercialization of science, when a certain experiment can be carried out only with the money of those in power, who clearly play the role of spies over science. As a result, most of the modern scientists turned into stupid "grant-eaters" who carry out orders for money bags all their lives. The grotesqueness of the results of such a "science" sometimes brings a smile even to the average man in the street hardened in the advertising kaleidoscope.
Obvious contradictions that result from the forceful imposition of false axioms are clothed in the format of infallible truths, moreover, inaccessible to an adequate mind. This primarily concerns the so-called. "Theory of relativity", the supporters of which can be conditionally divided into two camps - paid provocateurs and conformists.
And even in seemingly long-established theories there are glaring contradictions and obvious errors that are simply hushed up. Let me give you a simple example.
Official physics, which is taught in educational institutions, is very proud of the fact that it knows the relationships between different physical quantities in the form of formulas, which are allegedly reliably supported experimentally. We stand on what they say …
In particular, all reference books and textbooks state that between two bodies with masses (m) and (M), an attractive force (F) arises, which is directly proportional to the product of these masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance ® between them. This ratio is usually presented in the form of the formula "law of universal gravitation":
Promotional video:
where is the gravitational constant, equal to about 6.6725 × 10−11 m³ / (kg · s²).
Let's use this formula to calculate what is the force of attraction between the Earth and the Moon, as well as between the Moon and the Sun. To do this, we need to substitute the corresponding values from the dictionaries into this formula:
the mass of the moon - 7.3477 × 1022 kg
the mass of the Sun - 1.9891 × 1030 kg
Earth mass - 5.9737 × 1024 kg
distance between the Earth and the Moon = 380,000,000 m
distance between the Moon and the Sun = 149,000,000,000 m
The force of attraction between the Earth and the Moon = 6,6725 × 10 - 11 x 7,3477 × 5,9737 × 1022 × 1024/3800000002 = 2,028 × 1020 H
The force of attraction between the Moon and the Sun. = 6,6725 × 10 - 11h 7.3477 x 1022 x 1.9891 · 1030/1490000000002 = 4,39 × 1020 H
It turns out that the force of attraction of the moon to the sun is more than twice (!) Greater than the force of attraction of the moon to the earth! Why, then, does the moon fly around the earth, and not around the sun? Where is the agreement between theory and experimental data?
If you can't believe your eyes, please grab a calculator, open the reference books and see for yourself.
According to the formula of "universal gravitation" for this system of three bodies, as soon as the Moon is between the Earth and the Sun, it must leave a circular orbit around the Earth, turning into an independent planet with orbital parameters close to the Earth. However, the Moon stubbornly "does not notice" the Sun, as if it does not exist at all.
First of all, let's ask ourselves what could be wrong with this formula? There are few options here.
From the point of view of mathematics, this formula may be correct, but then the values of its parameters are incorrect. For example, modern science can be severely mistaken in determining distances in space based on false ideas about the nature and speed of propagation of light; or it is wrong to evaluate the masses of celestial bodies, using the same purely speculative conclusions of Kepler or Laplace, expressed in the form of ratios of the sizes of orbits, velocities and masses of celestial bodies; or not at all to understand the nature of the mass of a macroscopic body, as all physics textbooks are very frank about, postulating this property of material objects regardless of its location and without delving into the reasons for its occurrence.
Also, official science may be mistaken in the reason for the existence and principles of action of the force of gravity, which is most likely. For example, if masses do not have an attractive effect (which, by the way, there are thousands of visual evidences, only they are hushed up), then this "formula of universal gravity" simply reflects some idea expressed by Isaac Newton, which turned out to be false.
There are thousands of different ways to make mistakes, but there is only one truth. And its official physics deliberately hides, otherwise how to explain the defense of such an absurd formula?
The first and obvious consequence of the fact that the "formula of universal gravitation" does not work is the fact that the Earth does not have a dynamic response to the Moon. Simply put, two such large and close celestial bodies, one of which is only four times smaller in diameter than the other, should (according to the views of modern physics) revolve around a common center of mass - the so-called. barycenter. However, the Earth rotates strictly on its axis, and even the ebb and flow in the seas and oceans have absolutely nothing to do with the position of the Moon in the sky.
A number of completely outrageous facts of inconsistencies with the established views of classical physics, which in the literature and the Internet are bashfully called "lunar anomalies", are associated with the Moon.
The most obvious anomaly is the exact coincidence of the period of the Moon's revolution around the Earth and around its axis, which is why it always faces the Earth with one side. There are many reasons for these periods to become more and more out of sync on each orbit of the Moon around the Earth. For example, no one would argue that the Earth and the Moon are two ideal balls with an even distribution of mass inside. From the point of view of official physics, it is quite obvious that the motion of the Moon should be significantly influenced not only by the relative position of the Earth, the Moon and the Sun, but even the flights of Mars and Venus during periods of the closest approach of their orbits to the Earth's. The experience of space flights in near-earth orbit shows that stabilization similar to the lunar can be achieved only if the orientation micromotors are constantly steered. But how and how does the Moon steer? And most importantly - for what?
This "anomaly" looks even more discouraging against the background of the little-known fact that mainstream science has not yet come up with an acceptable explanation for the trajectory along which the moon moves around the Earth. The Moon's orbit is by no means circular or even elliptical. The strange curve the moon is tracing over our heads is consistent with nothing more than the long list of statistical parameters outlined in the corresponding tables. These data are collected on the basis of long-term observations, but by no means on the basis of any calculations. It is thanks to these data that one or another event can be predicted with great accuracy, for example, solar or lunar eclipses, the maximum approach or distance of the Moon relative to the Earth, etc.
So, it is on this strange trajectory that the Moon manages to be turned to the Earth by only one side all the time!
Of course, this is not all.
It turns out that the Earth is moving in its orbit around the Sun not at a uniform speed, as the official physics would like, but makes small slowdowns and jerks forward in the direction of its motion, which are synchronized with the corresponding position of the Moon. However, the Earth does not make any movements to the sides, perpendicular to the direction of its orbit, despite the fact that the Moon can be located on either side of the Earth in the plane of its orbit.
Official physics not only does not undertake to describe or explain these processes - it simply keeps silent about them! Such a half-month cycle of the earth's tugs correlates perfectly with the statistical peaks of earthquakes, but where and when did you hear about it?
Do you know that in the Earth-Moon system of cosmic bodies there are no libration points predicted by Lagrange on the basis of the law of "universal gravitation"? The fact is that the region of gravity of the Moon does not exceed the distance of 10,000 km from its surface. There are many obvious confirmations of this fact. Suffice it to recall the geostationary satellites, which are not affected by the position of the Moon in any way, or the scientific and satirical story with the Smart-1 probe from ESA, with the help of which they were going to take pictures of the Apollo lunar landing sites back in 2003-2005. The Smart-1 probe was created as an experimental spacecraft with low ion thrust engines, but with an enormous operating time. The ESA mission envisaged a gradual acceleration of the vehicle, launched into a circular orbit around the Earth in order tomoving along a spiral trajectory with a climb, reach the inner libration point of the Earth-Moon system. According to the predictions of official physics, starting from that moment, the probe should have changed its trajectory, going into a high circumlunar orbit, and begin a long braking maneuver, gradually narrowing the spiral around the Moon.
But everything would be fine if the official physics and the calculations made with its help corresponded to reality. In fact, after reaching the libration point, Smart-1 continued its flight in an unwinding spiral, and on the next orbits did not even think to react to the approaching moon. From that moment on, an amazing conspiracy of silence and outright disinformation began around the flight of Smart-1, until the trajectory of its flight finally allowed it to simply smash it against the surface of the Moon, which the semi-official scientific popularizing Internet resources hastened to report under the appropriate informational sauce as a great achievement of modern science, which suddenly decided to "change" the mission of the apparatus and from all over the place to shake the tens of millions of money spent on the project on the moon dust.
Naturally, on the last loop of its flight, the Smart-1 probe finally entered the lunar gravitational region, but it could not have slowed down to enter a low lunar orbit with the help of its low-power engine. The calculations of European ballisticians came into stark contradiction with reality.
And such cases in deep space exploration are by no means isolated, but repeat themselves with enviable consistency, starting from the first attempts to hit the Moon or sending probes to the satellites of Mars, to the last attempts to enter orbits around asteroids or comets, whose gravitational force is completely absent even on their surfaces.
But then the reader should have a completely natural question: how did the rocket and space industry of the USSR in the 60s and 70s of the twentieth century manage to explore the Moon with the help of automatic devices, being in captivity of false scientific views? How did Soviet ballistics specialists calculate the correct flight path to the Moon and back, if one of the most basic formulas of modern physics turns out to be fiction? Finally, in the 21st century, how are the orbits of lunar automatic satellites that take close photographs and scan of the Moon calculated?
Very simple! As in all other cases, when practice shows a discrepancy with physical theories, His Majesty Experience comes into play, which suggests the correct solution to a particular problem. After a series of completely natural failures, the ballistics empirically found some correction factors for certain stages of flights to the Moon and other space bodies, which are entered into the on-board computers of modern automatic probes and space navigation systems.
And everything works! But most importantly, there is an opportunity to trumpet the whole world about the next victory of world science, and then teach gullible children and students the formula of "universal gravitation", which has no more to do with reality than the cocked hat of Baron Munchausen to his epic exploits.
And if suddenly a certain inventor comes up with another idea of a new way of travel in space, there is nothing easier than to declare him a charlatan on the simple grounds that his calculations contradict the same notorious formula of "universal gravitation" … Commissions for the fight against pseudoscience at the academies of sciences countries are working tirelessly.
This is a prison, comrades. A large planetary prison with a slight touch of science to neutralize particularly zealous individuals who dare to be smart. It is enough to marry the rest so that, following the apt remark of Karel Čapek, their autobiography ends …
By the way, all the parameters of the trajectories and orbits of "manned flights" from NASA to the Moon in 1969-1972 were calculated and published precisely on the basis of the assumptions about the existence of libration points and the fulfillment of the law of universal gravitation for the Earth-Moon system. Doesn't this alone explain why all manned lunar exploration programs were canceled after the 70s of the twentieth century? Which is easier: quietly leave the topic or admit to the falsification of all physics?
Finally, the moon has a number of amazing phenomena called "optical anomalies." These anomalies no longer fit into any gates of official physics that they prefer to be completely silent about them, replacing interest in them with the allegedly constantly recorded UFO activity on the lunar surface. With the help of the yellow press fictions, fake photo and video materials about flying saucers allegedly constantly moving over the Moon and huge structures of aliens on its surface, the behind-the-scenes owners are trying to cover the really fantastic reality of the Moon with information noise, which should definitely be mentioned in this work.
The most obvious and vivid optical anomaly of the Moon is visible to all earthlings with the naked eye, so it remains only to be surprised that almost no one pays attention to it. See what the moon looks like in a clear night sky at full moon moments? It looks like a flat round body (like a coin), but not like a ball!
A spherical body with rather significant irregularities on its surface, in the case of its illumination by a light source located behind the observer, should shine to the greatest extent closer to its center, and as it approaches the edge of the sphere, the luminosity should gradually decrease. Probably the most famous law of optics cries about this, which sounds like this: "The angle of incidence of a ray is equal to the angle of its reflection." But this rule does not apply to the Moon at all. Due to reasons incomprehensible to official physics, the rays of light falling into the edge of the lunar ball are reflected … back to the Sun, which is why we see the Moon at the full moon as a kind of coin, but not as a ball.
An equally obvious observable thing - the constant value of the luminosity level of the illuminated parts of the Moon for an observer from Earth - introduces even greater confusion into the minds. Simply put, if we assume that the Moon has some property of directed scattering of light, then we have to admit that the reflection of light changes its angle depending on the position of the Sun-Earth-Moon system. No one can dispute the fact that even a narrow crescent of a young Moon gives a luminosity exactly the same as the central part of a half Moon corresponding to it in area. And this means that the Moon somehow controls the angle of reflection of the sun's rays so that they are always reflected from its surface to the Earth!
But when the full moon comes, the luminosity of the moon increases in leaps and bounds. This means that the surface of the moon amazingly splits the reflected light into two main directions - towards the Sun and the Earth. This leads to another stunning conclusion that the Moon is practically invisible to an observer from space, who is not on the straight lines Earth-Moon or Solna-Moon. Who and why needed to hide the Moon in space in the optical range? …
To understand what the joke is, in Soviet laboratories they spent a lot of time on optical experiments with lunar soil delivered to Earth by the automatic vehicles Luna-16, Luna-20 and Luna-24. However, the parameters of the reflection of light, including solar, from the lunar soil fit well into all the known canons of optics. The lunar soil on Earth did not want to show the wonders that we see on the Moon. It turns out that materials on the Moon and on Earth behave differently?
Quite possible. After all, an unoxidizable film several iron atoms thick on the surface of any objects, as far as I know, in terrestrial laboratories has not yet been obtained …
The fire was poured into the fire by photographs from the Moon, transmitted by Soviet and American machine guns, which they managed to land on its surface. Imagine the surprise of the scientists of that time, when all the photographs on the Moon turned out to be strictly black and white - without a single hint of such a rainbow spectrum that is familiar to us. If only the lunar landscape was photographed, evenly covered with dust from meteorite explosions, this would somehow be understandable. But even a color calibration plate on the lander body was obtained in black and white! Any color on the lunar surface turns into the corresponding shade of gray, which is impartially recorded by all photographs of the lunar surface, transmitted by automatic devices of different generations and missions to this day.
Now imagine in what deep … puddle the Americans are sitting with their white-blue-red striped flags, allegedly photographed on the lunar surface by the valiant astronauts-"pioneers". Tell me, in their place, would you try hard to resume exploration of the Moon and get to its surface at least with the help of some kind of "pendos rover", knowing that images or videos will only turn out in black and white? Is it possible to quickly paint them, like old films … But, damn it, in what colors to paint pieces of rocks, local stones or steep mountain slopes!?..
Incidentally, very similar problems awaited NASA on Mars. All researchers have probably already set their teeth on edge by a muddy story with a color mismatch, more precisely, with an obvious shift of the entire Martian visible spectrum on its surface to the red side. When NASA employees are suspected of deliberately distorting images from Mars (supposedly hiding blue skies, green carpets of lawns, blue lakes, crawling locals …), I call to remember the Moon …
Think, maybe different physical laws simply operate on different planets?
Then a lot of things immediately fall into place!
But let's get back to the moon for now. Let's finish with the list of optical anomalies, and then get down to the next sections of Lunar Wonders.
A ray of light passing near the surface of the Moon receives significant scatter in direction, which is why modern astronomy cannot even calculate the time it takes to cover the stars with the body of the Moon. Official science does not express any ideas why this happens, except for the crazy-delusional electrostatic-style reasons for the movement of lunar dust at high altitudes above its surface or the activity of certain lunar volcanoes, which deliberately throw out dust refracting light exactly in the place where the observation is this star. And so, in fact, no one has yet observed lunar volcanoes.
As you know, terrestrial science is able to collect information on the chemical composition of distant celestial bodies by studying molecular emission-absorption spectra. So, for the celestial body closest to the Earth - the Moon - this method of determining the chemical composition of the surface does not work! The lunar spectrum is practically devoid of bands that can provide information about the composition of the moon. The only reliable information on the chemical composition of the lunar regolith was obtained, as is known, from the study of samples taken by the Soviet "Lunas". But even now, when it is possible to scan the lunar surface from a low circumlunar orbit using automatic devices, reports of the presence of a particular chemical substance on its surface are extremely contradictory. Even on Mars - and even then there is much more information.
And one more amazing optical feature of the lunar surface. This property is a consequence of the unique backscattering of light, with which I began my story about the optical anomalies of the Moon. So, almost all light falling on the moon is reflected towards the sun and the earth. Let's remember that at night, under appropriate conditions, we can perfectly see the part of the Moon that is not illuminated by the Sun, which, in principle, should be completely black, if not for … the secondary illumination of the Earth! The earth, when illuminated by the sun, reflects some of the sunlight towards the moon. And all this light that illuminates the shadowy part of the Moon returns back to Earth! Hence, it is completely logical to assume that twilight reigns all the time on the surface of the Moon, even on the side illuminated by the Sun. This guess is superbly confirmed by photographs of the lunar surface,made by Soviet lunar rovers. Look at them carefully on occasion; for everything that can be obtained. They were made in direct sunlight without the influence of distortion of the atmosphere, but they look as if the contrast of the black-and-white picture was tightened in the earthly twilight.
In such conditions, the shadows from objects on the surface of the Moon should be absolutely black, illuminated only by the nearest stars and planets, the level of illumination from which is many orders of magnitude lower than that of the sun. This means that it is not possible to see an object in the shadow of the moon using any known optical means.
To summarize the optical phenomena of the Moon, let us give the floor to the independent researcher A. A. Grishaev, the author of a book about the "digital" physical world, who, developing his ideas, in another article points out:
“Taking into account the existence of these phenomena provides new, deadly arguments in support of those who believe that the films and photographs that allegedly testify to the stay of American astronauts on the lunar surface are fakes. After all, we give the keys to carry out the simplest and ruthless independent examination. If we are shown against the background of sunlit (!) Lunar landscapes of astronauts, on whose spacesuits there are no black shadows from the anti-sun side, or a well-lit figure of an astronaut in the shadow of the "lunar module", or color (!) Frames with a vivid reproduction of the colors of the American flag - then this is all irrefutable evidence, screaming falsification. In fact, we do not know of a single film or photographic documentary depicting astronauts on the moon in real moonlight and with a real lunar color “palette”.
And then he continues:
“The physical conditions on the Moon are too abnormal, and it cannot be ruled out that the space around the moon is destructive for terrestrial organisms. Today we know of the only model that explains the short-range action of lunar gravity, and at the same time the origin of the accompanying anomalous optical phenomena - this is our model of "shaky space". And if this model is correct, then the vibrations of "unsteady space" below a certain height above the surface of the Moon are quite capable of breaking weak bonds in protein molecules - with the destruction of their tertiary and, possibly, secondary structures. As far as we know, the turtles returned alive from the circumlunar space on board the Soviet probe "Zond-5", which circled the Moon with a minimum distance of about 2000 km from its surface. Maybe,that with the passage of the apparatus closer to the Moon, animals would die as a result of denaturation of proteins in their organisms. If it is very difficult to protect oneself from cosmic radiation, but it is still possible, then there is no physical protection from the vibrations of the "shaky space"."
The above excerpt is only a small part of the work with the original of which I highly recommend to read the author's website [otstoja.net]
And I also like that the lunar expedition was re-filmed in good quality. And it’s true, it was disgusting to watch. All the same, the 21st century. So welcome, in HD quality "Sleigh rides on Shrovetide".