Re: gravity
« Reply #40 on: February 29, 2016, 04:05:34 AM »
And they calculated the moons gravity how? Because as far as I can tell there is still debate about earths which should be a lot easier to detect because a. Its a lot bigger and b. Were actually on it. Now that wouldn't be too big of a deal if we assume it is a certain level and overcompensate but getting the "command module" to orbit seems a complicated task.

Its all bullshit you can live in fantasy space land but I'll stay down here in reality.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: gravity
« Reply #41 on: February 29, 2016, 09:57:02 AM »
And they calculated the moons gravity how? Because as far as I can tell there is still debate about earths which should be a lot easier to detect because a. Its a lot bigger and b. Were actually on it. Now that wouldn't be too big of a deal if we assume it is a certain level and overcompensate but getting the "command module" to orbit seems a complicated task.

Its all bullshit you can live in fantasy space land but I'll stay down here in reality.
I don't see any debate on "there is still debate about earths" gravity. Even TFES says it is 9.8m/s^2. Who's debating?
The launch from earth was far more than "getting the 'command module' to orbit".
You write as though you no idea of what was involved, and I am certainly not going into the details that you look up yourself.

Re: gravity
« Reply #42 on: February 29, 2016, 04:55:50 PM »
And they calculated the moons gravity how? Because as far as I can tell there is still debate about earths which should be a lot easier to detect because a. Its a lot bigger and b. Were actually on it. Now that wouldn't be too big of a deal if we assume it is a certain level and overcompensate but getting the "command module" to orbit seems a complicated task.

Its all bullshit you can live in fantasy space land but I'll stay down here in reality.
I don't see any debate on "there is still debate about earths" gravity. Even TFES says it is 9.8m/s^2. Who's debating?
The launch from earth was far more than "getting the 'command module' to orbit".
You write as though you no idea of what was involved, and I am certainly not going into the details that you look up yourself.

Orbiting is based on the principle of a "free fall" which means a vessel is traveling so fast it effectively falls "over" the horizon. Earth's gravity being 9.8m/s^2 is the way they determined just how fast a vessel would have to be to "orbit" Earth.

Now did someone send a "cavendish" device to the moon? And a scientist check its results after a year? If not, how did we know the density of the moon to be able to create a "command module" that is capable of reaching exactly the right speed to orbit the moon?

I think you are underestimating my perception of the principles of orbit. Maybe it's easier to paint me with the idiot brush but you can't say I'm wholly ignorant of the concepts.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: gravity
« Reply #43 on: March 01, 2016, 06:27:41 AM »
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Orbiting is based on the principle of a "free fall" which means a vessel is traveling so fast it effectively falls "over" the horizon. Earth's gravity being 9.8m/s^2 is the way they determined just how fast a vessel would have to be to "orbit" Earth.

Now did someone send a "cavendish" device to the moon? And a scientist check its results after a year? If not, how did we know the density of the moon to be able to create a "command module" that is capable of reaching exactly the right speed to orbit the moon?

I think you are underestimating my perception of the principles of orbit. Maybe it's easier to paint me with the idiot brush but you can't say I'm wholly ignorant of the concepts.
No, there is no need (or point) to having "someone send a "cavendish" device to the moon" and it's hardly a "device" that you could use that way.

I most certainly won't "paint me with the idiot brush" for asking how strong gravitation on the moon was measured. It is also something I did not know until I tried to chase it up just now. It is something that astronomers spent quite a lot of time on after Newton.

The distance and diameter were easy to measure by astronomical means, and reasonably accurate values have been known for a very long time and the mass of planets with their own satellites is easy to determine from the orbital periods of these satellites. Those without satellites can be estimated by their effects on the orbits of other planets.

In the case of the moon, trying to estimate the mass simply by comparing its volume to that of the earth gives mass that is far too high, as the moon's average density (3,340 kg/m3) is much less than that of the earth (5,514 kg/m3).

Newton tried to estimate the moon's mass from relative tidal effects of the sun and the moon - and botched it up because of the complications of tidal flow in the estuary he was working from - yes, Newton made "mistakes" too.
Quite a number of method's were used by Laplace, Airy and others to home in on a more accurate figure. A description of all methods used is much more than I could tackle here and I'd probably get it wrong! Even events like the approach of the near earth asteroid Eros can give useful data.
These astronomers would not have been satisfied until they got results from the various methods that were in good agreement.

Summarising, it's not easy, but a good value of the mass and hence the moon's gravity was available long before any space missions were contemplated.

Of course, there were many moon missions, from simply crashing into the moon to orbiting the moon, well before any manned missions were contemplated. These enabled a refinement of the value.

Offline amppen

  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: gravity
« Reply #44 on: March 19, 2016, 04:33:33 PM »
Hello. This is all very interesting. However, I can't quite wrap my head around the mechanism that causes the "pretty small" planets explained in the wiki to orbit around the Sun if there is no gravity.

*

Offline nametaken

  • *
  • Posts: 87
  • ͡ ͡° ͜ ʖ ͡ ͡°
    • View Profile
Re: gravity
« Reply #45 on: March 20, 2016, 01:55:10 AM »
Why is this topic still going? The first response answered the question.

Hello. This is all very interesting. However, I can't quite wrap my head around the mechanism that causes the "pretty small" planets explained in the wiki to orbit around the Sun if there is no gravity.

I think the illustration here is what you're looking for. iirc the FE model doesn't acknowledge the apparent force we call gravity as being a real thing (and the OP confirms this). But of course, the model the wiki offers in place of [the Earth's] gravity is the acceleration explanation. Specifically, I don't understand how it works as it approaches c; if the acceleration slowed, wouldn't the 'apparent force' of gravity disappear? Of course, the more obvious problem is that if the Flat Earth were traveling almost c and say, we launched a rocket from Earth, wouldn't the rocket be going almost c plus the rocket's velocity (possibly faster than c), to be inevitably overcome again by the continual acceleration of the Flat Earth? Of course everything else in the FE model seems to stay in a fixed location with the acceleration, so there would never be any proof of the actual speed at which the Earth is moving; it could literally be going faster than c already, but it would be impossible to tell.

On the other hand, if we launched a rocket and sent it 'bellow/behind' the Flat Earth, would the Flat Earth continue to accelerate away from the rocket? However, iirc it is impossible to leave the FE, but can't find any such statement on the wiki. Thank you you just gave me the idea for my next topic.
The Flat Earth Society has members all around the Globe
[H]ominem unius libri timeo ~Truth is stranger.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: gravity
« Reply #46 on: March 20, 2016, 04:21:30 AM »
Hello. This is all very interesting. However, I can't quite wrap my head around the mechanism that causes the "pretty small" planets explained in the wiki to orbit around the Sun if there is no gravity.
;D ;D That is easy!  ;D ;D
Just look on The Flat Earth Society site for Astrophysics
Quote
NEXUS RINGS
The elliptical orbits observed by Astrophysicists on earth are caused by planets moving along transparent, magnetic nexus rings. All significant celestial objects move along individual nexus rings. In addition, smaller objects such as asteroids may be slightly influenced by the pull of nexus rings. Nexus rings exert a small force on each other, but because of the vast amount of nexus rings in the universe, the net forces on each nexus ring are negligible.

Now, please don't ask ME what a NEXUS RING is! Maybe another name for FE magic?

totallackey

Re: gravity
« Reply #47 on: April 03, 2016, 09:08:21 PM »
Is this your job bro? Let me bask in my ignorance. Please spare me, unless you can ddescribe the mechanism used in getting man off of the moon, back to earth. No one ever talks about that, but please describe the rocket they used to launch off of the moon back to earth.
What on earth do you mean with "No one ever talks about that"? You can look it up yourself just as well as I can! Mind you, getting off the moon is the easy bit, with the low gravity - re-entry back on earth is the hard bit! Anyway that's all well described!

It's not talked about in any great length, except aldrin and armstrong "blasted off" and docked with something supposedly orbiting the moon.

So on earth it takes a team of hundreds and hundreds of engineers, precise control, and perfectly aimed rocket to launch out of its orbit, but on the moon it just took two guys? Who happened to also be rocket scientists.

This is all null considering the concept of gravity and microgravity as explained ny Newton and used to explain how space flight works IS A FARCE.

And I dont think everyone at NASA knows. All the poor folks that dedicate their lives to the types of study required to work there are probably very smart. They probably believe what they draw up is actually what happens... But the point when youre in mission control and the other guys are supposedly in orbit, you no longer can be a firsthand witness.
For a start those "team of hundreds and hundreds of engineers" also designed the lunar module and planned the lift off. It did no have to reach escape velocity (2.4 km/s), just rendezvous with the command module.
There is voluminous information on this.
http://www.armaghplanet.com/blog/nasas-lunar-module-everything-you-need-to-know.html
http://www.universetoday.com/117331/how-nasa-filmed-humans-last-leaving-the-moon-42-years-ago/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module
http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon-mars/a4391/4318496/

I know you don't believe it, so why do you bother asking, but as I said before, getting off the moon is child's play compared to re-entry!

Who was shooting that footage? That is some damn fine camera work...I mean, the module was followed nearly center screen for a whole minute...fucking amazing!!! You capture motion like that on screen you should be fucking working Hollywood and win every Oscar ever offered for cinematography!!!

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: gravity
« Reply #48 on: April 04, 2016, 12:55:30 AM »
I know you don't believe it, so why do you bother asking, but as I said before, getting off the moon is child's play compared to re-entry!

Who was shooting that footage? That is some damn fine camera work...I mean, the module was followed nearly center screen for a whole minute...fucking amazing!!! You capture motion like that on screen you should be fucking working Hollywood and win every Oscar ever offered for cinematography!!!
Yes, I know! YOU don't understand how it is done, so it must be FAKE!
So many seem to think they know everything about everything, and can tell it can't be done just by looking at it. I don't know why you don't become an adviser to tell these engineers that it can be done, so don't bother trying!

A little reading up on the massive material available might just tell you how these things are done. I haven't looked up about that video, but at a guess the trajectory of the vehicle was well planed and known in advance, so what would be so hard about pre-programming the camera!

It's not rocket science you know! - er well, maybe a lot of it is, but it is "rocket scientists" and engineers doing the planning.

So many flat earthers seem to only read and look at material prepared by other flat earthers that they never see the wider pictures.
Yet you talk of Globe supporters being indoctrinated! Sure, but we are prepared to read up on "Flat Earth Theory", and in my case I find it severely lacking in numerous areas and unable to explain numerous observations!

That is: Without dragging in "magical" UA, magical "atmospheric magnification", magic "massive atmospheric refraction", quite unrealistic and artificial perspective and numerous other things.
And is still unable to explain how the circumference of the earth at 40° South latitude is almost exactly the same as at 40° North latitude.
Not EXACTLY - remember the Pear Shaped bit!

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 780
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: gravity
« Reply #49 on: April 04, 2016, 02:43:23 AM »
Who was shooting that footage? That is some damn fine camera work...I mean, the module was followed nearly center screen for a whole minute...fucking amazing!!! You capture motion like that on screen you should be fucking working Hollywood and win every Oscar ever offered for cinematography!!!

The camera on the lunar rover was used, and operated from Earth by a NASA engineer named Ed Fendell.  Because of the signal delay between the moon and the Earth, he had to start sending the command to "pan up" the camera a couple seconds before the module actually launched, based on the countdown clock running in Mission Control.  You can read his account of the event on pages 60-61 of this interview transcript..  He and a colleague had pre-calculated where the camera needed to be aimed at each second of flight, and Ed sat in Houston sending incremental commands to the camera, working blind.  They didn't even know if they had good footage until afterward.
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

Re: gravity
« Reply #50 on: April 04, 2016, 05:23:08 AM »
Who was shooting that footage? That is some damn fine camera work...I mean, the module was followed nearly center screen for a whole minute...fucking amazing!!! You capture motion like that on screen you should be fucking working Hollywood and win every Oscar ever offered for cinematography!!!

The camera on the lunar rover was used, and operated from Earth by a NASA engineer named Ed Fendell.  Because of the signal delay between the moon and the Earth, he had to start sending the command to "pan up" the camera a couple seconds before the module actually launched, based on the countdown clock running in Mission Control.  You can read his account of the event on pages 60-61 of this interview transcript..  He and a colleague had pre-calculated where the camera needed to be aimed at each second of flight, and Ed sat in Houston sending incremental commands to the camera, working blind.  They didn't even know if they had good footage until afterward.

How convenient.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: gravity
« Reply #51 on: April 04, 2016, 06:40:03 AM »
Who was shooting that footage? That is some damn fine camera work...I mean, the module was followed nearly center screen for a whole minute...fucking amazing!!! You capture motion like that on screen you should be fucking working Hollywood and win every Oscar ever offered for cinematography!!!

The camera on the lunar rover was used, and operated from Earth by a NASA engineer named Ed Fendell.  Because of the signal delay between the moon and the Earth, he had to start sending the command to "pan up" the camera a couple seconds before the module actually launched, based on the countdown clock running in Mission Control.  You can read his account of the event on pages 60-61 of this interview transcript..  He and a colleague had pre-calculated where the camera needed to be aimed at each second of flight, and Ed sat in Houston sending incremental commands to the camera, working blind.  They didn't even know if they had good footage until afterward.

How convenient.
Just the sort of inane comment I would expect from a NASAphobic know-it-all like yourself.
Don't you just lurv th' formattin'?
Nice little reference on amateur (and other) astronomical observations of Apollo missions:
I'm sure you'll be interested.

Wonder how they calculated trajectories? Using "dens-pressure" or whatever rubbish you come up for gravity, since you seem to have an aversion for that Newtonian thingo.
Or, did they use Einstein's General Relativity solutions, using the Schwarzschild metric. In fact I think they probably used good old Newton!

PS If you don't know what I'm talking about, don't feel too inferior - I don't know much about it anyway! Sounds impressive to spout things like "the Schwarzschild metric".

Offline Unsure101

  • *
  • Posts: 142
    • View Profile
Re: gravity
« Reply #52 on: April 04, 2016, 02:05:22 PM »
Who was shooting that footage? That is some damn fine camera work...I mean, the module was followed nearly center screen for a whole minute...fucking amazing!!! You capture motion like that on screen you should be fucking working Hollywood and win every Oscar ever offered for cinematography!!!

The camera on the lunar rover was used, and operated from Earth by a NASA engineer named Ed Fendell.  Because of the signal delay between the moon and the Earth, he had to start sending the command to "pan up" the camera a couple seconds before the module actually launched, based on the countdown clock running in Mission Control.  You can read his account of the event on pages 60-61 of this interview transcript..  He and a colleague had pre-calculated where the camera needed to be aimed at each second of flight, and Ed sat in Houston sending incremental commands to the camera, working blind.  They didn't even know if they had good footage until afterward.

How convenient.
No, just well calculated execution based on scientific principles, unlike the magic used for UA, bendy light, focal point suns and shadow objects.

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 780
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: gravity
« Reply #53 on: April 04, 2016, 03:51:55 PM »
How convenient.

If you would read the linked material, you will see it was anything but.  There were only three lunar missions with rovers: Apollo 15-17.  On 15 the motor to tilt the camera burned out, so no footage.  On 16 the crew parked the rover in the wrong spot, so Fendell's pre-calculated camera angles were useless with no time for new calculations, so no footage.  17 was the last chance, and they got it.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2016, 07:34:17 PM by Rounder »
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

Offline Round fact

  • *
  • Posts: 188
  • Science and math over opinion
    • View Profile
    • Starflight Publishing
Re: gravity
« Reply #54 on: April 04, 2016, 05:53:36 PM »
But when did I pretend to be knowledgeable about anything? I have my reasons for being the guy that questions everything, as I'm sure others do... but trust me my point of view is that actually knowing anything can never be wholly achieved.

That's what drove me to look into the flat earth concepts, because at some point a whole lot of people knew the earth was flat, "scientists" included.
First you say: "actually knowing anything can never be wholly achieved", 
then: "at some point a whole lot of people knew the earth was flat"
Enough said, with such an illogical attitude, further discussion would be fruitless! /b]

Note that I put it "knew" in italics. Anyway, I've been looking into Newton's theories of gravitation more, and the following quote from Newton in a letter to his colleague Richard Bentley speaks volumes about the faith he actually had in his theory of objects acting upon each other through space.

"That gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to matter, so that one body should act upon another at a distance, through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has, in philosophical matters, a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent, acting constantly according to certain laws, but whether this agent be material or immaterial, I leave to the consideration of my reader. "

This paper by Immanuel Velikovsky also raises a lot of critical points about gravity in general. It is very well worth the read.

Point being, let's not pretend that there aren't multitudes of questionable aspects about Newton's theories on gravitation. So if the theory turns out to be unequivocally false, how do we explain Nasa's persistence that they have applied their knowledge of gravity to make man-made objects "orbit" the earth, in the thermosphere I might add. (the place where radiation from the sun causes temperatures reach 2400 degrees)

The whole thing reeks.

When I was in 7th grade, we saw two large lead balls hung in a vacuum chamber. One ball was released to swing very close the other. After a while the stationary ball started to swing too

*

Offline Hoppy

  • *
  • Posts: 1149
  • Posts 6892
    • View Profile
Re: gravity
« Reply #55 on: April 04, 2016, 06:26:18 PM »
How convenient.

If you would read the linked material, you will see it was anything but.  There were only three lunar missions with rovers: Apollo 15-17.  On 15 the motor to tilt the camera burned out, so no footage.  On 16 the crew parked the rover in the wrong spot, so Fendell's pre-calculated camera angles were useless with was no time for new calculations, so no footage.  17 was the last chance, and they got it.
Again, how convenient.
God is real.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: gravity
« Reply #56 on: April 04, 2016, 10:01:47 PM »
How convenient.

If you would read the linked material, you will see it was anything but.  There were only three lunar missions with rovers: Apollo 15-17.  On 15 the motor to tilt the camera burned out, so no footage.  On 16 the crew parked the rover in the wrong spot, so Fendell's pre-calculated camera angles were useless with was no time for new calculations, so no footage.  17 was the last chance, and they got it.
Again, how convenient.

Just as inane as when "Little Truth Found Here" said it and not even original.
And he has no idea even what keeps his feet on the ground! Oh, the GRAVITY of the situation!

Re: gravity
« Reply #57 on: April 05, 2016, 01:48:13 AM »
How convenient.

If you would read the linked material, you will see it was anything but.  There were only three lunar missions with rovers: Apollo 15-17.  On 15 the motor to tilt the camera burned out, so no footage.  On 16 the crew parked the rover in the wrong spot, so Fendell's pre-calculated camera angles were useless with was no time for new calculations, so no footage.  17 was the last chance, and they got it.
Again, how convenient.

Just as inane as when "Little Truth Found Here" said it and not even original.
And he has no idea even what keeps his feet on the ground! Oh, the GRAVITY of the situation!

I may not have my own original theory but I certainly know it isn't some magic force described as an inherent property of mass capable of exerting forces through a vacuum, that sometimes pulls objects towards each other and sometimes makes them rotate each other perpetually.

I don't care what you think about me or my beliefs, and quite honestly, I feel no desire to even debate or discuss anything with you any longer. It's a never ending loop that is about pleasurable as a root canal.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: gravity
« Reply #58 on: April 05, 2016, 04:25:18 AM »
I may not have my own original theory but I certainly know it isn't some magic force described as an inherent property of mass capable of exerting forces through a vacuum, that sometimes pulls objects towards each other and sometimes makes them rotate each other perpetually.

I don't care what you think about me or my beliefs, and quite honestly, I feel no desire to even debate or discuss anything with you any longer. It's a never ending loop that is about pleasurable as a root canal.
  • You can't accept "capable of exerting forces through a vacuum", yet you quite happily accept electrostatic and magnetic forces "capable of exerting forces through a vacuum" - a bit of consistency please!
  • Gravitation always "pulls objects towards each" and
  • Has nothing whatever to do with "makes them rotate each other perpetually"!
So what do think holds you on the ground? "Chewing gum!"

And who keeps this "never ending loop that is about pleasurable as a root canal" going!

When you keep coming up with statements like gravity "sometimes makes them rotate each other perpetually, I will always responds in the hopes that others might not fall into the utterly stupid notions that you seem to have.

Offline Round fact

  • *
  • Posts: 188
  • Science and math over opinion
    • View Profile
    • Starflight Publishing
Re: gravity
« Reply #59 on: April 05, 2016, 12:21:55 PM »
Why is this topic still going? The first response answered the question.

Hello. This is all very interesting. However, I can't quite wrap my head around the mechanism that causes the "pretty small" planets explained in the wiki to orbit around the Sun if there is no gravity.

I think the illustration here is what you're looking for. iirc the FE model doesn't acknowledge the apparent force we call gravity as being a real thing (and the OP confirms this). But of course, the model the wiki offers in place of [the Earth's] gravity is the acceleration explanation. Specifically, I don't understand how it works as it approaches c; if the acceleration slowed, wouldn't the 'apparent force' of gravity disappear? Of course, the more obvious problem is that if the Flat Earth were traveling almost c and say, we launched a rocket from Earth, wouldn't the rocket be going almost c plus the rocket's velocity (possibly faster than c), to be inevitably overcome again by the continual acceleration of the Flat Earth? Of course everything else in the FE model seems to stay in a fixed location with the acceleration, so there would never be any proof of the actual speed at which the Earth is moving; it could literally be going faster than c already, but it would be impossible to tell.

On the other hand, if we launched a rocket and sent it 'bellow/behind' the Flat Earth, would the Flat Earth continue to accelerate away from the rocket? However, iirc it is impossible to leave the FE, but can't find any such statement on the wiki. Thank you you just gave me the idea for my next topic.

First all, c is relative to observer. More than that and I'd be writing a small book here. You have a LOT of research ahead of you.