Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Dear NATO, please take your $60 barrel and purchase many blankets. You're about to go into deep Frosty the snowman state.
It's more likely that the speed zones are programmed into the navigation database. Apple Maps doesn't use any of my iPhone's cameras but it still knows and displays the local speed limit on the screen.how would it know the speed limit? Read speed signs? Google map?
I recently drove a 2021 vehicle had camera(s), apparently reading roadside signs (which have a standardised format in the UK) and white-painted signs on the roadway. This system would fall apart if, for instance, New York State and New Jersey had different styles of roadside signs....
Depleted Russia removing nuclear warheads from old missiles to hit Ukraine – MoD
The strategy is ‘unlikely to achieve reliable effects’ and shows how Vladimir Putin’s forces are struggling, officials said.
It is becoming ever increasingly difficult now to actually go there to prove as the Antarctica Treaty prevents personal travel and the government won't be issuing any visitor passes to allow discovery. They will further keep people away with military force and by other means such as preserving nature areas that nobody can go to so people don't question why they're being kept away.Hmmm... Maybe someone should tell the Antarctic tourism industry that they're breaking international law.
You are not allowed to sail or go past past the 60th parallel south. I believe it is to prevent us from getting too close to the firmament and discovering the true nature of the plane we live on.
This is artwork. Rockets fly several thousand miles then drop in the ocean outta sight.Well, most of the rocket (that isn't propellant), at least. Unless you're China, of course. In that case, all bets are off.
A couple of questions if you don't mind. From a science perspective; if gravity did not exist and as a consequence let's say that everything floated 'on air' so to speak. Would it be fair to say that science would then want to know why things floated and why they did not fall to the ground (as opposed to why things do not float and do fall to the ground)? And if so why would we think there was something preventing us falling (as we seem to wonder why we don't float for example)?The goal of science is to describe and understand the world around us as it exists. If just floating around is the norm, then science would probably try to figure out why that happens. It's a lot harder to figure out why things that you don't experience don't happen.
Incidentally re preponderance of evidence. It is actually a low barrier and is based on the balance of probability. Therefore if that is what science relies on a 'theory' would only have to scrape over the half way line for it to be accepted.Sure, until a theory with better evidence comes along. The challenge to come up with theories that better explain how things happen has been ongoing for thousands of years, therefore the quality of evidence necessary to supplant existing theories is very high.
And for some reason a lot of Western pundits keep cowering in fear of Russia as if the last 9 months didn't happen.August 6, 1945 to be precise.
It's like their minds are trapped in 1945.
Exactly - the earth cannot be round without gravity. Its the cart before the horse. Lets presume the earth is round then come up with a theory that stops us falling off it.Actually, the earth was known to be round for around 1500 years or more before Newton came up with gravity. Before that, people believed that things fell for much the same reasons that you explain: because that's what heavy things do. Newton's version of gravity describes, with pretty good precision, how heavy things fall the way they do.
And you mention 'credible explanation'. That doesn't meet the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' test.Science doesn't use the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. It uses the "preponderance of evidence" standard, and that standard is much higher than you probably think.
I am using the scenario that if the world was a globe then they (or at least someone) would be hanging upside down.Except that scenario doesn't exist on a globe earth. Gravity causes down to be towards the center of the earth, regardless of where you are on the globe.
Gravity is not one of Newton's three laws of motion.Since it appears that you have discovered Newton's laws, and know that different amount of mass will be moved differently in response to a force, more massive requiring more force, maybe you can explain for us how gravity knows to apply different amounts of force to a bowling ball and a feather to cause them to 'fall' together at the same rate in a vacuum chamber.If you want to discuss gravity, then feel free to start a new thread. This thread is about how rockets work in a vacuum.
If you want to appeal to Newton then you have to be willing to talk about places where Newton's laws don't work. How rockets work, and rocketry requirements, does have something to do with gravity. A lot to do with it, actually.
Since it appears that you have discovered Newton's laws, and know that different amount of mass will be moved differently in response to a force, more massive requiring more force, maybe you can explain for us how gravity knows to apply different amounts of force to a bowling ball and a feather to cause them to 'fall' together at the same rate in a vacuum chamber.If you want to discuss gravity, then feel free to start a new thread. This thread is about how rockets work in a vacuum.
This opposite force created by accelerating matter is new to me... I'll investigate and thank you for your time.It's simply an example of Newton's third law of motion.
Rowbotham was not wrong. You were just lazy and didn't bother to read the book. He also studied the cases where the hull could not be restored with a telescope. He said that in the cases where the hull could not be restored it was clearly due to a special cause, due to inconsistency, inaccuracy, or weather correlation of such observations.Thank you for explaining exactly why such observations should not be used as evidence of anything.