Please look up the Equivalence Principle, it should answer any questions you might have of this nature. It was Einstein who said that the effect of gravity was equivalent to that of a constant acceleration, not us.Yes, I have looked up the Equivalence Principle in the Wiki and elsewhere and maintain that it cannot be legitimately applied to the whole earth.
we [...] assume the complete physical equivalence of a gravitational field and a corresponding acceleration of the reference system.This very brief statement of Einstein needs a little qualification. If the reference system under consideration is not small enough for the gravitational field to be considered constant over its range then there can be no complete physical equivalence.
— Einstein, 1907
An equivalent formulation of the Principle of Equivalence is that at any local (that is, sufficiently small) region in spacetime it is possible to formulate the equations governing physical laws such that the effect of gravitation can be neglected. This in turn means that the Special Theory of Relativity is valid for that particular situation, and this in turn allows a number of things to be deduced because the solution of the equations for the Special Theory of Relativity is beyond the scope of our course, but is not particularly difficult for those trained in the required mathematics. from http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/equivalence.html (http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/equivalence.html)In the case of the earth we can readily measure variations in the gravitational field. The most obvious is due to altitude and latitude, but there are more subtle variations due to the presence of ore bodies as used in gravimetric surveys for minerals.
Q: Why does gravity vary with altitude?but this cannot be the cause because these bodies are in constant motion above the earth, yet the variations in the observed "gravitational field" because these variations are essentially stationary - being due to altitude, latitude and the proximity of massive ore bodies, etc.
A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull.
This is clearly not satisfied, so the concept of Universal Acceleration cannot be be used to replace the gravitational field.
and shows quite clearly that UA is simply an invalid substitute for the observed "gravitational field".
So, what are you challenging?This is clearly not satisfied, so the concept of Universal Acceleration cannot be be used to replace the gravitational field.
and shows quite clearly that UA is simply an invalid substitute for the observed "gravitational field".
You say this, but are unable to provide any actual proof of the claim beyond just those words. Nothing in your post proves counter to FET. Better luck next time.
Please look up the Equivalence Principle, it should answer any questions you might have of this nature. It was Einstein who said that the effect of gravity was equivalent to that of a constant acceleration, not us.Yes, I have looked up the Equivalence Principle in the Wiki and elsewhere and maintain that it cannot be legitimately applied to the whole earth.
You say it's irrelevant, but if the gravitational field across the earth is not constant then, with or without the EP, UA cannot ne used to replace gravity, unless you have justifiable reasons for those deviations. Just remember that I was describing only the most obvious "g" variations - there are many more to consider.Irrelevant.Please look up the Equivalence Principle, it should answer any questions you might have of this nature. It was Einstein who said that the effect of gravity was equivalent to that of a constant acceleration, not us.Yes, I have looked up the Equivalence Principle in the Wiki and elsewhere and maintain that it cannot be legitimately applied to the whole earth.
You say it's irrelevant, but if the gravitational field across the earth is not constant then, with or without the EP, UA cannot ne used to replace gravity, unless you have justifiable reasons for those deviations. Just remember that I was describing only the most obvious "g" variations - there are many more to consider.Irrelevant.Please look up the Equivalence Principle, it should answer any questions you might have of this nature. It was Einstein who said that the effect of gravity was equivalent to that of a constant acceleration, not us.Yes, I have looked up the Equivalence Principle in the Wiki and elsewhere and maintain that it cannot be legitimately applied to the whole earth.
Yes, a few facts are quite irrelevant to the Flat Earth! You see the earth looks flat, then change everything else to suit!
Things like: perspective, massive refraction, impossible magnification in the atmosphere, etc, etc!
Then declare any photos and other evidence that goes against the Flat Earth as fake or lies!
You say it's irrelevant, but if the gravitational field across the earth is not constant then, with or without the EP, UA cannot ne used to replace gravity, unless you have justifiable reasons for those deviations. Just remember that I was describing only the most obvious "g" variations - there are many more to consider.Irrelevant.Please look up the Equivalence Principle, it should answer any questions you might have of this nature. It was Einstein who said that the effect of gravity was equivalent to that of a constant acceleration, not us.Yes, I have looked up the Equivalence Principle in the Wiki and elsewhere and maintain that it cannot be legitimately applied to the whole earth.
Yes, a few facts are quite irrelevant to the Flat Earth! You see the earth looks flat, then change everything else to suit!
Things like: perspective, massive refraction, impossible magnification in the atmosphere, etc, etc!
Then declare any photos and other evidence that goes against the Flat Earth as fake or lies!
It was irrelevant to the OP's question, which had nothing at all to do with variations in g over the surface of the Earth. I wasn't defending Flat Earth Theory with my response, I was merely answering his question. If you have something irrelevant to that question that you think is worthy of debate you should probably take it to the proper board.
I've been looking into buoyancy a little bit... and it seems odd that most people accept that in liquid something with less density will be "pushed" to the top... but can't seem to accept that things behave in a similar manner if submerged in a gas (our atmosphere)This does not explain the greatly varying weights of objects of exactly the same size.
Why Gravity ever was postulated seems extraneous to describe the phenomenon we feel as a solid in liquids and gases
Material | Mass of 0.001 m3 | Weight when in air |
Air | 0.0012 kg | -- |
Magnesium | 1.80 kg | 1.799 kg |
Steel | 7.85 kg | 7.849 kg |
Lead | 11.37 kg | 11.369 kg |
Gold | 19.36 kg | 19.359 kg |
old Archimedes popping up again!
old Archimedes popping up again!
The same Archimedes who miscalculated the RET circumference of the earth by thousands of miles? Is that who you are really using to defend your stance?
old Archimedes popping up again!
The same Archimedes who miscalculated the RET circumference of the earth by thousands of miles? Is that who you are really using to defend your stance?
Again, I dont think that you understand how old and inaccurate their equipment was. Archimedes was born in 287 BC and died in 212 BC, over 2000 years ago! The equipment he had on hand compared to the equipment we have today would be like trying to zoom in on the moon with a magnifying glass, rather than using the Hubble space telescope to do it. The fact that we praise him for getting such an accurate estimate for his time does not mean that we praise him because we like him, but because we see how intelligent he was by being able to calculate the earths circumference with such accuracy.
Again, I dont think that you understand how old and inaccurate their equipment was. Archimedes was born in 287 BC and died in 212 BC, over 2000 years ago! The equipment he had on hand compared to the equipment we have today would be like trying to zoom in on the moon with a magnifying glass, rather than using the Hubble space telescope to do it. The fact that we praise him for getting such an accurate estimate for his time does not mean that we praise him because we like him, but because we see how intelligent he was by being able to calculate the earths circumference with such accuracy.
They both were off by some margin of error, but they were both surprisingly accurate for that time. We have made incredible improvements in technology in that field of science in the next 2000 years, like satellites that can measure the earth's circumference, etc.
The method is still the same. Except we claim to use "satellites" now instead of land based instruments, which really seems like a waste of energy and money.
As advanced as you think we've become in 2000 years, I'm just trying to let you take into perspective how germ theory didn't come around until the 19th century.
There was a massive period of human existence where the Catholic Church controlled every bit of knowledge and education available, that happened in those 2000 years. What it appears to me, is that "Science" is basically trying to take the place of the Church, in keeping people in the dark as much as possible.
With black holes, dark matter, etc its all slight of hand. NASA tells us that hey gravity works after all, we have a satellite 1 million miles from Earth, but it is nothing more than a display of authority. "They" take the "knowledge" and horde it while giving us this dog and pony show.
So you might think we've truly advanced, but have we really? It is human nature to feel that we are at a pinnacle when we could be anywhere along the hill, for all we know. There is still so much more to learn about life itself, Mankind's true origins, but instead we waste our time measuring space, with ancient techniques mangled into abomination with abstract mathematics.
As long as we trust people supposedly smarter than us, wiser than us to do the thinking for us human consciousness will never evolve, instead we are stuck in this modern day version of the dark ages where ignorance is king.
Have you ever taken a pair of binoculars and looked at the ISS? Or are you just sure that you can because you heard you can? Regardless of whether you can or can not see something in the sky with binoculars, the point is, I can almost guarantee you didn't try to do it.
The similarities between the Church in the Dark Ages and the authoritative institutions in our time are striking. They both attempt to control the flow of knowledge, through censorship and indoctrination, and the goal in this is still ultimately power and maintaining it.
"Science" as you keep referencing isn't an actual thing... it is a method to examine phenomena. Nothing more nothing less-- it doesn't "prove" anything, as everything is subject to future findings. Now don't forget that many of the scientists of the dark ages were actually employed by the church. Just as there are many that are employed by NASA, NOAA, ESA, etc today. I am not denying "science" as you put, but I don't just read space.com or watch Cosmos and take what they say for Gospel... can't you see that's just as absurd as the peasants gobbling up everything their Priest told them in the past?
I am not here to convince you one way or the other, of anything, but to accuse me of spreading ignorance because I'm looking at concepts long thought "disproven" by "modern" science with an open yet critical mind, is insulting to me.
Ignorance is king because no one likes to think for themselves anymore. Apathy is crown prince because even when clearly shown evidence contrary to a popular belief it is ignored because it's much more convenient to trust those in power to actually give you the truth.Ignorance is king because people choose to think too much for themselves and refuse to believe anything that they find too strange to exist. Apathy is not crown prince because I can guarantee to you, that if you show a child how amazing space is and how awesome studying it can , he will remain interested in it for the rest of his life, I know that happened to me. While you are correct that it is more convenient to trust those in power, that is not the case with round earth concept. The people they trust famous scientists on their affirmations, like Einstein, with his E=mc2 equation. They trust those people, who have PhDs in their field of study, rather than politicians who majored in politics. Those famous scientists wield almost no power. What little power they do wield as a whole is mere influence over what is a decreasing population of people who understand them and what they have to say. They wield no power compared to what governments wield, and governments aren't the ones telling you the earth is flat or round, its the world renowned scientists.
Well I'm sorry to frustrate but I totally don't put my faith in scientists, the government, or man in general. You can trust in whoever or whatever you'd like to, I won't judge you for it. All I ask is that you reserve your judgement as well.Since you seem to think you are so knowledgeable on this matter of measurement maybe you could tell us just how you would measure say:
Well I'm sorry to frustrate but I totally don't put my faith in scientists, the government, or man in general. You can trust in whoever or whatever you'd like to, I won't judge you for it. All I ask is that you reserve your judgement as well.Since you seem to think you are so knowledgeable on this matter of measurement maybe you could tell us just how you would measure say:
The distance from the Equator to each Pole and
the distance around the Equator.
It would be a bit much to expect you to do it, but tell how it could be done!
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.First you say: "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.
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.First you say: "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.
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]
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 (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/shuttlestation/station/microgex_prt.htm) 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 temperature of a gas is simply a measure of the "thermal velocity" of its molecules , atoms or ions.
The whole thing reeks.
A notoriously shy man (it has been postulated that he was autistic[1]), Cavendish was nonetheless distinguished for great accuracy and precision in his researches into the composition of atmospheric air, the properties of different gases, the synthesis of water, the law governing electrical attraction and repulsion, a mechanical theory of heat, and calculations of the density (and hence the mass) of the Earth. His experiment to measure the density of the Earth has come to be known as the Cavendish experiment.On top of that numerous similar experiments (I have the details of over 60) have verified his result! Your calling it a rudimentary experiment in a shed is quite misleading. It is an extremely difficult experiment. And it is this verification by other experimenters that sets science apart from the hypothesis and guesswork you have been coming up with!
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 (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/shuttlestation/station/microgex_prt.htm) 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 temperature of a gas is simply a measure of the "thermal velocity" of its molecules , atoms or ions.
The whole thing reeks.
In the thermosphere there are too few particles to transfer significant heat to any object by conduction or by convection,
leaving radiation (in and out) as the only significant heat transfer mechanism. (Apart from cooling by dumping hot water or sream).
Regardless, those few molecules that exist, apparently, in the upper reaches of Earth's atmosphere, are individually heated up by solar radiation. Now this would suffice to explain why heat isn't transfered via convection, but what is stopping the individual particles of the ISS from being heated from the very same solar radiation? Especially since there is nowhere to transfer the heat off of the body of the space station, because as you admit, there are so few gaseous particles there. Please don't say because the materials of satellites are heat proof, because I will show you a photo of the hubble space telescope, and it is not coated in the thermal tiles space shuttles supposedly are. Please Explain.Those thermal tiles would not help for very long. If they heated on the outside they would conduct heat in time. They are very good thermal insulators, but that is not sufficient for a very long period. The intense heat of re-entry is only for a short time.
Regardless, those few molecules that exist, apparently, in the upper reaches of Earth's atmosphere, are individually heated up by solar radiation. Now this would suffice to explain why heat isn't transfered via convection, but what is stopping the individual particles of the ISS from being heated from the very same solar radiation? Especially since there is nowhere to transfer the heat off of the body of the space station, because as you admit, there are so few gaseous particles there. Please don't say because the materials of satellites are heat proof, because I will show you a photo of the hubble space telescope, and it is not coated in the thermal tiles space shuttles supposedly are. Please Explain.Those thermal tiles would not help for very long. If they heated on the outside they would conduct heat in time. They are very good thermal insulators, but that is not sufficient for a very long period. The intense heat of re-entry is only for a short time.
At the height of the ISS or the Hubble objects get radiant heating from the side exposed to the sun, but also radiate heat to the "near absolute cold" of outer space and exchange heat with the earth. The equilibrium temperature depends on many factors and can be cooled with radiators on the shade side or heated if on the sunny side.
This is grossly simplifing the problem. Temperature control of space vessels (that you don't believe exist anyway!) is a very big subject, far outside any little expertise I might have!
Thats because there is no answer offered except for this gross simplification. Any logic or reason involved dictates that actual humans on the ISS would be cooked like in an oven. As you said even the most advanced thermal tiles created by man can only withstand the temperatures for brief amount of time... Just like the brevity in exposure to the amount of intense solar radiation is the only way to explain away the certain death that would face an Apollo astronaut in passing through.
I don't believe we have machines in space orbiting the earth based on principles of a thought experiment by a 17th century alchemist. Universal Gravity has thoroughly been refuted by scholars without a dog in the race and has only been clung onto by institutions like universities and space agencies for political, monetary, and authoritarian reasons, just like the theory of general relativity.
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!
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!
As stated in the FAQ, the force know as gravity doesnt exist, rather what we feel as gravity is the force of the earth accelerating at a rate of 32ft/s/s. If this is the case,This is NOT the case.
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.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.
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.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?
Its all bullshit you can live in fantasy space land but I'll stay down here in reality.
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.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?
Its all bullshit you can live in fantasy space land but I'll stay down here in reality.
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.
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.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .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.
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.
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
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.
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.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.
There is voluminous information on this.
http://www.armaghplanet.com/blog/nasas-lunar-module-everything-you-need-to-know.html (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/ (http://www.universetoday.com/117331/how-nasa-filmed-humans-last-leaving-the-moon-42-years-ago/)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module)
http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon-mars/a4391/4318496/ (http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon-mars/a4391/4318496/)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4yYZh1U908I 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!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4yYZh1U908I 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!!!
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!!!
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. (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/Fendell-OralHist.pdf). 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.
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. (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/Fendell-OralHist.pdf). 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.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. (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/Fendell-OralHist.pdf). 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.
How convenient.
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.First you say: "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.
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 (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/shuttlestation/station/microgex_prt.htm) 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.
Again, how convenient.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.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.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.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.
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 (http://wiki.tfes.org/Planets) 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 (http://wiki.tfes.org/FAQ#Objects_cannot_exceed_the_speed_of_light._Doesn.27t_this_mean_that_the_Earth_can.27t_accelerate_forever.3F). Specifically, I don't understand how it works as it approaches c; if the acceleration slowed (http://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration#Accelerating_to_the_Speed_of_Light), 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.
Again, how convenient.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.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.
I think most flat earthers accept their theory falls apart if they admit gravity is the force holding us on to the Earth.
The problem is if they don't believe in gravity they generally believe it's the Earth constantly accelerating upwards. They don't realise this is an even bigger problem because in less than a year we would be travelling faster than the speed of light.
They've tried to rectify this with Einstein's special relativity but have run in to an even bigger problem that they simply don't address.
Believing that the Earth is experiencing length contraction (so it won't pass the speed of light) they would have to accept that the mass of every object on Earth is approaching infinity.
Unless of course they believe that the palm of their hand has greater mass than a super massive black hole.
I think most flat earthers accept their theory falls apart if they admit gravity is the force holding us on to the Earth.
The problem is if they don't believe in gravity they generally believe it's the Earth constantly accelerating upwards. They don't realise this is an even bigger problem because in less than a year we would be travelling faster than the speed of light.
They've tried to rectify this with Einstein's special relativity but have run in to an even bigger problem that they simply don't address.
Believing that the Earth is experiencing length contraction (so it won't pass the speed of light) they would have to accept that the mass of every object on Earth is approaching infinity.
Unless of course they believe that the palm of their hand has greater mass than a super massive black hole.
In general they shy away from math like a rabid dog does water. Mathematically FE doesn't hold up and they know it.
I think most flat earthers accept their theory falls apart if they admit gravity is the force holding us on to the Earth.
The problem is if they don't believe in gravity they generally believe it's the Earth constantly accelerating upwards. They don't realise this is an even bigger problem because in less than a year we would be travelling faster than the speed of light.
They've tried to rectify this with Einstein's special relativity but have run in to an even bigger problem that they simply don't address.
Believing that the Earth is experiencing length contraction (so it won't pass the speed of light) they would have to accept that the mass of every object on Earth is approaching infinity.
Unless of course they believe that the palm of their hand has greater mass than a super massive black hole.
In general they shy away from math like a rabid dog does water. Mathematically FE doesn't hold up and they know it.
Please elaborate which math doesn't work on the flat earth.
I think most flat earthers accept their theory falls apart if they admit gravity is the force holding us on to the Earth.
The problem is if they don't believe in gravity they generally believe it's the Earth constantly accelerating upwards. They don't realise this is an even bigger problem because in less than a year we would be travelling faster than the speed of light.
They've tried to rectify this with Einstein's special relativity but have run in to an even bigger problem that they simply don't address.
Believing that the Earth is experiencing length contraction (so it won't pass the speed of light) they would have to accept that the mass of every object on Earth is approaching infinity.
Unless of course they believe that the palm of their hand has greater mass than a super massive black hole.
In general they shy away from math like a rabid dog does water. Mathematically FE doesn't hold up and they know it.
Please elaborate which math doesn't work on the flat earth.
Actually, I disagree[3] a little with the "Relativistic Star Ship Calculator" and using the equations on the right ----> would claim that for only 23.33 years Earth time the Aether, Dark Energy and whatever else must have been around for at least 13.8 billion years. The difference between my figures and the "Relativistic Star Ship Calculator" figures makes no real difference to the conclusion. | Spacer | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Relativistic%20acceleration%20calculations_zpsb87ojvni.png) |