Re: gravity
« Reply #20 on: February 22, 2016, 11:15:39 PM »
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.

Re: gravity
« Reply #21 on: February 23, 2016, 04:57:54 PM »
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.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2006-08/1155321706.Es.r.html

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.

Re: gravity
« Reply #22 on: February 23, 2016, 08:30:12 PM »

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.

If you're putting satellites in quotations because you think they are fake, then you are wrong, because if you go outside on a clear night with a pair of binoculars, you can see the ISS moving around the sky every 90 minutes. If we can build that in space, then we can definitely put satellites with various different types of equipment

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.

Thats because they had no way to detect and find bacteria and viruses until someone could develop a microscope powerful enough to see them. By the way, aa ancient greek scientist, whose name I cant remember (sorry), had proposed the idea that illnesses could be caused by tiny little things, bacteria, but he had no way to prove it, and people ridiculed him, because it was like saying ants can kill elephants.

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.

During that period, the church controlled the knowledge because it wanted power, and the first thing you do to keep power is to not let your people read, and they were pretty good at that. Science is the opposite of what the church was doing, bringing us into the light by being able to prove things that most poeple used faith to explain. Denying science is just ignorant.

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.

And like everyone on this forum who says that it is all fake, you have no evidence to support it, while there is evidence that we've detected of black holes through gravitational lensing, and dark matter is still a theory, one which fills in the gaps that physicists couldn't explain, that's why people generally accept it as true, but the existence of it has not yet been confirmed as far as I'm aware.

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.

While you're right that it is human nature to think like that, the scientists and engineers that work on this realize that we have not even come close to being as intelligent about the universe as we can be, that's why we have new technology coming out every year, because they know they can do better and they try to do it.

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.

Ignorance is king simply because of people like you, who choose to ignore the science presented to them and go on believing things that are mere speculations. That, or they simply do not understand what they hear because it is too complex for them, and instead of trying to understand it, they ignore it and think it's bad because there's big words that they dont know what they mean, which is what you see with those idiots who choose not to vaccinate their kids.

Also, when you post a link with information, my advice would be to get that information from a reputable source, like from a college, or a respected organization, even if the info is correct, so as to minimize chance of someone trying to refute what you say by stating that your source is not reliable.

Re: gravity
« Reply #23 on: February 23, 2016, 09:56:45 PM »
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.

Re: gravity
« Reply #24 on: February 24, 2016, 01:51:57 AM »
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.

That is irrelevant wether I have tried it or not, but in another thread you can see pictures someone took of the ISS through binoculars. But it is beside the point.

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.

Institutions and organizations like NASA and the ESA are not concerned with power and they are most certainly not controlling the flow of knowledge with anything. If you mean to say that what they do is refute false evidence and claims then that is just looking out for the well being of the general population. When you spread false information like this, you are being harmful, believe what you want, but what this place is doing is more like indoctrination the what these "authoritative institutions" are doing.

"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?

Science comes from a latin root, if I am not mistaken, which means to know. Science is the quest to find out the mysteries of the natural world, so yes it is a thing, and it most certainly does prove everything. Science tells us why the moon has less gravity than earth, science tells us what nutrients are in the apple you ate this morning, etc. saying it doesn't prove anything is just ignorant (sorry), but science evolves in time and we become smarter and are able to discover new things and disprove old theories. As for those TV shows, that's why we have the internet. With the internet you can cross reference information from different reputable sources, and trust me, if one of the greatest physicists in the world is telling you something is true, and giving you backed up evidence gathered from whatever instrument, then he is probably right in what he is saying, and you are probably wrong in thinking he is lying.

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.

I'm sorry for that, I was generalizing and I didn't mean to insult you.

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.

Re: gravity
« Reply #25 on: February 24, 2016, 04:37:33 AM »
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.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1436
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: gravity
« Reply #26 on: February 25, 2016, 11:10:06 AM »
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!

Re: gravity
« Reply #27 on: February 25, 2016, 04:15:44 PM »
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!

Well I wouldn't attempt to do it using math, trigonometry, or anything... I'd actually prefer the old method using rope, logs, and knots honestly lol... but seriously though. Have a ship sail on like 15 degrees latitude straight down off coast of Greenland down past Africa to the equator that way.

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.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1436
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: gravity
« Reply #28 on: February 26, 2016, 04:40:10 AM »
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]

Re: gravity
« Reply #29 on: February 26, 2016, 06:01:52 AM »
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.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1436
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: gravity
« Reply #30 on: February 26, 2016, 10:23:55 AM »
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.
The temperature of a gas is simply a measure of the "thermal velocity" of its molecules , atoms or ions.
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).

You have never answered me when I have asked what Cavendish measured! I believe you simply ignored this bit:
You blithely claim "a rudimentary experiment in a shed is all we needed to prove it." It was hardly rudimentary! Take a look at
Quote
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!
Gravitation has been very adequately verified experimentally!

[1] Many with "autism" (Aspergers Spectrum Disorder) have extreme capability in a few areas - they are Savants, but have problems interacting with people and that does fit Henry Cavendish!

Re: gravity
« Reply #31 on: February 26, 2016, 05:00:51 PM »
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.
The temperature of a gas is simply a measure of the "thermal velocity" of its molecules , atoms or ions.
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.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1436
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: gravity
« Reply #32 on: February 27, 2016, 10:41:40 AM »
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!

Re: gravity
« Reply #33 on: February 27, 2016, 07:37:17 PM »
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.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1436
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: gravity
« Reply #34 on: February 28, 2016, 02:53:14 AM »
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.

The earth itself is exposed to essentially the same thermal environment as spacecraft. The biggest difference is that the earth is huge and has been here a long time, so has reached thermal equilibrium.
Actually, as far as the earth is concerned, the situation is quite a bit worse in that there is considerable internal heat generated, about 50% from radioactive decay. The atmosphere does not help a great deal, because a lot of solar radiation comes in at near optical wavelengths and heats the surface of the earth. Some is then re-radiated, but at longer wavelengths which are absorbed by the atmosphere. This is exacerbated by the presence of extra CO2 and water vapour.

No it's not "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." The van Allen belts were well mapped beforehand and the type of radiation is largely "particulate" (ie ions and not gamma radiation) and can be shielded by light weight materials (thin aluminium, polythene, etc). If you are the tiniest bit interested (I do doubt it - it might disturb your obvious ignorance!) look up: http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html which addresses this very topic.

The space vehicles can be fitted with a reflective (shiny!) skin to reflect radiation, so there is no reason with the appropriate radiators they cannot achieve a heat balance.

You claim "the most advanced thermal tiles created by man can only withstand the temperatures for brief amount of time".
Those tiles were designed to withstand extreme temperatures for a short time and the did what they were designed to do!
On spacecraft, (whatever you say) there is not that extreme heat to contend with! No thermal insulation can keep heat out for an indefinite time! Though modern thermal insulation is extremely good, it only delays the transmission of heat. Still it can be very useful in thermal control.

And, we do not have "machines in space orbiting the earth based on principles of a thought experiment by a 17th century alchemist"!
Newton did a lot more than a though experiment. Both he and Hooke did a large amount of experimental work, and Hooke was well advanced on the same theory and had he not died 24 years before Newton we might well have had Hooke's Law of Universal Gravitation!
No, Newton not suddenly dream up this law after being knocked silly by an apple!
Then of course you deliberately ignore:
What force did Henry Cavendish (and numerous others in the couple of centuries since) measure.
Though there are, so far unexplained small variations, they certainly measured a force that
leads to an accepted value of G = 6.673 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2

Most of these have used apparatus similar in principle to the torsion balance apparatus designed and constructed by geologist John Michell, and performed by Henry Cavendish (John Michell died before he could do the experiment himself). But some later quite different experiments are using quantum properties of cold Rubidium atoms and a 500 kg test mass. So far the results from this method differ a little from the accepted value, but later refinements are getting better agreement.

Then you claim:
Universal Gravity has thoroughly been refuted by scholars
Please come up with some sound evidence of this. Put up, or shut up as they say in the better classics!
I have seen one paper by Miles Mathis claiming "debunked" Cavendish, but on reading his paper, I would not give much credence to it.  Mind you Miles Mathis seems to have had little to say on all the modern work, with better equipment and the means to avoid some of the sources of possible error.  In any case many of the "errors" Miles Mathis alludes to are simply constant masses in the vicinity, as no-one has questioned the additive property of gravity.
Another paper by Miles Mathis proves π = 4, and is not "dimensionless".  Interesting fellow, Miles Mathis!


Look you do not believe in space craft, space, satellites etc, I wish you would just stop showing your abysmal ignorance on these matters!
If you don't even believe in these things, would you please explain how the measurements on the thermoshere and van Allen belts were carried out! From sounding rockets and spacecraft of course!

If you seriously want answers fine, but all you want to do is push you own agenda!
And when you start attacking well proven results with no better argument than the Newton was an Alchemist, you have lost the plot! It's a bit tough criticising someone that lived 400 years ago because he lacked the modern knowledge of the elements!

Re: gravity
« Reply #35 on: February 28, 2016, 07:09:44 AM »
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.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1436
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: gravity
« Reply #36 on: February 28, 2016, 12:35:19 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!

Re: gravity
« Reply #37 on: February 28, 2016, 04:32:03 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.

density pressure
« Reply #38 on: February 28, 2016, 09:28:49 PM »
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. 

The earth is not moving.  That acceleration theory is disinfo to lead true-earthers into disarray.  Stop thinking that the earth is moving. 





The reason why the apple falls down is due to air pressure and density differences.  The apple is more dense than air but less dense than water. 
watch?v=xhcVJcINzn8

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1436
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: gravity
« Reply #39 on: February 29, 2016, 03:32:02 AM »
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!