there was no moon landing .... discus

[Manx Shearwater]

Let me get this right colinz, you're saying Newton was wrong?

Have a quick read of Newton's first law of motion here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion

 

[colinz]

Let me get this right colinz, you're saying Newton was wrong?

Have a quick read of Newton's first law of motion here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion

OK will do

Newton's first law is a restatement of the law of inertia which Galileo had already described and Newton gave credit to Galileo. Aristotle had the view that all objects have a natural place in the universe: that heavy objects like rocks wanted to be at rest on the Earth and that light objects like smoke wanted to be at rest in the sky and the stars wanted to remain in the heavens. He thought that a body was in its natural state when it was at rest, and for the body to move in a straight line at a constant speed an external agent was needed to continually propel it, otherwise it would stop moving. Galileo, however, realized that a force is necessary to change the velocity of a body, i.e., acceleration, but no force is needed to maintain its velocity. This insight leads to Newton's First Law —no force means no acceleration, and hence the body will maintain its velocity.

 

[Manx Shearwater]

I don't understand. The bit in blue states that if no force acts on a body it will maintain its velocity. In Earth's atmosphere the act of the air particles causing friction on the body will eventually slow any moving body down, meaning it needs fuel to maintain velocity. In space there is no atmosphere, and hence no air particles, hence no forces acting on any moving body. This means the body will maintain its velocity without the need for fuel to propel it forward. So the bit in blue is stating that our argument is right and yours is wrong.

This is basic O level physics. Which bit don't you understand??

Galileo, however, realized that a force is necessary to change the velocity of a body, i.e., acceleration, but no force is needed to maintain its velocity. This insight leads to Newton's First Law —no force means no acceleration, and hence the body will maintain its velocity.

I've put the relevant bit in bold for you.

 

[colinz]

In space there is no atmosphere, and hence no air particles, hence no forces acting on any moving body. This means the body will maintain its velocity without the need for fuel to propel it forward.

Newton's theories apply to the gravitational force of the Earth's atmosphere.

To say that once a fuelled object leaves the Earth's atmosphere, it no longer requires fuel to maintain it's directional momentum, is not what Newton was trying to prove.

 

[The Buttery Biscuit Base]

 

[beorhthelm]

OK will do

sorry, but you're a f***ing idiot, you've just referenced a quote that proves you're wrong.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

Can you link to the post where I made the calculations.

That's just the issue, dear boy. You CAN'T produce the calculations to prove it .....
Ironically, you've highlighted the part of physics that proves it was possible.

Shot oneself in the foot, me thinks.

Debate over - believe what you want to believe, but please don't try to misuse facts of physics to support you view.

 

[The Buttery Biscuit Base]

Newton's theories apply to the gravitational force of the Earth's atmosphere.

To say that once a fuelled object leaves the Earth's atmosphere, it no longer requires fuel to maintain it's directional momentum, is not what Newton was trying to prove.

Newton's Laws apply to everything. Everything on Earth, in the universe, in space. EVERYTHING.

Please tell me that you understand this at least?

 

[colinz]

sorry, but you're a f***ing idiot, you've just referenced a quote that proves you're wrong.

now now calm down little boy, just because the bigger boys have arrived to help you.

Newton's theories apply to the gravitational force of the Earth's atmosphere.
To say that once a fuelled object leaves the Earth's atmosphere, it no longer requires fuel to maintain it's directional momentum, is not what Newton was trying to prove.

 

[colinz]

Newton's Laws apply to everything. Everything on Earth, in the universe, in space. EVERYTHING.

Please tell me that you understand this at least?

So the gravitational force (pull) of the Earth's atmosphere, is the same as every where else in the universe & space ?

 

[beorhthelm]

now now calm down little boy, just because the bigger boys have arrived to help you.

funny. you dont understand the words let alone concepts you are refering to. gravity is not a product of the atmosphere, quite the reverse as gravity (and magnetic fields) hold the atmosphere in place. one you have escaped earths gravity and given enough velocity (left over from the massive amount used to get up), any object in orbit will pretty much stay there as its energy and momentum overcomes gravity. a minimal amount of inerta, from some mass ejection, will send it off on a new path. we've sent probes the size of a car to Jupiter and beyond, theres footage of fly pasts of its moons, yet you believe we cant supply a vehicle enough fuel to get to the moon?

 

[colinz]

once you have escaped earths gravity and given enough velocity (left over from the massive amount used to get up), any object in orbit will pretty much stay there as its energy and momentum overcomes gravity. a minimal amount of inerta, from some mass ejection, will send it off on a new path.

In orbit of what, if an object is travelling from A to B ?

Once a (manned) space craft leaves the Earth's atmosphere, the fuel system wouldn't get shut off for nature to take it's course, to continue propelling the craft. The craft would simply stop moving in it's original propelled direction, & float in space's weightlessness atmosphere, maybe eventually finding it's way back into the Earth's atmosphere and falling to the ground (hopefully sea).

yet you believe we cant supply a vehicle enough fuel to get to the moon?

Thought this thread was about a manned moon landing.

PS any chance of you applying Newton's law of physics, to the alleged Boeing jets that impacted the WTC towers.

 

[brightn'ove]

In orbit of what, if an object is travelling from A to B ?

Once a (manned) space craft leaves the Earth's atmosphere, the fuel system wouldn't get shut off for nature to take it's course, to continue propelling the craft. The craft would simply stop moving in it's original propelled direction, & float in space's weightlessness atmosphere, maybe eventually finding it's way back into the Earth's atmosphere and falling to the ground (hopefully sea).


Thought this thread was about a manned moon landing.

PS any chance of you applying Newton's law of physics, to the alleged Boeing jets that impacted the WTC towers.

Delusional nonsense beyond belief.

Once the rocket escapes the earths atmosphere, it is not going to simply stop moving and plummet towards earth as soon as they shut the thrusters off. Gravity is a very weak force, humans can defeat it with muscle, magnets are also more powerful. If the rocket is travelling with enough enertia to constantly move away from the earth/towards the moon then it will continue to do so.

Do asteroids just sit there absolutely still in space? NO because they have momentum and keep on moving.

 

[colinz]

Once the rocket escapes the earths atmosphere, it is not going to simply stop moving and plummet towards earth as soon as they shut the thrusters off

I did not say that, I said

The craft would simply stop moving in it's original propelled direction, & float in space's weightlessness atmosphere, maybe eventually finding it's way back into the Earth's atmosphere and falling to the ground (hopefully sea).

Do asteroids just sit there absolutely still in space? NO because they have momentum and keep on moving.[/

With no one to guide them except the good Lord.

Amazing thing is space, this none resistant force existing in a sense of weightlessness.

 

[skr80]

conclusive proof here:

Fake Moon Landings The moon landings are fake!

 

[pastafarian]

With no one to guide them except the good Lord.

Amazing thing is space, this none resistant force existing in a sense of weightlessness.

im going to go out here with a stab in the dark colinz.........but im guessing according to your last few posts you have never worked for NASA,i doubt you attended or maybe even heard of MIT,i suspect you didnt even quite get round to upgrading that D you got in combined science(its an older person exam people) but i do know the type of person you are presently and seriously especially when presented with some very good evidence from some well informed people on NSC (which you deny) i would suggest you stop believing all the crap you watch on youtube and suchlike,you might just get to like being alive on this wonderful planet!

 

[colinz]

im going to go out here with a stab in the dark colinz.........but im guessing according to your last few posts you have never worked for NASA,i doubt you attended or maybe even heard of MIT,i suspect you didnt even quite get round to upgrading that D you got in combined science(its an older person exam people) but i do know the type of person you are presently and seriously especially when presented with some very good evidence from some well informed people on NSC (which you deny) i would suggest you stop believing all the crap you watch on youtube and suchlike,you might just get to like being alive on this wonderful planet!

Correct I never did work for NASA. I never realised that entry level to this thread required a Science qualification. The evidence presented from your well informed mates consists of a couple of youtube & wikipedia links.
I do enjoy life on this planet, shame about the number of gullible people living on it.

but i do know the type of person you are presently

ooh! pretending to be a psycho analyst are we.

As for my recent postings it was never really my intention to get into the scientific/ mathematical stuff (although I have to admit that it's been interesting), just wanting to debate the ridiculous notion from one of your learned mates, that faking the manned moon landings would be more difficult than sending men to the moon (6 times)

 

[pastafarian]

It's physically impossible for a Human Being to survive more then 500 miles outside of the Earth's atmosphere.

so according to you thats it then is it? mankind will never get to go to the moon,we will never ever travel to mars,there is no point in even thinking about traveling outside our solar system .....ever!
There used to people who said if you went over 20mph in an automobile your head would blow off. do you see where im going with this..........?

 

[pastafarian]

ooh! pretending to be a psycho analyst are we.

ooooohhh no!.......but ive worked out out chum
saying that your much more fun to debate with than Mr falmer at least you argue back rather than answer a question with a question

 

[pastafarian]

and i meant to say but ive worked YOU out chum