Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
there was no moon landing .... discus
- Thread starter Pevenseagull
- Start date
And you haven't managed it. You posted some fundamentally incorrect science and seen it comprehensively debunked. So yes. Faking it would have been easier and it's your notions that are 'ridiculous'. That's not me saying that btw, it's the sum total of human experience that's saying it. So game over, you lose - not that you'll see it that way of course.
Anyway, that's it for me on this thread "you can lead a horse to water" as they say, and there's none so blind as those who will not see. It's been funny and depressing at the same time. Seeya.
Manx Shearwater
New member
We're not talking about Newton's theories of gravity (not yet anyway, we can come onto that later if you are capable of grasping the simple stuff first), we're talking about Newton's theories of motion. You appear to not even know that they are seperate laws. Even then, the law on gravity is actually fully titled 'Newton's Universal Law of Gravity' with an emphasis on the 'Universal' bit. I take it you understand the significance of that word in light of your inaccurate statement above saying it only applies to Earth? You're wrong yet again.
The stuff I posted (and you then quoted) is basic secondary school stuff, and yes, most schoolchildren - along with everyone else, except you - understand that these laws apply everywhere in the universe.
Try this site, it explains Newton's laws of motion in a much more simplified way - perhaps you might be able to grasp it from this, although I suspect I am being optimistic.
http://library.thinkquest.org/J002040F/newton's_laws_of_motion.htm
So it boils down to this. Either you are wrong, or Isaac Newton is wrong. There are no other options in this particular conundrum.
Last edited:
Manx Shearwater
New member
Even young schoolchildren grasp this, why is it so complicated for you?
It would keep on going until it either collided with something or came under the influence of an external force. In our example here (Apollo spacecraft) it would keep on going until it met the external force of the gravitational pull of the moon, at which point it would stop going in a straight line and be pulled into the moon's orbit.
The example of rolling the ball, that you are referring to, is in space, not in the Earth's atmosphere, so no, it doesn't fall to the ground. This is weightlessness.
This genuinely seems beyond you. Or you know you are wrong, but want to keep digging the hole deeper for a laugh. Which is it?
Brightonfan1983
Well-known member
Sorry!
I was inspired by a Google search I did after hearing Prof Brian Cox saying that sea-fossils had been discovered on Everest. Naturally I ended up on a site that explained that, far from the Himalayas arising from the sea-bed millions and millions of years ago, The Flood allowed sea creatures to live there...
m20gull
Well-known member
In the absence of an atmosphere the ball will move towards the largest source of gravitational attraction. With gravity being invesresly proportional to distance the further an object is from the earth the less that EARTH's gravity affects it. That's not to say there is no effect but for Mercury the effect of the Sun is more than the effect of the Earth. For the Moon the effect of the Earth is more than the effect of the Sun. It's a combined function of Mass and Distance (mass increases gravity, distance decreases it)
Gravity is simply a force that accelerates an object that has mass. So if you throw a ball horizontally close to the earth it accelerates towards the Earth. If you throw a ball vertically slowly it will accelerate back to earth, but if you throw it vertically fast enough it travels quickly enough for the deceleration from the gravity of the Earth to be overcome by the gravitational force reducing due to the increasing distance. Once the ball gets far enough away it will continue at nearly the same speed as the Earth's gravitational force declines.
So, in space, where there is no atmosphere to provide drag and no nearby body to provide gravity, an object will contnue to travel with the same velocity in the same direction as you rolled it. When it gets near a body it will move towards it.
tezz79
New member
- Apr 20, 2011
- 1,541
Just a quick question while we're on the subject of space.... On YouTube there is a fair bit of footage & audio supposedly taken from the iss & or the space shuttles being "followed" or "observed" by objects of unknown origin,
You hear the astronauts communicating with NASA explaining they appear to be being followed.
Now I'm pretty sure the video footage is real but have not got a clue about the audio.
I'm thinking this could just be video footage of space junk floating nearish the iss/shuttle & then audio dubbed in to make it sound as if they are having a discussion with Houston about the fact they are "being followed" would I be right to assume that ?
It all looks & sounds pretty impressive but obviously the shuttles can't be being followed so i just wondered if the footage is real & this is space junk with dramatic audio dubbed over it or is the whole thing (video footage & audio) faked ? Does anybody know as it's been bugging me for a while ?
Maybe I'm just thick lol
You hear the astronauts communicating with NASA explaining they appear to be being followed.
Now I'm pretty sure the video footage is real but have not got a clue about the audio.
I'm thinking this could just be video footage of space junk floating nearish the iss/shuttle & then audio dubbed in to make it sound as if they are having a discussion with Houston about the fact they are "being followed" would I be right to assume that ?
It all looks & sounds pretty impressive but obviously the shuttles can't be being followed so i just wondered if the footage is real & this is space junk with dramatic audio dubbed over it or is the whole thing (video footage & audio) faked ? Does anybody know as it's been bugging me for a while ?
Maybe I'm just thick lol
Fred Oliver - Legend
Well-known member
link?
readingstockport
New member
Why is it that so many religious people seem so fundamentally f***ing stupid and are unable to understand basic scientific concepts? Is it that their stupidity makes them more susceptible to the falsehoods inherent in religion or is it their religion that shuts their minds to intelligent rational thought?
readingstockport
New member
Erm, not quite. If we are being REALLY picky then it is highly likely, in fact almost certain, that close to or at the event horizon the classical model breaks down. It is also almost certain that quantum physics breaks down. So Newtonian mechanics do not apply at or near the surface of a black hole. And colinz, don't quote mine this to try to prove your drivle. You don't understand a word of what I just wrote so don't pretend you do.
Shall we start conlinz on the curvature of space/time and how that may account for observed gravitational effects? Once he grasps that we can move on to what it is that is curving space/time and one day we may even get so far as the higgs.
Last edited:
Manx Shearwater
New member
He's having trouble with Newton's first law of motion, so that might be a lonnnnnng way off!
And I moi lived in a time when Wardy did. Geoff Thomas was on the bleesed turf a lot longer than Wardy was, probably longer than men walking on the moon.
Maybe Wardy was an illusion...
brightn'ove
cringe
don't skip school kids, and pay attention in physics!
Yes on Tuesday night, lo he came and saved (through the Cardiff keeper of course) me shelling out a fortune on tickets for the League Cup Final at Wembley, where Palace would no doubt have been mullered.
amen.
readingstockport
New member
Except, of course, you don't really understand the third law (or the first or second for that matter) and you certainly don't understand relatavistic mechanics or the mechanincs and science of space travel.