Stokesy Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 On 25/02/2017 at 10:23 AM, Caledonian Craig said: Hmm so if moon landing were hoaxed as is space travel then please explain why NASA would claim responsibility for the many astronaut deaths? The Challenger disaster, the astronauts who died when their rocket burst into flames on launch pad in the sixties and others that died in test launches etc. It's pointless attempting to use logic. I'd just ignore him. An RIP thread for someone that has achieved something that only 11 other people have done and it turns into another conspiracy thread. Jesus wept.
Flure Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 I saw astronaut Brian Duffy on the telly over the weekend. He was quite entertaining. In other news....https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-convince-someone-when-facts-fail/#
Stokesy Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 1 hour ago, Ally Bongo said: I see what you did there Well played Well played indeed Believe it or not but that was accidental. I use that phrase a lot.
Toepoke Posted February 27, 2017 Author Posted February 27, 2017 Fake news http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/772321/donald-trump-nasa-mission-moon-apollo-astronauts-asteroid-orion
Orraloon Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 7 hours ago, Flure said: I saw astronaut Brian Duffy on the telly over the weekend. He was quite entertaining. In other news....https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-convince-someone-when-facts-fail/# An interesting article but it doesn't explain how we should deal with wind-up merchants.
Flure Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 4 hours ago, Orraloon said: An interesting article but it doesn't explain how we should deal with wind-up merchants. I find the "ignore" function a soothing influence.
deecie Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 5 hours ago, Orraloon said: An interesting article but it doesn't explain how we should deal with wind-up merchants. I find the "ignore" function a soothing influence.
Toepoke Posted February 28, 2017 Author Posted February 28, 2017 2 hours ago, deecie said: I find the "ignore" function a soothing influence.
Toepoke Posted February 28, 2017 Author Posted February 28, 2017 It's a new space race, Trump v Musk... https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/feb/27/spacex-moon-private-mission-2018-elon-musk
biffer Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 20 hours ago, Orraloon said: An interesting article but it doesn't explain how we should deal with wind-up merchants. It works up to a point, but not when what they believe in is barking. Even though I'm an atheist, I see no reason why science and religion should be in conflict. They're different discussions. What we discover in science is far more beautiful and astonishing than any construct that insists that a god has to intervene regularly to keep things working. A god who could create the universe as science describes it is far more astonishing and powerful than one who created a universe in the kind of simple models that are otherwise put forward.
Toepoke Posted February 28, 2017 Author Posted February 28, 2017 Excellent example of "Earthshine" outside the now...
Eisegerwind Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 You've not been paying attention in "flat earth", "no such thing as light years" class, D -.
Scotty CTA Posted March 1, 2017 Posted March 1, 2017 I'm still playing catch-up with this thread, but in the meantime I'd like your thoughts. The trick here is to disprove the 'proofs' without going "I know that's not true because that wasn't what I was indoctrinated with."
Toepoke Posted March 1, 2017 Author Posted March 1, 2017 6 hours ago, Scotty CTA said: I'm still playing catch-up with this thread, but in the meantime I'd like your thoughts. The trick here is to disprove the 'proofs' without going "I know that's not true because that wasn't what I was indoctrinated with." Only had time to watch the first minute of that, will look at more later. Regarding not witnessing the Earth's curvature even from a plane, the Earth is a pretty big object. If you imagine the Earth as being the size of a football then the International Space Station is orbiting around 7 millimetres from the surface. Travelling just a few miles up is not going to alter your perception of the surface much other than giving you a wider field of view.
scoobydoo Posted March 1, 2017 Posted March 1, 2017 1 hour ago, Toepoke said: Only had time to watch the first minute of that, will look at more later. Regarding not witnessing the Earth's curvature even from a plane, the Earth is a pretty big object. If you imagine the Earth as being the size of a football then the International Space Station is orbiting around 7 millimetres from the surface. Travelling just a few miles up is not going to alter your perception of the surface much other than giving you a wider field of view. gtf out of here with that sensible pish.
biffer Posted March 1, 2017 Posted March 1, 2017 7 hours ago, Scotty CTA said: I'm still playing catch-up with this thread, but in the meantime I'd like your thoughts. The trick here is to disprove the 'proofs' without going "I know that's not true because that wasn't what I was indoctrinated with." They're not proofs. They're assertions. First one - show me the maths of what degree of curvature you'd expect to see given the scales involved. Then a direct comparison to the sensitivity and resolving power of the human eye. Then perform a comparison to prove that we should be able to see the curvature. Second one - again show me the maths of the situation and the given changes in radial angle that would be expected with the distances involved, versus the sensitivity of the human eye Third one - The movement of ocean currents is exactly the effect the narrator is asking for, evidence of a large water mass moving in a rotational manner. If you can show me the force and pressure equations that say it should move in another way, that would be proof. Not going to do any more until the first three are actually turned into proofs, rather than assertions.
DonnyTJS Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 On 2/15/2017 at 5:16 AM, Toepoke said: The "vomit comet" used to train astronauts for zero G. Not really feasible for faking lengthy films of spaceflight though... Hey - check this out: And, since it's OK GO - another classic apropos of nowt:
Caledonian Craig Posted March 3, 2017 Posted March 3, 2017 And you want to put your faith in this man Scotty? Fruit loop springs to mind and by coincedence he is a FreeMason. Not you is it? https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=https://i.ytimg.com/vi/8JmGSibtRqI/hqdefault.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2016/01/eric-dubay-and-ifers-banned-from.html&h=360&w=480&tbnid=2lyvzEBmqUWdsM:&vet=1&tbnh=150&tbnw=200&docid=2BbMbf5MJ_XMwM&itg=1&usg=__MjWqxhlmig18kZqKUahWzsvPbMg=&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwijuJGlhbrSAhVsL8AKHW-vAOwQ_B0IcjAL&ei=9Tm5WOPpJuzegAbv3oLgDg#h=360&imgrc=2lyvzEBmqUWdsM:&tbnh=150&tbnw=200&vet=1&w=480
biffer Posted March 7, 2017 Posted March 7, 2017 On 3 March 2017 at 4:43 AM, DonnyTJS said: Hey - check this out: And, since it's OK GO - another classic apropos of nowt: If you know what you're looking for, what you can see in that video is spells of zero g and spells of gravity as the plane follows its parabolic flight path. For example at 1.30 he propels himself backwards and slightly upwards and then hits his head off the floor, so there's some gravity there. When the release the balls from the cases, they float in near zero g for a while but there's some slight changes of up and down motion which is due to changes in g force as the plane changes direction and then they all fall to the floor at the same time around 2.05. It's incredibly well done, but it's not three minutes of continuous zero g.
DonnyTJS Posted March 7, 2017 Posted March 7, 2017 34 minutes ago, biffer said: If you know what you're looking for, what you can see in that video is spells of zero g and spells of gravity as the plane follows its parabolic flight path. For example at 1.30 he propels himself backwards and slightly upwards and then hits his head off the floor, so there's some gravity there. When the release the balls from the cases, they float in near zero g for a while but there's some slight changes of up and down motion which is due to changes in g force as the plane changes direction and then they all fall to the floor at the same time around 2.05. It's incredibly well done, but it's not three minutes of continuous zero g. Exactly. It's fascinating trying to work out how they've choreographed it to the phases of the flight trajectory. God knows how you work it out in theory before putting it into practice (and I've no idea how they didn't all chuck up). Those stewardesses are brilliant. I assume there would've been a number of takes, though the clean up between each one must've been murder.
biffer Posted March 7, 2017 Posted March 7, 2017 1 hour ago, phart said: to be fair it's not zero G you're just falling. welllllllllll....... It becomes more complex than that because you have to consider the frame of reference you're talking about. When you say falling, you're always talking relative to another object that is also falling (the earth is falling towards the sun, the sun is falling towards the galactic centre, the galactic centre is falling towards the gravitational centre of the local group of galaxies etc etc). So how do you resolve that? There's no fixed point of reference that isn't falling in some way when you expand the point of view, and that point of view is then itself falling as well. This is what Einstein realised when he was formulating his General Theory of Relativity. Basically you get to the point that the frame of reference is the most important thing in observations and no particular frame is privileged. So in your own frame of reference it is zero g, because there's no ultimate frame of reference to compare yourself to.
phart Posted March 7, 2017 Posted March 7, 2017 Nah there is still plenty of gravity regardless of frame of reference. They're probably within a 100 miles of the surface of the planet. it's weightlessness they experience not zero gravity. It's a point of pedantry anyway.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.