0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
... The psychologists have a fancy name for the syndrome ...
Come on Pete, you know the images were faked! Do you seriously think anyone in this forum believes in Newtonian mechanics, common sense, or Occam's Razor? It's all one big hologram/simulation/conspiracy. Or possibly aliens interfering with our brainwaves.
The faked moon landings were the final achievement of the of the soon to die Hollywood film industry.Later improvements in rocket technology allowed for the landing of laser reflectors, flags, rovers etc. to reinforce the hoax.I know that in fact the earth is flat as I was taught at school that projectiles move in a parabolic orbit whereas if it was round their path would be elliptical
Although my comments about the moon landings were rather tongue in cheek one of my pet hates is when people talk about projectiles moving in a parabolic manner if in fact this was true it would be convincing evidence that the Earth is flat and of infinite extent
What do you think about these people who think we never landed a man on the moon? Just to set your mind at ease that we really did, 2009 satellite photos were taken which shows the landers etc. See:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Reconnaissance_Orbiter
Quote from: syhprumAlthough my comments about the moon landings were rather tongue in cheek one of my pet hates is when people talk about projectiles moving in a parabolic manner if in fact this was true it would be convincing evidence that the Earth is flat and of infinite extent Why? I.e. how did you arrive at that conclusion? When a projectile is launched from, say, a cannon or gun, or what have you, there is an approximation for the gravitational field that is used. I.e. since the projectile never goes more than perhaps a few miles. As such it won't travel that far compared to the radius of the Earth. Even at that height and distance the gravitational field doesn't change much so we use the approximation of a uniform gravitational field in such calculations. When a projectile is launched in a uniform gravitational field it follows a parabolic trajectory. In reality it follows a hyperbolic trajectory which is very close to being a parabola near the point on the trajectory of maximum curvature.
The idea that a moon landing hoax contributed to an overall effort to bankrupt the Soviet Union is seductive but ultimately ridiculous. Had it been a hoax it would have been debunked years ago by successive exploratory missions that surveyed the surface of the moon both by the Russian and Chinese space agencies. On the other hand, nothing in the current state of technology suggests it wouldn't have been possible.
Of course, the orbiter photos which show all the debris left on the moon are faked as well, so we are back to square one. All we need now is for someone to provide the co-ordinates for square one and we will know where we are. BTW, Pete, I thought the photos were good, but if you had wanted to keep conspiracy theorists out of the thread, why not ask: “What do you think of these photos?”
Funny how they can't explain how they get satellite TV that requires using a satellite dish that points in one direction in the sky all the time, huh? All they'd have to do is talk to their friends across the world and measure the direction that the signal is coming from. They could then triangulate the position of the source of the signal. Do any of them do that? Nope! I wonder why? [^]
As a follower of Hare Krishna I know from the shastra that the moon is further away than the Sun, so it's impossible for them to have landed on the moon, so I wish NASA would stop this hoax.
Because it was eating of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge that caused all the trouble in the first place.
Quote from: wolfekeeperAs a follower of Hare Krishna I know from the shastra that the moon is further away than the Sun, so it's impossible for them to have landed on the moon, so I wish NASA would stop this hoax.What is "shastra"? I'm going to assume its some sort of scripture for the moment.If that's what the shastra says then it's not literally correct. Perhaps its merely a story meant to make a point. The book of Genesis in the Bible was taken as fact by Christians for hundreds and hundreds of years. Then science came along and demonstrated with near certainty that 6 days of creation story and other things can't be taken literally. The Vatican finally admitted to this in the 20th century. The reason they did this is because they were being rational and logical. Theologians, contrary to popular belief, aren't idiots. They're highly educated people who know a good deal about what they're talking, especially about philosophy. Some are even well versed in logic. And logic dictates that when observation dictates that something, which logically can have only two values (e.g. true or false, further or closer etc), is valid then the opposite is invalid. That means that since careful observation and extremely well tested theory tells us that the Moon is closer than the Sun then the claim that the Sun is closer than the Moon is false. If your belief told you that then your belief system needs adjustment. You can't take it to be literally true if that's what it claims so it only be taken as a story told to make a point, just like the creation story of Genesis.That's the way it is with all belief systems. Religion is no different.
I know from the shastra that the moon is further away than the Sun,
wonder how spaceship stays warm.isn't in space, heat will radiate out from the ship very fast?
or the sun keeps warm up the facing/light side of the ship?
or the ship generate heat inside?
if we put a hot rock in space, how fast it cools down to 4 K?
The main point is, that they cannot go to the moon.
FYI I'm totally kidding about being a Hare Krishna, ...