[chiralSPO]

Starlight, are you honestly pursuing truth or have you convinced yourself of something, and are now trying to convince the rest of us?

If it is the first, please give full consideration to the information, experiments (thought and real), and equations provided by other forum members.

If it is the second, please start a new thread in the "New Theories" section, which can be found here: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=18.0

Thank you.

[chiralSPO]

A few questions about gravity vs centrifugal force:

• Why doesn't the moon  fly away from the earth (it's going around 1000 km per second!)
• Why don't Jupiter's moon fly away? (this one, you can observe for yourself with a relatively cheap telescope)
• Why don't rocks fly off the surface of mars (we can watch mars from here--so we know how big it is, and how fast it's rotating, and we have robots on the surface taking pictures, so we know it's covered in loose stones.)
• Why doesn't the earth (or any of our planets) fly away from the sun?

[Starlight (OP)]

My observations of the suns movements suggests that ''down under'' on a sphere would be in constant shadow and darkness when the sun orbits above my head in the Northern hemisphere .

Who are you? Donald Trump? No sane person thinks the sun orbits above his head.

  Maybe I am !


72f23add-dabc-460d-87dd-80219a308d95.png (50.3 kB . 1360x641 - viewed 11429 times)

[Starlight (OP)]

Starlight, are you honestly pursuing truth or have you convinced yourself of something, and are now trying to convince the rest of us?

If it is the first, please give full consideration to the information, experiments (thought and real), and equations provided by other forum members.

If it is the second, please start a new thread in the "New Theories" section, which can be found here: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=18.0

Thank you.

The math people learn of course works if it is designed to present illusion !

Do you personally know ?

Have you ever personally observed the Earth from space ?

The truth is not observed by most people , we only have a belief system and believe what we are taught is true .

The physics suggests otherwise !

[Starlight (OP)]

A few questions about gravity vs centrifugal force:

• Why doesn't the moon  fly away from the earth (it's going around 1000 km per second!)
• Why don't Jupiter's moon fly away? (this one, you can observe for yourself with a relatively cheap telescope)
• Why don't rocks fly off the surface of mars (we can watch mars from here--so we know how big it is, and how fast it's rotating, and we have robots on the surface taking pictures, so we know it's covered in loose stones.)
• Why doesn't the earth (or any of our planets) fly away from the sun?

Inertia of course is the answer to all your questions but the difference is , water has very little inertia .  If it didn't flirt off the planet , there is still no reason why it wouldn't all bulge at the equator as water mixes with water . The only difference being an increase in volume .

[chiralSPO]

Is science hiding a bigger earth and what science shows us is just the north face of a much larger spherical rock ?

You've got to be kidding me...

Not at all ! Would you know  ?

Bare in mind knowing would take the highest level of security clearance !

Why not the earth we are shown is actually only a crater full of water on a much bigger rock ?

I am not kidding like other members do with their questions !

This is more mildly more entertaining than the flat earth conspiracies, but essentially the same.
*sigh*

Look. With your eyes. There are ways of measuring the curvature of the earth.  No scientists or governments or wizards or whatever can keep you from observing the truth with your own eyes. (and if you think we can... why trust anything? you may as well consider yourself a brain in a jar)

Take long exposure pictures of the stars at night, and you'll see them precessing around a point. Drive (or fly) north (or south) a few hundred miles, and take another picture... the angle of the point above the horizon will depend more on your latitude than any other factor (assuming the horizon is flat). And you can calculate the radius of the earth based on how many miles you travelled, and how many degrees the point has moved by (this will be best if you can get many data points).

See here:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69392.0
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=73016.0 (starting with reply 19)

[chiralSPO]

A few questions about gravity vs centrifugal force:

• Why doesn't the moon  fly away from the earth (it's going around 1000 km per second!)
• Why don't Jupiter's moon fly away? (this one, you can observe for yourself with a relatively cheap telescope)
• Why don't rocks fly off the surface of mars (we can watch mars from here--so we know how big it is, and how fast it's rotating, and we have robots on the surface taking pictures, so we know it's covered in loose stones.)
• Why doesn't the earth (or any of our planets) fly away from the sun?

Inertia of course is the answer to all your questions but the difference is , water has very little inertia .  If it didn't flirt off the planet , there is still no reason why it wouldn't all bulge at the equator as water mixes with water . The only difference being an increase in volume .

No, inertia isn't the answer.

Get a lazy susan (or similar device), place objects on it, and give a spin. See what the relationship is between mass and how easily they fly off. (best to compare objects that are similarly slippery--obviously a wet piece of ice will move more easily than a piece of putty. I recommend using balls so that they can roll in basically the same way, rather than comparing how different materials and shapes slide)

[Bored chemist]

water has very little inertia

That simply isn't true.
Anyone who has carelessly dived into water knows that.

So, why do you start from something which we all know to be false as the "reason" for stuff?

[Colin2B]

No sane person thinks the sun orbits above his head.

Nail on head.

Lack of knowledge or lack of truth ? 

You lack both

The OP has revealed belief in a number of conspiracy theories. There have been numerous studies of serial conspiracists, as they are known, revealing the psychological problems lying behind these beliefs.   
Such theories have much in common with myths and primitive belief systems eg cargo cult, basically if I can’t understand it, then there must be a conspiracy.
Such beliefs do not have anything remotely like a rational scientific basis and as such do not belong in New Theories.
We do respect anyone’s right to believe what they want, however, this is a science site and we do not have to engage with your misunderstandings in the main physics sections. If you wish to discuss your beliefs you may do so in this section, if you have a genuine alternative science hypothesis you may post it in New Theories. However, based on your lack of understanding of basic physics and maths you may not post in any other section of this site. Thank you for your cooperation.

[Kryptid]

The math people learn of course works if it is designed to present illusion !

Please explain how the math could be an illusion when college students can check both it and the physical results for themselves in lab classes. Did you even watch the video?

I'm also still waiting for you to explain how you know the centrifugal force equation is wrong.

[Starlight (OP)]

However, based on your lack of understanding of basic physics and maths you may not post in any other section of this site. Thank you for your cooperation.

Bish bash bosh !

Here is the cover up .

I think you must be kidding Colin ?

Why wouldn't you want me post in other sections when there is obvious other posts in your main sections with less understanding than I have !

Quite clearly science does not want to discuss their own  lies .

They never landed on the moon !

There is no air on the moon for a parachute to work and because of general relativity a rocket module emitting ''thrust'' in free fall, falling  towards the moon, the thrust would have no effect on slowing down the module .  The thrust emitting would also be in free fall with the  module .

 


Such liars are science , money launders ......


oh my this isn't pretty , it isn't April the first is it ? 

[chiralSPO]

There may be some with less knowledge than you, but if they are willing to learn new information, we allow (and encourage) them to ask questions, posit hypotheses, and discuss in the general forum.

Those who direct their energies towards spreading conspiracy theories, and are unwilling to engage in scientific pursuit of knowledge are relegated to the "New Theories" and "That CAN'T be True" sections, so as not to pollute the threads for those who wish to discuss actual science, technology, and such.

And, finally, trolls will find that the mods here are not infinitely patient. I mostly ban spammers,  but I've banned my fair share of flat-earthers, moon-landing deniers, homeopaths, and other science deniers when they became abusive or too bothersome to other members.

[Starlight (OP)]

There may be some with less knowledge than you, but if they are willing to learn new information, we allow (and encourage) them to ask questions, posit hypotheses, and discuss in the general forum.

Those who direct their energies towards spreading conspiracy theories, and are unwilling to engage in scientific pursuit of knowledge are relegated to the "New Theories" and "That CAN'T be True" sections, so as not to pollute the threads for those who wish to discuss actual science, technology, and such.

And, finally, trolls will find that the mods here are not infinitely patient. I mostly ban spammers,  but I've banned my fair share of flat-earthers, moon-landing deniers, homeopaths, and other science deniers when they became abusive or too bothersome to other members.

Convince me they landed on the moon ?

Please do not underestimate my knowledge on present and past scientific information , especially in concerns to physics and engineering specifics .

I know general relativity and special relativity , it is not a murderous subject to learn !

We have to build bridges over water as we have to use propulsion to lift a rocket off the ground . We also have to have an escape velocity so the momentum of the rocket takes the rocket into space as propulsion fails once there is no atmosphere to push against .
We also have to use parachutes for a return descent into the atmosphere for the slowing down process , i.e the ''breaks''

On the moon there is no atmosphere so a parachute won't work .

''Flames'' emitted from a module in free fall would be in free fall with the module and have no effect on the velocity of the free fall .

??


Drawing.png (55.61 kB . 827x536 - viewed 6976 times)

Did they leave the camera man behind ? Is that flames I see on the launch platform ?(no oxygen)

You will never have encountered somebody with my scientific vigor before !  If you do decide to ban me , I'll consider that a victory as you've not been able to provide scientific argument to convince all the readers .

[chiralSPO]

You will never have encountered somebody with my scientific vigor before !  If you do decide to ban me , I'll consider that a victory as you've not been able to provide scientific argument to convince all the readers .

LOL you've done nothing ban-worthy yet. That was just a warning. We don't ban as a method of censorship. You are most welcome to air your ignorance in the "That CAN'T be True" section.

And yes, I see your scientific knowledge is lacking (vigor, yes, knowledge, not so much)

You clearly don't know anything about even the simplest Newtonian mechanics. (forget relativity until you can distinguish between force and acceleration)

Rockets don't have to push off of an atmosphere or any such thing.

Rockets/satellites etc. only experience free fall when they are in orbit (earth's gravity is almost as strong in LEO as on the ground, the experience of microgravity is due to orbiting being a special type of falling.

The astronauts brought oxygen with them to breath, surely they also brought oxidizer for their fuel to burn. (my recollection is that they used hydrazine/N,N-dimethyl hydrazine fuel and N₂O₄ oxidizer (both are liquids, and will spontaneously combust when brought into contact with each other, generating hot gasses, which can then be directed by . the thruster to push the module)

N₂O₄ (liquid) + 2 N₂H₄ (liquid) ——> 3 N₂ (gas) + 4 H₂O (gas)

[chiralSPO]

PS: I'm done trying to teach those who have no desire to learn.  I've got better things to do.

But be warned: if you become abusive or start posting nonsense in the main sections, or open more than one account, one of the mods will ban you

[The Spoon]

The OP is just trolling for giggles. I wonder who it it could be...

[The Spoon]

There is no air on the moon for a parachute to work and because of general relativity a rocket module emitting ''thrust'' in free fall, falling  towards the moon, the thrust would have no effect on slowing down the module .  The thrust emitting would also be in free fall with the  module .

This shows a profound lack of understanding of any kind of science or engineering principle. The same as your other sock accounts.

[Kryptid]

I know general relativity and special relativity

Not very well.

We also have to have an escape velocity so the momentum of the rocket takes the rocket into space as propulsion fails once there is no atmosphere to push against .

It works just fine in a vacuum due to conservation of momentum.

''Flames'' emitted from a module in free fall would be in free fall

No they wouldn't. They are travelling significantly faster than the free fall velocity.

[Bored chemist]

If you do decide to ban me , I'll consider that a victory

That would be consistent with your inability to make reasoned decisions.

[Janus]

There is no air on the moon for a parachute to work and because of general relativity a rocket module emitting ''thrust'' in free fall, falling  towards the moon, the thrust would have no effect on slowing down the module .  The thrust emitting would also be in free fall with the  module .

The descent module engine had a exhaust velocity of roughly 3000 m/s.  In order to get it up to this speed before leaving the engine, it had to accelerate it over a very short distance, accelerating up to that high a speed over such a short distance requires a high acceleration,  (to accelerate something to 3000 m/s over 1 meter would require an acceleration of 4,500,000 m/s^2. This is over 2.7 million times greater than the acceleration due to gravity near the moon.  Accelerating a mass that much requires a great deal of force, which in turn produces a equal reaction force on the engine accelerating the mass.
Accelerating just 1kg at this rate require 4.5 million Newtons of force; Enough to support 2.7 million kg against the pull of the Moon's gravity.  The extra 1.6 m/s^2 due to the Moon's gravity and the object being in free fall pales in comparison.  And it isn't even a factor,  All it does is increase the downward velocity of the exhaust towards the Moon.  And while this doesn't add to the upwards thrust felt by the rocket, neither does it subtract. (Even it it did, 1.6 m/s^2 subtracted from 4.5 million m/s^2 wouldn't even be noticeable for all practical purposes.

For science to be lying about as many things as you say it is, and be able to maintain the lie, a large fraction the population of the world would have to be in on it,  for most of which there would be no benefit from the lie, and  thus they would have no reason not to spill the beans,