Do you (U/ghost_of_aswartz) still believe we went to the Moon?
(www.youtube.com)
Comments (28)
sorted by:
Wasn't the Orion mission about sending a rocket through the belts, with measuring equipment to test and measure the radiation exposure on the rocket? And to see how much time it took to travel through the belts? NASA's own admission to having never sent a human through those belts. Hence no moon mission was ever real.
If you have a fish in a fishbowl and you move the bowl, does the fish immediately slam into the side of the bowl? No, the water generally moves with the rest of the bowl. Air is a fluid like water, it's just a lot more compressible. The air is rotating the same speed as the ground more or less.
The whole reason something can fly through the air is because the air is resisting its natural tendency to fall due to gravity.
An object in motion stays in motion. If the ground is rotating in space, an object on the ground will be rotating similarly. Even if the object moves away from the ground a bit, it's still largely rotating similarly. Without anything pushing on an object, it moves in a straight line. Without gravity, objects would naturally fling off into space. Gravity curves space, though, so that the straight line naturally leads back to colliding with the ground (unless you're going fast enough to be in orbit.)
It doesn't take power to keep moving or rotating. It only takes power to accelerate or decelerate.
You can measure the rotation of the Earth using a gyroscope or a pendulum. Pretty much every science museum has a demonstration of Foucault's pendulum.
If you move the fishbowl in a circular motion with a period of 24 hours, then the fish won't even be able to perceive the motion, even if the radius of the circle is thousands of miles. If you whip it around in a tight loop, then the water will become turbulent and the fish will get knocked around.
If there's a current, the fish will move with it. Depending on its swimming ability, it will be able to swim against some amount of current. What analogy are you trying to make? Is it a controversial idea that a fish can swim?
I'm not trying to make a point that the air carries objects along with it, even though that's generally true. I'm saying that the air, objects that happen to be in the air, and the ground the air is above are all rotating at effectively the same speed and direction, and gravity keeps everything curving back toward the ground, and so there's no constant energy required to keep from falling off the earth.
The air is rotating with the Earth too, and there's no reason for it not to on average because it's the lowest energy state.
Speed is always relative to another reference frame. If you're riding in an airplane and eating a peanut, you could say the peanut is going 400mph and it would be true relative to the ground, but it's not going 400mph relative to your mouth. Relative to the surrounding air, maybe it's going 380mph if there's a 20mph tailwind. Relative to the sun, the peanut is probably going a bajillion mph. The only energy/power required is for the plane to overcome the aerodynamic drag from moving relative to the air, and the constant 9.8m/s^2 acceleration upward to counteract gravity.
Said another way, there's no energy required to maintain a constant rate of rotation for matter that's held together by natural forces in a closed system, only momentum. The Earth overall is largely a closed system, as it is moving though a vacuum. Over cosmic time scales, though, the Earth does lose momentum because it's not a perfectly closed system. Days are becoming slightly longer from year to year. Some of that is due to tidal forces with the moon, for example.
Two considerations to add to this:
most planes ascend to 20-30,000 feet in order to minimize the drag of the atmosphere
“jet streams” and similar phenomena can go counter to the earths rotation. The atmosphere is a highly “chaotic” system and things are moving in all directions at once, it’s just the average or prevailing movement that follows the rotation, theoretically:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Tracks
Air is comprised of matter in a gaseous state. There is air in space in that there's particles of matter all over the place, but at a low enough density that it's basically a vacuum. That's not my theory, that's a non-controversial description of nature based on hundreds of years of empirically tested science.
If you don't believe in matter, then I'm curious what you believe air is comprised of.
Well sure, nature could all be a simulation. In which case, all I'm describing is the rules of the simulation. Either way, science is the study of nature (of the simulation).
Looping back to the original topic, if it's all a simulation and the moon is part of that simulation, then why is it controversial to say that (simulated) humans went to the (simulated) moon? Why is it controversial to accept mainstream physics as accurate?
Assuming human consciousness exists within the simulation, then it doesn't matter because it is our reality. If consciousness exists outside of the simulation, then that's by definition metaphysical.
Hence no
moonmission was ever real.Hence no SPACE mission was ever real.
The mission has always been for your mind.
Exactly.
Why one can find a fly on a recent rover photo. Oh the fuckery of it all.
1986 Challenger hit the firmament/dome when it blew up?
So you’re saying they didn’t even launch the Challenger? Knowing what I know now, I thought maybe it blew up when it hit the dome.
There's some good pictures floating around the internet of the crew with inserts of them now.
ironicallyconveniently a lot of them were twins... if you can believe that.I think the idea is that behind the facade of the “civilian” space program (challenger, discovery, etc) there is a “military/secret” space program. The explosion, in that scenario, would have been of the real military vehicle, which explains why the civilian crew is “still alive”, I’m not sure which, if either, scenario is true but there’s certainly more to the story I can recognize that much.