| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Were The Moon Landings Real or Hollywood? |
| Real! |
|
23% |
[ 11 ] |
| Special Effects! |
|
51% |
[ 24 ] |
| I Like Sitting On Fences, I Feel Safer... |
|
6% |
[ 3 ] |
| I Neither Know Nor Care! |
|
4% |
[ 2 ] |
| What Has This Poll Got To Do With 911? |
|
14% |
[ 7 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 47 |
|
| Author |
Message |
karlos
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 3:50 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| johndoe wrote: | "In 1969 a computer occupied a whole building of several stories. Now that same computer sits on our tabletop."
not true.
and if we are to argue that the radiation belts stop humans going through...... you do realise that it would wreck electronic circuits as well?
starfish prime being the prime example (oooh a pun)
and so all extra-terrestial missions would be impossible.
and is the iss faked too? mir? |
The international space station and all shuttle missions have always stayed in LOW EARTH ORBIT
No human has gone beyond this point. The moon is 250,000 miles away ISS is 100 miles away. Big difference.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 4:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Johndoe I asked :-
| Quote: | | "Are you saying that the radiation from the Van Allen belt can destroy inanimate substance as well? Drivel" |
you responded:-
| Quote: | | it's well documented. radiation breaks electrical equipment. |
How about you answer the question I asked and not the one you want to answer. I know that radiation can destroy equipment. Heat is a form of radiation for God's sake. There are many forms of radiation but I asked about the Van Allen radiation destroying electrical equipment.
| Quote: | | maybe you shouldn't call things drivel that you have no idea about. |
Maybe you should speak less drivel and stick to the point.
| Quote: | "These man-made radiation belts eventually crippled one-third of all satellites in low orbit. "
"It can also overload and destroy electrical equipment." |
Man-made. Did you get that little bit. Man-made. What about the Van Allen belt?
| Quote: | | blackcat how about you educate yourself before you speak on topics you have no knowledge of in future? |
How about you use your superior knowledge to answer the question instead of waffling around the topic? Just to remind you - you stated
| Quote: | and if we are to argue that the radiation belts stop humans going through...... you do realise that it would wreck electronic circuits as well?
|
You were clearly talking about the Van Allen radiation wrecking electronic circuits, not any man-made radiation. Do you stand by this drivel or do you wish to "educate" me somehow? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johndoe
Wrecker
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 181
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 9:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
"You were clearly talking about the Van Allen radiation wrecking electronic circuits, not any man-made radiation."
care to tell us all the difference between man made and natural radiation? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Thermate wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: | | telecasterisation wrote: | | Did you mean OBL - if so, do you believe the 'confession' tape was real? |
I did indeed mean OBL.
Back to the topic .... |
Wow duck 'n' cover eh? 
Seems you need to refresh your debunk info Ignatz, the latest fairy tale is that OBL looks fat because of the conversion from PAL to NTSC, so there you go, next time you can use that ok? 
| Ignatz wrote: | Later they creep out, climb down the gantry and are whisked away to the desert studio for the rest of this farrago.
Meanwhile ...
The administration that could pull off this scam don't have the brains to have some clever people to filter out the dodgy giveaway photos.
Later ....
The "proud astronauts" climb into a mock pod - pre-seared to mimic the heat of re-entry - do you seriously believe this kind of poop? C'mon. |
Don't see anyone suggesting they didn't go into orbit, do you? The film of them in the capsule attempting to fake their distance from the Earth proves that!  |
Feel free to start an "OBL confession tape" thread then.
Telecaster put his ignorance and gullibility on public display with the radiation issue and then frantically tried to cover his tracks. That's something he needs to deal with.
But your moon-hoax theory gets better and better...
The astronauts did actually launch?
This means a secret re-entry and recovery followed later by a faked re-entry and recovery, or a week in orbit with thousands of professional and millions of amateur astronomers wondering what that new satellite is. The "week in orbit" option would then mean voice-doubles to do the acting in the studio .... etc etc. I could go on but your "theory" is already looking ridiculous enough.
You don't really think very hard about this kind of thing, do you?
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZUCO
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 179
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The "week in orbit" option would then mean voice-doubles to do the acting in the studio |
Why would they need voice doubles? Can't they speak from space?
_________________
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" --Benjamin Franklin--
ZUCO |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | care to tell us all the difference between man made and natural radiation? |
There are many different forms of radiation and they can vary greatly in intensity. It is a simple task to design electronic circuitry able to withstand radiation which would be lethal to humans. The point is there is no comparison between a man passing through the Van Allen belts and a piece of electronic equipment passing through. A man cannot be engineered. There is no argument that radiation can damage inanimate objects - I once lost a bar of chocolate left in sunlight so I know from bitter experience. Your argument that because electronic equipment survived the Van Allen belt then humans could also is nonsense. It is as nonsensical as saying the Russians would have revealed the hoax to the world rather than rejoice at the Americans being suckered to the tune of billions of dollars. By whoever siphoned it off! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 11:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | or a week in orbit with thousands of professional and millions of amateur astronomers wondering what that new satellite is |
So it would be impossible to stay in daylight? They can launch a rocket into space and return safely to Earth but cannot place themselves so they would be in a position always in daylight when "viewed" from Earth? How would millions of astronomers see them? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johndoe
Wrecker
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 181
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"It is a simple task to design electronic circuitry able to withstand radiation which would be lethal to humans."
all you need is shielding
"The point is there is no comparison between a man passing through the Van Allen belts and a piece of electronic equipment passing through. A man cannot be engineered."
why?
care to explain whyt he crew of the iss hasn't been killed off yet? they pass through the south atlantic anamoly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thermate
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 13 Nov 2006
Posts: 445
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | I could go on but your "theory" is already looking ridiculous enough. |
Just the usual stuff that pops to the front of your addled and distorted mind, again side stepping the point, I pity you.
_________________
Make love, not money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Been decorating, going for the New York loft apartment look across the top of the house, just taking a break.
See old Ignatz is still bobbing and weaving the issue, this time trying the multiple card lay of the old turnaroundaroony and 'we don't discuss issues other than the one on the table' ploys.
For a player like Ignatz, usually so confident, composed, it doesn't get any better than this, watching him frantically attempting to claw the arrow from his heel - his Achilles tendon so raw and exposed.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | Been decorating, going for the New York loft apartment look across the top of the house, just taking a break.
See old Ignatz is still bobbing and weaving the issue, this time trying the multiple card lay of the old turnaroundaroony and 'we don't discuss issues other than the one on the table' ploys.
For a player like Ignatz, usually so confident, composed, it doesn't get any better than this, watching him frantically attempting to claw the arrow from his heel - his Achilles tendon so raw and exposed. |
The "issue", if you'll look at the thread title is the moon-landing CT.
However, if it will settle you down then please start an "OBL confession" thread and I will discuss it with you there. Even better - I'll start one myself.
Meanwhile - have you reflected on the VA radiation question?
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blackcat wrote: | | Quote: | | or a week in orbit with thousands of professional and millions of amateur astronomers wondering what that new satellite is |
So it would be impossible to stay in daylight? They can launch a rocket into space and return safely to Earth but cannot place themselves so they would be in a position always in daylight when "viewed" from Earth? How would millions of astronomers see them? |
Ingenious, blackcat, but in low earth orbit it isn't possible to go slow enough to achieve this. They would have hit the deck pdq.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ignatz;
| Quote: | The "issue", if you'll look at the thread title is the moon-landing CT.
However, if it will settle you down then please start an "OBL confession" thread and I will discuss it with you there. Even better - I'll start one myself.
Meanwhile - have you reflected on the VA radiation question? |
Perhaps you will feel a trifle less compromised if we get him to join the space program?
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 11:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Ingenious, blackcat, but in low earth orbit it isn't possible to go slow enough to achieve this. They would have hit the deck pdq. |
Not ingenious - just routine. If you have some information as to how it is impossible for a powered spacecraft to be unable to do what I suggested please explain why not. It is insufficient to simply state that it is not possible. It seems very simple to do. The spacecraft was powered and could have maintained a position as I suggested very easily. You seem to be lacking in some very basic understanding of how a craft maintains orbit. There is ZERO chance it would have hit the deck if they wished it not to do so. Have you not heard of geo-stationary orbit? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 11:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why not?
Carrots!
Indiscreet. Blue? Carbon isn't?
Cacky.
Blather blather blah. Please respond to my intelligent post.
Starfish immediately. Yellow could.
Gaga. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 12:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| blackcat wrote: | | Quote: | | Ingenious, blackcat, but in low earth orbit it isn't possible to go slow enough to achieve this. They would have hit the deck pdq. |
Not ingenious - just routine. If you have some information as to how it is impossible for a powered spacecraft to be unable to do what I suggested please explain why not. It is insufficient to simply state that it is not possible. It seems very simple to do. The spacecraft was powered and could have maintained a position as I suggested very easily. You seem to be lacking in some very basic understanding of how a craft maintains orbit. There is ZERO chance it would have hit the deck if they wished it not to do so. Have you not heard of geo-stationary orbit? |
Geostationary orbit can only be maintained at heights of around 22,000 miles. The Apollo launches hit orbit at a few hundred k's, 12 minutes or so after launch. That's what the Saturn V did.
Low earth orbits result in about 13 revolutions of the earth each day (depending on direction of travel). Travelling much slower than that (to stay in daylight, for example) means you're not actually in orbit, you're in a trajectory that will bring you back to earth very soon.
It's very easy to research this stuff, blackcat. You must try it some time.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: |
The astronaut scenario is about right - there is no way that they could have passed through Van Allen and lived - radiation would have killed them stone dead - if not then, then very soon afterwards. The protection afforded by that bean tin = no chance.
You ask me to believe that SIX missions went to the moon and not one person died?
|
Something like "That post was plain wrong. I stand corrected" would be appropriate at this point.
Or, I suppose, you could just slap together another jokey photomontage, if that's your idea of retiring gracefully from the debate.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | A Liquid Cooling and Ventilation Garment, or LCVG, is a form-fitting garment, primarily constructed of spandex with a nylon tricot liner[1], worn by astronauts in order to maintain a comfortable core body temperature during extra-vehicular activity. The LCVG accomplishes this task by circulating cool water through a network of PVC tubes in direct contact with the astronaut's skin. The water draws heat away from the body, resulting in a lower core temperature. The water then returns to the Primary Life Support System, or PLSS, where it radiates heat into space, thereby cooling before being recirculated.
Because the space environment is essentially a vacuum, heat cannot be lost through heat conduction, and can only be dissipated through thermal radiation, a much slower process. Thus, even though the environment of space can be extremely cold, excessive heat build-up is inevitable. Without an LCVG, there would be no means by which to expel this heat, and it would affect not only EVA performance, but the health of the suit occupant as well.
The LCVG used with the Apollo/Skylab A7L suit could remove heat at a rate of 62,112 Joules/hour (~2000 Btu/hour).[2] |
So, you got any other technology that "didn't exist"?[/quote]
The source was incorrect. My bad. Stated method for temperature maintenance is indeed cliamed to be infrared radiation from spacesuit.
Re impossible technology.
Mostly I agree with Eric Hufschmidt
http://members.aol.com/PainfulQuestions/ApolloMoonHoax.pd
If there was going to be a mission to put men on the moon, surely a precursor would have been to try an unmanned landing and take-off first?
Here is the interview with the first men into space. Top guns or stressed-out liars?
http://www.erichufschmid.net/apollo11_press_conference.wmv
More
http://www.erichufschmid.net/MoreInfoForScienceChallenge.html
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig W
Validated Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 485
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
There are some classic time wasters on this thread, guys and gals. 
It's like a disinfo agents' party.
Naming no names (it is rather bleeding obvious who they are), there are certain people who seem to do nothing but ask pointless questions and avoid answering properly any questions directed at them.
You water-muddiers are going to have to try much harder to throw us truth-seekers of the scent.
_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 7:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Geostationary orbit can only be maintained at heights of around 22,000 miles. |
The optimum height is around 22,000 kilometres. No power is required to remain in a "geo-stationary" position at that distance.
| Quote: | | Low earth orbits result in about 13 revolutions of the earth each day (depending on direction of travel). Travelling much slower than that (to stay in daylight, for example) means you're not actually in orbit, you're in a trajectory that will bring you back to earth very soon. |
If a rocket can propel itself into space from Earth from a standing start then it can overcome the effects of gravity. Once in space with the effects of gravity mimimised it requires relatively puny amounts of power to stay up. Your statement relates to objects that are not powered.
| Quote: | | It's very easy to research this stuff, blackcat. You must try it some time. |
Indeed it is and I recommend you follow my lead in doing so. This would prevent you from stating nonsense which attempts to "prove" they could not have faked the moon landing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blackcat wrote: | | Quote: | | Geostationary orbit can only be maintained at heights of around 22,000 miles. |
The optimum height is around 22,000 kilometres. No power is required to remain in a "geo-stationary" position at that distance.
| Quote: | | Low earth orbits result in about 13 revolutions of the earth each day (depending on direction of travel). Travelling much slower than that (to stay in daylight, for example) means you're not actually in orbit, you're in a trajectory that will bring you back to earth very soon. |
If a rocket can propel itself into space from Earth from a standing start then it can overcome the effects of gravity. Once in space with the effects of gravity mimimised it requires relatively puny amounts of power to stay up. Your statement relates to objects that are not powered.
| Quote: | | It's very easy to research this stuff, blackcat. You must try it some time. |
Indeed it is and I recommend you follow my lead in doing so. This would prevent you from stating nonsense which attempts to "prove" they could not have faked the moon landing. |
Again you're wrong. Gravity at 200k altitude is not dramatically different from gravity at the earth's surface.
where r is the distance from the centre of the earth, i.e. the radius (not height) of the orbit in this case.
The radius of the earth is approx 6,400k. 6400^2 = 40,960,000
200k up, r^2 becomes 43,560,000
That's about a 6% decrease.
It's the orbital speed of the vehicle that keeps it aloft, not lack of gravity up there.
For example, the Space Shuttle operating at 300k altitude has to maintain a speed of about 17,000 mph. Apollo 11 parking orbit was at around 200k, and would have needed to travel slightly faster. The only way for Apollo 11 to maintain an 'always daylight' orbit at that height would be to have the rockets burning for over a week, which is clearly impossible.
Airliners can follow the sun (Roy Harper's "Twelve hours of sunset" was inspired by such a flight). But only as long as they burn fuel and travel at airliner speeds.
All of which, by the by, explains why geo-stationary satellites cannot be in low earth orbit. It isn't possible to go slow enough and remain aloft.
hth
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johndoe
Wrecker
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 181
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
oh wow blackcat you managed to answer my questions..... wait..... that's wrong somehow...... you didn't. why is that? is it because you are totally incapable?
and for your answer yes you can compare how a man and a machine pass through the van allen belts.
"The astronaut scenario is about right - there is no way that they could have passed through Van Allen and lived - radiation would have killed them stone dead - if not then, then very soon afterwards. The protection afforded by that bean tin = no chance."
a word to sum up this? WRONG
"Once in space with the effects of gravity mimimised it requires relatively puny amounts of power to stay up."
well that all depends on how far you go doesn't it? inverse square law and all that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The moon landing hoax and 911 false flag and all the other BS (especially the stuff about international banking families having the power to create money out of nothing via debt creation) is being covered up by all major governments. This is a truly global cabal with their Quabbalistic 'religion' (PSYOP)
They have had an unprecedented amount of intellectual firepower and finance at their disposal to pull these conjuring tricks and keep truthseekers at bay. Figgering out how they did it was never going to be easy. Impossible without the internet. So how was the moon landing hoax possible? Because everyone, not just NASA, was in on it.
Freemasonry and Zionism control virtually all governments - even some Muslim ones. With total press control and perps up to their necks in secret societies with dire consequences for those who betray the order only a small number of whistleblowers would be expected, and these could be dealt with by ridicule, or as a last resort, 'suiciding'.
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Gravity at 200k altitude is not dramatically different from gravity at the earth's surface. |
Yes - it can clearly be seen that nothing is weightless - all those things floating around n the shuttle, including the astronauts, must be illusions. Where do you dredge this stuff up from?
| Quote: | | It's the orbital speed of the vehicle that keeps it aloft, not lack of gravity up there. |
Get away!!!!!! Whoda thunk?!!"!
| Quote: | | For example, the Space Shuttle operating at 300k altitude has to maintain a speed of about 17,000 mph. Apollo 11 parking orbit was at around 200k, and would have needed to travel slightly faster. The only way for Apollo 11 to maintain an 'always daylight' orbit at that height would be to have the rockets burning for over a week, which is clearly impossible. |
It is NOT necessary to have the rockets burning constantly to maintain a speed of 17,000 mph. Once the speed has been reached there is little to stop it staying at that speed. The Earths pull would gradually cause it (or anything else in orbit) to eventually come down to Earth but it is a question of how quickly this would happen. By the occasional use of fuel it could be maintained at a relatively low orbit for easily a week. The same applies to the space station which is why they can stay up for months. In the case of the Saturn rockets they could easily reach 17,000 mph and once achieved it is easy to stay for a week in an "always daylight" orbit.
| Quote: | | All of which, by the by, explains why geo-stationary satellites cannot be in low earth orbit. |
It explains why geo-stationary satellites do not get placed in low Earth orbits as the optimum orbit is much further away and allows satellites placed there to remain there much longer before their inevitable return to Earth. Decades rather than years, months or days. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| johndoe wrote: | oh wow blackcat you managed to answer my questions..... wait..... that's wrong somehow...... you didn't. why is that? is it because you are totally incapable?
and for your answer yes you can compare how a man and a machine pass through the van allen belts.
"The astronaut scenario is about right - there is no way that they could have passed through Van Allen and lived - radiation would have killed them stone dead - if not then, then very soon afterwards. The protection afforded by that bean tin = no chance."
a word to sum up this? WRONG
"Once in space with the effects of gravity mimimised it requires relatively puny amounts of power to stay up."
well that all depends on how far you go doesn't it? inverse square law and all that. |
If you must quote something then address it to whoever wrote it. That stuff about radiation killing the astronauts does not belong to me.
And no it does not depend on how far you go. Once the effects of gravity have been minimised it requires relatively puny amounts of power to stay up. I hope that helps you to read what I said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Gravity at 200k altitude is not dramatically different from gravity at the earth's surface. |
Earth radius is 5K. Gravity is inverse square. Every time distance from core doubles gravity falls by factor of four. Gravity at 200K is
5 - 10 - 20 -- 40 -- 80 ---- 160...
G 1/4 1/16 1/64 1/256 1/1024G
less than a thousandth of surface.
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blackcat wrote: | | Quote: | | Gravity at 200k altitude is not dramatically different from gravity at the earth's surface. |
Yes - it can clearly be seen that nothing is weightless - all those things floating around n the shuttle, including the astronauts, must be illusions. Where do you dredge this stuff up from?
|
The Shuttle / Apollo 11 module is constantly accelerating towards Earth. Hence the circular orbit. Without gravity, the spacecraft would fly off into space. Did you not like the 'inverse square law' equation that I "dredged up"? It's real science ! <gasp>
Drive your car off a cliff and things (including the driver) will "float around". Doesn't mean there's no gravity at the earth's surface, does it?
| blackcat wrote: |
It is NOT necessary to have the rockets burning constantly to maintain a speed of 17,000 mph. Once the speed has been reached there is little to stop it staying at that speed. The Earths pull would gradually cause it (or anything else in orbit) to eventually come down to Earth but it is a question of how quickly this would happen. By the occasional use of fuel it could be maintained at a relatively low orbit for easily a week. The same applies to the space station which is why they can stay up for months. In the case of the Saturn rockets they could easily reach 17,000 mph and once achieved it is easy to stay for a week in an "always daylight" orbit.
|
I specifically didn't say that. Look back. I said that to maintain a permanent daylight orbit would require engines on the whole time in order to orbit at the very slow speed required. 17,000 mph doesn't require engine power to maintain the orbit. 500mph to track the sun does, big time.
| Quote: | All of which, by the by, explains why geo-stationary satellites cannot be in low earth orbit.
| blackcat wrote: | | [It explains why geo-stationary satellites do not get placed in low Earth orbits as the optimum orbit is much further away and allows satellites placed there to remain there much longer before their inevitable return to Earth. Decades rather than years, months or days. |
|
The possible orbits for geo-stationary satellites vary little from the "optimum". And a few hundred k's altitude isn't even close to the possible range.
Science will not yield just to suit your beliefs, blackcat. Stop making an ass of yourself and take time to reflect. Stop posting on this subject until you understand it. Ask questions at a physics forum or something.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car
Last edited by Ignatz on Sat Mar 17, 2007 9:38 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think you are looking in the wrong direction Blackcat. The moon hoax did not have to fool those with telescopes. They were in on the scam. Most were enemies of the US. Fremasons in the US sold US out by stealing the money from US taxpayer to fund black project - probably Israeli nukes (about same time I thnk)
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johndoe
Wrecker
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 181
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"And no it does not depend on how far you go. "
are you trying to deny that gravitational pull on an object is determined by distance? that would be really really stupid blackcat.
"Once the effects of gravity have been minimised it requires relatively puny amounts of power to stay up."
and how would one minimise the effects of gravity?
"Earth radius is 5K."
oh dear rodin, oh dear.
and peeps of you want to discuss physics it is best to do it in metric. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZUCO
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 179
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| johndoe wrote: | oh wow blackcat you managed to answer my questions..... wait..... that's wrong somehow...... you didn't. why is that? is it because you are totally incapable?
|
The words "pot", "kettle" and "black" spring to mind
_________________
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" --Benjamin Franklin--
ZUCO |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
