A little over 24 hours in

Status
Not open for further replies.
So do you think the first shot of landing was supposed to be real?
Cant help but step in the bird poo once more...
Its a CGI promo shot meant to show you what it looks like. Nobody claims that footage is supposed to be taken as real. Just so you are aware, US landers typically have a camera on a boom so you can see the lander on the surface.
 
Cant help but step in the bird poo once more...
Its a CGI promo shot meant to show you what it looks like. Nobody claims that footage is supposed to be taken as real. Just so you are aware, US landers typically have a camera on a boom so you can see the lander on the surface.
It looks like they were playing it off as real. Much like the USA one where they applauded and celebrated after seeing it land. The China stuff on the moon is pretty funny too.
 
So you're saying if a country faked a planet landing we should just play along and not call it out? That's not really in my DNA bro.
 
Of course not.- "IF" a country faked a planet landing, the person who suspects such should find the evidence. "Looks funny" isn't evidence.
Nothing personal but I don't think you would be a good detective. You would believe the "official" story over all.
 
Nothing personal but I don't think you would be a good detective. You would believe the "official" story over all.
Nothing personal but you know little and assume much.

I've actually calculated the local gravitational constant on the moon from the video evidence they collected 50 years ago. The one where they drop a hammer and a feather to show that they fall at the same rate in the absence of air (on the moon). Turns out the rate of decent is about 1/6th the rate on earth. If you don't know, the gravity on the smaller moon is about 1/6th that of gravity here on earth. Now sure, they could have slowed down the film, but they weren't filming to show the lower gravitational constant. They were filming to show equal descent of a hammer and a feather. I was the one who chose to calculate the gravitational constant from the film. They would have had to be wise to the fact that someone might try to verify the film based on a constant that could be derived from the rate they slowed down the film. They would have had to be pretty complete to slow the film at just the right speed. Not the bumbling idiots you seem to think they are. They got it right, or the film is legit, and I did not just "believe the official story". I looked for evidence. They were really forward thinking, or they were really on the moon. Gravity doesn't lie.
 
Nothing personal but you know little and assume much.

I've actually calculated the local gravitational constant on the moon from the video evidence they collected 50 years ago. The one where they drop a hammer and a feather to show that they fall at the same rate in the absence of air (on the moon). Turns out the rate of decent is about 1/6th the rate on earth. If you don't know, the gravity on the smaller moon is about 1/6th that of gravity here on earth. Now sure, they could have slowed down the film, but they weren't filming to show the lower gravitational constant. They were filming to show equal descent of a hammer and a feather. I was the one who chose to calculate the gravitational constant from the film. They would have had to be wise to the fact that someone might try to verify the film based on a constant that could be derived from the rate they slowed down the film. They would have had to be pretty complete to slow the film at just the right speed. Not the bumbling idiots you seem to think they are. They got it right, or the film is legit, and I did not just "believe the official story". I looked for evidence. They were really forward thinking, or they were really on the moon. Gravity doesn't lie.
You know gravity is theory right? You can't prove it. (don't say you just dropped the mic and that proves it)
 
You know gravity is theory right? You can't prove it. (don't say you just dropped the mic and that proves it)
No. You just nuked the fridge. Ok, lets eat some bird doodoo.

Nobody brought up the legitimacy of gravity. You are answering a question nobody asked. Well done.

Scientific theory is not the same thing as the colloquial definition. Scientific theories are backed by extensive evidence, research, and experimentation. It is literally synonymous with the word "fact".

Gravity is one of the most rigourously tested theorems/concepts in the history of the world. The Cavendish experiment and its later more modern versions show its real. You can see the effect with a scale that can measure to the thousandth of a gram by hanging a weight then introducing larger, dense weights underneath.

Also, science does not prove things. It explains phenomenon and how reality works through testing and experimentation. The only place you find proof is in math and in pseudoscience.

Like Dave said, tell us how things fall, and dont say its buoyancy and density, because every one of you oxygen thieves goes there. The density of on object does not give it acceleration in any direction, and the equations for buoyant forces must take gravity into account. The equation is Fb=pgV, Fb is the buoyant force, p is the density of the fluid, V is the volume of the fluid displacement, and g is gravitational acceleration. People who build boats use this.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top