• Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
  • There are no markets
  • "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

'Fake' Apollo Moon Landing

engineear

Seeker
Seeker
Joined
Mar 11, 2011
Messages
496
Likes
340
Location
Phx. area
I'm now open to the idea of a flat earth. I'm convinced the videos of astronauts are faked. The wires are there, the movements are not natural, long hair sticking straight out looks hair sprayed. Green/blue screens are apparent with unwanted humans going in and out of the videos. How else is THAT explained? But, not one person, AFAIK, has come forward with evidence that this has been going on for decades. Just like a good friend of mine who was in the air force 20 years finds it hard to believe in chemtrails. He always says..."too many people involved that would keep their mouths shut". That's my point here also. Who has spoken up about this? Are they all afraid of being Arkansided? All these videos showing deception/fakery/lies and NO ONE has exposed it!? Seems like alot of folks are colluding. ALOT.
Where is all the billions NASA gets, goes? Everyone at NASA must know it's a lie and they all go to work, do whatever it is they do to keep there job? That to me is harder to believe than the flat earth theory. But, apparently that's what they do. And we don't march on NASA, to get the news out about it and demand to know what the hell are they up to. We are sheeple/copper tops, plain and simple and we all, most of us, have taken the red pill.

The flat earth...lots of pros and cons yet in my mind. Watched a bunch of videos off that one above. The firmament. Admiral Byrd also said he was met by flying machines and was forced to land under the ice where there was light, heat, greenery and many people. Why isn't that talked about more? The guy wasn't a liar but well respected. Makes one wonder. And why was a lot of heads of state going to Antarctica lately?
The coming deception WILL be great and it's gonna blow minds. The minions will believe it hook, line and sinker. Stay thirsty, (for HIS word) my friends.
 

Bottom Feeder

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
3,760
Likes
6,176
Location
Seattle
Well, I lived through that era and remember it happening, so I believe the US was there and back.
So, solarion, you seem pretty focused on 'we haven't been back since.' if we went back now what would it prove to you? Why would you believe it this time?

BF
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,017
Likes
6,051
Location
Instant Gratification Land
I'm referring to the fact that if I go to https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/images/index.html

...I find a bunch of dog vomit fake looking edited garbage that NASA themselves refers to as "composite images".
At least they admit up front that the images are composites. Ie: it's not as though they are hiding the fact.
...and I assume you mean pics like this one?

mississippi_oli_2016336_lrg.jpg


If so, yes it is a composite.
...but they do stuff like this in order to allow us to see things we wouldn't otherwise be able to see.




Also, editing of pics can also bring out features we would not otherwise be able to see. The following is a good example. The pic on the left is what we would see naturally. The one one the right shows detail that would otherwise remain invisible to us.


Stars RXeNUUs.jpg


Also, many of NASA'S pics are in fact stitched together from multiple images. That's because most sats can only image a narrow area on each orbit. The strips of pics are then attached together to form a wider view. This is due to resolution limits of the optics. The higher a sat is, the better (read: more expensive) the optics have to be in order to get the same resolution in a photo. So they orbit in LEO which then limits the width of view the sat has, thereby necessitating the need to create larger images from the smaller ones.

Are there any other specific examples of pics on the site you are referring to?




Of course! ...wait...why of course? How the heck could you know they'd say something? I don't see the Russian goobermint as being all that open with much of anything. Neither was the Soviet goobermint. There's crap going on all the time, all of these nations have their information sources and I almost never hear about them airing out one another's dirty laundry.
Why wouldn't the Soviets have said something? They were trying to beat us there at the time. What advantage would they have had to cover for NASA?
...and why would the Chinese show pics of their own lander and rover showing the same circumstances as the Apollo missions encountered, if they actually encountered something else? Ie: no stars in pics, no blast crater, lighting on the non-Sun side of lander, tracks in dry Lunar regolith, etc etc etc. Why would they lie to cover for NASA?
 

BarnacleBob

GIM Founding Member & Mod.
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
9,439
Likes
11,199
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
Is there anybody out there? Voyager 1 fires up thrusters dormant since 1980



If you had a car sitting in a garage for nearly forty years you’d forgive it for not starting with the first turn of the key. Now imagine it’s 21 billion kilometers from home and you just heard that engine purring from interstellar space.

For car read Voyager 1, and for engine read a set of four trajectory thrusters, and that’s exactly what NASA boffins have done. The handlers of Voyager – the farthest and fastest human-made object in the universe – fired up that set of thrusters, which had lain dormant since 1980, in order to orient the probe and thereby maintain its communications link with Earth.

The thrusts lasted a mere 10-milliseconds, but due to the colossal distance between the probe and its home planet the commands took 19 hours and 35 minutes to reach Voyager. The team then had to wait the same amount of time to find out if their orders were heeded. They were.

read more:
https://www.rt.com/usa/411722-voyager-th...r-decades/

Yea sure! My telephone has more computing power than all of NASA had in 1980.... And many times it is not capable of transmitting & receiving signals across my local area. Yet like majic, NASA seems to be capable of the impossible & unbelievable... indeed, it unbelievable because it cannot possibly be real!
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,017
Likes
6,051
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Yea sure! My telephone has more computing power than all of NASA had in 1980.... And many times it is not capable of transmitting & receiving signals across my local area. Yet like majic, NASA seems to be capable of the impossible & unbelievable... indeed, it unbelievable because it cannot possibly be real!
If your phone had a 14' antenna receiving data broadcast at thousands of watts, you'd never drop a call. You'd need a truck to carry your phone though.


How are the Voyager spacecraft able to transmit radio messages so far?
The Voyager spacecraft use 23-watt radios. This is higher than the 3 watts a typical cell phone uses, but in the grand scheme of things it is still a low-power transmitter. Big radio stations on Earth transmit at tens of thousands of watts and they still fade out fairly quickly.

The key to receiving the signals is therefore not the power of the radio, but a combination of three other things:

  • Very large antennas
  • Directional antennas that point right at each other
  • Radio frequencies without a lot of man-made interference on them
The antennas that the Voyager spacecraft use are big. You may have seen people who have large satellite dish antennas in their yards. These are typically 2 or 3 meters (6 to 10 feet) in diameter. The Voyager spacecraft has an antenna that is 3.7 meters (14 feet) in diameter, and it transmits to a 34 meter (100 feet or so) antenna on Earth. The Voyager antenna and the Earth antenna are pointed right at each other. When you compare your phone's stubby, little omni-directional antenna to a 34 meter directional antenna, you can see the main thing that makes a difference!

The Voyager satellites are also transmitting in the 8 GHz range, and there is not a lot of interference at this frequency. Therefore the antenna on Earth can use an extremely sensitive amplifier and still make sense of the faint signals it receives. Then when the earth antenna transmits back to the spacecraft, it uses extremely high power (tens of thousands of watts) to make sure the spacecraft gets the message.


Hmmm. Big antennas, much more powerful transmitters, uncluttered radio frequencies. Sounds reasonable to me. Radio waves travel at the speed of light, so all it takes is time to cover the distance. Why is it so unbelievable?
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,017
Likes
6,051
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Have you tried seeing some for yourself? ISS qualifies as a satellite, right? It's visible with the naked eye.

Also, photographing a sat in orbit is not a very easy thing to do. At LEO they move at approx 17,000mph. How easy do think it would be to use a telescope to track an object moving at 17,000mph?
...and the ones in geostationary orbit are at least 32,000 miles away. So you end up needing a good (big) telescope to see them due to the resolution limits of optics that we discussed earlier.


Where on earth would this happen?
No where. It happened on the Moon.
...and thanks for posting that.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,017
Likes
6,051
Location
Instant Gratification Land
A lot has been made of the lack of NASA's computing power and how it compares to our modern computers. For anyone who cares to know how the computers worked that were used on the Apollo missions, check out these short vids.

The Apollo computer used nouns and verbs as input.

Core rope memory was used, allowing the computer to be smaller.


Also, NASA buying up all the IC's they could get their hands on helped to drive up production and lower the price. Todays computers are a side effect of that.

 

BarnacleBob

GIM Founding Member & Mod.
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
9,439
Likes
11,199
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,050
Likes
7,614

DodgebyDave

Metal Messiah
Midas Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
7,347
Likes
6,470
I'm eating pizza made from moon cheese!
 

the_shootist

Targeted!
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
20,802
Likes
22,396

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,050
Likes
7,614
But Walter Cronkite said we went to the Moon! It must be true!
Walter probably believed what he said at the time he said it. I believed we went there too at one point, but I'm not so sure anymore.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,017
Likes
6,051
Location
Instant Gratification Land
I have a hard time taking a video like that seriously when they don't even understand why stars would not show up in a properly exposed image of a sunlit object.
The people making these vids just keep rehashing the same old stuff. As I previously posted, everyone who has used a camera should already know that you cannot expect low-light objects and brightly lit objects to show up in the same pictures using a given exposure setting. Either one will be underexposed, or the other over exposed. In the case of Moon pics, the stars are so underexposed as to not be visible. If they were, everything else in the pics would be over exposed.

Is there anyone reading who was not already aware of this fact?
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,017
Likes
6,051
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Moonfaker.com has a lot of stuff
I took a look and one thing that stood out is his contention that it'd be easy to fake signals coming from the Moon. Supposedly all ya gotta do is put a satellite half way to the Moon and bounce signals off of it.

On the surface that sounds plausible, and I'm sure many buy into the idea, but it'd be impossible to do that. To put something in orbit halfway between Earth and the Moon in order to bounce signals off of would require that it hold position directly between the Earth and the Moon for the duration of the Apollo flight. The only way to do that would be to park it in the Earth-Moon L1 point, but that would mean the signals would take longer than they should because it is far more than halfway to the Moon.
...and if a sat were in orbit around the Earth at the halfway point, it would quickly fall out of the Earth-Moon alignment it had been placed in. Ie: the signals would soon come from an area of space the Moon is no longer in, and that would be readily apparent to anyone listening.


The lower an object's orbit is, the faster its apparent speed is when viewed from the Earth. The higher an object is, the slower its apparent speed when viewed from the Earth. Beyond 32,000 miles an object would appear to move backwards relative to the surface of the Earth. Same as the Moon does. So an object halfway to the Moon would have an orbital period half that of the Moon. Over the 8+ days of Apollo 11, any sat located halfway between the Earth and Moon would appear to move forward in its orbit more than the Moon did in those 8 days.
Ie: the supposed voice of astronauts coming from the Moon would appear to be coming from a place in space where the Moon is not located, thereby giving the ruse away.
...and if the relay sat is parked in Earth-Moon L1, it would take too long for the signal to get here which would also be a dead giveaway.


Dnkcb.jpg
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,050
Likes
7,614
We've all been so hopelessly indoctrinated to accept as fact a metric shit ton of stuff we cannot ourselves verify with our own senses that people regurgitate this stuff as "scientific fact" because a government agency told them it was so. Everyone in this thread is clearly intelligent, but some question the motives of NASA and others seem to accept their perspective without much dispute. There's an excuse for every anomaly in every NASA photo...they lost the videos and telemetry because...reasons. We're all supposed to just ignore the obvious presence of air bubbles filmed during numerous alleged "space walks".

Meh...I find even many so called scientists to be lacking in credibility these days and they don't even have to be associated with our obviously corrupt and seldom honest goobermint. Just watching some of these jackweeds stutter and stammer when asked simple questions like "what is gravity" and "how does gravity work" can be good for a chuckle. Frankly I think most of this so called "science" is pulled out of these guys' asses on the fly, but I also recognize that a whole lot of people extract a whole lot of comfort out of thinking they understand how the universe works because some goobermint geek told them what to think.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,017
Likes
6,051
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Everyone in this thread is clearly intelligent, but some question the motives of NASA and others seem to accept their perspective without much dispute.
I'm weighing their perspective against what we know to be.


We're all supposed to just ignore the obvious presence of air bubbles filmed during numerous alleged "space walks".
Air bubbles? That's one I hadn't heard before, and I've looked at a lot of Moon landing hoax so-called proofs. Hadn't encountered that one yet.


Just watching some of these jackweeds stutter and stammer when asked simple questions like "what is gravity" and "how does gravity work" can be good for a chuckle.
That's because we really don't know how/why gravity is or does what it does.
...but that doesn't mean we cannot observe its obvious effects, nor mean that we cannot use those effects and have the results be exactly what was predicted.
 

Oldmansmith

Midas Member
Midas Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
4,862
Likes
4,967
Location
Taxachusetts
The people making these vids just keep rehashing the same old stuff. As I previously posted, everyone who has used a camera should already know that you cannot expect low-light objects and brightly lit objects to show up in the same pictures using a given exposure setting. Either one will be underexposed, or the other over exposed. In the case of Moon pics, the stars are so underexposed as to not be visible. If they were, everything else in the pics would be over exposed.

Is there anyone reading who was not already aware of this fact?
All makes sense, except that anyone going to the moon would have seen stars when they looked up, yet the Apollo 11 Astro nots, including the one in orbit, could not recall seeing ANY stars. WTF? Watch that press conference where they look like three condemned men to hear it from their own mouths. And surely they would have taken at least one photo of the stars by pointing the camera up away from the blinding glare?
 

the_shootist

Targeted!
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
20,802
Likes
22,396
As with all coverups, some theories will be right and others will be wrong. It's up to us to sort out the difference if we are to achieve justice!
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,050
Likes
7,614
I'm weighing their perspective against what we know to be.
Precisely. You and I *KNOW* next to nothing about space. Most of what we think we know we were told by NASA.
That's because we really don't know how/why gravity is or does what it does.
...but that doesn't mean we cannot observe its obvious effects, nor mean that we cannot use those effects and have the results be exactly what was predicted.
Right. Predictable effects like super massive black holes at the center of galaxies seemingly affecting "other stuff". Which of course we "know" because someone told us to know it.

When it comes to the world I can actually see, an awful lot of stuff about gravity seems like a bunch of bs. The Earth spins at > 1000 mph but the oceans stick to the planet because gravity. lol Meanwhile birds casually defy this powerful force because they're super powerful themselves. Quite often it seems to me that gravity acts like little more than density.
 

EricTheCat

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
651
Likes
1,105
Location
Southern MN
All makes sense, except that anyone going to the moon would have seen stars when they looked up, yet the Apollo 11 Astro nots, including the one in orbit, could not recall seeing ANY stars. WTF? Watch that press conference where they look like three condemned men to hear it from their own mouths. And surely they would have taken at least one photo of the stars by pointing the camera up away from the blinding glare?
In some ways eyes are similar to a camera using auto exposure. Standing on a sunlit moon, or even in a lighted spacecraft, if you didn't think to take the time and effort to allow your eyes to dark adapt before looking up it would be easy to not notice any stars the entire time. It's dark outside here right now but I don't see any stars looking outside. If I go outside and look my eyes will adapt and I will see stars.

Here is an example that shows just how much darker stars are than objects that are well lit.

During a total lunar eclipse, I was able to do a 3.2sec exposure at ISO 400 and since the moon was in the shadow of the Earth it was not over exposed. Notice you can see stars.
TotalLunarEclipse-2015-09-27-IMG_8336-TotalityWithStarsSS.jpg


After totality, I had to adjust my exposure as to not grossly over expose the lunar surface. Here is the moment after totality right before I started adjusting my exposure because the lunar surface is over exposed. Notice you can still see stars but the moon is getting a little too bright.
TotalLunarEclipse-2015-09-27-IMG_8387-EndOfTotalityWithStarsSS.jpg


Here is a later shot after having adjusted the exposure so that the lunar surface is no longer over exposed. Notice all the stars have disappeared. This is a much shorter exposure at 1/200sec and ISO 200 (roughly the equivalent of a exposure as 1/400 sec if I had the same ISO as the pics above). That means it took roughly 1280 times the exposure time to go from a properly exposed lunar surface to one that starts to show stars.

TotalLunarEclipse-2015-09-27-IMG_8442-AfterTotalitySS.jpg


In the video they would essentially question why I don't have any stars showing up in the last pic here even though there is a very basic and easily reproducible explanation.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
7,957
Likes
4,434
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
That's because we really don't know how/why gravity is or does what it does.
...but that doesn't mean we cannot observe its obvious effects, nor mean that we cannot use those effects and have the results be exactly what was predicted.
ta-ta-ta! OK there great one could you just point me in the direction of the "Physical Constants" of this 'gravity.' Oh and while you are at it I'll take a side of the "Physical Constants" of time also.

:angry then happy:
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
7,957
Likes
4,434
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
I swear that totality was awesome to behold. When every thing went dark I was amazed at all the running lights a going every which way. There were blinkers going east-west-north-south and all at different altitudes or so it would seem. And, get this when I go out at night I don't even see that amount of discombobulated air traffic.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,050
Likes
7,614
ta-ta-ta! OK there great one could you just point me in the direction of the "Physical Constants" of this 'gravity.' Oh and while you are at it I'll take a side of the "Physical Constants" of time also.
If someone's going to actually try to explain how gravity works...we should call a meeting because I've seen lots of PHDorks that supposedly know nearly everything about space that just sound like total morons when discussing gravity. Like someone trying to explain Al Einsteins idiotic gibberish about time space.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
7,957
Likes
4,434
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
There is a reason that you cannot find these particular constants in a desk reference book and I think the descriptive word I am looking for is intangible. They are intangible as in does not exist.

Take a sourdough muffin, it's elements are clearly defined but when it comes to 'time and gravity' well we are asked to just go on faith. And, what was that thing called 'faith'? The evidence of things hoped for but not seen?

:alien3:

edited to add: I know this is way off base and a potential banning issue BUT, I just read that that federal judge just mite call a mistrial on the bundy boys down south. Seems the proctoligestic-prosacutors have been blowing smoke up her ass. Go look for it, it's there.
 
Last edited:

EricTheCat

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
651
Likes
1,105
Location
Southern MN
I agree we probably know nothing about why gravity occurs. At least I don't. Then I don't know why there is anything to begin with. :) There is a lot we do not know. I have dabbled in the math and the Newtonian model works pretty well. I even programmed a fun interactive 2D simulator with a large mass to behave like a sun and smaller masses that all interact. We can predict with a fair amount of accuracy the effect gravity will have under normal circumstances. The very same equations can predict the rate of a falling object pretty well up until it is going fast enough for air resistance to take effect. Gravity seems to exert a fairly predictable and repeatable amount of force given the masses involved and the distance between them. Birds can overcome the force much like airplanes do but they are still under the effect of it. Air itself is under the effect of gravity otherwise we would not have an atmosphere.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,017
Likes
6,051
Location
Instant Gratification Land
In some ways eyes are similar to a camera using auto exposure. Standing on a sunlit moon, or even in a lighted spacecraft, if you didn't think to take the time and effort to allow your eyes to dark adapt before looking up it would be easy to not notice any stars the entire time. It's dark outside here right now but I don't see any stars looking outside. If I go outside and look my eyes will adapt and I will see stars.
Yep.

This is also why the Apollo crews carried two eye patches with them. Like the kind pirates might wear.


 

EO 11110

He Hate Me
Mother Lode
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
12,543
Likes
8,704
If someone's going to actually try to explain how gravity works...we should call a meeting because I've seen lots of PHDorks that supposedly know nearly everything about space that just sound like total morons when discussing gravity. Like someone trying to explain Al Einsteins idiotic gibberish about time space.
'they' taught us that it was because the earth was spinning. they've since swallowed their tongue on that line of b.s.
 

#48Fan

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 14, 2014
Messages
469
Likes
348
Hey Ericthecat, nice pictures of the eclipse. Very nice indeed. Do us all a favor. Could you put a fish bowl over your head, wear the thickest most cumbersome gloves you can find, strap your camera to your chest and put it on manual focus, and walk around and snap pictures? That's almost what these fine photographers/astronauts were doing on "the moon".

Not trying to be derogatory towards you, I would be very interested to see how your pictures came out.
 

EO 11110

He Hate Me
Mother Lode
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
12,543
Likes
8,704
nasa has been caught fudging globalist warming data. all you need to know -- liars for the statists/satanists
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,017
Likes
6,051
Location
Instant Gratification Land
When it comes to the world I can actually see, an awful lot of stuff about gravity seems like a bunch of bs. The Earth spins at > 1000 mph but the oceans stick to the planet because gravity. lol Meanwhile birds casually defy this powerful force because they're super powerful themselves. Quite often it seems to me that gravity acts like little more than density.
It's called angular momentum. The Earth has it, you have it, I have it, the birds have it, and everything on Earth has it too.

When you jump into the air, you are jumping straight up relative to the ground, but in actuality you've moved in space along with the Earth in addition to your vertical motion of jumping.

Next time you are riding in a car (don't do this while driving yourself) that is rolling at a constant speed, toss a small object up and down in your hand. You see it just going straight up and down, but an outside observer would see its path as a series of long arcs as you the object and the car passed by. By your line of thinking, when you toss the object up it should hit you in the chest, but in practice it won't do that due it carrying the cars momentum at the time you tossed it up. Ie: it moves forward in space with the car as it moves up in reaction to your force upon it.

Same thing happens to birds. They are already moving through space with the Earth when they take off to fly.

Also notice when you ride in a car at a constant speed you no longer feel the effects of acceleration. Like on an airplane moving at 600+mph. Once you are up to speed, things you interact with behave the same as they would if the plane were sitting motionless on the runway. It's only when accelerating or decelerating that one would notice any difference.
...and acceleration is a form of artificial gravity. It just can't be maintained for very long.

The Earths angular momentum is also why most rockets launch to the East. It further takes advantage of the Eotvos effect.

The Eötvös effect is the change in perceived gravitational force caused by the change in centrifugal acceleration resulting from eastbound or westbound velocity. When moving eastbound, the object's angular velocity is increased (in addition to the earth's rotation), and thus the centrifugal force also increases, causing a perceived reduction in gravitational force.

Ie: you get a bit more lift for the same volume of rocket fuel.






Precisely. You and I *KNOW* next to nothing about space. Most of what we think we know we were told by NASA.
We also have our grey matter with which to figure things out.
...and we have things like vacuum chambers to do tests in to see how things might react in space and ways to simulate zero g's. So there are ways to test things.


Like someone trying to explain Al Einsteins idiotic gibberish about time space.
They are still testing his theories. Most has been proven out though.

What Einstein got wrong



 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,017
Likes
6,051
Location
Instant Gratification Land