• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

Why do all the planets orbit in the same plane?

Saul Mine

Seeker
Seeker
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
386
Likes
335
#41
Shit.

I did not see the Saul Mine post, or I woulda been all over it also. I wonder if he meant two planets in the same exact orbit??

If Saul needs an example of exactly that (two spheres happily rotating around a larger sphere while in the same orbit) he can look at Saturn.

Saturn has two moons that do just fargin fine co-orbiting around without any problems. The clever moons are Epimetheus and Janus. <-- IIRC, Janus was so named because it sorta reprised the two-faced Grik god... Janus shares its orbit with Epiyada-yada.

I do not even register on the brilliance scale of EricTheCat (fargin genius wrote his own Newtonian gravity program!!), but I happen to have a pack-rat ability to remember the most useless trivia.

Do I get points for that? :dog:
PROBLEM:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem
PICTURES:
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=three+body+orbit
 

Saul Mine

Seeker
Seeker
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
386
Likes
335
#42
Yes a govt funded misinfo site to lead you away from the real work of James McCanney.

Who was first to use the term Electric Universe.

http://www.jmccanneyscience.com/


http://www.jmccanneyscience.com/WeeklyRadioShowArchivesSubPage.HTM

Where you will learn the Universe was NOT formed in a big bang.
Red shift is a function of light passing through electric dipoles that are distributed uniformly through the electric universe.
And the solar system was not formed at one time but assembled by planetary capture of random large comets.
I distinctly said the theories were not officially accepted. That does not justify your insults, so shov... Uh, I mean, keep them to yourself.
 

EricTheCat

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
1,339
Likes
3,116
Location
Southern MN
#43
I will admit I was not aware of the three-body problem. However, a little searching I was able to find a solution. It turns out I was already implementing it by accident and it has to do with the order the equations are applied. It is almost a no-brainier to apply the equations in exactly the way they state. Otherwise you are affecting bodies before calculating other bodies and inaccuracies would add up very quickly.

Solution from here: https://www.wired.com/2016/06/way-solve-three-body-problem/

Solution:
  • Use the position of the objects to calculate the forces on all three objects.
  • With the net forces, find the new momentum of each object at the end of the time interval.
  • Using the momentum, find the new position of the object at the end of the time interval.
  • Update the time and repeat the process until you are happy.
My program basically calculates all the forces, updates the acceleration of all bodies (before moving any positions) and then applies the movments to all of the bodies with the newly calculated momentum. This likely explains why it was not a problem in my simulations.

The three-body problem sounds more like a bug in the coding to me.

If I am misunderstanding let me know. I prefer to actually understand this stuff (obviously).

Cheers :beer:
 

Saul Mine

Seeker
Seeker
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
386
Likes
335
#44
I will admit I was not aware of the three-body problem. However, a little searching I was able to find a solution. It turns out I was already implementing it by accident and it has to do with the order the equations are applied. It is almost a no-brainier to apply the equations in exactly the way they state. Otherwise you are affecting bodies before calculating other bodies and inaccuracies would add up very quickly.

Solution from here: https://www.wired.com/2016/06/way-solve-three-body-problem/

Solution:


My program basically calculates all the forces, updates the acceleration of all bodies (before moving any positions) and then applies the movments to all of the bodies with the newly calculated momentum. This likely explains why it was not a problem in my simulations.

The three-body problem sounds more like a bug in the coding to me.

If I am misunderstanding let me know. I prefer to actually understand this stuff (obviously).

Cheers :beer:
The "Three Body Problem" is primarily a demonstration of the little known fact that math is not science. An awful lot of scientists are totally unaware of that.
 

GOLDBRIX

God,Donald Trump,most in GIM2 I Trust. OTHERS-meh
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
11,263
Likes
13,722
#45
I’ve heard this too, I’m not scientist but I would think that somewhere some outliers would exist. Like at the edge of a solar system somewhere a planet could be on another plane.
IF Nibiru does exist it orbital plane is on more of an angle like that of the comets than of the planets. According to the late Zechria Sitchin.
 

EricTheCat

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
1,339
Likes
3,116
Location
Southern MN
#46
The "Three Body Problem" is primarily a demonstration of the little known fact that math is not science. An awful lot of scientists are totally unaware of that.
Math and science are two different things. Math is part of science.

The only time the "Three Body Problem" is a problem is when the math is done incorrectly. Say you calculate how far the Earth should move in its orbit around the sun using its current momentum and the apparent gravitational force between all the bodies. You then update the variables that indicate the position of the Earth before you move to the next step and calculate how far the Moon should move in its orbit around the Earth. This would be the incorrect way to do this because you are now calculating each while each previous one is in a different position than it was during the initial calculations. This would cause you to use the wrong vector in the 2nd calculation. Over time this would add up and cause problems.

My own simulator took this into account because I applied the math correctly. Hence, the three body problem is not a problem with math itself but a problem with logic and order in how the math is done.
 

Saul Mine

Seeker
Seeker
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
386
Likes
335
#47
Math and science are two different things. Math is part of science.

The only time the "Three Body Problem" is a problem is when the math is done incorrectly. Say you calculate how far the Earth should move in its orbit around the sun using its current momentum and the apparent gravitational force between all the bodies. You then update the variables that indicate the position of the Earth before you move to the next step and calculate how far the Moon should move in its orbit around the Earth. This would be the incorrect way to do this because you are now calculating each while each previous one is in a different position than it was during the initial calculations. This would cause you to use the wrong vector in the 2nd calculation. Over time this would add up and cause problems.

My own simulator took this into account because I applied the math correctly. Hence, the three body problem is not a problem with math itself but a problem with logic and order in how the math is done.
Well! You seem to have conquered a problem that nobody else has been able to handle! I think that's wonderful. You are going to publish this, right?
 

EricTheCat

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
1,339
Likes
3,116
Location
Southern MN
#48
Well! You seem to have conquered a problem that nobody else has been able to handle! I think that's wonderful. You are going to publish this, right?
It is published. Did you see my link? When I read their correction I instantly knew I already had corrected for it incidentally. I am highly analytical, so I guess I just knew doing it any other way would cause problems.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
9,291
Likes
10,356
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#50
its 'massive' pull doesnt pull the planets closer to it? que? how does that work?
Same way an orbit around the Earth works.

Due to the combination of their forward momentum and their respective gravitational interactions with the Sun, the Planets are literally falling around the Sun.
 

EO 11110

CENSORSHIP KILLS
Site Supporter
Mother Lode
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
14,702
Likes
11,535
Location
clown world
#51
Same way an orbit around the Earth works.

Due to the combination of their forward momentum and their respective gravitational interactions with the Sun, the Planets are literally falling around the Sun.
so the momentum perfectly offsets the massive gravitational pull of the sun. the coincidences are deep and wide
 

Juristic Person

They drew first blood
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,833
Likes
3,982
#52
I find it laughable how they claim we only ever see one side of the moon because we have a gravitational lock on the moon from Earth as if it’s some sci fi tractor beam....yet they also claim the Earth is spinning and wobbling on its axis. But the real kicker is then $30 billion spent on mans greatest achievement that they lost all the technology to do again 50 years later and they have no proof that they ever accomplished it...yes I’m talking about the Apollo missions ran by NASA and Hollywood. One incredible lie for mankind.
 

Unca Walt

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
9,814
Likes
14,619
Location
South Floriduh
#53
The "Three Body Problem" is primarily a demonstration of the little known fact that math is not science. An awful lot of scientists are totally unaware of that.
Saul --

I totally agree with this. I've got another example of where math and science conflict. I was teaching basic electronics in transistors.

There is electron flow, and hole flow. Electron flow is obvious and intuitive. Hole flow requires 1984-style "doublethink" <-- holding two conflicting concepts at the same time. Hole flow is traditionally taught using the bowling ball example:

Buncha bowling balls on on the rack. If you move a ball, a "hole" appears between the ball you moved, and the others in line. So you move the next ball back... and AHA!! the "hole" moves forward. Keep on moving balls back, and the "hole" keeps moving forward.

The need for doublethink pops up here. We can see that you are really just moving more electrons (bowling balls) thataway... not "holes" thisaway. Nevertheless, without "hole flow", you ain't got a working transistor.

But like the square root of minus one, our math just sorta breaks down. We cannot get math and science to play nice in alternating current stuff either. So we invented something called a "j-operator"... that cannot exist fair and square in our math, but HAS to be real because -- well, we DO have alternating current despite the square root of minus one to be seemingly impossibobble.

I think the answers to the 3-body stuff and other "impossible-but-there-it-fargin-IS" lies in quantum physics.
 

Bottom Feeder

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
8,060
Likes
14,775
Location
Seattle
#54
25 times 20 plus 3 divided by 11

what did y'all get for an answer?

52.27272727272727

or

45.72727272727273

or

500.2727272727272727

BF
 

Unca Walt

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
9,814
Likes
14,619
Location
South Floriduh
#55

TomD

It blowed up, y'all
Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
4,276
Likes
5,819
Location
Florida Panhandle
#56
25 times 20 plus 3 divided by 11

what did y'all get for an answer?

BF
Depends on if there are brackets and where. Could be:
25*(20+3)/11
25*(20+3/11)
(25*20)+3/11
(25*20+3)/11

Different answer each way

With no brackets 25*20+3/11= 500.27....
 

Bottom Feeder

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
8,060
Likes
14,775
Location
Seattle
#57
Yep, Tom, order of computation is important.
 

EricTheCat

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
1,339
Likes
3,116
Location
Southern MN
#58
500.27272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727...

Accurate enough? I could append more 27s. :D
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
9,291
Likes
10,356
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#59
so the momentum perfectly offsets the massive gravitational pull of the sun. the coincidences are deep and wide
Not really. You have to remember that each Planet's angular momentum already existed prior to the Planets being formed. Ie: the stuff they formed from was part of the disc of gas and material that the Solar System was created from. It was already in motion and that motion continues to this day.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
9,291
Likes
10,356
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#60
I find it laughable how they claim we only ever see one side of the moon because we have a gravitational lock on the moon from Earth as if it’s some sci fi tractor beam....yet they also claim the Earth is spinning and wobbling on its axis. But the real kicker is then $30 billion spent on mans greatest achievement that they lost all the technology to do again 50 years later and they have no proof that they ever accomplished it...yes I’m talking about the Apollo missions ran by NASA and Hollywood. One incredible lie for mankind.
Why would you think that the moon being tidally locked should prevent the Earth from spinning?
....and no, all technology was NOT lost to do it again. You are simply misinformed.
 

Juristic Person

They drew first blood
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,833
Likes
3,982
#61
Why would you think that the moon being tidally locked should prevent the Earth from spinning?
That’s not what I said. If we are gravitationally locked then why does our “wobbling” rotation not impact the moon?

joe king said:
...and no, all technology was NOT lost to do it again. You are simply misinformed.
The capability to send men on the moon does not currently exist.
 

TomD

It blowed up, y'all
Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
4,276
Likes
5,819
Location
Florida Panhandle
#62
That’s not what I said. If we are gravitationally locked then why does our “wobbling” rotation not impact the moon?
The wobble is in our axis of rotation and does not affect the center of gravity. The moon reacts to the magnitude of the mass, the centroid of the mass and the distance. As in G*M1*M2/R squared. G= Newton's gravitational constant, M1= the mass of one body, M2 = mass of the second, divided by the distance between the centroid of the two masses squared. This is Newton's Gravitation formula which has been used a LOT over the past 3oo years.

The wobble is from from the same elementary physics as gyroscopes and has NOTHING to do with gravity.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
9,291
Likes
10,356
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#63
That’s not what I said. If we are gravitationally locked then why does our “wobbling” rotation not impact the moon?



The capability to send men on the moon does not currently exist.
The Earth's rotation does affect the moon. How do you think it got tidally locked in the first place?
Earth's rotation is why it's getting farther away as time goes on.

As for why it is gravitationally bound, see the post above this one.
...and while specific hardware to get people to the moon does not currently exist in a usable system, the technology and know how to do so certainly does.
 

TomD

It blowed up, y'all
Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
4,276
Likes
5,819
Location
Florida Panhandle
#64
The Earth's rotation does affect the moon. How do you think it got tidally locked in the first place?
Earth's rotation is why it's getting farther away as time goes on.
That's not how tidally locked works. Google it and save me from having to type in a lengthy explanation past this very short one: When a smaller body is in orbit with and rotates relative to a much larger body, stresses from the tidal forces induce a drag on the smaller body's rotation which eventually stops the rotation. Eventually but much further in the future, the larger body will also become tidally locked to the smaller.

Plus, the original was about whether gyroscopic "wobble" affects the moons orbit.
 

TomD

It blowed up, y'all
Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
4,276
Likes
5,819
Location
Florida Panhandle
#65
500.27272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727272727...

Accurate enough? I could append more 27s. :D
Could you, please? I think that would be nice..
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
9,291
Likes
10,356
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#66
That's not how tidally locked works. Google it and save me from having to type in a lengthy explanation past this very short one: When a smaller body is in orbit with and rotates relative to a much larger body, stresses from the tidal forces induce a drag on the smaller body's rotation which eventually stops the rotation. Eventually but much further in the future, the larger body will also become tidally locked to the smaller.

Plus, the original was about whether gyroscopic "wobble" affects the moons orbit.
yea, youre right. That's not causing the lock, but it does cause the moon to move away from Earth which is what I was trying to get at.
I was just pointing out that Earth's rotation does affect the moon, in that it is what is causing the moon to move away from the Earth. That would be an effect, right?

The tidal bulge that is created by the moon's pull, is slightly ahead of the moon due to Earth's rotation. In turn, that causes the moon to be pulled along faster in it's orbit which causes the moon to get further away from Earth.
If the Earth did not rotate, the tidal bulge would line up with the moon's tidal bulge and would not serve to speed up either body, right?
 

TomD

It blowed up, y'all
Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
4,276
Likes
5,819
Location
Florida Panhandle
#67
You're right that does affect the moon but Juristic Person's question was "If we are gravitationally locked then why does our “wobbling” rotation not impact the moon?"

BTW: Tidally locked bodies do still rotate but at the rate of the orbit. It's the internal friction caused by the tidal bulge as it moves that absorbs the rotational energy. There is no energy transfer.
 

Juristic Person

They drew first blood
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,833
Likes
3,982
#68
The Earth's rotation does affect the moon. How do you think it got tidally locked in the first place?
Earth's rotation is why it's getting farther away as time goes on.

As for why it is gravitationally bound, see the post above this one.
...and while specific hardware to get people to the moon does not currently exist in a usable system, the technology and know how to do so certainly does.
With the other questions being explained by Tom, let’s continue with my second question pertaining to NASA’s current inability to launch human service beyond low earth orbit. I’m not sure what you mean about the technology existing but it’s not usable. My contention is it’s never been done Andrew Apollo was a lie. For the record I’m nothing a flat earther so let’s not go there. I just think NASA lied 50 years ago.
 

Juristic Person

They drew first blood
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,833
Likes
3,982
#69
The wobble is in our axis of rotation and does not affect the center of gravity. The moon reacts to the magnitude of the mass, the centroid of the mass and the distance. As in G*M1*M2/R squared. G= Newton's gravitational constant, M1= the mass of one body, M2 = mass of the second, divided by the distance between the centroid of the two masses squared. This is Newton's Gravitation formula which has been used a LOT over the past 3oo years.

The wobble is from from the same elementary physics as gyroscopes and has NOTHING to do with gravity.
That makes sense. Thank s for the explanation.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
9,291
Likes
10,356
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#70
. I’m not sure what you mean about the technology existing but it’s not usable. My contention is it’s never been done Andrew Apollo was a lie. For the record I’m nothing a flat earther so let’s not go there. I just think NASA lied 50 years ago.
actual hardware may not fully exist yet, but the technology that will allow for that hardware to soon exist, does.
As for them faking it, actually going to the moon would have been easier than faking it.

If you're referring to why they can't just throw together another Saturn V, watch this to understand why.

 

Juristic Person

They drew first blood
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,833
Likes
3,982
#71
actual hardware may not fully exist yet, but the technology that will allow for that hardware to soon exist, does.
As for them faking it, actually going to the moon would have been easier than faking it.

If you're referring to why they can't just throw together another Saturn V, watch this to understand why.

No offense Joe but that is ridiculous. Faking it was much easier than actually going. Landing men on the moon wasn’t impossible 50 years ago and it is impossible today...hence why it’s hasn’t been done by NASA or any other country or organization.

The pressurized space suits to protect the men on the moon from the vacuum of space don’t exist. There was no protection from the cosmic radiation of space. They very little knowledge of the van allen radiation belt or how to navigate beyond it. There are to this day no known launch mechanisms, capable of sending humans beyond low earth orbit.

The list goes on and on. Since then nasa has “lost” all the telemetry data (in other words they destroyed it so they wouldn’t get caught - you don’t just lose record of mans greatest achievement), we can see countless doctored photographs (like where the Earth is cut and pasted into the pictures, artificial horizons, light bulb “suns”,etc) and evidence of wires hoisting up the astronauts in several Apollo moon mission videos. These are very clear and irrefutable. Those moon walks were filmed in a warehouse with the help of Hollywood (Walt Disney was one of the creators of NASA).

NASA is a big huge distraction. A front for top secret military projects....and a source of propaganda and psychological warfare.
 
Last edited:

Unca Walt

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
9,814
Likes
14,619
Location
South Floriduh
#72
Juristic: Stick to the courtroom.

For everybody else, I gots a fun piece of trivia about just how fast the moon is pulling away from the earth.

It is pulling away at the speed that your fingernails grow. <--- TINS cool::beer:

The Moon continues to spin away from the Earth, at the rate of 3.78cm (1.48in) per year, at about the same speed at which our fingernails grow.

Without the Moon, the Earth could slow down enough to become unstable, but this would take billions of years and it may never happen at all.

The migration of the Moon away from the Earth is mainly due to the action of the Earth's tides.

The Moon is kept in orbit by the gravitational force that the Earth exerts on it, but the Moon also exerts a gravitational force on our planet and this causes the movement of the Earth's oceans to form a tidal bulge.

Due to the rotation of the Earth, this tidal bulge actually sits slightly ahead of the Moon. Some of the energy of the spinning Earth gets transferred to the tidal bulge via friction.

This drives the bulge forward, keeping it ahead of the Moon. The tidal bulge feeds a small amount of energy into the Moon, pushing it into a higher orbit like the faster, outside lanes of a test track.

This phenomenon is similar to the experience one feels on a children's roundabout. The faster the roundabout spins the stronger the feeling of being slung outwards.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-12311119
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
9,291
Likes
10,356
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#73
No offense Joe but that is ridiculous. Faking it was much easier than actually going. Landing men on the moon wasn’t impossible 50 years ago and it is impossible today...hence why it’s hasn’t been done by NASA or any other country or organization.
all systems necessary to go, were in fact developed. At that point it doesn't need to be faked.
....and if it was all a big fake, why go to the trouble of designing and making those systems?

Just because you believe it was faked, does not make it so.



The list goes on and on. Since then nasa has “lost” all the telemetry data (in other words they destroyed it so they wouldn’t get caught - you don’t just lose record of mans greatest achievement), we can see countless doctored photographs (like where the Earth is cut and pasted into the pictures, artificial horizons, light bulb “suns”,etc) and evidence of wires hoisting up the astronauts in several Apollo moon mission videos. These are very clear and irrefutable. Those moon walks were filmed in a warehouse with the help of Hollywood (Walt Disney was one of the creators of NASA).
first, they did not lose all data pertaining to the missions. What was lost was some of the original Apollo 11 film.
...and all the things you take issue with have perfectly reasonable explanations.

All you are doing is bringing up "issues" that have already been explained numerous times. You just choose not to accept those explanations.

Watch this vid to understand exactly what you are choosing to hang your hat on. The guy that started all this stuff was either wack, or just didn't really understand what he was writing about.


 

TomD

It blowed up, y'all
Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
4,276
Likes
5,819
Location
Florida Panhandle
#74
Question: If the moon landings were faked, just how many people would have to been in on the secret? Answer: A BUNCH!

Question: If A BUNCH of people are all in a huge secret, what's the probability of all of them keeping their mouths shut? Answer: Zero to a really large number of decimal places

Question: Did the Soviets and other countries inimical to the US in 1969 have radar capable of tracking a Apollo capsule to the moon Answer: Well, hell yeah!

Question: Wouldn't the Soviets, who hated us then every bit as much as the Democrats do now, sorta tell on us? Answer: Well, hell yeah!

Question: Are you saying the Soviets were in on it too?


This is where really big conspiracy theories really become absurd.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
9,291
Likes
10,356
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#75
Question: Are you saying the Soviets were in on it too?
Yea, to believe the moon landings were fake, you also gotta believe that the U.S. Soviet Union and China are all in cahoots (and always have been) in order for the secret to be maintained for all these years.
 

Unca Walt

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
9,814
Likes
14,619
Location
South Floriduh
#76
This is where really big conspiracy theories really become absurd.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This.

And frustrating, too. There are a real odd bunch of people who prey on those with a "conspiracy-behind-xxx" bent.

I have seen "proofs" <-- you can look 'em up, because they are still getting their jollies duping the conspiracy lovers.

Here's one "proof": The duper shows a picture where an extension cord is "accidentally" in the picture. The dupee swallows that crap. What the dupee doesn't see (or often does not CARE if he doesn't see) is that extension cord is shown in the same whole (not cropped) picture and is clearly a power/data cord going over to one of the experiments.

And the blithe acceptance that a million people can keep a secret from him. <-- The hubris of that is startling.
 

gliddenralston

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
1,624
Likes
1,556
#78
Had a fascinating show about Black Holes the other day on iptv...mind boggling shit!
 

ABC123

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
3,294
Likes
5,949
#79
Heres another conspiracy.

The reason the US has never "publicly" gone back to the moon is they found aliens and alien bases. Those aliens rebuked all other attempts to land on the moon. The appollo missions went black ops in the 70's. Thats as good an explanation as any for why we never went back.

Remember when the US sent a Nuke to the moon? What were we trying to hit.

How bout when the US came back with moon rocks they handed them out to influential people but they all turned out to be petrified wood.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
9,291
Likes
10,356
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#80
How bout when the US came back with moon rocks they handed them out to influential people but they all turned out to be petrified wood.
Thats absolutely not true.