To The Moon

[Mad as Fish]

I always thank God for gravity, especially when I pee.

The wind can be a bugger though.

 

[AN2]

I always thank God for gravity, especially when I pee.

Did you know that @Hermit can't tell you why things go down? (even a child could)

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

The rocking is actually discussed in the video.

Community Notes:

The synchronized Earth and Panel rocking is not discussed in the video.

 

[AN2]

Community Notes:

The synchronized Earth and Panel rocking is not discussed in the video.

No, it isn't. Because there isn't any such synchronisation, you fucking clown

 

[AN2]

@ 01:47 - "We know the globe Earth's ridiculous anyway . . . ."

He also later says - "The globe is physically impossible"

Ha! A flat-earther. The irony

 

[Professor]

He also later says - "The globe is physically impossible"

That's because FE science is all about debunking GE science (and actual physics) without a FE model to demonstrate and compare the actual differences. They can say anything about a FE without FE
proof - Wonderful

While, the GE'ers are continuously measuring and publish all 24/7 - We are still waiting for the first FE live image of Flat Earth to be ever seen ever . . .

Ha! A flat-earther. The irony

A Global Earth is all they'll ever have to show while they are immersed in believing that sources of physics, geography, engineering, experimentation, air travel, space travel, world millennia global intelligentsia over the many centuries - All Fake!!

 

[AN2]

That's because FE science is all about debunking GE science (and actual physics) without a FE model to demonstrate and compare the actual differences. They can say anything about a FE without FE
proof - Wonderful

While, the GE'ers are continuously measuring and publish all 24/7 -

We are still waiting for the first FE live image of Flat Earth to be ever seen ever . . .

If they flew something that high to take a picture it might crash into the dome

A Global Earth is all they'll ever have to show while they are immersed in believing that sources of physics, geography, engineering, experimentation, air travel, space travel, world millennia global intelligentsia over the many centuries - All Fake!!

 

[Professor]

And for anyone who needs the science to feel comfortable in the discussion there are these down-to-earth examples . . .

Scientists Bounce Laser Beams Off Old Soviet Moon Rover

Last month, scientists bounced a laser off the Soviet Union’s old Lunokhod 1 rover, which trekked across the moon’s landscape more than four decades ago.

www.space.com

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTtce3rJxhc


It's not good enough to simply debunk a bit of small-time earth curvature as being the deciding factor of a FE.

A FE says we can all jump aboard a high altitude zeppelin or redbull space capsule and go high enough to see the full flat plate and the great ice wall perimeter in giro.
The telescopes on board would provide all the proof, no doubts about it.

 

[Hermit]

Did you know that @Hermit can't tell you why things go down? (even a child could)

Relative density explains how objects fall down or rise up. There is no up or down on your retarded globe by the way. Up and down are vectors with respect to a horizontal plane of reference.

That's because FE science is all about debunking GE science (and actual physics) without a FE model to demonstrate and compare the actual differences. They can say anything about a FE without FE

There is no "FE science" or "GE science". Science deals with the causes of natural phenomena. Geometry deals with shapes. Models don't prove anything, we don't live in a model, we live in physical reality in which we experience and practically use the surface of earth as a flat, level, horizontal plane.

 

[AN2]

Relative density explains how objects fall down or rise up.

Density of what, mass, air?

Why doesn't mass "fall" sideways?

Why does mass fall down in a vacuum?

There is no up or down on your retarded globe by the way. Up and down are vectors with respect to a horizontal plane of reference.


There is no "FE science" or "GE science". Science deals with the causes of natural phenomena. Geometry deals with shapes. Models don't prove anything, we don't live in a model, we live in physical reality in which we experience and practically use the surface of earth as a flat, level, horizontal plane.

 

[Professor]

There is no "FE science" or "GE science". Science deals with the causes of natural phenomena. Geometry deals with shapes. Models don't prove anything, we don't live in a model, we live in physical reality in which we experience and practically use the surface of earth as a flat, level, horizontal plane.

Yes we don't live in a model. You, and I certainly experience level flatness on a horizontal plane that we seek and strive to build on the true plane's H/V/D which is grand for our reduced human perspectives but we must also take into account how we are connected to and rely on global planetary perspectives too.

A great example is how builders rely on both flat earth and global perspectives in building design.

Also, those clever folk in global risk management certainly rely on OTHER global networks to see what's happening in the night time 3000'sKM beyond their evening horizon - A position which no telescope could ever ever see beyond, even from a capsule, airplane, space station such is the huge span of the globe.

Which means a flat earth image is a physical impossibility to capture . . . .

 

[AN2]

Where's @Hermit gone

 

[Hermit]

Density of what, mass, air?

Solids, liquids and gasses.

Why doesn't mass "fall" sideways?

That's an oxymoron - falling means down/vertical motion, sideways means horizontal motion.

Why does mass fall down in a vacuum?

We don't live in a vacuum, so what masses do or don't do in vacuum is irrelevant to what masses do in our natural environment.

 

[AN2]

Solids, liquids and gasses.


That's an oxymoron - falling means down/vertical motion, sideways means horizontal motion.

Yes, "fall" was in quotes

Secondly, why r u being so childish?

You claimed that "relative density" is the reason objects go down (in a less dense medium), why in that direction?

We don't live in a vacuum, so what masses do or don't do in vacuum is irrelevant to what masses do in our natural environment.

I was talking about a vacuum in our natural environment

 

[valamhic]

It was strange how Buzz Aldrin endorsed Trump. If he was on the moon he would but if he was not he would not me thinks

 

[Hermit]

You claimed that "relative density" is the reason objects go down (in a less dense medium), why in that direction?

Why that direction is unknown, it's just the way it is. Reality would be chaotic and unfunctional if objects were moving about in all directions.

 

[AN2]

Why that direction is unknown, it's just the way it is.

The same thing happens on the Moon..


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Oo8TaPVsn9Y

Of course, that experiment wasn't to prove that gravity exists (only flat-earthers think that it doesn't), it was to show that objects fall at the same rate in a gravitational field regardless of their mass.

The same thing would happen on Earth in a vacuum.

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

Why that direction is unknown, it's just the way it is. Reality would be chaotic and unfunctional if objects were moving about in all directions.

The direction makes sense outside of a gravitational model. More dense stuff holds up/supports less dense stuff. It is why an iron anvil will float in a tub of mercury, which has a higher density than the iron. Gravity (if operational) should always pull a solid through a liquid, as an outside, secondary force acting on these substances. In this instance , it doesn't, thereby indicating the possibility that no secondary force is being exerted beyond the quality and effect of density+volume. The density model is a simple pyramidal model, with the most dense stuff at the bottom. Volume is also at work however, as you need the volumetric force of one object to exceed that of the other. You need a certain volume of mercury, for example, to resist the volume of the iron anvil.

 

[AN2]

The direction makes sense outside of a gravitational model. More dense stuff holds up/supports less dense stuff. It is why an iron anvil will float in a tub of mercury, which has a higher density than the iron.

Gravity (if operational) should always pull a solid through a liquid, as an outside, secondary force acting on these substances.

Is that flat-earth science?

In this instance , it doesn't, thereby indicating the possibility that no secondary force is being exerted beyond the quality and effect of density+volume. The density model is a simple pyramidal model, with the most dense stuff at the bottom. Volume is also at work however, as you need the volumetric force of one object to exceed that of the other. You need a certain volume of mercury, for example, to resist the volume of the iron anvil.

 

[AN2]

Is that flat-earth science?

Why the Confused emoji @PlunkettsGhost?

 

[AUL LAD]

The wind can be a bugger though.

a speech in the house of commons was once described as PISS AND WIND.
I have a few old centrifuges for sale i picked up cheap and some of them allow the test tubes to pivot to the horizontal and i experimented with them to see if i could clean engine oil and use it again and other experiments all which showed if i spun items in a center motion i could overcome gravity and introduce my own gravity on my own.
but this gravity was engine driven and no living thing could exist in it --but it was gravity -horizontal gravity just because the centrifuge was desk mounted .
the items in the test tubes had weight because of the earths gravity giving them a value .
their increased value was only supplied when motion was applied to gravity .
i do not yet know a proper explanation for gravity.
the human body suffers greatly when in outer space as it has evolved to live in a gravity world and complications stare to emerge after a while .

 

[AN2]

a speech in the house of commons was once described as PISS AND WIND.
I have a few old centrifuges for sale i picked up cheap and some of them allow the test tubes to pivot to the horizontal and i experimented with them to see if i could clean engine oil and use it again and other experiments all which showed if i spun items in a center motion i could overcome gravity and introduce my own gravity on my own.
but this gravity was engine driven and no living thing could exist in it --but it was gravity -horizontal gravity just because the centrifuge was desk mounted .
the items in the test tubes had weight because of the earths gravity giving them a value .
their increased value was only supplied when motion was applied to gravity .

i do not yet know a proper explanation for gravity.

Do you have a proper explanation for any fundamental force of nature?

This is maybe the best description of gravity we have (at least in a sentence) -

the human body suffers greatly when in outer space as it has evolved to live in a gravity world and complications stare to emerge after a while .

 

[AUL LAD]

Do you have a proper explanation for any fundamental force of nature?

This is maybe the best description of gravity we have (at least in a sentence) -

I am not smart enough to figure out what this is saying.

 

[AN2]

I am not smart enough to figure out what this is saying.

Oh boy I'm not sure that I'm smart enough to explain it in a sentence or two.

I'm sure you've heard of Albert Einstein and perhaps general relativity.

The idea is that the presence of mass(/energy) curves the space around it, mass (and even light) follows this curved path, what's called a geodesic. I think @Hermit calls it "bendy spacetime"

 

[Hermit]

This is maybe the best description of gravity we have (at least in a sentence) -

So you'e saying gravity is bendy spacetime now, not mass attracting mass.

A concept (spacetime) communicating with matter, what a load of horse shit. That's a reification fallacy by the way.

I am not smart enough to figure out what this is saying.

You're a smart man, it's gibberish esoteric pseudoscience. Einstein invented an abstract concept known as spacetime and reified it by claiming it is interacting with physical matter.

The scientific method requires a naturally observed phenomenon, a hypothesis (a guess what is the cause of that phenomenon), and an experiment to test that hypothesis. Relativity does not have a hypothesis and experiment, so it does not follow the scientific method, and thus can be regarded as pseudoscience.

 

[AN2]

So you'e saying gravity is bendy spacetime now, not mass attracting mass.

lol What does that even mean?

Gravity is gravity. Do you think something changed in the intervening years between Newton and Einstein, or the billions of years previous to them?

A concept (spacetime) communicating with matter, what a load of horse shit. That's a reification fallacy by the way.


You're a smart man, it's gibberish esoteric pseudoscience. Einstein invented an abstract concept known as spacetime and reified it by claiming it is interacting with physical matter.

The scientific method requires a naturally observed phenomenon, a hypothesis (a guess what is the cause of that phenomenon), and an experiment to test that hypothesis. Relativity does not have a hypothesis and experiment, so it does not follow the scientific method, and thus can be regarded as pseudoscience.

GR has been tested to death. If @AUL LAD is smart he'll ignore your outright lies and flat-earth spoofery (from a standpoint of complete and total scientific ignorance)

 

[Hermit]

lol What does that even mean?

You told me in the FE thread that gravity is mass attracting mass, now you're going with the spacetime nonsense.

Gravity is gravity. Do you think something changed in the intervening years between Newton and Einstein, or the billions of years previous to them?

Newtonian gravity = a force that causes mass to attract mass (no spacetime)
Einsteinian gravity = not a force, curvature of spacetime

If you cannot tell the difference, okay.

GR has been tested to death.

Tested how? The 1919 solar eclipse? That is not a scientific experiment because an experiment requires the one doing the experiment to manipulate an independent variable (the presumed cause of a natural phenomenon). Observing a solar eclipse and claiming it proves anything is not an experiment.

Any "test" of General Relativity takes the following form:

• If GR is true, we will observe X.
• We observe X, therefore GR is true.

...which is an affirming the consequent fallacy. For example, if someone claimed unicorns cause deflection of light by the Sun during a solar eclipse, they could use the following fallacious argument:

• If unicorns exist, then we will observe deflection of light by the Sun during a solar eclipse.
• We observe deflection of light by the Sun during a solar eclipse, therefore unicorns exist."

Also, "thought experiments" are not scientific experiments.

General relativity does not have a hypothesis which is an essential component of the scientific method.

 

[AN2]

You told me in the FE thread that gravity is mass attracting mass, now you're going with the spacetime nonsense.

The reason mass attracts mass is gravity

Newtonian gravity = a force that causes mass to attract mass (no spacetime)
Einsteinian gravity = not a force, curvature of spacetime

If you cannot tell the difference, okay.

I know the difference

At this stage, I think I can only ask you to write your conclusion of your gibberish

Tested how? The 1919 solar eclipse? That is not a scientific experiment because an experiment requires the one doing the experiment to manipulate an independent variable (the presumed cause of a natural phenomenon). Observing a solar eclipse and claiming it proves anything is not an experiment.

Any "test" of General Relativity takes the following form:

• If GR is true, we will observe X.
• We observe X, therefore GR is true.

...which is an affirming the consequent fallacy. For example, if someone claimed unicorns cause deflection of light by the Sun during a solar eclipse, they could use the following fallacious argument:

• If unicorns exist, then we will observe deflection of light by the Sun during a solar eclipse.
• We observe deflection of light by the Sun during a solar eclipse, therefore unicorns exist."

Also, "thought experiments" are not scientific experiments.

General relativity does not have a hypothesis which is an essential component of the scientific method.

lol Do you think that something different happens during a solar eclipse, something that isn't happening all the time?

 

[AN2]

Why the Confused emoji @PlunkettsGhost?

The reason mass attracts mass is gravity


I know the difference

At this stage, I think I can only ask you to write your conclusion of your gibberish


lol Do you think that something different happens during a solar eclipse, something that isn't happening all the time?

Looks like I have both @PlunkettsGhost and @Hermit on the run

Maybe we should take it to the Origins Uncensored thread

Where flat-earthers like Hermit, Plunketts and @Tiger go to die

 

[Tiger]

Looks like I have both @PlunkettsGhost and @Hermit on the run

Maybe we should take it to the Origins Uncensored thread

Where flat-earthers like Hermit, Plunketts and @Tiger go to die

You’re such a needy loser.

Is there nobody online to play poker with today?

 

[Hermit]

Nasa's Moon mission is delayed by another year

The US space agency blamed technical issues in its Artemis programme for pushing back its planned return to the moon in 2026 until at least mid-2027.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[AN2]

CONSPIRACY THEORIST & science illiterate, Candace Owens weighs in on the Moon landings (also says dinosaurs "aren't real")


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cBX2V9IMlSw

Note: it does appear that SciManDan is unfamiliar with the expression "fake and gay"

 

[AN2]

CONSPIRACY THEORIST & science illiterate, Candace Owens weighs in on the Moon landings (also says dinosaurs "aren't real")


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cBX2V9IMlSw

Note: it does appear that SciManDan is unfamiliar with the expression "fake and gay"

Holy cow!

Candice doesn't know that there were multiple Apollo missions i.e. Moon landings -


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx_qtG_mfrU

I mental-noted it in the previous video when she (and whoever the kid is who's interviewing her) said "Moon landing" but I assumed that they weren't that pig-ignorant

Really, is she (Owens) a good single-case example of how people are getting dumber, especially religious people? She's like 40 (or thereabouts) and a complete bimbo (and seems determined to stay that way)

 

[AN2]

By the way, I think she also thinks that Elon Musk thinks that the Moon, eh, landing was a hoax

Elon Musk may be a hoax himself but he is not a Moon landings conspiracy theorist, that would just make no sense

 

[AN2]

She was on Joe Rogan a few years ago discussing so-called climate change, and I thought she came across as a complete and utter retard. I think the clip went viral at the time because she was so clearly out of her depth.

I've never really understood how she's become so popular.

It wasn't about her views on climate change (which is most likely bullshit, I don't know) per se but just the way she conducted herself throughout the interview; how arrogant and cock sure she was when she clearly knew nothing about the subject. At one stage she claimed to have done a "deep dive" of the scientific literature the night before the interview which enlightened her - or some bullshit like that.

And she has that very annoying habit of saying "like" after every second word.

I think the Dunning-Kruger effect is strong in her

And she's probably lacked male discipline, father, husband etc.

 

[AN2]

Apollo 17

Journey with astronauts Eugene Cernan, Harrison Schmitt and Ronald Evans through their extensive training and across their 14-day mission to the Moon and back, and share the discoveries with Cernan and Schmitt as they explore the lunar surface for 3 days, while Evans performs experiments and reconnaissance in lunar orbit.


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4DCyayAZbog


Men who have walked on the Moon

1. Neil Armstrong (Apollo 11)
2. Buzz Aldrin (Apollo 11)
3. Charles "Pete" Conrad (Apollo 12)
4. Alan Bean (Apollo 12)
5. Alan Shepard (Apollo 14)
6. Edgar Mitchell (Apollo 14)
7. David Scott (Apollo 15)
8. James Irwin (Apollo 15)
9. John Young (Apollo 16)
10. Charles Duke (Apollo 16)
11 Eugene Cernan (Apollo 17)
12. Harrison Schmitt (Apollo 17)

 

[jpc]

Apollo 17


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4DCyayAZbog


Men who have walked on the Moon

1. Neil Armstrong (Apollo 11)
2. Buzz Aldrin (Apollo 11)
3. Charles "Pete" Conrad (Apollo 12)
4. Alan Bean (Apollo 12)
5. Alan Shepard (Apollo 14)
6. Edgar Mitchell (Apollo 14)
7. David Scott (Apollo 15)
8. James Irwin (Apollo 15)
9. John Young (Apollo 16)
10. Charles Duke (Apollo 16)
11 Eugene Cernan (Apollo 17)
12. Harrison Schmitt (Apollo 17)

No Apollo 13!!

 

[AN2]

No Apollo 13!!

I think we know why

 

[jpc]

I think we know why

Ah come on.
Superstition?

 

[jpc]

I've come to the conclusion that engineering is the only real demonstration of science.
Either it's working or breaking.