Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

We landed on Mars... again? [Mod note post #1]

11314161819

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,098 ✭✭✭Markus Antonius


    You said "Sir Isaac Newton" twice on the same line. Just wondering why felt the need to give his full credentials? Newton fan?

    Why won't you tell me which experiments he did that any fool can repeat?



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,060 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail



    what in particular is it that you have disproven?



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,421 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    OK, lets' be specific, in secondary school, first year, maybe second, we did experiments proving the 3 laws of motion.

    Your turn.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Why won't you answer any questions put to you.

    You're fixating on a rather odd point.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,098 ✭✭✭Markus Antonius


    In which post did I contest the three laws of motion? You need to read my posts carefully before trying to start debates.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 16,421 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    And yet more running and hiding.

    Be brave, state your beliefs and what science has got wrong, it's the conspiracy theory forum, no one will bite.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,098 ✭✭✭Markus Antonius


    What are you talking about? I was very clear on my position but you couldn't be bothered to read my post carefully. It's quoted above again for your information. I made it abundantly clear that Newton's theories of gravitation and orbital mechanics have zero experimental foundation.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    But they do.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halley%27s_Comet#Computation_of_orbit

    Why do you believe they are wrong? What do you believe is the correct view for gravity?

    Why do you keep ignoring questions?

    Do you think that if you ignore questions they will go away and no one will notice?



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,060 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    apart from all the satellites we have placed in orbit and the rest of the US and Russian space programme? how did they did manage that if their understanding of gravity and orbital mechanics is wrong?



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,952 ✭✭✭✭Kintarō Hattori


    I know this was started back in Feb but I'm only seeing this now. I'm sure this has been mentioned already BUT:

    Concorde was actually commercially viable and turning a profit for British Airways. What really killed it off was the lack of spares and servicing. Once the crash happened Airbus saw an opportunity to withdraw providing spares and maintenance for the plane. In actual passenger service it had been economically viable for BA for a number of years.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 40,060 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    while it may have turned an operating profit for BA it never returned the money invested in it. Given that only 14 ever flew commercially it was never going to be a commercial success.



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,421 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    And proved wrong one post later, but at least we have established that you agree with the fundamentals of the 3 laws of motion.

    Now, given that orbital mechanics has been proven, please present your beliefs as to what is incorrect. I'm not going to reach so far as to ask for evidence as you won't have the tiniest shred of that.

    What words can you put together to avoid answering these questions, that is the bigger question!



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,043 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    Where exactly do you think that the ISS is? Do you believe that the various Space Shuttle launches taking it up actually happened? Where do the rockets go once they disappear through the clouds?

    I thought you'd agreed that Branson got into a rocket plane previously. What then happened such that you think he didn't reach the altitude that they said he did? Where did he go instead?



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,098 ✭✭✭Markus Antonius


    You never proved anything. Seems to me you are making things up as you go along.

    Why should I provide evidence that there is no experimental data for gravitation and orbital mechanics? That's not how it works I'm afraid and a completely backwards way of thinking! 😆

    Why don't you provide me with the experimentation and scientific data that you claim exists that supports gravitation and orbital mechanics?



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,704 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Not are you only ignoring everyone's questions put to you, but you are literally ignoring posters asking why you are ignoring all those questions.

    1. Is the ISS real? yes or no, if no, what is it?
    2. Do you think the Earth is a globe yes or no?
    3. Do you believe there are satellites yes or no? if yes, how did they get up there? if no, then how does GPS work? how does satellite TV work?




  • Registered Users Posts: 857 ✭✭✭PintOfView


    "The red arrow pointing to where they claim "zero-gravity" starts. Despite the fact that "zero-gravity" is an impossibility at this altitude."

    You're correct is saying that 'zero-gravity' is impossible at that altitude (in fact at any altitude!). What they really mean is that people within the vehicle will have a perception of zero gravity.

    What happens at the red arrow point in the flight is as follows:

    • The craft is going at over mach 3 (> 2300 mph) when the rocket engine shuts down
    • At that height gravity is only marginally weaker than at the earth's surface, so the craft continues upwards but decelerates due to gravity (@9.8m/s/s) - it's like when you throw a stone up in the air, it keeps going until it reaches a peak, and then starts to drop again.
    • Both the craft and the people within it decelerate at the same rate (both before and after the peak), so there is a perception of weightlessness and people can float around. However gravity is still acting equally on both, and decelerating both.
    • When the craft reaches it's peak it has lost all it's vertical speed due to gravity, and it starts go drop, and then accelerates on the way down (again @9.8m/s/s).This weightless perception (this perception of zero gravity) will persist from the moment the rocket shuts down to the moment the parachute deploys.
    • When the parachute deploys it reduces the acceleration downwards of the craft, and the people inside will begin to experience weight, gaining maximum weight when the craft reaches a constant, or terminal, velocity (zero acceleration) downwards.
    • At no point was there zero gravity, only a perception of weightlessness due to travelling at the same speed as the craft, and subject to the same deceleration / acceleration as the craft itself.

    If you don't agree with this description can you explain what bit(s) you don't agree with?



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,098 ✭✭✭Markus Antonius


    I don't disagree with anything you said. It's no different to a parabolic flight. Branson and Bezos are playing on the ignorance of 99% of the population by producing clips of them floating around like clowns as evidence that they've been to space when the reality is that this footage could be shot at any altitude.

    I even linked an article a page or two back of Branson practicing "zero-g" on one of these parabolic flights and he was coming out with statements like "It has certainly whetted our appetite to experience space for real."

    I think it's hilarious all the posters here running to their defense given how deceptive they are. (Hmm, sounds very similar to certain other space agencies too doesn't it? 😆)



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,704 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe




  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,043 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    Where did Branson and Bezos go then? How high did their craft go?



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,421 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    Because you were immediately presented scientific evidence, then, like a chicken, you ran away because you cannot produce one single shred of evidence to support your theories that you are also afraid to even air as you know how ridiculous they are.

    Lay out your cards, what do you believe, answer some questions.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 857 ✭✭✭PintOfView


    Branson and Bezos are playing on the ignorance of 99% of the population by producing clips of them floating around like clowns as evidence that they've been to space when the reality is that this footage could be shot at any altitude

    I partially agree with the first bit of your sentence, in that it's probably a bit of marketing by highlighting the weightless phase. Re evidence of their having been to space, well it depends on how you define space. According to one definition once you surpass 80km you are in space, so Branson qualifies on that score. Another definition requires you to be 100km above the earth's surface, and Bezos qualifies by both definitions.

    As regards the footage being able to be shot at any altitude, that's probably not strictly true. You can simulate weightlessness at lower altitudes, but the duration will depend on your vertical speed at the time you stop accelerating upwards, and the distance you can free fall back down, and it seems to be approx 30 secs duration. It's likely to be straightforward to calculate that the duration of Bezos and Branson's weightlessness (3 to 4 mins) would require the trajectory to be within a particular range of max speed, and then a free fall distance before parachute deployment, and this would probably rule out it being possible at much lower altitudes.

    Are you saying you don't believe they got to 80km and 100km respectively?



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    I wonder why he's decided to attempt to address your points, yet still ignores everyone else.

    I suspect he'll start ignoring yours too before long though.

    Very odd and embarrassing behaviour...



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Ok. SO you agree that all of that happened, despite your previous claims. You seem to keep flip flopping depending on what's convenient to your silly beliefs. It's almost like you're making it all up on the spot without thinking very hard on it.


    So since you agree with the facts of what happened with the flight, and no one claims anything else happened, what's the issue you have? What part was faked? How was it faked? How does this prove that the rest of the space industry was fake?

    Why do you believe they are faking all of it?

    Is it because the world is flat?



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,098 ✭✭✭Markus Antonius


    I honestly don't know what altitude they got to and don't really care. Both of them want to declare themselves as being first civilians or 'space tourists' etc. into space. It's no different to the Arctic/Antarctic/Everest etc. expeditions in which a few egotistical (and ultimately dishonest) 'expeditioners' scrambled to reward themselves title of being first to do X or Y for the sake of popularity (and financial gain moreso).

    This is really no different. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if Branson and Bezos started a big publicized spat between themselves just to stay in the public eye. Use it to promote their respective brands more.

    Also, why 80km or 100km counts as being space must have some bizarre and contrary reason from the fraudster space agencies. I'm sure they have a hilarious rationale for these altitudes...



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    What should count as space in your uneducated opinion?


    You obviously aren't going to be addressing any of the previous points, so we'll consider all of them forfeited by yourself.

    You can't explain what was faked with Bransons or Bezos' flights. So you admit and agree that they happened as described and that you were lying when you claimed they were faked.

    Would have been better and more honest if you just said this directly, but that's expecting too much honesty.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,338 ✭✭✭Bit cynical


    You wrote:

    "Both of them want to declare themselves as being first civilians or 'space tourists' etc. into space."

    I don't think either of them are going to do that as there have been civilian space tourists for some time now and, moreover, into orbit.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,043 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    Are you claiming that the poles haven't been reached, or Everest climbed now?


    How does any of what you are saying have anything to do with your claims that space flights to the moon, Mars, the ISS are faked?



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,098 ✭✭✭Markus Antonius


    Exactly. Yet another reason why the whole thing is a redundant farce.

    One thing I am delighted about is how the vast majority of people really couldn't give a flying fck 😄



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,704 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Yet you have a belief so farcical you can't support it in any way and can't answer any questions



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    But you are suggesting that the entire space program is faked.

    How many people do you think believe that?


    You also appear to be a flat earther going by your arguments, your ignorance and your dishonesty.

    How many people to you believe are also flat earthers?


    And again how many people do you think you are convincing by running away from every single question and point put to you?



Advertisement