Memory Lane The Moon Landings

[rigsby]

They understood enough to build pyramids, bridges and seige weapons.

Newtonian physics is not a good enough approximation to build something like the GPS system.

Any thoughts about the laws of physics on 9/11?

 

[Mad Cyril]

Any thoughts about the laws of physics on 9/11?

What aspects specifically?

 

[rigsby]

What aspects specifically?

see post 95

 

[Mad Cyril]

see post 95

Why do you think the building should not have collapsed?

Buildings are over engineered but are essentially designed to support the weight of the building above them.

15 storeys in free fall (after the intermediate structure failed) are going to exert a larger force when they hit the lower part of the building. I am not surprised that the building collapsed.

If you lied on your back then you could comfortably support the weight of a brick on your stomach.

If the brick was dropped from the height of one storey then it is going to hurt and probably do some damage.

 

[rigsby]

Why do you think the building should not have collapsed?

Buildings are over engineered but are essentially designed to support the weight of the building above them.

15 storeys in free fall (after the intermediate structure failed) are going to exert a larger force when they hit the lower part of the building. I am not surprised that the building collapsed.

If you lied on your back then you could comfortably support the weight of a brick on your stomach.

If the brick was dropped from the height of one storey then it is going to hurt and probably do some damage.

If you dropped a brick on the top of a stack of 10 bricks it would not crush all 10 bricks because for action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

For 90 floors to collapse Newton’s laws of momentum mean each floor would slow down the rate of collapse. There fore a colllapse at free fall speed is scientifically immposible.

 

[kaymac]

Didn't know there were skyscrapers around in Newton's day. Well, well. Shrimperzone never fails to amaze me with the vast font of knowledge on here........

 

[Mad Cyril]

If you dropped a brick on the top of a stack of 10 bricks it would not crush all 10 bricks because for action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

You have misinterpreted the 2nd rule.

Say you have a mass of 100kg and are standing on a frictionless ice rink. If you throw a 1kg brick at 100 m/s then you will end up moving in the opposite direction at 1 m/s.

That is the second rule in action.

If you drop a mass onto another object then it may come to rest if the underlying object is strong enough however no material is infinitely strong. At some velocity ten bricks will be unable to withstand the energy of a collision and will collapse.

 

[rigsby]

?

You have misinterpreted the 2nd rule.

Say you have a mass of 100kg and are standing on a frictionless ice rink. If you throw a 1kg brick at 100 m/s then you will end up moving in the opposite direction at 1 m/s.

That is the second rule in action.

If you drop a mass onto another object then it may come to rest if the underlying object is strong enough however no material is infinitely strong. At some velocity ten bricks will be unable to withstand the energy of a collision and will collapse.

Not quite, you only give one example. These people explain it better.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNKnL_j6epo_

 

[rigsby]

Well, for starters a meteorite would have different properties, from what is recognised as lunar rock.

I think - and I will say that it’s been a while since I read this, so the details are a bit sketchy in my mind - when rocks form, a specific type of volcanic crystallisation occurs due to our atmosphere. This is significantly different to the crystallised composition of lunar rock.

I’ve got no doubt that this kind of thing goes on. Corporate America is one of the shadiest industries ever known to mankind.

I get what you’re saying, and I see how it could have been done - if they’d wanted to - but there just isn’t any shred of proof to successfully back it up. So we always end up back at square one, where all we’ve got to go on is conjecture & circumstantial evidence.

Yet on the flip side, the evidence to support the claim that they landed on the moon, is pretty conclusive.

Yes the documentary on Netflix I mentioned is called Conspiracy Theory (bad name) It covers the reasons at that time in history the US would have a very good reason to do it.

[Edited: SBH: Less of the personal abuse please]

Interestingly the NASA spokesperson has no answers to difficult questions.......Other than the usual response we see from certain people on these sort of threads.

 

[maninasuitcase]

Yes the documentary on Netflix I mentioned is called Conspiracy Theory (bad name) It covers the reasons at that time in history the US would have a very good reason to do it.

[Edited: SBH: Less of the personal abuse please]

Interestingly the NASA spokesperson has no answers to difficult questions.......Other than the usual response we see from certain people on these sort of threads.

Still no explanation for the mirrors on the moon I see, when are you going to answer that question? Oh you can't cause you are just making stuff up!

 

[THE SEVENTIES NORTH BANK]

Landing on the Moon has not happened for quite a time now. But a few countries are showing renewed interest, mainly China. A few looking at it from a different angle regarding space tourism or commercial enterprise. Apparently, a lot of minerals and materials that we use in things like Ipads, smartphones and laptops etc etc are in abundance on the Moon. I'm not sure I'd be happy with man going to the Moon and creating man made craters and bringing back the Moon's resources. I'm all for going there and taking small samples for scientific research, but can you imagine if a Country like China went there and found minerals and materials they wanted? Anyway, the good news is that NASA have said the next goal is to put a man and a woman on the Moon together.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Landing on the Moon has not happened for quite a time now. But a few countries are showing renewed interest, mainly China. A few looking at it from a different angle regarding space tourism or commercial enterprise. Apparently, a lot of minerals and materials that we use in things like Ipads, smartphones and laptops etc etc are in abundance on the Moon. I'm not sure I'd be happy with man going to the Moon and creating man made craters and bringing back the Moon's resources. I'm all for going there and taking small samples for scientific research, but can you imagine if a Country like China went there and found minerals and materials they wanted? Anyway, the good news is that NASA have said the next goal is to put a man and a woman on the Moon together.

We currently don't have the capacity to bring it back and are unlikely to anytime soon.

 

[Blueronron]

We currently don't have the capacity to bring it back and are unlikely to anytime soon.

On Stargazer last night, it seems you will able to and in next twenty years they are aiming for men/women Mars from the moon, the space vehicle looked amazing that will roam around on the Red Planet

Worth a viewing on catch up

Seems Mars could have been a river bed and if so they will be able to extract minerals
As above we have polluted our own planet, will we do the same on others

Obviously some people will always say its faked

 

[GBJ]

Yes the documentary on Netflix I mentioned is called Conspiracy Theory (bad name) It covers the reasons at that time in history the US would have a very good reason to do it.

[Edited: SBH: Less of the personal abuse please]

Interestingly the NASA spokesperson has no answers to difficult questions.......Other than the usual response we see from certain people on these sort of threads.

I can understand the reasoning for wanting to fake it in ‘69, but why would they then persist with follow up missions to land on the moon?

 

[THE SEVENTIES NORTH BANK]

We currently don't have the capacity to bring it back and are unlikely to anytime soon.

Not what the space expert said this morning. That's why I mentioned it.

 

[MK Shrimper]

Not what the space expert said this morning. That's why I mentioned it.

I stand corrected! Of course the gravity on the moon is a lot less, but you need some thrust to take off, and if you're loaded down with rocks & minerals you'll need a fair bit of fuel to achieve that. I would have thought getting the fuel to the Moon is incredibly dangerous and extremely expensive.

 

[Blueronron]

I stand corrected! Of course the gravity on the moon is a lot less, but you need some thrust to take off, and if you're loaded down with rocks & minerals you'll need a fair bit of fuel to achieve that. I would have thought getting the fuel to the Moon is incredibly dangerous.

On the program, they said they can extract the gases to make fuel, Dara OBrien and Prof Cox, did explain looked very simple, but too heavy to understand to comprehend for my small brain cell Hydrogen and Oxygen are abundant on the moon so just a case of case of mixing it together according to the two Eggheads

Each generation is getting closer to something we could only dream as a child, lets hope we dont spoil it for generations to come

Something unique looking at planets wondering surely we cannot be the only living thing in the universe whether lower or higher in intelligence

 

[MK Shrimper]

On the program, they said they can extract the gases to make fuel, Dara OBrien and Prof Cox, did explain looked very simple, but too heavy to understand to comprehend for my small brain cell Hydrogen and Oxygen are abundant on the moon so just a case of case of mixing it together according to the two Eggheads

Each generation is getting closer to something we could only dream as a child, lets hope we dont spoil it for generations to come

We will. If by some miracle humanity is still here in 200 years the moon will be drained of it's resources and we'll be planning a mission to Io or Europa.

Something unique looking at planets wondering surely we cannot be the only living thing in the universe whether lower or higher in intelligence

The universe is infinite, it is beyond reasonable doubt to think that we are the only sentient being. However we will never meet them and vice versa. The distance is just too far and travelling beyond the speed of light is impossible no matter what @davewebbsbrain might chip in.

 

[Firestorm]

The distance is just too far and travelling beyond the speed of light is impossible no matter what @davewebbsbrain might chip in.

But if we did it at night we would only need to travel at the speed of Dark

 

[THE SEVENTIES NORTH BANK]

On the program, they said they can extract the gases to make fuel, Dara OBrien and Prof Cox, did explain looked very simple, but too heavy to understand to comprehend for my small brain cell Hydrogen and Oxygen are abundant on the moon so just a case of case of mixing it together according to the two Eggheads

Each generation is getting closer to something we could only dream as a child, lets hope we dont spoil it for generations to come

Something unique looking at planets wondering surely we cannot be the only living thing in the universe whether lower or higher in intelligence

That's not the program I watched, and the space expert never mentioned how it would be done. But that sounds as if it would work. I just wouldn't be happy if China gets to the Moon. It's in their nature to see what they can take, rather than to just go there for scientific reasons.