Jump to content

Mr. Nice

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mr. Nice

  1. Explain where. I replied to this already and you ran away: Since you haven't actually got any proof and I do. it's best that I kick this one sided debate off huh? NASA received 25.4 billion funding. Now I'm positive that you have no idea how that money was spent. NASA virtually subcontracted the whole lot out to a whole number of companies! The big stuff: Lunar Module development - Northrop Grumman Saturn V - Boeing Rockets - Rocketdyne Command Module - North American Aviation Lunar Rover - Boeing Spacesuits - ILC Dover (Playtex) Then we had the tools used developed by Black and Decker, Headsets and comms. developed by Polytronic (now Poly). Data Uplink system developed by Motorola. Fuel cells developed by Pratt and Whitney(then United Aircraft). Cryogenic gas storage developed by Beechcraft (then Beech Aircraft). Oxidiser tanks developed by General Motors. Timers and clocks developed by Hammond Organ co. Stabilisation system developed by Honeywell. Round 1, you just get knocked out dude. Unless you have got something to get off the floor with!
  2. Spam, already addressed by me and ignored by you. See a few post above. This is basically the typical moon hoax believer. Keep your head down, avoid all replies and spam the hoax-by-numbers.
  3. Spam, endless spam. Don Petit We USED to have it. Which part of that confuses you? We don't have it anymore for a whole variety of reasons. But here are some pointers for you to ignore, like you are doing: The blueprints for all machinery are held at the Marshall Space Centre. People on the internet sometimes print schematics and build models. The technology is outdated. Modern space travel has far more stringent safety standards. It IS a very long process to re-develop new machinery and fully test it.
  4. If you are addressing me, type the word "@" then begin to type my name. A list will come up, select from the list and I will get a ping. The problem is you, it always was. No matter how many times I've said to you that there is NO area where the speed flips, you keep coming up with ways to be wrong. What makes you think that the Earth spins on that red line? It's just so damn bizarre!
  5. Sigh....... how many more times the same thing. The camera lens is curved, the curve inverts when it falls below the centre line. The cricket ball is largely unaffected because it is very close to the camera and the object of the focus. The question NEVER answered is these videos often do a 360 pan, explain how the land is one continuous line on a 360 pan! I'll wait!
  6. Why, do you STILL not get it? Really? Imagine a circle that is spinning on your screen. Imagine a straight line drawn from the centre to the edge. As you go out, the circle spins faster but the line MUST remain straight. The rotational frequency MUST stay the same for the whole circle except dead centre. Your Roundabout/Earth would be spinning at 43,200 a day. The real Earth spins at 1 per day. Let me ask you another simple thing. You, the meme maker and all who believe it have stumbled on a colossal show-stopper, and every single physicist able to compute this is stupid........or are you wrong? If you finally understand it, you may remove the pointy hat.
  7. Wtaf!! Your children's roundabout does 43,200 revs per day no matter how big it is. That is number 1 The Earth does 1 rev per day no matter how small it is. That is number 2. Surely you are smart enough to see the difference. Surely. Remember what I said about the pointy hat? Off you go.
  8. Relevance? Some bloke down the pub who scribbles crap on a newspaper carries the same weight.
  9. So, I explained this to you with extremely simple words and phrase, first you place a silly "laugh" emoticon against the post, then you come up with this meme. It is so stupid it actually should hurt! Brainwashed you say? Click here. So let's examine this moronic meme you appear to have been suckered in by. Firstly 7Km/Hr covers 6.3 feet per second. On a 12 foot roundabout that is about one revolution every 6 seconds - which is a load of old bollocks for clinging on for dear life. That is OAP speed. 20 Km/Hr is more like it. PLUS and very importantly the centripetal force is perpendicular to gravity! Anyway the roundabout is now doing a revolution every 2 seconds. That is 30 rpm. 1800 per hour and 43,200 per day. 1. That roundabout, whether it is 12ft wide or suddenly elongated to 8,000 miles wide, is still doing 43,200 revolutions per day. 2. Conversely the Earth is around 8,000 miles wide and is doing 1 rev per day - and right near the centre you would still be doing 1 rev per day. The question for you, take your time now: If you are on a roundabout moving at 1 revolution per day, do you think you would fall off? If you say yes. Get a coned hat, draw a "D" on it and sit in the corner. Well try and prove it wrong then. Jump off a building and count how many seconds it takes. I bet you it is 9.8 m s² and I bet you arrive quite quickly. In your mind, is the existence of a thread and people daft enough to deny gravity actual grounds to dismiss something that quite clearly exists? Never mind, nobody's perfect. If you actually understood some of it, it definitely might help with your mistrust.
  10. Trolling yet again. Go to the clue shop and buy one. Put me on ignore then I don't get to read your clueless responses.
  11. Must we really do this apples and oranges straight out the gate? Microwave radiation in close proximity to a cell tower bears no resemblance whatsoever to space radiation - specifically the charged particles within the VAR. Utter nonsense. The packaging is to stop moisture and atmospheric spoiling.
  12. For shite. You seem to be somewhat easily led by fools and oddly dismissive of expertise. Just read page one of my blog then come back all educated: The Mad world of a flat earther...... (penguinsfalloff.blogspot.com)
  13. This is just getting more and more baffling by the post. The axis of rotation is pole to pole. If a plane flies "over" it, it just gradually slows from Coriolis then gradually speeds up. There is no ludicrous point where it suddenly changes speed.
  14. Why do you believe that horseshit? What makes Earth's atmosphere stay put? | Earth | EarthSky
  15. In the flat earth thread? And what? You equate me not wishing to enter into a convoluted discussion about 100 times more subjective in interpretation than this one, which even with the slam dunk cases presented within it, still bounces off the heads of the flatnuts!? Whatever.
  16. Because it is spinning very slowly, one day per rotation. Here, jump on a roundabout and have your mate push it for you at the rate of one full circle per day - see if your coffee gets spilled. Spoiler - no it won't. Head scratching stuff dude. It's because the centripetal force is miniscule compared to gravity: Centrifugal Force on the Equator — Collection of Solved Problems (physicstasks.eu) Magnitude of the centrifugal force: Fcf=mv2R=mω2R=80⋅(7.29⋅10−5)2⋅6378⋅103N =˙2.7N Magnitude of the force of gravity: Fg=GmMER2=6.67⋅10−11⋅80⋅5.97⋅1024(6378⋅103)2N=˙783.1N It's infinite and why would "nothing" need encasing. If you mean the Earth, google is your friend: Why Does the Atmosphere Not Drift off Into Space? | NOAA SciJinks – All About Weather Addressed above. Your video shows a spinning object with vast centripetal force. You seem unable to equate the speed of the spin with the effect it has. It takes one day to spin not a split second. The Earth is massive. That's the first time your observational skills have registered correctly! Well done.
  17. I understand all of this and have no need to debate it. The root of disagreement lies with the assumed goals, orchestraters and the purpose. And in this "Flat Earth" thread I have no need or desire to debate that either. I respectfully disagree with you and whilst I consider I have a considerably strong case for doing so I have no interest in presenting it. It's used as a gross insult aimed primarily at special needs children and mentally disabled. Why the R-Word Is the R-Slur (specialolympics.org)
  18. What course? Apollo? Low energy transfer? Hohmann transfer orbit? A survey of ballistic transfers to low lunar orbit (nasa.gov)
  19. Proof you are spamming the debunked to death hoax by numbers. This particular one, I reckon over the years, I have personally addressed about 50 times. It's like the longest game of Whackamole in history, with none of the moles able to learn a bloody thing. Patrick Moore asked the astronauts something very specific. He asked them: "I have two brief questions that I would like to ask, if I may. When you were carrying out that incredible Moon walk, did you find that the surface was equally firm everywhere or were there harder and softer spots that you could detect. And, secondly, when you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?" Now Michael Collins who was part of the Solar Corona photography saw none and this is entirely expected! As for seeing stars in broad daylight, on the Moon, through 3 layers (infrequently 2) layers of visor - you need to dark adapt your eyes. That section is proof that YOU don't listen and are easily led by others equally afflicted. This is the DSCOVR sequence showing the Lunar transit from a million miles away! Clouds move at a local level and are seen to do so, but massive weather systems that we see on the globe move very slowly. Another total fail. No wonder you aren't replying to any of my posts
  20. That isn't quite how quantum holographics work and the whole concept of how it works is derived from determination of things in the universe that prove the world is not flat. Are We Living in a Hologram? | Space
  21. Ok, so you want to dump bullshit in the thread. There is a thread to discuss the Moon landings, enter it and I will kick your arse. Specifics, not Apollo related unless you absolutely must!
  22. Ok people, I see this a lot around these parts. So offer me your best evidence. What the hell is this problem with NASA? If you feel the need to post a video (ONE AT A TIME please) , itemise the best bits and why and for crying out loud, be prepared to honestly defend it - instead of the customary scuttle away and pretend you haven't seen it. Here's the thing. When somebody says there are loads of things proving something and each "thing" you look at turns out to be a load of lies, poor observation, bare assertion or just bad research, then the "load of things" suddenly becomes NO things. Nothing. I'll start with the only thing I am aware of - the cover up of the faults with the Challenger launch vehicle. One swallow does not make a summer. It is inevitable that in any organisation over decades that you get some bad decisions. I need not list many companies who have crapped on their own doorstep just to make more sales. What have you got?
  • Create New...