They said: the sun moves at 483,000 miles per hour. BUT relative to WHAT?

Remember that the earth spins at 1k mph. So when you are standing on the equator and it's 10am, you are moving in the direction of the earth's orbit around the sun at that speed.

Come 2pm, you are now heading against the direction of the earth's orbit around the sun.

That's a difference of 2k mph, twice a day within 2-4 hours.

And nary a precision instrument on earth will detect this change.

NO dumbass, the Sun moved on with out us. That Sun you see in the sky, is really just a giant fucking lightbulb...

What the fuck kind of stupid are you?

I think the point is that you're throwing the ball off the moving train and onto an object moving separately outside of it, that's the bit that's baffling me. It's not just moving but rotating, so the movement is not really similar to a train at all. I can see how if a train were moving and another train running parrallel, you could throw the ball at the other train.

But thank you for your reply.

Ignore the train for a second, it's irrelevant at this point. The ball is moving correct? It's movement relative to the train around it, or the earth, or whatever you are using as a backstop is to measure it against. Keep in mind movement is not an object, it's a word we invented to describe the flow of time relative to speed and distance relative to other objects.

Now we consider the 'stable and static' objects we are measuring it against, the other trains and the earth, these are irrelevant for the purposes of the balls speeds because they do not change the speed of the ball in any large way by moving past. The air the ball hits during it's travel slows it down, as well as the pull of any mass nearby has a slight effect of gravity to pull it towards it. The earth being the largest mass nearby pulls the ball towards center of gravity the strongest so that's the main gravity you would notice.

You can move the the trains so they go any direction nearby, and throw them to any train you wish, but the ball will not magically alter it's speed at any point unless acted upon by the air friction to slow it down or gravity to pull it somewhere etc. The other trains would be moving at different relative speeds to the ball but it would have really no influence on the ball except relative speed to observes on the trains because until the ball hits something it's speed doesn't change.

Furthermore, relatively to things that have constant motion such as planets and stars and galaxies that are moving at a constant speed, we have a hard time sensing this motion with our human senses, because we can only measure velocity with our inner ear sands (velocity being a change in speed) because relatively we are going fast but since there is little or no acceleration we cannot feel it.

Well, you see, the Sun is no more yellow...

Thank you AC. I think the problem with explaining the physics of the globe earth is that we dont have any relatively similar motion on earth which can be used as a comparison, eg there is no gravity anywhere else and the closest way to understand gravity is by observing magnets, ie there is a 'pull' which is logical to our human senses.

In your explanation, you have to go back to the example of the trains even while you are trying to explain the motion of the globe which is totally unlike the motion of the train simply because there is no globe-like motion in any object on the earth itself, whereas we see patterns in nature repeating in many forms. Gravity is unique in that it does not seem to be repeated in nature so does not make human sense.

Spinning is another action that is not repeated in nature and the globe spinning is also unique. Nature does not spin so it's difficult to observe the spinning motion functioning from our natural level.

Ergo, if it is not possible to observe spinning from our level, how is it possible to calculate the rate of spin in order to get said rocket to said moon?

Is it the same relative to a Mars bar? The absence of caramel would likely affect overall density.

You seem to have a very limited undestanding of what is and isn't present "in nature". There are plenty of examples of relative motion, of rotation, of gravity and magnetism, and of lots of other forces at play throughout the universe.

You need to spend some time learning the basics and then move on to more complex ideas...

What is the speed of the moon around the earth?
Funny. I was thinking about all these speeds just last night. Weird. Appreciate your answers. Thanks.

Relative speed, when all moving parts are added up, including the speed of the universe itself, has us already traveling at light speed. We can't tell that everything is pure energy because we are all immersed in relative reality.

Enjoy your Godlike Production!

You walk down the road at 2mph. You think that is your only motion - but - the earth is rotating and traveling around the sun which is traveling around the galaxy which is traveling through the universe ehich ts probably traveling relative to other universes. Therefore - no matter how important you think you are you are really rather insignificant everything considered. This is why someone thinking their 'special' is proof they are small minded and possibly delusional.

Oh, yeah, it makes total sense! We are on the galactic train called Milky way! Which moves forward in space

The same way they launch rockets into space, they made it up.... It's all lies sorry but there are no planets and no space period...

:stupidfuck:

relative to the forces flushing down all the stuff in the center of this huge galactic toilet!


According to Egyptian myth Ra created the "ha" "milky way" while jerking off one on behave of goddess Isis !



The part they don't tell is he flushed the toilet afterwards!

At the galactic center is a black hole. On the other side of the black hole, just like all other black holes, is another universe that's been created by a 'big bang'

That speed is relative to the galaxy and the galaxy is moving through space at 1.3 million miles per hour.

You literally have no way of knowing any of the bullshit you post. Lol, believes in ever expanding, infinitely at almost the speed of light, universe where other universes are born out of dead/black 'stars' and he actuall has the balls to call others dumb. Hahaha.

To the idiot AC above who tells me there are many forces in nature that I am not aware of, please give me some examples of the spinning motion in nature which the earth is supposed to be doing. And while you're at it, you can add some gravity to that also.

If you are unable to do so, maybe you're willing to concede that it just doesnt happen? Except of course the earth itself, which seems to be the only natural spinning object according to scientific research.

By the way, how did they know there was no gravity on the moon before they went there? Was this something they were able to observe through a telescope? I'm impressed. I really am.

I'm amazed that it's possible for someone to be so completely and utterly wrong in every aspect of their post...

Have you any understanding of reality? Have you read anything about science, nature etc?


Take a look through a telescope at Jupiter, Saturn or Mars, and you'll see they rotate, exactly like Earth does.

The Moon also rotates on its axis, but at the same rate that it orbits Earth, so we only see one side (this will of course start a huge debate about whether it rotates or not, but the truth is - it does.)

The Sun also rotates, as can be seen by the movement of sunspots and other features around its surface. Being a gaseous body, the rotation isn't the same at all latitudes, but it does show rotation.

Using bigger telescopes we can see other objects rotating. Spectroscopy tells us distant stars rotate (like the Sun), galaxies rotate, and even clusters of galaxies rotate about their common centre of gravity.


How about the planets orbiting the Sun, moons orbiting other planets... What keeps them in orbit if not gravity?

We've also seen asteroids and comets falling into Jupiter's atmosphere. Again, pulled in by gravity.


What "scientific research" says that? Please provide a link to any real scientist, paper or journal which makes that claim.


Firstly, there's plenty of gravity on the Moon. The fact you think there is none shows again your lack of understanding.

Secondly, you can't "observe gravity", but since gravity is a result of mass, and can be seen to be acting everywhere else in the universe in proportion to the amount of mass, it was a reasonable assumption that the lunar gravity would be about 17% of the force measured at the surface of the Earth.

And once various missions (manned and unmanned) reached the Moon, the value could be confirmed as being in line with what was expected from theory.

Overall, I think you need to spend a lot more time learning some real science, and not believing wherever you got your nonsense above from.

Ac 2395, you havent actually answered anything, have you? I stated there are no examples of the spinning motion occurring naturally on the earth and I think that makes it a very unique concept. Usually patterns repeat in nature on the earth and you see the same patterns repeat in the universe as well. I'm sure you must be aware of this, if not, I can post you several videos explaining how nature's patterns repeat.

Also I have to say that I am stumped by your response above. I quote:
it was a reasonable assumption that the lunar gravity would be about 17% of the force measured at the surface of the Earth.

Seriously, you're telling me that a scientist could build a rocket, know the exact specifications they would need for their spacesuits etc and send people to a distance of approx
406,700 km based on an asssumption? An assumption!!!!

You know, I always accepted the moon landing actually took place but when I see the very unscientific arguments put forward by people when questioned about it, it makes the whole thing look like a complete farce.

You're making it harder than ever to accept that a moon landing could actually have taken place according to the official narrative.

And this matters to your life, HOW?

You can make up any number you want, especially if you get lucky enough to be paid for it.
In the end it makes no difference and impacts nothing of significance.

It's a distraction and nothing more.

not really. I live in Sacramento Cali. 30 ft elevation. To my east are 14000 plus ft high mountains. On a flat earth those mountains should eclipse the rising sun. I should see the sun rising ABOVE the horizon here in Sacramento. On a round earth the sun should rise on the horizon.

Guess what?

The sun rises on the horizon.

Explain that idiot flat earther.

I answered your questions / statements as posted :-

Note - "in nature", not "on earth". Anyway, there are plenty of "spinning" or rotational phenomena here on earth as well, from microscopic bacteria with rotating flagella, to huge tropical storms. If you think nothing on earth rotates, I can only put that down to your obviously very limited world view.


Now you're getting ridiculous, and apparently picking on wording designed to simplify the message, instead of the message itself.

Yes, you could call almost any theoretically derived result "an assumption" before it's actually verified and measured. However, and I'm sure you know full well, my intended meaning was that they calculated the expected lunar gravity before going there.

The earliest calculations would have been very rough approximations ("assumptions") but by the time the first missions were launched the Moon's gravity had been worked out pretty accurately. And it's still being refined and mapped in more and more accurate ways, even today.

It still doesn't change the fact that you had the idea that there was no gravity on the Moon, which hopefully you now understand to have been an erroneous "assumption"...


No, I'm trying to explain the universe in simplistic terms to someone who doesn't seem to understand it.

As a further point, if you believe the landings did take place, then what do you think kept the astronauts on the lunar surface if it wasn't gravity?

Really? How was the moon's gravity verified and measured before anyone got there?

And I mean in a scientific way that would allow safe exploration upon landing. Ie, how did they know the astronaut's suits or helmets would not implode etc, thereby squashing them.

I would love to hear this.

I'm not sure your level of scientific understanding is up to any explanation, but I'll give it a go...

Firstly, gravity is the result of mass, and this applies whether you use Newton's or Einstein's explanation of gravity. (Since we're dealing with a non-relativistic situation, then Newtonian methods are sufficient to give an accurate result.)

Gravitational force (attraction) is proportional to mass, and inversely proportional to distance squared. In mathematical terms :-

g = m * G / r^2

where g is gravitational force, m is mass, G is the universal gravitational constant, and r is distance from centre of mass.

So to find the force at the Moon's surface, you need to know the Moon's mass, and it's radius.

Based on Newton's and Kepler's laws, we can work out the radius of the Moon's orbit, i.e. how far away it is. From that, and simple geometry, you get the radius.

The mass is a bit more tricky, but by taking very accurate measurements it's possible to see that the Earth and Moon both orbit a common centre of gravity. The amount that point is offset from the centre of the Earth is dependent on the mass of the Moon.

Taking the mass and radius, and putting them into the equation above, gives the gravitational force at the Moon's surface.

The calculation of the Moon's mass, using the above method, had a considerable margin of error, so the precise value wasn't known until the first unmanned lunar probes were sent on flybys, put into orbit, and landed on the Moon. These missions allowed the Moon's mass to be calculated much more precisely.

And since there were several unmanned (and manned) missions to the Moon before the Apollo 11 landing, the environment, gravity and other factors were well understood.

The first landing was actually the end result of many, many previous missions, experiments, calculations and redesigns, all of which made sure that it was safe to land.

Thank you for your lengthy explanation above, AC. Could you possibly provide any links so that I can verify what you state above. Without evidence, you could say anything really.

Meanwhile, I would like to point out that some of the most compelling arguments that I've seen are that the Van Allen belt is a frightening reality; there are masses of asteroids, comets and other debris in the atmosphere, I hardly see how the rockets were able to navigate these and also the fact that Virgin Galactic has miserably failed in the past years to launch their spaceships. They are working in collaboration with NASA.

I will provide some links for the claims I am making, just so we know I'm not making this up. If you need further evidence, just let me know.

Quote:

Virgin Galactic's founder, Sir Richard Branson, had initially suggested that he hoped to see a maiden flight by the end of 2009,[2] but this date has been delayed on a number of occasions, most recently by the October 2014 in-flight loss of SpaceShipTwo VSS Enterprise.
[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]


Quote:

Near-Earth asteroids: These objects have orbits that pass close by that of Earth. Asteroids that actually cross Earth's orbital path are known as Earth-crossers. As of June 19, 2013, 10,003 near-Earth asteroids are known and the number over 1 kilometer in diameter is thought to be 861, with 1,409 classified as potentially hazardous asteroids - those that could pose a threat to Earth.
[link to mobile.arc.nasa.gov]

[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]

Yes.

All these missions "verified and measured gravity" before the Moon landing occurred:

Pioneer 4 3-Mar-59
Luna 2 12-Sep-59
Luna 3 4-Oct-59
Ranger 7 28-Jul-64
Ranger 8 17-Feb-65
Ranger 9 21-Mar-65
Zond 3 18-Jul-65
Luna 9 31-Jan-66
Luna 10 31-Mar-66
Surveyor 1 30-May-66
Lunar Orbiter 1 10-Aug-66
Luna 11 21-Aug-66
Luna 12 22-Oct-66
Lunar Orbiter 2 6-Nov-66
Luna 13 21-Dec-66
Lunar Orbiter 3 5-Feb-67
Surveyor 3 17-Apr-67
Lunar Orbiter 4 4-May-67
Explorer 35 19-Jul-67
Lunar Orbiter 5 1-Aug-67
Surveyor 5 8-Sep-67
Surveyor 6 7-Nov-67
Surveyor 7 7-Jan-68
Zond 5 14-Sep-68
Apollo 8 21-Dec-68
Luna 14 6-Feb-69
Apollo 10 18-May-69

Helmets and spacesuits are easily tested in a vacuum chamber. And they wouldn't implode, they would explode. Implosion occurs when the outside pressure is greater than the inside pressure. On the Moon outside pressure is zero. The pressure inside the spacesuit was only 4.7 psi. By using pure oxygen, you can reduce the pressure and that decreases the stress and strain on the suits.