Leaderboard

This tension is likely the strongest evidence against the Moon landings being faked. The Cold War was, for the most part, fought in the court of world opinion; each side trying to convince other nations that their system was the better of the two. And yes, getting to the Moon first would have been a huge feather in the cap of the country that did it, and was the major motivation behind the program. And while you might think that this would lead to the temptation to "fake it", Neither side would have risked trying that. The blow to international prestige caused by being caught would have been magnitudes worse than the gain from getting away with it. And both sides knew that the other would have experts pouring over every frame of footage shot, every photo shot, etc. looking for the evidence they needed to expose fakery. So, the side that was trying to fake it would have had their own team painstakingly go through everything, looking for anything that would give up the game before any of it was released. So things like flags "waving" when they shouldn't be wouldn't have made the cut unless there was a explanation for it that was consistent with it being on the surface of the Moon in a vacuum* The idea that they would miss all these things that some people point to as "proof" of the landings being faked borders on the insane. This is not some Hollywood production where they'll let things slide because they understand that the majority of the audience won't notice or care. Before the US would have even considered faking it, they would have gathered experts and asked them if it were possible to fake it. And the answer would have been "No. Not the the degree that would fool our counterparts in the USSR." I'll give you an example of what I mean. Recently, I saw a video of a group of CGI experts reviewing some footage of a robotics demonstration. A fair number of people were out there claiming that this footage had been faked with CGI. Their conclusion was that it was real footage. Mainly based on the fact that there were things in the footage that just couldn't have been done CGI without leaving clues that they would have spotted. They knew what could be done CGI, and what couldn't. So the idea that the US could have faked it well enough to fool the USSR, or that USSR could have exposed them and didn't, is laughable. The very fact that USSR never made any attempt to claim the US landings were faked is because it would have made them a laughing stock in the court of world opinion. * And it wouldn't have been good enough to offer some "hand-wavy" explanation. As stated above, the USSR's experts would have gone over with that footage frame by frame, comparing the flag's motion against what would be expected for it being in a vacuum on the Moon vs. being disturbed by moving air.

Yes, it does, explicitly in the word 'claimed'! What I wonder is: Why? What purpose does it serve to indulge in vague and mostly ridiculous speculation as to the veracity of an event so long ago and so irrelevant to any major issue of today? And why that particular mission, rather than the other 5? Do you have a point to make?

You don't understand science discussion either, apparently. We keep asking you to support what you claim, and you claim you're meeting those obligations. I think you've failed to explain anything to any degree of clarity. Four pages of "Look what I made up!"

Your assumption is refuted quite simply. If the stars in our galaxy are inside the event horizon of our galaxy, then the stars in other galaxies would be inside the event horizon of their galaxy and we could not see them. However, this is not the case, with a powerful telescope we can see stars in other galaxies.

Is this for examination purposes ? I ask because UK A level exams are coming up and I was preparing some more detail for you but there is a small but important point I would like to clear up. Van der Waals proposed his froces in 1873, before experimental confirmation of either atoms or molecules. London proposed his quantum idea in 1930 to explain the work on inttermolecular forces that had taken plece in the intervening half century. Since then modern Chemistry has gained a vast amount of new data, both the VDW and London explanations have been refined and redefined several times. So it is important to use he definitions and explanations appropriate to your syllabus if this is exam material. The UK A level currently defines VDW as a general label for intermolecular forces and London forces as a special case.

From the opening post I've had to fend off challenges. These relate to the two apparent aspects of time we become aware of. That's Time, the chronological concept where we mark off rhe hours & minutes so as to increment some imaginary clock in the sky. And time that relates to velocity, the time of science. These are the obligations I'm confronted with. I've stuck with my claims all through this, Too bad you can't visualize the effects of time. So, there is nothing made up you arrogant sack. My interpretation of this is that it what I've been saying all along. And fair enough I dont have the ability to put it so accurately, and sure that is my fault because it is what is expected at a science forum. But please accept that when I say the moon does not share our velocity and so has a different but still parallel 'point' in time resulting in an orbit above earth. These are parallel and converging. It can be done by simply using the parallel lines of longitude that give us the points of convergence in 3d space above each of the poles. Our common velocity shifting these still parallel lines to a different point so that they appear to be the center of the earth, a point all particles aim for in the confines of curved space while traveling at the same velocity, 13M mph in this instance. You can never refute what I'm saying while still asserting gravity as a force. What errors? Gravity is a convention that you have adopted as gospel. And I'm sure no intellectual, otherwise I would have done a better job of explaining something I'd never set out to explain in the first place.

Actually, phenomena, you had described as gravitational exactly aren't connected with gravity. But DM, which GR cannot describe, is absolutely gravitational one. Accordingly to Dynamic Gravity (DG) the gravity is a force, which appears between mass particles during their relative nearing, and it isn't something static which influences to massless particles. So, the dynamical gravity is much different thing, than GR describes. The DG explains two real gravitational phenomena - the Dark matter, and the acceleration of cosmic rays, which wasn't predicted by GR. When, after number of years, the scientists will not find dark matter particles, they will have to reinspect the GR. I'm suggesting to do it right now. Thanks. I'll do it right now. IMO, it's a main mistake that scientists consider GR as a gravity theory. Accordingly to DG, the GR isn't a gravity theory, because it doesn't describe the Gravity as a force (which, actually, is a force). The GR is, as it was defined, a relativity's theory. It describes how the mass generates the local space-time and how ST curvature (tension) defines the relativity of all interactions.

It's earth's velocity that matters and that is in effect unchanging. 13M mph in relation to the CBR. Anyone who refers to gravity as a force is wrong. It is an effect. Then you have pretty much ignored most of what this experiment is about. Intellectual arrogance, intellectual dishonesty, and intellectual cowardice are examples of the barriers to change. I've refused nothing. I try and meet my obligations, which do not include satisfying anybody's curiosity. I will make the prediction as originator of this thread at the appropriate time, that's if that opportunity somehow finds a way around the barriers in place already. I've stuck with what I've been saying all along, and if anybody is tap-dancing it is yourself. I will continue to answer posts (and expect replies) until the present issue is resolved. I have difficulty in interpreting what it is you say, but despite that can see that what you appear to be saying is not in any way what I'm suggesting. Mass would decide the geometry of spacetime, velocity decides the convergence point of all matter within the spherical mass we call earth. How else does it get it's shape if not by the fourth dimension we call time? Your geodesics are not my converging parallels? No doublespeak here? I'm visualizing time not gravity. The work has been done by lot's of smart people including Einstein. I'm not adding anything other than a simple way to visualize it (which admittedly has not worked all that well).