beecee

Yes to all of that.

"I am afraid I am not in the flight for “aerial navigation”. I was greatly interested in your work with kites; but I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning or of expectation of good results from any of the trials we hear of. So you will understand that I would not care to be a member of the aëronautical Society" Lord Kelvin: That was in 1896, less then a decade before the first ever manned flight.

You seem to have taken anything beyond LEO personal? No one least of all me, is unquestionably optimistic about any venture to the Moon, or where no man has gone before...It should and will be done with the utmost safety and care of the astronauts involved particularly with regards to health. That doesn't mean that lives may not be lost. What worthwhile human endeavour has ever succeeded with some loss of life? Humanity since we evolved from swinging in the trees has had dreams, and many of those dreams have been fulfilled and are responsible for where we are today as far as technical advancement is concerned. Optimism and realism not pessimism is why we will go back to the Moon, and go where no man has gone before. We[humanity] will do these things not because they are easy: we will do them because they are hard. JFK. All in good time, and the longer we can survive as a species, the further we will go...100, 1000, 10,000, or a 100,000 years...lets consider a 1,000,000 years.

This is first and foremost a science forum, and as such under the auspices of the scientific methodology. Plus of course all of the Philosophical jargon you use is apparently to try and discredit/invalidate genuine scientific disciplines, including in this thread, that most positive of disciplines the theory of evolution of life. And yet Eise is of the same opinion as with the rest of the world and in disagreement with your claims/opinions/interpretations in many threads. While I'm mainly ignorant of the discipline of pure philosophy, I do recognise it as one of the foundation stones of science particularly after debate in the past with Eise amongst others, about the usefulness or otherwise of Philosophy. It is though your own erroneous and excessive use of philosophy as a tool to invalidate that which it actually supports that is in question. In that vane, one can understand the recent anti philosophical stance by Laurence Krauss and other physicists and scientists.

Ignore all you like...I'll certainly keep listing your shortcomings, errors, mistaken and mythical claims, as long as you post them, and as I have in this thread. I can't speak for the others, other than one has you on ignore any way due to your continuation of simply uttering unreal philosophical jargon when you are shown to be in error. Then in your continuing attempt to down grade science you now put up this pitiful ignorant stance re "perfection" and then again play the victim when the shortcomings in your argument are raised, and anyone dare propose that which is painfully obvious in your posts....an agenda. If the whole world is against you, then my advice is to look into a mirror and ask yourself why? The answer is that this is a science forum, and unsupported, unevidence, incorrect claims will indeed continue to undergo scrutiny, and yours, here and elsewhere have come up way short.

Irrespective it will in time be done.....And of course your attempt at ignoring the benefits that do come from such exploration, won't make any difference, thankfully. Reasons for going back to the Moon, let me see...Lunar geology would be near the top, effects of the the Lunar environment on the old LM's....astronomical observations free from atmospheric disturbances and the far side of the Moon, would have no radio and other EM interference from Earth...mining in general after establishment of a colony/outpost and particularly Helium 3.....Launching platform for rockets noting the Moon's 1/6 gravity.......Earth observations, weather etc, learning to live in space......and finally just because its there and the human nature to want to achieve things.Going to Mars, again will certainly also happen in time. Again, benefits, because its there and a challenge, the fact as I have already mentioned re Earth's use by date....looking for ETL.....and what an inspiration to the younger generation!

In your own mind maybe, but in reality the pretentious bravado in your posts just don't cut it, sorry. But hey! If I see you in Stockholm next November, then I'll be shown to be wrong, won't I ?

You misunderstand...I don't really care how long the research takes, the relevant factors are your capabilities and your honesty and impartiality

Great!if you do the research honestly and capably, you should arrive at the same conclusions as hundreds of reputable physicists have for the last hundred years or so, and which incidentally are still being tested and validated

In essence what you are saying is that despite inevitable technological advancements, new knowledge etc etc, we should sit on our hands, stagnate on planet Earth, and not explore anymore. The same reasons European man discovered the Americas and Australia, the same reasons we established the ISS, the same reasons that man climbed Mnt Everest, the same reasons we explore the Antarctic and the bottom of the seas, will be the reasons that in time, we will go to the Moon again, we will land men on Mars, we will establish bases there, we will leave the solar system and we will land on an extra solar planet. That's the reality, that's what will happen, and my only regrets is that I wont be here to see and marvel at such endeavours. Please note, I put no time on when I believe these things will happen, but given the time, they will.

[1] Mass/energy warps curves, or changes the geometry of flat spacetime. [2] When that happens, it is felt as gravity. [3] When spacetime is warped in the presence of mass/energy, light from a distant object will follow geodesics in that warped spacetime. [4] Even light itself will warp or curve the spacetime it is traversing but by an infinitely tiny amount not worth considering. [5]Earth warps/curves the spacetime within its vicinity. [6] We on Earth are caught in this warping/curving of spacetime.

Light slows down in a medium and we see that as an apparent "bending"" eg...a straw in a glass.... Light follows geodesics in spacetime. While spacetime is not a physical entity, it is real enough and that is apparent in observing it to be warped, bent, twisted and waved. I believe this is now simply trolling and denying the obvious.

At this stage it is obvious you are not interested in astronomy or cosmology and the observations of gravitational lensing, frame dragging and gravitational waves. All these are overwhelmingly supported by the evidence, despite you refusing to recognise that fact.

Both correct and both resulting from logical mathematics, or the language of physics, certainly not your unsupported, unevidenced mythical claims.

Rubbish.....spacetime is seen to be warped, bent, twisted and even in the forms of undulations which we call gravitational waves. Your mythical claims are just that....mythical.

Drafting in no way supports your claims. Gravity is the dominant force and is the one responsible for shaping the universe.

That in no way supports what I think you are claiming....not in the least. Again, it does not support what you seem to be saying. Don't be so naive and obtuse. A body will stay in its state of rest or uniform motion unless acted on by a force...A law as proposed by a guy called Newton. Nothing to do with density. No, gravity/spacetime curvature is always the dominating force that is shaping our universe. Admittedly there is not much more I am able to add due to the total confusing and contradictory nature of your mythical claims.

Venus has a dense atmosphere but no measurable magnetic field. Lightning also goes from the ground up. It doesn't have an atmosphere either. A body will stay in its state of rest or uniform motion unless acted on by a force...A law as proposed by a guy called Newton. Nothing to do with density. No, gravity/spacetime curvature is always the dominating force that is shaping our universe. Nonsense...

While all matter at the elementary level have magnetic fields, these for all intents and purposes are far to weak to measure, whereas gravity has a far greater effect as more mass/matter is evident. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/187333/do-all-the-things-have-a-magnetic-field "In the sense that all matter is made up by elementary particles which have a spin, there are magnetic fields for all matter, but it is only if the molecules are organized that it can build up to a value to show large scale magnetization, as with ferromagnets. For the great majority of matter the directions of individual fields from the nuclei and electrons and atoms cancel each other and one has to go to smaller than nanometer distances to see any effects".

Because not all astronomical bodies are magnetic? But all have gravity?

It appears he is asking why you accept as valid what you say, just because you happen to use the scientific method, and that the figures support it.... I mean how illogical!!

The highlight of silliness is only evident from your quarters, not just in this thread but the others you have made outrageous and incorrect claims in also, and I'm fairly sure by his responses so far that Eise's also agrees with that. I have previously hypothesised based on your posts and threads that you may be a god botherer of sorts...that hypothesis is looking more and more concrete, the more you continue to misinterpret and make your false claims, despite your poor efforts to remain closeted. And that inference has been totally refuted for many reasons, not the least of course being the overwhelming numbers of examples to the contrary every day, every week and every year. There is not any discipline in the world that can lay claim to every one of their members always being of the same mind...The otherwise great Astronomer Fred Hoyle is an example...They are the exception, not the rule....When we get down to the nitty gritty, you have been preaching this sort of unsupported rhetorical nonsense since at least 2015....When will the penny drop?

Bingo!

Umm, no...spacetime is warped/curved by mass energy...when that happens we get the sensation of gravity...so gravity is curved/warped spacetime. Space as Strange said, is the measurement of distance, while spacetime is the 4D framework within which it is possible to locate events. The concept of spacetime follows from the observation that the speed of light is invariant, that is it does not vary with the motion of the emitter or the observer. Spacetime allows a description of reality that is common for all observers in the universe, regardless of their relative motion. Intervals of space and time considered separately are not the same for all observers. Space, spacetime are not physical entities, but in my opnion still real.....We feel the effects of warped spacetime as gravity, just as we see the effects of a magnetic field which also is not a actual physical entity. No, mass energy does the warping.

Still, as a well known and respected scientist would say, "Fascinating". [thanks for your input CharonY