.....

......

Hello and welcome to the Flat Earth Society.

Sounds like you favour a geocentric model. That has a lot in common with our own theories.

Your questions are directed at the round earthers so I'll let them try to answer. I have an even more fundamental question. If the moon reflects sunlight to earth, why do you need to put mirrors on it? It already reflects light towards earth - its shiny. Using high-speed exposure cameras you would capture even the smallest traces that came back. Exposure times are so fast nowadays that you can even get light that bounces round corners. Getting a bit LOS from the moon would be a doddle.

When you watch a video like the one below, you realise putting a reflector on the moon is so stupidly pointless that even in 1969 its not the way you would have gone about it.

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">1,000,000,000,000 Frames/Second Photography - Ramesh Raskar
*Fast forward and watch from 6:33 to 8:07 to see how to take a photo around corners, but the whole video is interesting.

Moon reflectors were a silly story to satisfy the masses.

Welcome!

Just curious as I have never had this questioned answered.
Why has no one ever been to space and what exacly would happen to a spaceship when it reached it?

Thanks for the welcome.

The video was interesting.

You mention the moon reflecting light to Earth which obviously it does, yet on any moon landing pictures taken, we see the moon as a dark cement powdered floor with a sun spotlight , yet when we see it from Earth, it's lit up like a beacon, so therefore, why isn't it lit up like a beacon for the Astronauts?

I mean, if I looked into a distance and saw a ship all lit up like the moon, when I reach that ship, I'd expect to be stood in a very bright environment, so therefore if I see the full moon glowing bright, if I could get there I'd expect to see a very bright surface, yet no Apollo photo's show this.

If I was going to take pictures in such ship, I would be sure to adjust the diaphragm and the shutter of my camera if I didn't want to get overexposed photos. I would also probably wear sunglasses.

Quote from: iwanttobelieve on November 13, 2012, 09:57:11 AM

Welcome!

Just curious as I have never had this questioned answered.
Why has no one ever been to space and what exacly would happen to a spaceship when it reached it?

Thanks for the welcome.

In my opinion, no one has been into space because we do not have the technology (if ever) to get a rocket out of the atmosphere or to work in a vacuum.

Space , as we are told is nothing, devoid of anything or virtually and in truth I don't know what would happen to a space craft in space if it ever got into space because in reality, no one knows what space really is but let's go on what we are led to believe.

Space is a vacuum that full of meteors, micro meteors plus many other things, so I would imagine any craft would be peppered to death with micro meteors , like trying to put your hand in front of a shot blasting hose from a short distance.

It's just a theory mind.

Well, you are correct. Space is as close to a perfect vacuum as you can get. There are micrometeorites, but in proportion to the sheer seemingly endless size of space, they're very few and far between. Also, they're very small, so deflecting them isn't much of a problem. It's like deflecting a fast moving musket ball.

Rockets specifically work by carrying their own oxidizer (oxygen, as this is need to make fire) with them so that they can work in high altitude settings or in the vacuum of space. There are also other propulsion technologies that are far more efficient and allow us to not have to carry so much fuel on the craft. These can carry leightweight payloads a very, very long way, but are very low thrust so it takes a long time to accelerate and the can not be effectively used near the surface of earth.

Perhaps you should do a bit more research of physics and how it applies to the engineering of a launch vehicle (in all modern day cases, a vertically launched, multistage rocket) before saying you don't think the technology exists. Also, you can view these launches for yourself if you wish. Bring a telescope and you can actually watch the final stages of the launch minutes after liftoff and watch the craft maneuver into orbit.

why don't you go to a library and pick up some books?

what space is

The reality is, none of us know what space actually is. It's all theory, (best guessing)

So you mean a hypothesis?

Quote from: Flat Eric on November 14, 2012, 10:38:11 AM

why don't you go to a library and pick up some books?

What will these books tell me?

Pick up some physics books. Go take a physics course or two. It will become more clear. Also, with the knowledge of physics, you can test the knowledge for yourself.

Quote from: Flat Eric on November 14, 2012, 10:43:31 AM

what space is

But Eric.

The books on space are the very same books that are telling us what we should accept as fact.
The only thing scientists can tell us, is all to do with theories and those theories are all accumulated from ground based telescopes.

Scientific Theory is defined as a set of rules based off of gathered evidence from repeated experimentation and testing.

Thinkingman:

Scientific theory is exactly what it is, theory, (best guessing), it's nothing more than that.

As long as it stays as scientific theory, then we can all have out own theories on space, which could me a millions miles away from the truth, yet no less credible than what we are told that space is by scientists theories.

No. You're wrong. The common definition of theory is not the same as the definition of scientific theory. The word you're looking for is hypothesis, and hypothesis' are not usually published. Are you telling me that you don't believe cell theory? Or how about aerodynamics theory? Those are only theories. How about Fluid dynamics theory? Also a theory.

Take a conspiracy theory.
It's a conspiracy theory because there is no real evidence of a conspiracy.

A conspiracy theory is not a scientific theory.

Quote from: markjo on November 14, 2012, 12:55:37 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 14, 2012, 12:40:14 PM

Take a conspiracy theory.
It's a conspiracy theory because there is no real evidence of a conspiracy.

A conspiracy theory is not a scientific theory.

Same principle.

No, it's not the same principal. Scientific theory is always scientific theory, whether the theory is complete or not. It could only be 50% complete, or 100% complete, it's still a scientific theory. Conspiracy theory uses the common definition of theory, which is really more of a hunch. A "hunch" in science is called a hypothesis. You've got this all backwards. If you would go actually look at the evidence and make an attempt to understand it, you could see for yourself.

Quote from: markjo on November 14, 2012, 12:55:37 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 14, 2012, 12:40:14 PM

Take a conspiracy theory.
It's a conspiracy theory because there is no real evidence of a conspiracy.

A conspiracy theory is not a scientific theory.

Same principle.

Not at all.  A scientific theory has a much stricter burden of proof than a conspiracy theory.