Were all 130 space shuttle launches faked?

Quote from: Rama Set on July 21, 2014, 10:53:59 AM

Fair enough, so Apollo would have been pointed slightly above a tangent to its orbit such that when its escape velocity took it away from orbit it was heading towards the moon more or less.  Like a spiral outwards.

Anything specific about Newton' Cannonball confusing you?

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 21, 2014, 10:46:15 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 21, 2014, 10:34:05 AM

I dont think geosynchronous satellites are put in orbit by shuttles, but rather on rocket boosters.  They likely achieve their orbit by an accurate launch trajectory corrected by onboard thrusters when they are in the neighborhood.

As to the difference in trajectory between a geosynch satellite and Apollo 11, Apollo 11 was pointed towards the moon, whereas the satellite would be pointed tangentially to its orbit, and it speed would be sufficient that as it is pulled towards the Earth it moves "forward" enough to "miss" the Earth.

Check out Newton's Cannonball for a clearer description of how bodies achieve orbit.

Apollo can't have been pointed towards the moon, as Gene Cernan said they orbited the Earth ABOUT one and a half times, then set off on a trajectory to the moon.
That implies a sling shot in a straight line. It makes no sense.

If you can't grasp what I'm saying, I'll explain a bit further.
I'm not convinced by the cannonball effort for geo sync orbit either at 23,000 miles into space.

After settling into Earth orbit, Apollo would have had to burn some fuel to change its trajectory and head toward the Moon. Once they accelerated enough to leave Earth orbit on a path toward the Moon, they turn the engine off again. As they move toward the Moon its gravitational pull takes over and they get captured into a nice lunar orbit, all without expending any additional fuel after leaving Earth orbit. Obviously there's a lot of math involved to work out the correct amount of fuel needed, when to burn etc, but I won't bore you with it. All you need to know is that it's possible to work all this out in advance and poses no problem to any aerospace engineer.

Apparently Newton predicted this as a thought experiment and it somehow worked forst time.
So when does the moon pull come into the equation for the Apollo craft? How far out?

Look; I'm not going to argue this.

Wise decision my friend, because you'd lose any argument you'd like to mount.  The truth of science can't be argued against simply with one's imagination and personal opinions.

All I'm going to say is, I have looked. A few friends have looked. All I've ever seen, truthfully is a point of light moving. I've seen no object that looks anything like man made.

Which sounds perfectly reasonable using only the naked eye.  At least by observing that moving point of light, you're acknowledging that there's "something" man-made up there.  What you need to confirm this is an ordinary $100 pair of (say) 12x50 binoculars.

If anyone has seen a man made object then it is a plane of some description. That's my take for obvious reasons.

Sorry, but your "take" is incorrect.  No ordinary plane flies continuously at an altitude of 330km.  What you're seeing is an orbiting satellite.

Space does not exist, so whatever anyone sees, is inside our atmosphere and it's as simple as that.

Unfortunately, there's nothing "simple" about space at all.  Astrophysics is an extremely complicated science, so it's difficult to express its theories in terms comprehensible to the lay person.  Your claim that space "does not" exist is not supported by any current astrophysical theories or astronomical observations.

"Space" is defined as the expanse in which the solar system, stars, and galaxies exist, or the region of this expanse beyond the earth's atmosphere—or more generally as "the universe".

Apparently Newton predicted this as a thought experiment and it somehow worked forst time.
So when does the moon pull come into the equation for the Apollo craft? How far out?

Scepti, see my edited post. It's pretty simple to work it out, you just have to use the gravitational equation to find the distance where the forces from the Earth and Moon are balanced.

You need to know the ratio of Earth's mass (I used 81.3) and the distance from Earth to the Moon (I used 238,000 mi). I worked it out to be about 214,169 mi.

EDIT: And I did it wrong because apparently you have to take centripetal force into account because the Moon is in orbit around the Earth. But it's in the ballpark - the correct value is around 200,000 mi. (The L1 point)

Quote from: FlatAllTheWay on July 21, 2014, 11:04:54 AM

I would like to bring this discussion back to the original topic.  jroa admitted earlier that shuttles actually did launch. If they didn't go into orbit around the earth for the week or two between launch and landing, where did they spend that time?

Why do you think that NASA would tell me where they went?  Do you think I work for NASA, or maybe they just like me?  The truth is that neither of us know where they went, and likely never will know for sure.

You are completely dodging the question. I know exactly where they went -- into orbit.  Since you are claiming the shuttles did not go into orbit, you should tell us where you think they went.  Obviously the reason you don't want to do that is that any response you give will sound idiotic, e.g. "The shuttle flew to a secret island and waited for 10 days, launched again, pretended to re-enter earth's orbit and then landed.  And NASA did this 130 times without getting caught.  And to this day, no one has seen the secret island." 

I know you might not be certain of what happened, but if we are to have any debate at all, you have to support your broad denials of accepted facts with something... anything!

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 21, 2014, 11:13:31 AM

Apparently Newton predicted this as a thought experiment and it somehow worked forst time.
So when does the moon pull come into the equation for the Apollo craft? How far out?

Scepti, see my edited post. It's pretty simple to work it out, you just have to use the gravitational equation to find the distance where the forces from the Earth and Moon are balanced.

You need to know the ratio of Earth's mass (I used 81.3) and the distance from Earth to the Moon (I used 238,000 mi). I worked it out to be about 214,169 mi.

It makes no logical sense, even going by their examples. If the Apollo craft took that trajectory it means it would have had to stop it's orbit at the speed it was going around the Earth. How would it achieve this stop and then carry on on a straight path to the moon, albeit with some adjustments as we are told?
The only possible way for it to happen, is a sling shot.
An example: If I was batting a swing ball around a pole, it will orbit that pole as long as I apply energy.
In your space, this is exactly what we are told is happening, except, being centripetal force and against a near vacuum, it's a case of the ball (craft/satellite) being belted around the pole then left to carry on, as it can't go into space because the string (gravity) is pulling it back as it's trying to take a straight path.
Cut the string and the craft slingshots into a straight trajectory.
That's fine for a swing ball but it would require some kind of sling shot release energy to allow a craft to do that in how they tell us space is and how rockets appear to work in it.

So how do they cut the imaginary gravity string to sling shot, straight to the moon because it would take some force to achieve that. Also if there is an answer...I'd also like to know how it can straight sling shot towards the moon when the moon would be moving around the globe, yet they have nullified their orbit around that globe if there is an answer for the sling shot movement.

It seriously makes no sense and stinks of fantasy, seriously. I'm all ears for a simplistic explanation.

Quote from: FlatAllTheWay on July 21, 2014, 11:04:54 AM

I would like to bring this discussion back to the original topic.  jroa admitted earlier that shuttles actually did launch. If they didn't go into orbit around the earth for the week or two between launch and landing, where did they spend that time?

Why do you think that NASA would tell me where they went?  Do you think I work for NASA, or maybe they just like me?  The truth is that neither of us know where they went, and likely never will know for sure.

The do tell us where they went. Or better said, where they are and where they will be. You can then go outside and see if they were telling the truth.

It makes no logical sense, even going by their examples. If the Apollo craft took that trajectory it means it would have had to stop it's orbit at the speed it was going around the Earth. How would it achieve this stop and then carry on on a straight path to the moon, albeit with some adjustments as we are told?

They didn't need to "stop the orbit", they accellerated, and by that they increased their apoaxis (the highest point of the orbit) so far that the trajectory was almost linear.
Have you never played Kerbal Space Program? Seriously, try it out. It's a nice game, not 100% physical accurate, but it does a great job at showing how gravity and orbital mechanics work. You can go to the moon in that game, it's not that hard.

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 21, 2014, 11:27:20 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 21, 2014, 11:13:31 AM

Apparently Newton predicted this as a thought experiment and it somehow worked forst time.
So when does the moon pull come into the equation for the Apollo craft? How far out?

Scepti, see my edited post. It's pretty simple to work it out, you just have to use the gravitational equation to find the distance where the forces from the Earth and Moon are balanced.

You need to know the ratio of Earth's mass (I used 81.3) and the distance from Earth to the Moon (I used 238,000 mi). I worked it out to be about 214,169 mi.

It makes no logical sense, even going by their examples. If the Apollo craft took that trajectory it means it would have had to stop it's orbit at the speed it was going around the Earth. How would it achieve this stop and then carry on on a straight path to the moon, albeit with some adjustments as we are told?
The only possible way for it to happen, is a sling shot.
An example: If I was batting a swing ball around a pole, it will orbit that pole as long as I apply energy.
In your space, this is exactly what we are told is happening, except, being centripetal force and against a near vacuum, it's a case of the ball (craft/satellite) being belted around the pole then left to carry on, as it can't go into space because the string (gravity) is pulling it back as it's trying to take a straight path.
Cut the string and the craft slingshots into a straight trajectory.
That's fine for a swing ball but it would require some kind of sling shot release energy to allow a craft to do that in how they tell us space is and how rockets appear to work in it.

So how do they cut the imaginary gravity string to sling shot, straight to the moon because it would take some force to achieve that. Also if there is an answer...I'd also like to know how it can straight sling shot towards the moon when the moon would be moving around the globe, yet they have nullified their orbit around that globe if there is an answer for the sling shot movement.

It seriously makes no sense and stinks of fantasy, seriously. I'm all ears for a simplistic explanation.

Gravity is not like a string, or even a rubber band. It's a force that is proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the distance between the masses. So if you are orbiting the Earth and you fire your engine to thrust you in the direction you are travelling (that is, tangential to the orbit) you get into a larger orbit. And the farther out you get from Earth, the less the pull from the Earth is. If you time it right, and head toward the Moon, the pull from the Moon gradually gets stronger as the pull from Earth gets weaker. Eventually the pull from the Moon on the spacecraft is stronger, and if you calculated correctly so that you're going in just the right direction at just the right velocity, you enter lunar orbit.

So there's never any "cutting of the string". I can't really think of a good analogy here to what's happening. It's not like a spring or rubber band, because the force on a spring gets bigger the more you stretch it. It's more like taffy, that you stretch out and it's hard at first, then it weakens. But then taffy doesn't really pull back either. Really the best thing to do is just use an actual example like the Newton's cannonball.

Gravity is not like a string, or even a rubber band. It's a force that is proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the distance between the masses.
 So if you are orbiting the Earth and you fire your engine to thrust you in the direction you are travelling (that is, tangential to the orbit) you get into a larger orbit. And the farther out you get from Earth, the less the pull from the Earth is. If you time it right, and head toward the Moon, the pull from the Moon gradually gets stronger as the pull from Earth gets weaker. Eventually the pull from the Moon on the spacecraft is stronger, and if you calculated correctly so that you're going in just the right direction at just the right velocity, you enter lunar orbit.

You see; this is where it gets all silly in their explanation for all this stuff.
First of all, we are told that a swingball is a good analogy for centripetal force in terms of showing us an orbit.
We could actually equate it to a hammer thrower at the olympics, the hammer being the craft and the chain being the gravitational force pulling on that ball, with the person being the Earth. The person let's go of the chain and the ball flies in a straight line out into the field.

So let's equate all that to the Apollo craft.
The craft enters space and it immediately orbiting the Earth at whatever speed. It's now in motion like the hammer thrower spinning his ball and chain.

Ok, now the Apollo craft has to sling shot towards the moon at the right time, so now it has to release itself from it's fast orbit around the Earth, just like the hammer thrower has to release the ball and chain.

The only way I can think of this happening, is for the craft to arrest it's orbit and channel that into a deflection of that velocity, or slingshot itself.
There is no possible way I can see how it could do this in a vacuum for starters.
The only possible way for it to happen in fantasy world would be for the craft to be held on by some invisible anchor that releases its shackle and channels that orbiting velocity into a straight velocity.

If I'm wrong, then explain in simple terms how I'm wrong. Try not to use magic and if possible, use an Earth analogy for what is happening, then equate it to what happens in space.
Convince me.

So there's never any "cutting of the string". I can't really think of a good analogy here to what's happening. It's not like a spring or rubber band, because the force on a spring gets bigger the more you stretch it. It's more like taffy, that you stretch out and it's hard at first, then it weakens. But then taffy doesn't really pull back either. Really the best thing to do is just use an actual example like the Newton's cannonball.

Newtons cannon ball makes no sense at all. If you can show me an Earthly movement that verifies this, I'll seriously look at it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 21, 2014, 11:50:44 AM

It makes no logical sense, even going by their examples. If the Apollo craft took that trajectory it means it would have had to stop it's orbit at the speed it was going around the Earth. How would it achieve this stop and then carry on on a straight path to the moon, albeit with some adjustments as we are told?

They didn't need to "stop the orbit", they accellerated, and by that they increased their apoaxis (the highest point of the orbit) so far that the trajectory was almost linear.
Have you never played Kerbal Space Program? Seriously, try it out. It's a nice game, not 100% physical accurate, but it does a great job at showing how gravity and orbital mechanics work. You can go to the moon in that game, it's not that hard.

No, I haven't played Kerbal space program. I have played grand theft auto and made myself indestructible so I can fall off buildings and crash helicopters and stuff, or be shot thousands of times and not die. Is this a re-eneactment of real life?

Try and explain to me what is happening by using the most simplistic explanation possible. Imagine I'm a very inquisitive 5 year old.

No, I haven't played Kerbal space program. I have played grand theft auto and made myself indestructible so I can fall off buildings and crash helicopters and stuff, or be shot thousands of times and not die. Is this a re-eneactment of real life?

Try and explain to me what is happening by using the most simplistic explanation possible. Imagine I'm a very inquisitive 5 year old.

This is your problem, you have the same mental capacity of a not so brilliant 5 year old kid.

Physical simulations are re-enactment of real life, or at least of the physics laws they are based upon. GTA is not a physical simulation; KSP is, albeit not entirely accurate due to lack of computation power. That game shows that the laws on which it is based, i.e. Newton's laws, are perfectly good to be able to go to the moon.

Take a magnet, and a little iron sphere. You can put the sphere in orbit if you give it the right speed at the right distance from the magnet. Then, if the sphere accellerates, its orbit will change and it will escape from the magnet.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 22, 2014, 03:18:50 AM

No, I haven't played Kerbal space program. I have played grand theft auto and made myself indestructible so I can fall off buildings and crash helicopters and stuff, or be shot thousands of times and not die. Is this a re-eneactment of real life?

Try and explain to me what is happening by using the most simplistic explanation possible. Imagine I'm a very inquisitive 5 year old.

This is your problem, you have the same mental capacity of a not so brilliant 5 year old kid.

Physical simulations are re-enactment of real life, or at least of the physics laws they are based upon. GTA is not a physical simulation; KSP is, albeit not entirely accurate due to lack of computation power. That game shows that the laws on which it is based, i.e. Newton's laws, are perfectly good to be able to go to the moon.

Take a magnet, and a little iron sphere. You can put the sphere in orbit if you give it the right speed at the right distance from the magnet. Then, if the sphere accellerates, its orbit will change and it will escape from the magnet.

You're not answering the questions.

Why would someone that is a self professed genius that is supposedly highly educated need things explained in the simplest terms possible?

Why would someone that is a self professed genius that is supposedly highly educated need things explained in the simplest terms possible?

Two reasons. It allows those looking in the forum, (the readers) who may want to figure things out, yet not understand the scientific bull crap jargon given out, so in that respect, it allows them to see explanations in simplistic terms which will greatly help them make up their minds on specific subjects.

Also, I like to deal in simple explanations, as in, why make something difficult with outlandish explanations when a simpler one will suffice. I do this because it brings the wannabe science indoctrinates down to laymen's terms...something they hate, because most wannabe's are only schooled in the copy and regurgitation of the baffle your mind with bullshit explanations and passing them off as simplistic at times, which is quite funny.

Two reasons. It allows those looking in the forum, (the readers) who may want to figure things out, yet not understand the scientific bull crap jargon given out, so in that respect, it allows them to see explanations in simplistic terms which will greatly help them make up their minds on specific subjects.

From what I can tell just about everyone here possesses far better knowledge than you.

So who are you doing this favor for?

Also, I like to deal in simple explanations, as in, why make something difficult with outlandish explanations when a simpler one will suffice. I do this because it brings the wannabe science indoctrinates down to laymen's terms...something they hate, because most wannabe's are only schooled in the copy and regurgitation of the baffle your mind with bullshit explanations and passing them off as simplistic at times, which is quite funny.

Alright.

Makes no sense whatsoever but that is pretty much par for the course with you.

First of all, we are told that a swingball is a good analogy for centripetal force in terms of showing us an orbit.
We could actually equate it to a hammer thrower at the olympics, the hammer being the craft and the chain being the gravitational force pulling on that ball, with the person being the Earth. The person let's go of the chain and the ball flies in a straight line out into the field.

The problem with analogies is that they tend to over simplify things.  In some general ways gravity is kinda, sorta like a string or a rubber band, but there are some important ways that gravity is not at all like a string or rubber band.  That means that a string, rubber band or hammer thrower won't be a perfect analogy, but it can give you a general idea of some of the things going on.

So let's equate all that to the Apollo craft.
The craft enters space and it immediately orbiting the Earth at whatever speed. It's now in motion like the hammer thrower spinning his ball and chain.

No, it's not just "whatever speed", specific orbits happen at specific speeds.  In this case, we can think of gravity as a rubber band.  The faster you swing the hammer, the farther it stretches and the longer it takes to go around (I know, it sounds weird, but try it some time and you'll see that's how it works).

Ok, now the Apollo craft has to sling shot towards the moon at the right time, so now it has to release itself from it's fast orbit around the Earth, just like the hammer thrower has to release the ball and chain.

Sorta, but not really. 

The only way I can think of this happening, is for the craft to arrest it's orbit and channel that into a deflection of that velocity, or slingshot itself.

Maybe you should try thinking of it as gaining enough speed to stretch the rubber band to a really long length.

There is no possible way I can see how it could do this in a vacuum for starters.

Well, that's probably because it involves rockets working in a vacuum, and that's a topic for another time.

The only possible way for it to happen in fantasy world would be for the craft to be held on by some invisible anchor that releases its shackle and channels that orbiting velocity into a straight velocity.

Or, if you suddenly let out a bunch of extra line at the right moment.

If I'm wrong, then explain in simple terms how I'm wrong. Try not to use magic and if possible, use an Earth analogy for what is happening, then equate it to what happens in space

Well, I tried.  Like I said, the analogy isn't perfect, but I hope that it helped.

Convince me.

Sorry, but I have no illusions of that ever happening.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 22, 2014, 03:15:21 AM

First of all, we are told that a swingball is a good analogy for centripetal force in terms of showing us an orbit.
We could actually equate it to a hammer thrower at the olympics, the hammer being the craft and the chain being the gravitational force pulling on that ball, with the person being the Earth. The person let's go of the chain and the ball flies in a straight line out into the field.

The problem with analogies is that they tend to over simplify things.  In some general ways gravity is kinda, sorta like a string or a rubber band, but there are some important ways that gravity is not at all like a string or rubber band.  That means that a string, rubber band or hammer thrower won't be a perfect analogy, but it can give you a general idea of some of the things going on.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 22, 2014, 03:15:21 AM

So let's equate all that to the Apollo craft.
The craft enters space and it immediately orbiting the Earth at whatever speed. It's now in motion like the hammer thrower spinning his ball and chain.

No, it's not just "whatever speed", specific orbits happen at specific speeds.  In this case, we can think of gravity as a rubber band.  The faster you swing the hammer, the farther it stretches and the longer it takes to go around (I know, it sounds weird, but try it some time and you'll see that's how it works).

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 22, 2014, 03:15:21 AM

Ok, now the Apollo craft has to sling shot towards the moon at the right time, so now it has to release itself from it's fast orbit around the Earth, just like the hammer thrower has to release the ball and chain.

Sorta, but not really. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 22, 2014, 03:15:21 AM

The only way I can think of this happening, is for the craft to arrest it's orbit and channel that into a deflection of that velocity, or slingshot itself.

Maybe you should try thinking of it as gaining enough speed to stretch the rubber band to a really long length.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 22, 2014, 03:15:21 AM

There is no possible way I can see how it could do this in a vacuum for starters.

Well, that's probably because it involves rockets working in a vacuum, and that's a topic for another time.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 22, 2014, 03:15:21 AM

The only possible way for it to happen in fantasy world would be for the craft to be held on by some invisible anchor that releases its shackle and channels that orbiting velocity into a straight velocity.

Or, if you suddenly let out a bunch of extra line at the right moment.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 22, 2014, 03:15:21 AM

If I'm wrong, then explain in simple terms how I'm wrong. Try not to use magic and if possible, use an Earth analogy for what is happening, then equate it to what happens in space

Well, I tried.  Like I said, the analogy isn't perfect, but I hope that it helped.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 22, 2014, 03:15:21 AM

Convince me.

Sorry, but I have no illusions of that ever happening.

Ok, Markjo, let's go with your stretch out of the string or rubber band analogy.

So teh Apollo craft has to orbit Earth at a certain speed. To stretch that gravity string, it has to up that speed around the Earth. To further stretch it, it has to keep upping that speed.
Are you telling me that it orbits the Earth faster and faster until it reaches the moon? I don;t think you are...but this is how it's coming across.
If it's not that, then can you tell me how it releases it's hold on that string to fly to the moon. That's my point.

"Are you telling me that it orbits the Earth faster and faster until it reaches the moon?"

In a sense, yes. But what happens is, as soon as the ship turns on the rocket motors it increases its altitude until it can make it to the moon's influence.

The problem of these analogies is that the force in a rubber band increases with distance, while with gravity is exactly the opposite; if you could imagine a rubber band like that it's easier, since you don't have to tear it, but just to stretch it enough so that the pull back force is negligible.
Then it's easier: tie a remote controlled plane to a pole with this special rubber band, so that the plane points at a 90 degree angle from the rubber band; you can't steer the plane, just accelerate or brake. You take off with it and it swings around a bit until you got it on a stable rotation (let's say the altitude is fixed for simplicity). Now if you give it a little boost, it will stretch the rubber band more and it goes to a farther "orbit". If you give it enough boost it will overcome the force of the rubber band and go straight (remember that it's a special rubber band, the force decreases with distance).

You're not answering the questions.

Take a magnet, and a little iron sphere. You can put the sphere in orbit if you give it the right speed at the right distance from the magnet. Then, if the sphere accellerates, its orbit will change and it will escape from the magnet.

Care to explain what is wrong with this?

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 21, 2014, 01:45:32 PM

Gravity is not like a string, or even a rubber band. It's a force that is proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the distance between the masses.
 So if you are orbiting the Earth and you fire your engine to thrust you in the direction you are travelling (that is, tangential to the orbit) you get into a larger orbit. And the farther out you get from Earth, the less the pull from the Earth is. If you time it right, and head toward the Moon, the pull from the Moon gradually gets stronger as the pull from Earth gets weaker. Eventually the pull from the Moon on the spacecraft is stronger, and if you calculated correctly so that you're going in just the right direction at just the right velocity, you enter lunar orbit.

You see; this is where it gets all silly in their explanation for all this stuff.
First of all, we are told that a swingball is a good analogy for centripetal force in terms of showing us an orbit.
We could actually equate it to a hammer thrower at the olympics, the hammer being the craft and the chain being the gravitational force pulling on that ball, with the person being the Earth. The person let's go of the chain and the ball flies in a straight line out into the field.

So let's equate all that to the Apollo craft.
The craft enters space and it immediately orbiting the Earth at whatever speed. It's now in motion like the hammer thrower spinning his ball and chain.

Ok, now the Apollo craft has to sling shot towards the moon at the right time, so now it has to release itself from it's fast orbit around the Earth, just like the hammer thrower has to release the ball and chain.

The only way I can think of this happening, is for the craft to arrest it's orbit and channel that into a deflection of that velocity, or slingshot itself.
There is no possible way I can see how it could do this in a vacuum for starters.
The only possible way for it to happen in fantasy world would be for the craft to be held on by some invisible anchor that releases its shackle and channels that orbiting velocity into a straight velocity.

If I'm wrong, then explain in simple terms how I'm wrong. Try not to use magic and if possible, use an Earth analogy for what is happening, then equate it to what happens in space.
Convince me.

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 21, 2014, 01:45:32 PM

So there's never any "cutting of the string". I can't really think of a good analogy here to what's happening. It's not like a spring or rubber band, because the force on a spring gets bigger the more you stretch it. It's more like taffy, that you stretch out and it's hard at first, then it weakens. But then taffy doesn't really pull back either. Really the best thing to do is just use an actual example like the Newton's cannonball.

Newtons cannon ball makes no sense at all. If you can show me an Earthly movement that verifies this, I'll seriously look at it.

Scepti, I think you are confusing Apollo orbiting the Earth, as in the verb, with a stable orbit. 

it's a hypothetical thought process he supposedly had and yet when tried, it worked. How in the hell did they figure that out?

Step 1. Be intelligent and mathematically well educated
Step 2. Observe some phenomenon
Step 3. Develop a mathematical model for said phenomenon.
Step 4. Test mathematical model
Step 5. Assuming step 1 is true, success.
Are you honestly questioning the notion of prediction? When I throw a ball, does your brain not calculate its trajectory and move your hand to catch it. That's prediction. Sure, its an instinctive part of everyday life and as such requires no particular education, but its prediction nonetheless.
Most of the time replies to your comments are intelligent and reasonably easy to understand, and you respond with something along the lines of "bla bla bla I don't understand". Have you been to a university? Have you studied any kind of science? What are you academic qualifications that are necessary to support your assertions? Please answer these questions, they are not rhetorical.
On the subject of missions to the moon there was a very clear diagram posted earlier in this thread that plainly showed the necessary flight path. What exactly remains unclear to you?
Further, a basic understanding of angular momentum and angular velocity is necessary for this discussion, so I suggest you read up on that topic.

The problem of these analogies is that the force in a rubber band increases with distance, while with gravity is exactly the opposite; if you could imagine a rubber band like that it's easier, since you don't have to tear it, but just to stretch it enough so that the pull back force is negligible.
Then it's easier: tie a remote controlled plane to a pole with this special rubber band, so that the plane points at a 90 degree angle from the rubber band; you can't steer the plane, just accelerate or brake. You take off with it and it swings around a bit until you got it on a stable rotation (let's say the altitude is fixed for simplicity). Now if you give it a little boost, it will stretch the rubber band more and it goes to a farther "orbit". If you give it enough boost it will overcome the force of the rubber band and go straight (remember that it's a special rubber band, the force decreases with distance).

Ok, well we know that the Apollo craft must keep stretching that rubber band as it orbits Earth up to at the very least, 23,000 miles because as we are told...geo sync satellites orbit at that distance, so we know the pull of the moon has no effect.
So teh Apollo craft would have to orbit the Earth a lot to actually stretch that special rubber band.
The problem though, is...Gene Cernan of Apollo 17 said that they orbitted the Earth about one and a half times.
There's something wrong here, isn't there? Or am I missing something about this special gravity band?

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 22, 2014, 03:15:21 AM

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 21, 2014, 01:45:32 PM

Gravity is not like a string, or even a rubber band. It's a force that is proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the distance between the masses.
 So if you are orbiting the Earth and you fire your engine to thrust you in the direction you are travelling (that is, tangential to the orbit) you get into a larger orbit. And the farther out you get from Earth, the less the pull from the Earth is. If you time it right, and head toward the Moon, the pull from the Moon gradually gets stronger as the pull from Earth gets weaker. Eventually the pull from the Moon on the spacecraft is stronger, and if you calculated correctly so that you're going in just the right direction at just the right velocity, you enter lunar orbit.

You see; this is where it gets all silly in their explanation for all this stuff.
First of all, we are told that a swingball is a good analogy for centripetal force in terms of showing us an orbit.
We could actually equate it to a hammer thrower at the olympics, the hammer being the craft and the chain being the gravitational force pulling on that ball, with the person being the Earth. The person let's go of the chain and the ball flies in a straight line out into the field.

So let's equate all that to the Apollo craft.
The craft enters space and it immediately orbiting the Earth at whatever speed. It's now in motion like the hammer thrower spinning his ball and chain.

Ok, now the Apollo craft has to sling shot towards the moon at the right time, so now it has to release itself from it's fast orbit around the Earth, just like the hammer thrower has to release the ball and chain.

The only way I can think of this happening, is for the craft to arrest it's orbit and channel that into a deflection of that velocity, or slingshot itself.
There is no possible way I can see how it could do this in a vacuum for starters.
The only possible way for it to happen in fantasy world would be for the craft to be held on by some invisible anchor that releases its shackle and channels that orbiting velocity into a straight velocity.

If I'm wrong, then explain in simple terms how I'm wrong. Try not to use magic and if possible, use an Earth analogy for what is happening, then equate it to what happens in space.
Convince me.

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 21, 2014, 01:45:32 PM

So there's never any "cutting of the string". I can't really think of a good analogy here to what's happening. It's not like a spring or rubber band, because the force on a spring gets bigger the more you stretch it. It's more like taffy, that you stretch out and it's hard at first, then it weakens. But then taffy doesn't really pull back either. Really the best thing to do is just use an actual example like the Newton's cannonball.

Newtons cannon ball makes no sense at all. If you can show me an Earthly movement that verifies this, I'll seriously look at it.

Scepti, I think you are confusing Apollo orbiting the Earth, as in the verb, with a stable orbit.

Well, I'm open to being enlightened about all this magical stuff.

You don't sound very open, you sound sarcastic and derisive. 

The craft set off at a tangent to earth until it reached a stable orbit, it then increased its velocity such that it moved further away from the earth and became caught in the moons gravity well. They were able to increase their velocity sufficiently quickly that a large number of earth orbits were not required. This is a simple concept.

You don't sound very open, you sound sarcastic and derisive.

Take it how you will. All of you appear that way to me, so I suppose we will have to just go with the flow.
If you have some simplistic explanations for what I've been discussing, I'm all ears.

The craft set off at a tangent to earth until it reached a stable orbit, it then increased its velocity such that it moved further away from the earth and became caught in the moons gravity well. They were able to increase their velocity sufficiently quickly that a large number of earth orbits were not required. This is a simple concept.

To increase it sufficiently quickly would require a sufficient amount of fuel to achieve. Where was this stored just for this alone?

Quote from: Rama Set on July 22, 2014, 08:56:50 AM

You don't sound very open, you sound sarcastic and derisive.

Take it how you will. All of you appear that way to me, so I suppose we will have to just go with the flow.
If you have some simplistic explanations for what I've been discussing, I'm all ears.

If that would actually achieve anything I might.  But simplifying does nothing for the concept, which you reject on its face.  You believe in an ice dome.  You are 100% convinced you are right, because it releases endorphins when you think of it, so what could I possibly say to you to convince you otherwise.  You are better off actually thinking for yourself and figuring out how this theory works.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 22, 2014, 09:22:35 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 22, 2014, 08:56:50 AM

You don't sound very open, you sound sarcastic and derisive.

Take it how you will. All of you appear that way to me, so I suppose we will have to just go with the flow.
If you have some simplistic explanations for what I've been discussing, I'm all ears.

If that would actually achieve anything I might.  But simplifying does nothing for the concept, which you reject on its face.  You believe in an ice dome.  You are 100% convinced you are right, because it releases endorphins when you think of it, so what could I possibly say to you to convince you otherwise.  You are better off actually thinking for yourself and figuring out how this theory works.

Look; let's not get into a confuffle about all this. We are all on this forum to discuss thoughts. You're right in your mind and I am in mine. Nobody gives an inch in most cases.
If I believe I'm right, or on the right lines, I'm going to stick to it and so are you.

None of us are world scientists that know everything, so we all have to speculate and give out thoughts, either by studying the workings of what we believe are a true refection of it, or we study our own thoughts and build up a scenario.
None of us can directly, physically grab anyone by the scruff of the neck and show them proof of what we are saying, so it's down to dick measuring in most cases.

That being said, My issue isn't with you or anyone else. My issue is with those that put all this stuff out as being the truth. I'm questioning it whilst you go along with it...or most of it. That's your prerogative as it is mine.