Nasa administrator announces plans to ‘go to the moon and stay’

originally posted by: turbonium1

You assume this light is a spacecraft orbiting the Earth.

NASA said the ISS would fly above you at a certain time, which matched up to an object you saw above Earth, so you assume what you saw that night, was the ISS, moving above you, in Earth 'orbit'...


You don't see anything more than a light, in the dark skies of nighttime, in the distance, above you......

That light that is the space station or other satellite can be seen at the same moment as it passes by many people in different locations hundreds of miles from each other, and all points in between.

The view of the ISS would be slightly different from each different location. It would look higher or lower above the horizon and its trajectory would look slightly different depending upon the location from which it is being viewed. Using observation data from multiple viewpoints, the altitude can be calculated.

If the ISS was not really an object orbiting at 240 miles up, that would quickly be discovered by people observing it from multiple locations. Websites such as heavensabove.com would not be giving the correct information if the ISS wasn't really at 240 miles up.

But when the math is done, it turns out that the bright dot can only be at the altitude of the ISS, and not lower.

originally posted by: wildespace

www.youtube.com...

Not just a light.

Sometimes, it's a holographic-ish projection!

At least the light couldn't be discerned, as nonsense.

They forgot the ISS was supposed to be speeding around Earth at over 17,000 mph, which makes it even funnier to look at.

Oh well.

originally posted by: wildespace
Why do objects fall? Why do they fall towards earth? You said mass is involved here.

BTW, Einsteinian gravity has nothing to do with pulling, it's simply the geometry of spacetime.

Yes, objects have mass and density, air has virtually none, so objects fall through air. The objects do not get pulled down to the Earth's surface, from a force within Earth. An object in air falls on top of a house, it has nothing to do with the Earth's surface, at all. When something falls through air, something with greater density stops the fall, wherever it is, whatever it is. If you only saw objects fall on houses, or buildings, would you think the objects were pulled down to houses and buildings by a force, within the structures? It's the same argument for the Earth's surface, which is equally ridiculous.

Think of our entire environment as a closed, controlled entity (which it is)...

When you start with a belief in Earth as a ball, speeding through space, then of course, you must account for everything else inherently involved within that argument, otherwise, the whole argument does not hold up (which it doesn't)...

I once believed the Earth was a ball, speeding through space, as well. I never considered it was wrong, and never looked into it, for most of my life.

After I looked into the whole issue, it was obvious that something didn't make sense here. Earth was supposed to be a ball, which was the foundation of all other lies they came up with afterwards. By far, most of it is illusions, 'experts' who make it seem legit, and a mass media brainwashing us, and all our schools, too.

I'm glad that you ask good questions, and give your points on it, too, which is all good.


I hope you have an open mind, and ask questions on everything 'science' claims as true....


Gravity is the KING of absolute garbage claims. It magically fixes all problems.

Gravity a non-existent, non-proven force, to begin with. It is utter invention, used to support other inventions.

originally posted by: Box of Rain

originally posted by: turbonium1

You assume this light is a spacecraft orbiting the Earth.

NASA said the ISS would fly above you at a certain time, which matched up to an object you saw above Earth, so you assume what you saw that night, was the ISS, moving above you, in Earth 'orbit'...


You don't see anything more than a light, in the dark skies of nighttime, in the distance, above you......

That light that is the space station or other satellite can be seen at the same moment as it passes by many people in different locations hundreds of miles from each other, and all points in between.

The view of the ISS would be slightly different from each different location. It would look higher or lower above the horizon and its trajectory would look slightly different depending upon the location from which it is being viewed. Using observation data from multiple viewpoints, the altitude can be calculated.

If the ISS was not really an object orbiting at 240 miles up, that would quickly be discovered by people observing it from multiple locations. Websites such as heavensabove.com would not be giving the correct information if the ISS wasn't really at 240 miles up.

But when the math is done, it turns out that the bright dot can only be at the altitude of the ISS, and not lower.

Altitude can't be measured that way. Look at all the stars in the sky. How do you calculate one star is a million light years above Earth, and another star is 1.5 million light years away, using the same method? It is impossible to measure them, obviously.

But there is a way to tell how stars are NOWHERE CLOSE to being a million light years away from Earth - by simply zooming in on stars, you see them in further detail, which would be impossible if stars were light years away from Earth.

If you zoomed in on an object so incredibly far away, you'd never see details of any kind. It would just be a bigger light in the distance, from that point.

Don't believe what I, or anyone else, claims - find out for yourself what is true, and what is false.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Box of Rain

originally posted by: turbonium1

You assume this light is a spacecraft orbiting the Earth.

NASA said the ISS would fly above you at a certain time, which matched up to an object you saw above Earth, so you assume what you saw that night, was the ISS, moving above you, in Earth 'orbit'...


You don't see anything more than a light, in the dark skies of nighttime, in the distance, above you......

That light that is the space station or other satellite can be seen at the same moment as it passes by many people in different locations hundreds of miles from each other, and all points in between.

The view of the ISS would be slightly different from each different location. It would look higher or lower above the horizon and its trajectory would look slightly different depending upon the location from which it is being viewed. Using observation data from multiple viewpoints, the altitude can be calculated.

If the ISS was not really an object orbiting at 240 miles up, that would quickly be discovered by people observing it from multiple locations. Websites such as heavensabove.com would not be giving the correct information if the ISS wasn't really at 240 miles up.

But when the math is done, it turns out that the bright dot can only be at the altitude of the ISS, and not lower.

Altitude can't be measured that way. Look at all the stars in the sky. How do you calculate one star is a million light years above Earth, and another star is 1.5 million light years away, using the same method? It is impossible to measure them, obviously.

Yes it can:

lco.global...

But there is a way to tell how stars are NOWHERE CLOSE to being a million light years away from Earth - by simply zooming in on stars, you see them in further detail, which would be impossible if stars were light years away from Earth.

Nope, doesn't happen like that.

If you zoomed in on an object so incredibly far away, you'd never see details of any kind. It would just be a bigger light in the distance, from that point.

And we don't, though if you want to explain why we can't see more detail by zooming in when they are apparently so close, go ahead.

Don't believe what I, or anyone else, claims - find out for yourself what is true, and what is false.

Good advice. I recommend no-one believes what you say, you are not a reliable source. I have examined the facts in great detail for many years and the facts completely disagree with you in every respect. What you believe is false. What you really mean by grandiose statements like this, and this one:

I hope you have an open mind, and ask questions on everything 'science' claims as true....

Is "accept my point of view, all others are wrong". You don't want people to ask questions, you want them to accept your answers. You demand answers from people and reject them out of hand when you get them because you have appointed yourself the sole judge of what is acceptable and true. You claim to be asking questions but you don't actually want the answer. You claim to want people to investigate for themselves but you only want them to draw one conclusion: your erroneous one. Hypocrisy.

Now, once again - any time you want to provide actual evidence for your theories and that prove your false refutation of observed reality and facts, feel free to do so. Still waiting despite many requests for it.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: wildespace

www.youtube.com...

Not just a light.

originally posted by: wildespace
Why do objects fall? Why do they fall towards earth? You said mass is involved here.

BTW, Einsteinian gravity has nothing to do with pulling, it's simply the geometry of spacetime.

Yes, objects have mass and density, air has virtually none, so objects fall through air. The objects do not get pulled down to the Earth's surface, from a force within Earth. An object in air falls on top of a house, it has nothing to do with the Earth's surface, at all. When something falls through air, something with greater density stops the fall, wherever it is, whatever it is. If you only saw objects fall on houses, or buildings, would you think the objects were pulled down to houses and buildings by a force, within the structures? It's the same argument for the Earth's surface, which is equally ridiculous.

You still haven't answered why objects fall, and why they always fall towards the ground and not up or sideways.

How do you calculate one star is a million light years above Earth, and another star is 1.5 million light years away, using the same method? It is impossible to measure them, obviously.

They use a different method, called parallax (not for such great distances as 1 mly though). As the Earth orbits the Sun, we get a slightly different angle of view on the stars. It's very small, but can still be measured, and is one of the things that disprove a flat earth.

by simply zooming in on stars, you see them in further detail

What? No you don't. They still appear as points of light in even large telescopes, and it takes some advanced adaptive optics and interferometry to get any detail out of them (and only for very large stars). Hence, the stars are really that far away.

a reply to: 727Sky

My memory may be somewhat hazy but I recall hearing that we
can't go back to the moon. The aliens occupying it told us not
to come back.I heard this somewhere during my UFO studies,many
years ago.

Interesting video about going back to the moon and possible colonization, water, and even talks about the radiation dangers. youtu.be...

a reply to: turbonium1

Altitude can't be measured that way. Look at all the stars in the sky. How do you calculate one star is a million light years above Earth, and another star is 1.5 million light years away, using the same method? It is impossible to measure them, obviously.

Once again you say that something is impossible because you just don't understand stuff.

It's called parallax:

Wiki: Parallax

a reply to: turbonium1

But there is a way to tell how stars are NOWHERE CLOSE to being a million light years away from Earth - by simply zooming in on stars, you see them in further detail, which would be impossible if stars were light years away from Earth.

What sort of "detail"?

originally posted by: mamabeth
a reply to: 727Sky

My memory may be somewhat hazy but I recall hearing that we
can't go back to the moon. The aliens occupying it told us not
to come back.I heard this somewhere during my UFO studies,many
years ago.

It's possible that the information you heard was incorrect.

Just because someone said "Aliens told us not to come back" doesn't necessarily mean that aliens actually told us not to come back.

a reply to: 727Sky

Some potential and important resources that could be mined on the Moon.

" Unlike Earth, which is protected by its magnetic field, the Moon has been bombarded with large quantities of Helium-3 by the solar wind. It is thought that this isotope could provide safer nuclear energy in a fusion reactor, since it is not radioactive and would not produce dangerous waste products."
www.esa.int...

"The recent discovery of hydrogen-bearing molecules, possibly including water, on the moon has explorers excited because these deposits could be mined if they are sufficiently abundant, sparing the considerable expense of bringing water from Earth. Lunar water could be used for drinking or its components – hydrogen and oxygen – could be used to manufacture important products on the surface that future visitors to the moon will need, like rocket fuel and breathable air."
www.nasa.gov...

"Researchers have confirmed the presence of the frozen water on the ground around the lunar north and south poles, a new study reports. That's good news for anyone eager to see humanity return to the moon for more than just a flag-planting mission. "
www.space.com...

I hope they can do it in 2020 but doubt it, a lot of money will have to be appropriated by congress, and the Dems in the House would likely block that to keep Trump from having a monumental achievement. I hope I'm wrong about that.

Great thread, thanks for posting it up.

originally posted by: turbonium1


Yes, objects have mass and density, air has virtually none, so objects fall through air. The objects do not get pulled down to the Earth's surface, from a force within Earth. An object in air falls on top of a house, it has nothing to do with the Earth's surface, at all.

Funny coincidence that things falling through air all just happen to fall in the direction towards earth, even things that were originally "falling" up or sideways through the air after being thrown.

It seems to me using your logic that an object falling sideways or falling up should just keep on falling in those directions -- but they don't.

As usual, your logic makes no sense whatsoever that I'm sure you do not seriously believe the stuff you say, and it is all just a joke to you.

a reply to: oldcarpy

It's called parallax:

The use of parallax to determine distance depends on the use of trigonometry.

Like gravity, there is no such thing as trigonometry.

Saw a good show on Netflix last night, Behind the Curve, great title.. Flat Earthers prove that the Earth does not rotate. Oh, wait.

FECORE spent $20,000 on a gyroscope, that they hoped would prove the Earth to be flat. However, the results they got did not line up with their expectations. They therefore tried to crush this news.

flatearthlunacy.com...

originally posted by: mamabeth
a reply to: 727Sky

My memory may be somewhat hazy but I recall hearing that we
can't go back to the moon. The aliens occupying it told us not
to come back.I heard this somewhere during my UFO studies,many
years ago.

That was before we developed our high-powered particle beam weapons. Now those little spuds couldn't stop us if they tried!

a reply to: Phage

LOL. Reminds me of one of the early unmanned Soyuz test-flights in the '60s. It was the first Soviet spacecraft that had a launch escape system (LES). If the guidance system detected that the rocket was more than 10° from vertical while on the pad, it must be toppling over, and the rockets in the nose would fire and yank the Soyuz crew capsule to safety.

During the test, there was a last minute hold in the countdown. The engineers were looking at the problem when, 40 minute later the LES fired and carried away the spacecraft.

Subsequent investigation revealed that at the point where the countdown was halted, the inertial guidance unit was fully operational. After the Earth had rotated 10° with the vehicle still on the pad, the guidance system decided that the rocket was very slowly falling over, and therefore it had to "rescue" the "crew".

a reply to: Saint Exupery
Source, please?

Wasn't aware that objects standing on earth experience this kind of inertia. To all intents and purposes, a stationary object on earth is stationary.

originally posted by: Phage
Saw a good show on Netflix last night, Behind the Curve, great title.. Flat Earthers prove that the Earth does not rotate. Oh, wait.

FECORE spent $20,000 on a gyroscope, that they hoped would prove the Earth to be flat. However, the results they got did not line up with their expectations. They therefore tried to crush this news.

flatearthlunacy.com...

The denial is strong when flat earthers refuse to believe their own data collected by an instrument they paid $20,000 for, and continue to be wrong.

Unfortunately the video by Bob the science guy at your link is also wrong, so Bob the science guy needs to work on his science too.

Flat Earth Can't Science 29- The Ring Laser Gyroscope


6:50
"A large potential difference is maintained between the cathode and both anodes, which causes the photons to be powerfully attracted toward the anodes."

I'm sure that's wrong. Bob the science guy excerpted that from another video, but you don't have to know much science to know that photons are not charged particles, so he should have known better if he calls himself Bob the science guy. The cathode and anodes are there to apply a field to the gas inside the cavity, not to attract photons.

originally posted by: Saint Exupery
During the test, there was a last minute hold in the countdown. The engineers were looking at the problem when, 40 minute later the LES fired and carried away the spacecraft.

That was a big surprise, though I suppose it was predictable so maybe it shouldn't have been such a surprise?

a reply to: wildespace

a stationary object on earth is stationary.

Sort of, but an inertial guidance system is not stationary, before 1990 the heart was a spinning wheel like in this demonstration video. The wheel keeps spinning in the same orientation, so an hour later if the wheel is still spinning, it will be in the same orientation because of the conservation of angular momentum, but the earth will have rotated 15 degrees. So it will look to you like the wheel has rotated 15 degrees but actually it hasn't, it was the earth which did that.

Inertial Guidance System by ProfWaterLewin


Since the 1990s the laser gyros with no moving parts rely on the invariance of the speed of light so the stationary object in that case is stationary, but the light beams are not stationary and they can have different frequencies from the Sagnac effect which can be measured, if rotation is occurring. That's the type the flat Earthers used when their experiment backfired to show the earth is really rotating.

originally posted by: Phage


Saw a good show on Netflix last night, Behind the Curve, great title.. Flat Earthers prove that the Earth does not rotate. Oh, wait.

FECORE spent $20,000 on a gyroscope, that they hoped would prove the Earth to be flat. However, the results they got did not line up with their expectations. They therefore tried to crush this news.

flatearthlunacy.com...

It's an excellent film - the knowledge deniers come across as isolated losers desperate for friends, attention seekers, deceptive, and in at least two cases in urgent need of medication.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: oldcarpy



The use of parallax to determine distance depends on the use of trigonometry.

Like gravity, there is no such thing as trigonometry.

Yes of course. I was forgetting that.

originally posted by: wildespace
a reply to: Saint Exupery
Source, please?

Wasn't aware that objects standing on earth experience this kind of inertia. To all intents and purposes, a stationary object on earth is stationary.

Consider the Foucault pendulum.

I know the pendulum bob is not exactly stationary, but neither is the spinning part of the gyro.