So, flat Earthers...

124

Replies

  • caco_ethes
    caco_ethes Posts: 11,962 Member
    Ancient people knew the earth was round because of the way boats disappeared in the horizon, there are bridges built to adjust for the curvature of the earth, there are pictures and video of a round earth from non-government companies like spaceX, it's how gravity works.

    It's not wrong to be skeptical, but it's wrong to ignore proof to indulge fantasy.

    I don’t believe the earth is flat, I guess I didn’t say that. I just don’t mind hearing what they have to say. I enjoy it.
  • caco_ethes
    caco_ethes Posts: 11,962 Member
    caco_ethes wrote: »
    @caco_ethes I admire and applaud genuine curiosity. I think The person you heard wasn't wrong, but misspoke.

    When we sent Apollo 11 to the moon they weren't actually sure we could get back. It was very risky. I'd think they would want to be sure they could actually get our astronauts safely back now.

    Back then they would've needed way more advanced technology (and money) to recreate the moon landing on earth than to just go to the moon

    The fact that they weren’t actually sure they’d get back is what makes me wonder. Because tensions with the Soviet Union were sky high and JFK made a bold promise that we’d have boots on the moon by the end of the decade. Failure was not an option. They had to exert their dominance over Russia. It was a power play.

    So imagine how these astronauts feel when they have to tell the president ehhh this thing that you promised.. we aren’t confident it’s even possible at this point. What government mission doesn’t have a plan B? So just in case they can’t make it, they film it ahead of time. Given the political climate, losing this race was tantamount to nuclear war. I don’t think they’d bat an eye at a plan B.

    So they shoot them off into space where they encounter terrifying effects of radiation early on in their flight. They’re seeing what looks like sparks exploding when their eyes are shut and recognize immediately that they don’t have enough protection against radiation to pursue it. They come back down to low earth orbit. They stage a shot of the earth from a distance using paper over the window. Plan B it is.

    The astronauts dejectedly come back. This was worst case scenario. To keep up appearances they are whisked away to ‘decontamination’ where they are sworn to secrecy and are made to commit the story to memory.

    They emerge for the news conference, not looking at all like men who have just accomplished the most astonishing thing in the history of the world and made it back with life and limb intact. No, they look guilty and scared. They elbow each other when one answers incorrectly. They answer everything with ‘we’ even when asked directly for their specific viewpoint. Neil Armstrong goes on to be a recluse practically. In one interview he does give, he never gives a firsthand account and instead answers in a very dodgy way, like he’s trying his damnedest to tell the truth within the confines of the lie he’s expected to live out the rest of his life.

    I don’t know. That seems more realistic to me than our failing space program miraculously getting this thing right just when they needed to.

    Anyway, I find that a lot of people think it’s unamerican to even question it. That anyone who has doubts is a foaming-at-the-mouth conspiracy theorist. If that’s how I strike you, okay. I just know that it’s no skin off my back to check out something that goes against what I currently believe. I’ve checked out the flat earth argument too. It’s compelling. I find it interesting to speculate.. what if? What if my worldview has been wrong all along? Does that make me a kook or just curious and open-minded? If you never hear what people of opposing viewpoints have to say, you’ll never be able to really discuss anything in a meaningful and enjoyable way. I prefer to hear all sides. I think it’s silly that in this day and age a person should feel defensive of that.

    Speculation is fine, great even, but having an understanding beyond what you currently know about the subject is beneficial. Things may not always work the way we assume they do. And for things like the moon landing and the rotundity of the earth, there is way more evidence to support it than the conspiracy theories.

    Basically Occum's razor. Use what you know while making the least amount of assumptions.

    I like this video because it explains some film making technology of the time and it's quirky and not super serious



    Well, most of what I said wasn’t merely speculation. Previous attempts to get beyond low earth orbit failed because of inadequate radiation protection. It’s my understanding that the Saturn V couldn’t have a lead radiation shield due to the weight, so the radiation belt is the biggest reason I find it unbelievable.

    There is also footage of the astronauts in low earth orbit at a time that they would’ve had to have been over halfway to the moon. It shows them using paper over a window to fabricate the blue marble. I understand that could be fabricated just as easily as anything else but I don’t immediately dismiss it out of hand.

    For me Occam’s Razor applies in the other way. The evidence for the moon landing is not as believable as the evidence against it.

    I don’t think it serves any purpose to discuss it with people who won’t at least watch the actual footage with a critical eye though, so for me to even dive in like this on a public forum is extremely out of character.

    There will always be people who demonstrate their perceived intellectual superiority using mockery and derision. I don’t suffer such people well. I appreciate your approach, Dee.
  • caco_ethes
    caco_ethes Posts: 11,962 Member
    JetJaguar wrote: »
    It's true that we weren't sure that the Apollo 11 astronauts would be able to get back home - Nixon even had a speech prepared for such a contingency. The real reason we haven't been back to the Moon is a lack of political will. Congress lost interest and didn't even want to finish the Apollo program as planned. There were supposed to be 20 missions, the last three were cancelled and we stopped at Apollo 17. Also, NASA is tremendously risk-adverse now, far more than in the 60's. In today's political climate, an Apollo-type program is impossible.

    Also, we still have the plans for the Saturn V, it's a myth that they were destroyed. They are stored on microfilm in the NASA archives. The reason we can't just start cranking out new copies is that a lot of the components are obsolete and haven't been manufactured in 40+ years, by contractors that may have also been out of business for as long. Even seemingly simple things, like transistors, fasteners, connectors, metal alloys, and such. The amount of engineering rework that would be involved to modernize the Saturn V is about the same as designing an all-new system from scratch.

    (BTW, the Russians did land unmanned probes on the Moon. They beat us, in fact.)

    Oops, didn’t see this until now. The video I saw was a NASA employee. I guess I just took his word for it.

    I can definitely understand and appreciate the need for being risk-averse. It’s just that this particular interview and one other stated that getting to the moon isn’t possible. One guy said because the tech was destroyed (which you covered), the other guy said it was because they have not found a way to get humans through the van Allen radiation belts yet. He didn’t even try to explain away the moon landings.

    As far as the Russians landing unmanned probes on the moon, I wasn’t aware of that but I was talking about getting man on the moon specifically. The Russians never did, nor did anyone else. I can imagine that their successful probes heightened the urgency in America though.
  • caco_ethes
    caco_ethes Posts: 11,962 Member
    caco_ethes wrote: »
    Ancient people knew the earth was round because of the way boats disappeared in the horizon, there are bridges built to adjust for the curvature of the earth, there are pictures and video of a round earth from non-government companies like spaceX, it's how gravity works.

    It's not wrong to be skeptical, but it's wrong to ignore proof to indulge fantasy.

    I don’t believe the earth is flat, I guess I didn’t say that. I just don’t mind hearing what they have to say. I enjoy it.

    Oh I know that's I why I put that part in a different post lol. There are interesting YouTube videos that show how gravity would work on a flat earth (say a disc accelerating up at 9.8 m/s instead of a ball orbiting) and stuff.

    Yeti dynamics did a cool animation on it but I can't seem to locate it on their page anymore

    Oh believe me, I’ve seen them all!
  • caco_ethes
    caco_ethes Posts: 11,962 Member
    caco_ethes wrote: »
    JetJaguar wrote: »
    It's true that we weren't sure that the Apollo 11 astronauts would be able to get back home - Nixon even had a speech prepared for such a contingency. The real reason we haven't been back to the Moon is a lack of political will. Congress lost interest and didn't even want to finish the Apollo program as planned. There were supposed to be 20 missions, the last three were cancelled and we stopped at Apollo 17. Also, NASA is tremendously risk-adverse now, far more than in the 60's. In today's political climate, an Apollo-type program is impossible.

    Also, we still have the plans for the Saturn V, it's a myth that they were destroyed. They are stored on microfilm in the NASA archives. The reason we can't just start cranking out new copies is that a lot of the components are obsolete and haven't been manufactured in 40+ years, by contractors that may have also been out of business for as long. Even seemingly simple things, like transistors, fasteners, connectors, metal alloys, and such. The amount of engineering rework that would be involved to modernize the Saturn V is about the same as designing an all-new system from scratch.

    (BTW, the Russians did land unmanned probes on the Moon. They beat us, in fact.)

    Oops, didn’t see this until now. The video I saw was a NASA employee. I guess I just took his word for it.

    I can definitely understand and appreciate the need for being risk-averse. It’s just that this particular interview and one other stated that getting to the moon isn’t possible. One guy said because the tech was destroyed (which you covered), the other guy said it was because they have not found a way to get humans through the van Allen radiation belts yet. He didn’t even try to explain away the moon landings.

    As far as the Russians landing unmanned probes on the moon, I wasn’t aware of that but I was talking about getting man on the moon specifically. The Russians never did, nor did anyone else. I can imagine that their successful probes heightened the urgency in America though.

    See I don't think that's true. I do think NASA was a lot more willing to take the risk back then but I do believe they did enough research on high and low radiation spots in the belt, test speed they'd be traveling through it, the trajectory, and the materials of the craft to protect for that amount of time.

    I think sometimes people (not you) discount the work that goes into space travel. They think "but what about this!" as if the literal rocket scientist hadn't thought of that.

    Laughing at the literal rocket scientist. You’re probably right. It’s just.. why the hell is this guy from NASA telling me they can’t do it yet? :sweat_smile:
  • caco_ethes
    caco_ethes Posts: 11,962 Member
    caco_ethes wrote: »
    caco_ethes wrote: »
    JetJaguar wrote: »
    It's true that we weren't sure that the Apollo 11 astronauts would be able to get back home - Nixon even had a speech prepared for such a contingency. The real reason we haven't been back to the Moon is a lack of political will. Congress lost interest and didn't even want to finish the Apollo program as planned. There were supposed to be 20 missions, the last three were cancelled and we stopped at Apollo 17. Also, NASA is tremendously risk-adverse now, far more than in the 60's. In today's political climate, an Apollo-type program is impossible.

    Also, we still have the plans for the Saturn V, it's a myth that they were destroyed. They are stored on microfilm in the NASA archives. The reason we can't just start cranking out new copies is that a lot of the components are obsolete and haven't been manufactured in 40+ years, by contractors that may have also been out of business for as long. Even seemingly simple things, like transistors, fasteners, connectors, metal alloys, and such. The amount of engineering rework that would be involved to modernize the Saturn V is about the same as designing an all-new system from scratch.

    (BTW, the Russians did land unmanned probes on the Moon. They beat us, in fact.)

    Oops, didn’t see this until now. The video I saw was a NASA employee. I guess I just took his word for it.

    I can definitely understand and appreciate the need for being risk-averse. It’s just that this particular interview and one other stated that getting to the moon isn’t possible. One guy said because the tech was destroyed (which you covered), the other guy said it was because they have not found a way to get humans through the van Allen radiation belts yet. He didn’t even try to explain away the moon landings.

    As far as the Russians landing unmanned probes on the moon, I wasn’t aware of that but I was talking about getting man on the moon specifically. The Russians never did, nor did anyone else. I can imagine that their successful probes heightened the urgency in America though.

    See I don't think that's true. I do think NASA was a lot more willing to take the risk back then but I do believe they did enough research on high and low radiation spots in the belt, test speed they'd be traveling through it, the trajectory, and the materials of the craft to protect for that amount of time.

    I think sometimes people (not you) discount the work that goes into space travel. They think "but what about this!" as if the literal rocket scientist hadn't thought of that.

    Laughing at the literal rocket scientist. You’re probably right. It’s just.. why the hell is this guy from NASA telling me they can’t do it yet? :sweat_smile:

    Lol I don't know! I'm not sure what interview you're referring to but I'll have to find it. I remember some alien documentary interviewing an ex CIA agent with some interesting stories that made me raise an eyebrow. I want to believe SO HARD

    Here’s the video I watched. Around the three minute mark he talks bout the van Allen belts and how ‘we must solve these challenges before putting a human through this region of space’.

  • JetJaguar
    JetJaguar Posts: 801 Member
    edited May 2018
    The problem he is talking about solving is shielding the spacecraft systems. Electronics are very sensitive to EM radiation, we want to test them to make sure they won't malfunction before risking people. That's part of the process of man-rating the vehicle. The radiation exposure itself is roughly equivalent to a chest X-ray, not necessarily a deal-breaker.

    (FWIW, I'm an aerospace engineer.)
  • Vikka_V
    Vikka_V Posts: 9,562 Member
    Trying to follow along, but I just noticed this and it overjoyed me...'cause I have a weird thing for numbers

    o0x2x4edqiht.png

    2 of my favourite people have the same # of posts!!

    I'm gonna buy a lottery ticket or something!!
  • caco_ethes
    caco_ethes Posts: 11,962 Member
    Vikka_V wrote: »
    Trying to follow along, but I just noticed this and it overjoyed me...'cause I have a weird thing for numbers

    o0x2x4edqiht.png

    2 of my favourite people have the same # of posts!!

    I'm gonna buy a lottery ticket or something!!

    Is that a glitch? Wow, what a catch!

    This thread has doubled my woos :smirk:
  • caco_ethes
    caco_ethes Posts: 11,962 Member
    JetJaguar wrote: »
    The problem he is talking about solving is shielding the spacecraft systems. Electronics are very sensitive to EM radiation, we want to test them to make sure they won't malfunction before risking people. That's part of the process of man-rating the vehicle. The radiation exposure itself is roughly equivalent to a chest X-ray, not necessarily a deal-breaker.

    (FWIW, I'm an aerospace engineer.)

    That’s very cool, so what do you do as an aerospace engineer? I mean you specifically. What kinds of things are you working on? I’m not challenging you, I’m just interested. :smiley: