This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
TBIman · 41-45, M
You are a retard. Everyone on Earth knows that the surface of water is always flat.
Justiceforall · M
@TBIman evidently not everyone, I posted a link to prove my point and what is it you done. Right called me a retard very mature of you
TBIman · 41-45, M
@Justiceforall Okay, I'm sorry for calling you a retard. But come on, you know as well as everyone else on Earth that it is totally impossible for liquid to bend, and curve, AND stick to spinning objects in space. You could change my mind though. All you've got to do is demonstrate this new found property of water clinging to the surface of a spinning ball.
Justiceforall · M
@TBIman well will that ball have gravity because the spinning ball we live on does, did you look at that link I posted, and there were more than just one site saying that. There were also a few that could tell you how to use a experiment to show that what they say is true, other than that I can't make gravity for a ball to show that water bends and sticks but if I remember it has something to do with the surface tension
Justiceforall · M
The Cavendish experiment
The Cavendish experiment, performed in 1797–1798 by English scientist Henry Cavendish, was the first experiment to measure the force of gravity between masses in the laboratory and the first to yield accurate values for the gravitational constant.
The Cavendish experiment, performed in 1797–1798 by English scientist Henry Cavendish, was the first experiment to measure the force of gravity between masses in the laboratory and the first to yield accurate values for the gravitational constant.
TBIman · 41-45, M
@Justiceforall We do not live on a spinning ball. You have been lied to.
Justiceforall · M
@TBIman Earth's rotation is the rotation of Planet Earth around its own axis. Earth rotates eastward, in prograde motion. ... Earth rotates once in about 24 hours with respect to the Sun, but once every 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds with respect to other, distant, stars
Justiceforall · M
@TBIman While not without errors, Copernicus' model eventually convinced the world that Earth spun on its axis beneath the stars … and also moved in orbit around the sun. A time exposure of the northern sky, revealing the apparent motion of all the stars around Polaris. In fact, this apparent motion is due to Earth's spin
TBIman · 41-45, M
@Justiceforall There is no rotation going on, and we do not live on a planet. We live in a realm.
Justiceforall · M
@TBIman and where is this realm at in the universe, sitting in space, in your imagination because I live on earth and it spins on its axis has gravity and water has a curve. So let's hear about this realm you live in
TBIman · 41-45, M
@Justiceforall Outer space as we were taught does not exist. There are no "planets" only lights in the sky. You only [i]think[/i] that you live on a curving Earth that moves. When in reality it is both flat and motionless.
Justiceforall · M
@TBIman where were you taught? And you ever think that maybe you were taught wrong. How could so many people be wrong, was the landing on the moon just a dream for all the people that watch it, that must have been some kind of a dream if so, I'm I thinking that you believe we're on a piece of flat land and the water runs off the side and people could drive off the side if they drove far enough. It's just floating around not in space though, some place nobody except know of because it's the first time I've ever heard anything like that,
TBIman · 41-45, M
@Justiceforall I was taught in the public school system. Where they fed me lies.
Not many people had to be wrong to perpetuate this lie. Only the astronauts and a few of the higher-ups at NASA. The moon landing was a hoax. Why have we never been back since 1972?
Please do some research on the topic of flat Earth. It'll blow your mind.
Not many people had to be wrong to perpetuate this lie. Only the astronauts and a few of the higher-ups at NASA. The moon landing was a hoax. Why have we never been back since 1972?
Please do some research on the topic of flat Earth. It'll blow your mind.
Justiceforall · M
@TBIman More coverage:
Relive the Apollo 11 Moon Landing Mission in Real Time
Apollo 11 Moon Landing Giveaway with Simulation Curriculum & Celestron!
Apollo 11 at 50: A Complete Guide to the Historic Moon Landing
Humanity hasn't been back to Earth's nearest neighbor since (though many of our robotic probes have). NASA has mounted multiple crewed moon projects since Apollo, including the ambitious Constellation Program in the mid-2000s, but none of them have gone the distance.
Advertisement
So what was different about Apollo? It was incubated in a very particular environment, experts say — the Cold War space race with the Soviet Union.
"This was war by another means — it really was," Roger Launius, who served as NASA's chief historian from 1990 to 2002 and wrote the recently published book "Apollo's Legacy" (Smithsonian Books, 2019), told Space.com. "And we have not had that since."
Click here for more Space.com videos...
The Soviet Union fired the first few salvos in this proxy war. The nation launched the first-ever satellite, Sputnik 1, in October 1957 and put the first person in space, Yuri Gagarin, in April 1961. These shows of technological might worried U.S. officials, who wanted a big win of their own. And they believed putting the first boots on the moon would do the trick.
This wasn't viewed as empty flexing. The United States wanted, among other things, to show the world that the future lay with its political and economic systems, not those of its communist rival.
Advertisement
"The Apollo days were not, fundamentally, about going to the moon," John Logsdon, a professor emeritus of political science and international affairs at The George Washington University's Elliott School of International Affairs in Washington, D.C., told Space.com. "They were about demonstrating American global leadership in a zero-sum Cold War competition with the Soviet Union."
Advertisement
Click here for more Space.com videos...
So NASA got the resources it needed to pull off its moon shot. And those resources were immense — about $25.8 billion for Apollo from 1960 through 1973, or nearly $264 billion in today's dollars. During the mid-1960s, NASA got about 4.5% of the federal budget — 10 times greater than its current share.
Advertisement
The stakes haven't been nearly as high since the end of the Cold War, so subsequent moon projects haven't enjoyed such sustained support. (They likely also suffered from some been-there-done-that sentiment.) For example, the Constellation Program, which took shape under President George W. Bush, was canceled in 2010 by President Barack Obama.
Advertisement
Obama directed NASA to instead send astronauts to a near-Earth asteroid. But President Donald Trump nixed that plan in 2017, putting the agency back on course for the moon.
Click here for more Space.com videos...
NASA initially targeted 2028 for the first crewed lunar landing since the Apollo days. But this past March, Vice President Mike Pence instructed NASA to get it done by 2024.
Advertisement
The accelerated timeline might actually make this newest moon shot more achievable, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine has said, citing the "political risk" that doomed Constellation and other programs.
Click here for more Space.com videos...
Political risk exists "because priorities change, budgets change, administrations change, Congresses change," Bridenstine said May 14 in a town-hall address to NASA employees.
Advertisement
"So, how do we retire as much political risk as possible?" he added. "We accelerate the program. Basically, the shorter the program is, the less time it takes, the less political risk we endure. In other words, we can accomplish the end state."
The 2024 landing is part of a program called Artemis, which aims to build up a long-term, sustainable human presence at and around the moon. The main goal is to lay the foundation for crewed trips to the ultimate human-spaceflight destination: Mars.
That should explain your why they haven't been back yet and gives you there plans to actually build a livable habitat there. I will look flat earth up on Google. If I find nothing but hog wash I won't even try to explain it, you seem to have your mind made up and you won't change it.
Relive the Apollo 11 Moon Landing Mission in Real Time
Apollo 11 Moon Landing Giveaway with Simulation Curriculum & Celestron!
Apollo 11 at 50: A Complete Guide to the Historic Moon Landing
Humanity hasn't been back to Earth's nearest neighbor since (though many of our robotic probes have). NASA has mounted multiple crewed moon projects since Apollo, including the ambitious Constellation Program in the mid-2000s, but none of them have gone the distance.
Advertisement
So what was different about Apollo? It was incubated in a very particular environment, experts say — the Cold War space race with the Soviet Union.
"This was war by another means — it really was," Roger Launius, who served as NASA's chief historian from 1990 to 2002 and wrote the recently published book "Apollo's Legacy" (Smithsonian Books, 2019), told Space.com. "And we have not had that since."
Click here for more Space.com videos...
The Soviet Union fired the first few salvos in this proxy war. The nation launched the first-ever satellite, Sputnik 1, in October 1957 and put the first person in space, Yuri Gagarin, in April 1961. These shows of technological might worried U.S. officials, who wanted a big win of their own. And they believed putting the first boots on the moon would do the trick.
This wasn't viewed as empty flexing. The United States wanted, among other things, to show the world that the future lay with its political and economic systems, not those of its communist rival.
Advertisement
"The Apollo days were not, fundamentally, about going to the moon," John Logsdon, a professor emeritus of political science and international affairs at The George Washington University's Elliott School of International Affairs in Washington, D.C., told Space.com. "They were about demonstrating American global leadership in a zero-sum Cold War competition with the Soviet Union."
Advertisement
Click here for more Space.com videos...
So NASA got the resources it needed to pull off its moon shot. And those resources were immense — about $25.8 billion for Apollo from 1960 through 1973, or nearly $264 billion in today's dollars. During the mid-1960s, NASA got about 4.5% of the federal budget — 10 times greater than its current share.
Advertisement
The stakes haven't been nearly as high since the end of the Cold War, so subsequent moon projects haven't enjoyed such sustained support. (They likely also suffered from some been-there-done-that sentiment.) For example, the Constellation Program, which took shape under President George W. Bush, was canceled in 2010 by President Barack Obama.
Advertisement
Obama directed NASA to instead send astronauts to a near-Earth asteroid. But President Donald Trump nixed that plan in 2017, putting the agency back on course for the moon.
Click here for more Space.com videos...
NASA initially targeted 2028 for the first crewed lunar landing since the Apollo days. But this past March, Vice President Mike Pence instructed NASA to get it done by 2024.
Advertisement
The accelerated timeline might actually make this newest moon shot more achievable, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine has said, citing the "political risk" that doomed Constellation and other programs.
Click here for more Space.com videos...
Political risk exists "because priorities change, budgets change, administrations change, Congresses change," Bridenstine said May 14 in a town-hall address to NASA employees.
Advertisement
"So, how do we retire as much political risk as possible?" he added. "We accelerate the program. Basically, the shorter the program is, the less time it takes, the less political risk we endure. In other words, we can accomplish the end state."
The 2024 landing is part of a program called Artemis, which aims to build up a long-term, sustainable human presence at and around the moon. The main goal is to lay the foundation for crewed trips to the ultimate human-spaceflight destination: Mars.
That should explain your why they haven't been back yet and gives you there plans to actually build a livable habitat there. I will look flat earth up on Google. If I find nothing but hog wash I won't even try to explain it, you seem to have your mind made up and you won't change it.
TBIman · 41-45, M
@Justiceforall Look, man, the Earth that we all live on is a relatively flat, and completely motionless plane. Look into it, please. As far as I'm concerned Mars is just an orange splotch of light that moves around in our night sky.
Justiceforall · M
@TBIman I went to a good number of sites and read about it, it didn't make me change my mind about the earth being round, but I guess I will believe what I want to and you can do the same. I can't judge you for it.
TBIman · 41-45, M
@Justiceforall Thanks for not judging me for knowing that what I experience is the truth man. You should really look into what you believe, or just hear about the flat Earth when it's all over the news. We are still many years away from that though. As long as people just blindly believe what they see on their T.V. we will never get out of this slave system.
DocSavage · M
@Justiceforall
He ran an experiment himself. Taped a tennis ball to a piece of string, then poured a cup of water over it while it was spinning. He used a Dirt Devil to create a vacuum. He considered this conclusive proof of his belief.
Why he hasn’t receive a Nobel Prize, is beyond me.
He ran an experiment himself. Taped a tennis ball to a piece of string, then poured a cup of water over it while it was spinning. He used a Dirt Devil to create a vacuum. He considered this conclusive proof of his belief.
Why he hasn’t receive a Nobel Prize, is beyond me.