Another approach to equivalence, which is via the theoretical formulation, comes from the Schwartzchild Solution. When solve for the metric in a vacuum you must have a Newtonian potential for r->inf, ie. g(4,4) ~ 1+2*Phi and Phi=-m/r. However, the arbitrary functions needed to solve the diffyQ are STILL functions of (r,t), even though we have forcibly turned them into constants of m, the inertial mass. This imposition of mass into the field equations is only done to satisfy weak-field conformity with Newton, ie. inertial mass = gravitational mass. But what happens in the strong field? It's much harder to solve and the assumption that m is constant probably can't hold.
Another annoying post interfering with my understanding of history. A thousand years before Galileo! And nobody cared? This has to stop. Next you'll say Columbus didn't discover North America, but only an island. Undermining officially approved schooling. Humph!
I have not seen anyone else point this out, that Albert Plagiarist's elevator thought experiment can only apply at a single and unmeasureable point. A gravity field has radial divergence as well as 1/r^2 vertical change. An accelerated elevator has no such. It's always possible to tell the difference by taking measurements in two different regions of the elevator interior.
Scott's hammer drop could not have occurred on the moon. :)
On Earth dropping a hammer 1.6 meters takes ~0.57 seconds. 'The Science' says that the moon's gravity is 17% of the Earth. This means it should 1.41 second to fall this distance. But it takes 0.9 seconds. Either the moon's gravity and atmosphere is denser (40%) than we are told (but they went there didn't they, wouldn't they know!?). Or, it is just another filmed stunt, edited. I would bet on the latter given the 1000 other issues with the faked lunar landings :)
They say themselves it is 1.6 m. The Russians have said so, though they also faked many of their own supposed flights. Lots of dead from Russian flights which they never admitted (humans and animals). The truth will come out that is for sure.
It never fails to amaze me how many people think/assert that in 1969 it was easier to fake the Apollo 11 lunar landing than to just DO IT based on, by then, already, so many decades of incrementally developed and tested flight innovation.
They also have apparently never known test pilots.
People like to muse on the most important thing that schools don't teach. I'm of the view it's History of Science and Technology. Not that the fat part of the school-incarcerated bell curve could handle that...but one can dream. (Sorry, had to go out into the world for provisioning today--an activity that frequently erodes any existing intent to feel generous to humanity.)
Kubrick, 1998: ‘I perpetrated a huge fraud with the United States government…the moon landings…I consider it to be my masterpiece.’
He also said that if you don't hate your government the fake moon landings should be ample justification to do so. :) No one wants their world view imploded of course. Same with Rona How many Ronaphiles are jabbed up to their armpits with poisons. Not a single one will ever admit they were wrong.
I quite like Kubrick. Clockwork Orange is a dystopian masterpiece. 2001 Space Odyssey and the in situ sets and lighting were perfect training for Apollo :) In the Changeling he blows some whistles on the Apollo program as well. I am just awaiting NASA's first Black-American-transgender-Muslim to alight on the 'light side' of the moon (hopefully no shadows this time) and amaze us all. Can't be that hard. :)
Another approach to equivalence, which is via the theoretical formulation, comes from the Schwartzchild Solution. When solve for the metric in a vacuum you must have a Newtonian potential for r->inf, ie. g(4,4) ~ 1+2*Phi and Phi=-m/r. However, the arbitrary functions needed to solve the diffyQ are STILL functions of (r,t), even though we have forcibly turned them into constants of m, the inertial mass. This imposition of mass into the field equations is only done to satisfy weak-field conformity with Newton, ie. inertial mass = gravitational mass. But what happens in the strong field? It's much harder to solve and the assumption that m is constant probably can't hold.
Another annoying post interfering with my understanding of history. A thousand years before Galileo! And nobody cared? This has to stop. Next you'll say Columbus didn't discover North America, but only an island. Undermining officially approved schooling. Humph!
I have not seen anyone else point this out, that Albert Plagiarist's elevator thought experiment can only apply at a single and unmeasureable point. A gravity field has radial divergence as well as 1/r^2 vertical change. An accelerated elevator has no such. It's always possible to tell the difference by taking measurements in two different regions of the elevator interior.
Scott's hammer drop could not have occurred on the moon. :)
On Earth dropping a hammer 1.6 meters takes ~0.57 seconds. 'The Science' says that the moon's gravity is 17% of the Earth. This means it should 1.41 second to fall this distance. But it takes 0.9 seconds. Either the moon's gravity and atmosphere is denser (40%) than we are told (but they went there didn't they, wouldn't they know!?). Or, it is just another filmed stunt, edited. I would bet on the latter given the 1000 other issues with the faked lunar landings :)
Scott didn't drop the hammer 1.6 meters. He dropped it 1 meter, tops - the video clearly shows him dropping it from shoulder height.
And if the moon landing was faked, why didn't the Soviets say so?
They say themselves it is 1.6 m. The Russians have said so, though they also faked many of their own supposed flights. Lots of dead from Russian flights which they never admitted (humans and animals). The truth will come out that is for sure.
Watch the video. He drops the hammer and feather from chest height. Probably a bit more than 4 feet.
It never fails to amaze me how many people think/assert that in 1969 it was easier to fake the Apollo 11 lunar landing than to just DO IT based on, by then, already, so many decades of incrementally developed and tested flight innovation.
https://space.skyrocket.de/directories/chronology.htm
http://astronautix.com/s/spacehistorychronology.html
https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/Colossus.html
https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/links2.html#Everything&gsc.tab=0
They also have apparently never known test pilots.
People like to muse on the most important thing that schools don't teach. I'm of the view it's History of Science and Technology. Not that the fat part of the school-incarcerated bell curve could handle that...but one can dream. (Sorry, had to go out into the world for provisioning today--an activity that frequently erodes any existing intent to feel generous to humanity.)
Kubrick, 1998: ‘I perpetrated a huge fraud with the United States government…the moon landings…I consider it to be my masterpiece.’
He also said that if you don't hate your government the fake moon landings should be ample justification to do so. :) No one wants their world view imploded of course. Same with Rona How many Ronaphiles are jabbed up to their armpits with poisons. Not a single one will ever admit they were wrong.
Yeah, I’ma believe some greasy lardball who projects demonic lightshows on the back of the cave wall.
He perpetrated a huge fraud by existing. What a piece of crap person, and director.
I quite like Kubrick. Clockwork Orange is a dystopian masterpiece. 2001 Space Odyssey and the in situ sets and lighting were perfect training for Apollo :) In the Changeling he blows some whistles on the Apollo program as well. I am just awaiting NASA's first Black-American-transgender-Muslim to alight on the 'light side' of the moon (hopefully no shadows this time) and amaze us all. Can't be that hard. :)
I detest movies in general.