Were the moon landings faked?

.

 

Shaggie

And if u and me in a tin pot spaceship halfway to andromeda
come across a wandering star.
Then what[altered] gravitational star/tinpotship system existed to cause our tinpot ship to invariably be accellerated towards the star using the inverse square equation?

None.
Energy appled by gravitic forces to accellerate masses towards eachother are totally independent of any prior relationship between those masses.
The tinpotship was never part of any prior relationship.. so this says what of your proposition.
'so we can say that the energy that was used to construct the buildings wa stored in an altered gravitational field of the earth/building system'

Occam

PS.. this is fun ...u cannot imagine the how interesting such converstion
is in a town that can speak of nothing but the weather.

 

How did the beams that fell get up there in the first place. Some hydrocarbon had chemical energy changed into kinetic energy by burning. This kinetic energy was transferred to water. This was then used to rotate a magnet, via the magnetic field a current was induced in wires generating a potential difference in a wire. This would then have been used to turn another magnet (motor) which would have winched the beam up to the building, so now that electrical energy was being converted into doing work against gravity. Where it stayed until the force of the beams holding it up was removed at which point the energy from the gravitational field was turned into kinetic energy. So on and so forth, its not rigorous at a fundamental level but it shows how energy gets sent around.

 

Tony

Yes
Mechanical energy. Which was used to counter gravitic effect.
Where does the energy of gravitic effect come from, that which mechanical energy is used to counter. Much mechanical energy on the left of equation then '='
gravitic atraction on the right. But None has yet said where that energy on the right comes from.
If it comes from the mass of earth itself than 4 billion years of holding the crust down and in spherical shape must have cost a fair bit
Especialially against the forces of rotation which want to throw the crust outwards 'constantly'

Back to the beginning.. what causes mass to 'fall' down the bent shape of space.
Mass in 'flat' space does nothing but follow initial vector as per newton.
[lets assume a region o flat space for now]
But when it comes across a gravitic dimple called a planet/star it accellerates.. why?

Occam

 

I dont think I can give a conceptual image of fundamentally what gravity is, beyong the traditional rubber sheet analogy. For these things I tend to withdraw into the maths. I think ive used my describing blue to a blind man analogy before, in this respect we are all blind, we do not have the ablility to 'see' what gravity is, the best we can do is describe it. The gravitational field as we know it is consistent with a warping of spacetime. So if you were in your little tinpot then you would feel an attractive force by distant bodies. The energy in your movement would come from the gravitational potential you feel at that point, which in turn cames from the work done to get you there in the first place. Much like in the twin towers example the gravitational potential energy cames from the energy used to hoist it up.

 

So science does not know what causes gravitic effects?
It has many ideas...But no solid answer...yes?

Let us be honnest. ALL knowledge is gained.. not known at start.
Was quantum mechanics known in 1638 ad
No
Is a unified gravity theory known in 2006 ad.
No
Let not our arrogance blind us from new ideas.
Wherever they come from.

Occam

 

Well at this point it gets a little philosopical because you have to start asking yourself if you can truely ever know what these things are. In the 1600s it was easy people could pretty effectively in their minds understand how pushing something harder makes it go faster. By the 20th century things we're a little more complicated Maxwell had said there were these all pervading 'fields' which gave us electromagnetism just about understandable but getting a little abstract. Then Einstein came up with relativity perfectly logical but plays with the mind a bit.

Finally QM and GR at this point I dont think you can understand exactly whats going on. I cannot picture in my mind what goes on at the quantum level but yet I could predict results very well. I think that any attempt to mentally picture what happens will end in failure simply because our mind do not have the machinery to cope. In GR I can see lots of fancy computer annimations of cool shapes and my life on a mebius strip yet we all know it probably looks nothing like that. In fact as light is not involoved it doesnt look like anything, we have no verbs to describe it which comes back to the core of the problem, I think in this situation Maths wil always be our eyes, it is the one tool we have to penetrate absract spaces like this.

 

Reason and math is fundamental.

Science exists only because of them
All we have today above root grubbing packs of homonids.
Is due to reason and science.

Occam holds the method as fundamental to understanding.
But that undersanding takes time.
Like evolution itself.. understanding evolves using the method.

Not once did u or shaggie ask a question..
Why?

Science is about questions.. but none were asked by any but occam.

Occam

 

I guess most of my questions are pretty specific as far as physics goes, though I do admit I have been temped to ask about microwave microstrip recently as ive had to take a crash course in it and im aware there are a couple of electrical engineers here.

 

It appears to be that when we communicate anything that there is some level of disassociation from that that we are trying to communicate; there is some level of abstraction. It appears wise to have some reserve, even if it is implicit, when concluding about anything such that we tend to remain open to considering new view points. It may be the case that difficulties in communicating products of human imagination severly limit our ability to commonly verify amongst ourselves certain qualities of human imagination.




.

 

.

 

Does antimatter have a gravitational attraction to matter?

 

yes

 

Are you adding additional materials to the titanium-aluminum alloy before annealing and is there any prospect to achieving better ductility characteristics by annealing in a microgravity environment ?


.

 

Antimatter and matter are attractive??
Then how can they coexist?

Is there an antimatter particle for every matter particle?
If so, then wouldn't a natural attraction between the two cause an exponential and inifite anhialation of both matter and antimatter?

 

Matter and anti-matter different only in their charge. An anti-electron (positron) has exactly the same properties as the electron except it has a positive charge. Its mass is exactly the same so will behave identiaclly to an electron in the presence of an electric field.

Matter and anti-matter cannot coexist, an electron and positron anihilate to create two gamma rays. Indeed one of the largest problems in modern physics is why there is matter at all. The standard model predicts that matter and anti-matter were created in equal quantites. The question is why did they not mutually anihilate leaving a universe of gamma rays. There is theory called the CPT theory which says that in a few very rare reactions the universe treats matter and anti-matter slightly differently. This theory is currently being tested with the Babar experiment and soon by the LHCb experiment also.

As for titanium aluminides which sound cool (stong and light?). Anyway I seem to remember that defect pinning improves strength, though probably makes brittleness worse. Though i seem to remember that Frank-Reed sources can be created which do something for ductility (see i know nothing about this).

 

Has anyone ever observed antimater.
Just that.. u all seem so totally confident in your knowledge of something we have not yet seen to exist

Occam

 

Yes anti-matter was first observed over 50 years ago now. The positron is now has applications in medical scanning and materials science. The positron is used because it is a product of a type of beta decay. I do not know if practical uses for the other anti-particles I imagine they'd be to hard ot create and store, they come up all the time the wreckage in particle accelerators although its been many years since people cared about finding anti-particles.

 

Antiparticles have been observed, but that is about all.
They have only managed to maintain an antiparticle for a fraction of a second which is not enough time to accurately study such things as interactive properties. Also the fact that antimatter and matter annihilate each other when they come into contact makes things rather difficult also.

One thing I'm not clear on is what is the product of the annihilation?
I know that it creates gamma radiation, but is that photons or other particles?

 

For the sake of interest:

They have actually even managed to create anti-hydrogen atoms. However, they are unable to contain antimatter, since it's destroyed as soon as it comes into contact with matter.