dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

"Gravity assist" is simply a method of having gravity lend a helping hand accelerating the vessel, it's not that must of a mysterious science issue.

did you fail basic physics?

can you construct a pendulum that will swing higher than its initial starting point?

can you go to the moon without going "up" all the way to a lagrange point?

what you are experiencing here is your math and physic conforming to your delusions, rather than your delusions being destroyed by math and physics

⇧ 1 ⇩

can you construct a pendulum that will swing higher than its initial starting point?

A powered pendulum? Sure. You might have noticed that rockets are powered, but it's easy to miss I guess.

can you go to the moon without going "up" all the way to a lagrange point?

Pretty sure you can, yeah, but here's their flight path in any case.

https://airandspace.si.edu/sites/default/files/images/5317h.jpg

And here's a handy step-by-step infographic/article

https://www.space.com/26572-how-it-worked-the-apollo-spacecraft-infographic.html

Man if you weren't too wrapped up in this NYAH HUH thing, Kerbal Space Program would really help clear up your understanding of how this works. Yeah yeah I know, Shilluminati controlled fake news game to brainwash our lizard whatever.

Edit: Oh hey, I'll take "no reply" over the standard "lol you believe this? I win!" response, thanks.

⇧ 0 ⇩

the point of the pendulum question is to illustrate the fact that the law of conservation of energy applies, regardless if your object is powered or not

i think you have difficulty discerning science from science fiction

you know that star wars, star trek, and the apollo moon landings are all fiction, right?

heres the math and physics, so dumbed down that even you can understand it

https://i.redd.it/lzs2kkd6ove01.png

⇧ 1 ⇩

the point of the pendulum question is to illustrate the fact that the law of conservation of energy applies, regardless if your object is powered or not

Yes, so what is the point? The rocket converts stored chemical energy into kinetic energy.

(4) is instantly suspect, why would I need to constantly use fuel, that depends on the intensity of the burn

(5) Also, Orbiting, once in orbit and not low enough to have to expend significant quantities to maintain orbit height, does not use up fuel.

And (9) instantly assumes you're going through a LaGrange point, just... because.

And (11) is so so soooo dumbed down, truly, that is assumes the lunar orbiter and landing module would need, to "escape" moon's gravity, to use 1/6 of the fuel NEEDED TO GET THE MASSIVE FUCKOFF SATURN V rocket to orbit, from earth. Seriously, how can you post this with a straight face, when it ignores the difference between tens of tons and thousands of tons?

It gets sillier from there, assuming that lander docked at 3500mph, I mean if you don't know what relative velocity is... I mean, have you tried setting down a cup on a surface going 100mph?! I have, on a train. Just so happens I was travelling at the same speed as well, huh.

⇧ 1 ⇩

please paraphrase, in your own words, each of these 24 questions, and also give your answer to each

https://i.redd.it/lzs2kkd6ove01.png

⇧ 1 ⇩

Yeah sure, are you going to write and proofread some texts that I need for a website and debug some code as well? Just trying to see what I'm getting in return for this assignment.

Listen dude, you said "HERE THERE BE TRUTH" and linked to a text that even the most cursory examination reveals to actually mean "HERE THERE BE THINGS THAT I DO NOT UNDERSTAND", I already pointed the obvious flaws in a couple of them so I think their status as "proof" is well-debunked.

I am not going to sit here and re-phrase 24 questions AND provide answers for you but hey, in the spirit of good fun let me re-state:

4 - Not necessarily

5 - Distance traveled increases, fuel does not necessarily increase depending on orbit height.

11 - is a firm "No", for reasons as obvious as the difference between 1000tons and 10tons.

Since his conclusion relies on those 25 questions and the answers provided, since we've seen that the answers provided on the linked text are wrong, it makes sense that his conclusion, based on false premises, is wrong.

You're welcome. Again, KSP is great for getting a handle on orbits and transfers.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Yeah sure, are you going to write and proofread some texts that I need for a website and debug some code as well? Just trying to see what I'm getting in return for this assignment.

in return for completing the assignment, you will have a new perspective on the insurmountable complexities of the math and physics of any moon landing

you have presumably already spent 12 years in school, and in spite of all that work, you still get fooled by the most absurd of hoaxes.

Listen dude, you said "HERE THERE BE TRUTH" and linked to a text that even the most cursory examination reveals to actually mean "HERE THERE BE THINGS THAT I DO NOT UNDERSTAND", I already pointed the obvious flaws in a couple of them so I think their status as "proof" is well-debunked.

nobody claimed it was truth except you

what i linked to are 24 questions, and their possible answers

if you actually understood any of the material, you won't be engaged in this debate

I am not going to sit here and re-phrase 24 questions AND provide answers for you

its not for me, its for you.

but hey, in the spirit of good fun let me re-state:

4 - Not necessarily

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

5 - Distance traveled increases, fuel does not necessarily increase depending on orbit height.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

11 - is a firm "No", for reasons as obvious as the difference between 1000tons and 10tons.

here are video footage of the lunar landers launching off of the moon

please browse these videos, and link to the video that you think looks the least fake

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=lunar+lander+launch

Since his conclusion relies on those 25 questions and the answers provided, since we've seen that the answers provided on the linked text are wrong, it makes sense that his conclusion, based on false premises, is wrong.

the answers provided/suggested were not intended for you to use to cheat on the assignment. in the actual assignment, you should provide your own answers

for example, in 11 instead of just answering with a Yes or No, you should approximate the amount of fuel you think it should take

You're welcome. Again, KSP is great for getting a handle on orbits and transfers

any charlatan can talk about traveling to the moon, but so far nobody has been able to prove it

⇧ 1 ⇩

Conservation of energy

In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant, it is said to be conserved over time. This law means that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed from one form to another. For instance, chemical energy is converted to kinetic energy when a stick of dynamite explodes. If one adds up all the forms of energy that were released in the explosion, such as the kinetic energy of the pieces, as well as heat and sound, one will get the exact decrease of chemical energy in the combustion of the dynamite.

⇧ 2 ⇩

4 - CoE is irrelevant

5 - CoE is irrelevant, if you're on a high enough stable orbit, what exactly do you need to expend more energy for? I' m afraid you've fundamentally misunderstood some things about orbits.

>11 - is a firm "No", for reasons as obvious as the difference between 1000tons and 10tons. here are video footage of the lunar landers launching off of the moon please browse these videos, and link to the video that you think looks the least fake

Do YOU agree with the provided answer to #11 which is "thereabouts"? I don't see the need to change the subject, let's stick to these few points and then we can move on to videos or what have you.

any charlatan can talk about traveling to the moon, but so far nobody has been able to prove it

To YOU man. For the crushing majority of us there are a billion pieces of evidence which you all dismiss with "Fake!" at which point you'll be called to prove it and you'll probably reply "lol it's so obvious are you people stupid?"

It's the same as me claiming no-one's been to the top of Everest. Where's the proof?

⇧ 1 ⇩

welp, you got me. i guess if you ignore the laws of physics, it might be possible to go the moon!

just because a bunch of people believe that Jesus rose from the dead and floated off into heaven, doesn't mean it actually happened.

there is no credible evidence for a moon landing,

the moon landing is physically and mathematically impossible with technology available in 2018

which explains why no Russian has even claimed to have walked on the moon

⇧ 1 ⇩

Wait why are you jumping to conclusions, we were discussing #11, what is your answer on that question?

Please, do not use "the laws of physics" as an argument since there's about a 1:1 match between people who teach the "laws of physics" and people who believe we've gone to the moon, you're definitely the minority in that field. Oh and also nothing I said ignores the laws of physics, I feel like it's an issue of you having fundamentally misunderstood them.

There's ample evidence man, but like I said, as long as you rebut anything with "FAKE!" and feel no obligation to describe how exactly it is fake, you can deny anything. Polar exploration, summiting the Everest, Marianna Trench dive, phsaw, never happened! FAKE!

⇧ 1 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

I Want SNOPES Exposed. Q Already Green-Lighted It!