Fungi Forums
Miscellaneous => General Chat => Not at the Dinner Table => Topic started by: CrossEyed7 on September 21, 2010, 10:48:21 AM
-
However, eminent scientists, working in defiance of the establishment, have proven conclusively, using the most scrupulous methods, that if an object such as the moon really existed, it could not remain fixed in the sky for very long. Proactive arguments in support of this finding return to a closer examination of the original mathematical formula generally referenced when rallying to solidify the moon’s improbable existence:
F = GMm/r2
Where F = gravitational attraction
G = the gravitational constant
M = mass of one body
m = mass of the second body
r = distance between the two bodies
Established by Newton himself, this numerical gem is based completely on the assumption that the moon travels in concentric circles around our planet. F (the gravitational attraction holding the moon to its "true" path) requires that r (the distance between the two celestial bodies) remains constant. Should the distance, r, decrease at any given moment, the gravitational force will increase in strength. When this event occurs the moon will be pulled towards this planet. According to Newton’s theory that a body set in motion remains in motion, such an incident would initiate a logical series of events with a singular chaotic result: propagated drawing of satellite to planet until the two massive bodies collide.
However, even the most fanatical Lunarists no longer cling to the absurd notion that objects in the solar system travel in concentric circles. These so-called "scientists" have changed their story so many times, who knows what to believe anymore? The currently fashionable dogma is that the route followed by celestial bodies is not circular but a concave oval with the origin point at the centre (in the case of the earth, the sun; in the case of the moon, the earth) followed by a spiraling series of pathways. Thus, the moon is not maintaining a constant distance from our planet. Our orbiting satellite is forever oscillating towards us, drawing near then distant, in a continuous cycle. Each successive approach brings this massive wonder closer to our midst.
In other words, the moon does indeed alter its distance from the earth. So why is it not widespread knowledge that the end – mathematically predicated BY NEWTON’S OWN FORMULA - has been anticipated and is drawing near? Due to some irrational explanation the moon has managed to defy those very laws of physics that were originally developed to justify its existence.
The authorities expect us to believe a story that is prima facie absurd, and has been proven absurd by simple mathematical calculations. Yet they do not give us a single piece of reliable forensic evidence, nor an argument put forward by any expert free from institutional pressure.
So, does the moon exist? There's a $100,000 reward (http://www.revisionism.nl/Moon/Moon3.htm) if you can prove it does.
-
I've heard a relatively credible theory that the moon is an artificial satellite planted near the Earth by aliens, but this seems to be a bit much. It raises a very important point, though.
-
You mean to tell me that the moon is not actually a floating piece of green cheese?
-
This reminds me of the flat earth people.
How do you come up with stuff like "the moon doesn't exist"? I cannot fathom.
-
Philosophically, you can't prove the existence of anything! CHECKMATE!
-
I just realized a major flaw in that guy's whole argument. The principle of science is to refine your observations about stuff, and he's talking about Newton's original formula this and that (is it still correct? I'm not sufficiently versed in physics to know) instead of whatever might be actually right based on later observation.
Also while the planets have elliptical orbits, the moon has a roughly circular orbit around Earth, right? This guy acts like everything in the solar system acts the same. It seems like according to him we should crash into the sun too, but he has no problem accepting the existence of the sun. What's going on?
Oh yeah and
conclusive physical evidence
by e-mail
-
I'm sending a picture of my ass.
-
relatively credible theory
that the moon is an artificial satellite planted near the Earth by aliens
/facepalm
-
relatively
...Compared to the fact that it doesn't exist at all.
/face-save.
-
You mean, "compared to the theory"?
-
Lizard Dude, come save us from math.
-
Chup, a scientific theory is virtually indistinguishable from a fact. It's the closest thing we have to explaining...well, anything that's observable.
Irrational belief is more like it.
-
You believe it's a fact that the moon doesn't exist?
You can have totally unsubstantiated and irrational theories. One saying "the moon doesn't exist" (as implied in Brian's post) is one of those. (Not a "fact".)
Make sure you know what someone's referring to before getting pedantic.
-
-_-
Post was sarcasm...
-
I say we go with what IMAO has been suggesting for years - nuke the moon. If it exists, it can be nuked, and vice-versa.
-
You do realize it would screw up our ecosystem even more if the moon got messed up, right?
-
What moon?
-
I say we go with what IMAO has been suggesting for years - nuke the moon. If it exists, it can be nuked, and vice-versa.
Actually (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/5566137/Nasa-prepares-to-bomb-the-moon.html), we [allegedly] already did.
-
I'm just glad Fifth hasn't gotten involved in this discussion.
I think we all know where he stands on the issue.
-
You Moonists sicken me.
-
I'm sending a picture of my ass.
Oh God I just got this
-
Thanks for the link to The Mad Revisionist. It was the best thing I've read since "A Modest Proposal For Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland from Being a Burden to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Publick."
-
Yeah, upon further reading, it's pretty amazing stuff.
-
...he's talking about Newton's original formula this and that (is it still correct? I'm not sufficiently versed in physics to know)
Einstein's understanding of gravity in the theory of relativity consistently explains more observations. So yes, Newton's model is outdated.
As for the moon existing, it all depends on how one defines "existence." That's more of a philosophical question, though.
-
The real question is, though, would you eat the moon if it were made out of ribs?
-
I don't understand where people come up with this stuff.
Of course the moon exists. You can stand on it, see it, and feel it. Now, if the moon was just an illusion, astronauts would've been very disappointed.
-
Haven't you heard? The moon landing was a hoax; mole-people actually staged the whole thing from their home deep beneath Atlantis. Neil Springsteen, the man commonly believed to have first set foot on the moon, never even existed.
-
I say we go with what IMAO has been suggesting for years - nuke the moon. If it exists, it can be nuked, and vice-versa.
Why don't we just cram all the moon-ain't-really-thar people into a rocket with a lunar landing module (after beating them mercifully) and send them straight to the moon to see for themselves.
Oh wait, no, 'cause then they'd all think the launch/trip/landing was some convoluted, super-advanced computer simulation using technology that the government has been harboring ever since they discovered it in the Roswell incident 63 years ago.
How do I know this? I was there, man.
-
I hope you understand that the force of gravity equation does not account for the acceleration of the moon as it rotates around the earth. The equation doesn't actually assume "that the earth travels in concentric spheres", it only explains what the force of attraction between two bodies of mass is. Any, and all, bodies of mass exert a gravitational attraction to one another regardless of whether it's "moving in concentric circles" or it's "at rest". Those people are attempting to disprove the existence of a moon by severely misrepresenting what the various equations of physics actually imply, which is stupid.
If you do a proper analysis of the forces acting on the moon, you'll find that the force of the moon spinning around the earth exceeds the gravitational force, and as such the moon is actually moving slightly further and further away with each passing year (i think about half an inch?).
So yeah, eventually, the moon will break free from the earth's gravitational pull, and we'll have no more moon.
With your argument, I could say that we're moving closer and closer to the sun, and eventually we'll be incinerated when we get too close. So yeah, we'd be dead by now. Unless you think the world was created last thursday, that is.
Also, that scam has already been tried. The cake is a lie, all the time.
-
Are you sure you're actually "Moronic", Moronic Rascal?
-
Are you sure you're actually "Moronic", Moronic Rascal?
When it comes to being a rascal, yes.
(i think about half an inch?).
3.8 cm, so about 1.5"
-
If the moon doesn't exist, then can someone please tell me what that pale white object in the night sky, that changes shape over a period of about 28 or so days is? Because if it isn't the moon, then I have no idea what it is.
-
That's actually Deezer.
-
I love Black Mage.