What is your problem with microwave towers? Earth curvature must figure into the problem at large distances. It does with radar and air-to-air microwave communication. Along with atmospheric refraction. I did this for a living. You are talking through your hat.
curcumference of a circle = pi x (radius)^2
area of a sphere = 4pi x (radius)^2
This is elementary geometry. Only the profoundly ignorant do not know or use this. (If you want the x & y coordinates of a circle, talk to a 9th grader who has taken analytical geometry. In polar coordinates it is a radius R across 2pi steradians of angle.)
Forbes is not an expert publication in rocket propulsion. According to NASA, the STS will be a "replacement" for the Saturn V. Informed technical opinion projects it will be canceled for budgetary reasons---and because Space X's Starship will surpass its performance and schedule. Supposedly, the Space Shuttle was its "replacement," but it, too, is dead.
Smelling bullshit about the moon landing is the unfortunate effect of sheer ignorance being inserted in place of "common sense." You can't substantiate any of it. I've heard all the bullshit arguments, and all they are is ignorant failure to understand photography, gravity, and other phenomena unique to the Moon. Footprints in soft dust. For one thing, it wasn't that soft, as the astronauts found out afterward. It was very hard and gritty. For another thing, the environment was vacuum and the rocket exhaust expanded to very low pressure over a very short distance. There is no reason to think the dust might have been moved, if it were out of the exhaust plume. You are thinking of the effects that would occur if there had been an atmosphere to carry the momentum of the exhaust---but since there is no atmosphere on the Moon, that didn't happen. But alas, this fact of physics, is likely too subtle for you.
unfortunate effect of sheer ignorance being inserted in place of "common sense."
look at all the words you actually substitute for 'common sense'
no my friend, it is you that fail to see 'prop rocks' in the photos of the moon landing, not me.
it is you that fails to see the backdrop used, and the multiple re-uses of the same background
the list of 'problems' with the moon landing is nearly infinite
here is a list of the real reasons each 'space mission' happened. it was literally 'taken away' after it was feared to being overused. it was and it was already to late.
But alas, this fact of physics, is likely too subtle for you.
ah yes, you are a professional! making up new stuff as we go! right on.
for one, there is a atmosphere, supposedly . you seem to omit facts or change them as it suits you.
is that common sense to you?
given the entire picture, a few pieces (dust didn't move) being shaky is 'small potatoes' compared to the fact the first time they attempted to land a 'lunar modular' using rocket propulsion failed incredibly badly. - and was never tested again
or the first/only time they tested a 'space suit' the man fainted .. and it was never tested again
i say you must overlook an insane amount of evidence that fails the scientific test
You are making allegations without evidence. What is a "prop rock"? That's what you are declaring what you see, not evidence of it being unauthentic. Same thing about a "backdrop." What makes the background view a "backdrop"? The fact that it doesn't change with time? Gee, that is sort of what happens in a largely stationary environment: not much happens.
The "moondoggie" page is just a reading assignment. I looked at the first article. No images. No interest in wasting my time because you can't make a point for yourself.
An atmosphere on the Moon? If you think so, you are truly ignorant. It is vacuum. Rocket exhaust has nothing to push around, and it expands very rapidly once out of the nozzle, so there is no problem with small rocks not being moved. (There is some streaking radiating from where the exhaust did impinge.) The first time landing the LEM did not fail (there was an interval that the guidance program had to work through before touchdown, and this was known by both the astronauts and ground control). Space suits were in use since the Mercury flights.
I say you need to learn some science before you see "evidence" that is only your own misunderstanding or ignorance.
curcumference of a circle = pi x (radius)^2 area of a sphere = 4pi x (radius)^2 This is elementary geometry. Only the profoundly ignorant do not know or use this.
it is spelled circumference
Earth curvature must figure into the problem at large distances.
yes, yet it is not. and we have multiple examples in which it is clearly violated (see the bottom of mountains from over 100 miles away)
that is entirely my point. you assume it is used, you are wrong.
Jump on a typo made with a tired mind. I'm shaking in my boots.
You are not really talking about curvature, but of the perceived horizon. In cases where it is possible to see as you claim (also seeing Chicago across Lake Michigan), what is in effect is the "fata morgana," a kind of atmospheric refraction that allows light to curve close to the curvature of the Earth. This is particularly the case with microwaves, which leads to calculating the radar horizon range as though the radius of the Earth were 4/3 of its physical value. (This effect goes away as the radar path becomes higher in the atmosphere.)
It is well understood that when the Sun is visibly touching the horizon, it is geometrically already under the horizon. This is due to refraction effects. But the sun still sinks lower and is progressively eclipsed by the horizon from the bottom to its top.
So microwave towers prove nothing for you. They are needed to "see" over the ground clutter and to have a communication path to the next nearest tower. They don't prove anything (you don't even hint at what they are supposed to prove).
What is your problem with microwave towers? Earth curvature must figure into the problem at large distances. It does with radar and air-to-air microwave communication. Along with atmospheric refraction. I did this for a living. You are talking through your hat.
curcumference of a circle = pi x (radius)^2 area of a sphere = 4pi x (radius)^2 This is elementary geometry. Only the profoundly ignorant do not know or use this. (If you want the x & y coordinates of a circle, talk to a 9th grader who has taken analytical geometry. In polar coordinates it is a radius R across 2pi steradians of angle.)
Forbes is not an expert publication in rocket propulsion. According to NASA, the STS will be a "replacement" for the Saturn V. Informed technical opinion projects it will be canceled for budgetary reasons---and because Space X's Starship will surpass its performance and schedule. Supposedly, the Space Shuttle was its "replacement," but it, too, is dead.
Smelling bullshit about the moon landing is the unfortunate effect of sheer ignorance being inserted in place of "common sense." You can't substantiate any of it. I've heard all the bullshit arguments, and all they are is ignorant failure to understand photography, gravity, and other phenomena unique to the Moon. Footprints in soft dust. For one thing, it wasn't that soft, as the astronauts found out afterward. It was very hard and gritty. For another thing, the environment was vacuum and the rocket exhaust expanded to very low pressure over a very short distance. There is no reason to think the dust might have been moved, if it were out of the exhaust plume. You are thinking of the effects that would occur if there had been an atmosphere to carry the momentum of the exhaust---but since there is no atmosphere on the Moon, that didn't happen. But alas, this fact of physics, is likely too subtle for you.
look at all the words you actually substitute for 'common sense'
no my friend, it is you that fail to see 'prop rocks' in the photos of the moon landing, not me.
it is you that fails to see the backdrop used, and the multiple re-uses of the same background
the list of 'problems' with the moon landing is nearly infinite
here is a list of the real reasons each 'space mission' happened. it was literally 'taken away' after it was feared to being overused. it was and it was already to late.
https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie/
ah yes, you are a professional! making up new stuff as we go! right on.
for one, there is a atmosphere, supposedly . you seem to omit facts or change them as it suits you.
is that common sense to you?
given the entire picture, a few pieces (dust didn't move) being shaky is 'small potatoes' compared to the fact the first time they attempted to land a 'lunar modular' using rocket propulsion failed incredibly badly. - and was never tested again
or the first/only time they tested a 'space suit' the man fainted .. and it was never tested again
i say you must overlook an insane amount of evidence that fails the scientific test
You are making allegations without evidence. What is a "prop rock"? That's what you are declaring what you see, not evidence of it being unauthentic. Same thing about a "backdrop." What makes the background view a "backdrop"? The fact that it doesn't change with time? Gee, that is sort of what happens in a largely stationary environment: not much happens.
The "moondoggie" page is just a reading assignment. I looked at the first article. No images. No interest in wasting my time because you can't make a point for yourself.
An atmosphere on the Moon? If you think so, you are truly ignorant. It is vacuum. Rocket exhaust has nothing to push around, and it expands very rapidly once out of the nozzle, so there is no problem with small rocks not being moved. (There is some streaking radiating from where the exhaust did impinge.) The first time landing the LEM did not fail (there was an interval that the guidance program had to work through before touchdown, and this was known by both the astronauts and ground control). Space suits were in use since the Mercury flights.
I say you need to learn some science before you see "evidence" that is only your own misunderstanding or ignorance.
it is spelled circumference
yes, yet it is not. and we have multiple examples in which it is clearly violated (see the bottom of mountains from over 100 miles away)
that is entirely my point. you assume it is used, you are wrong.
none. they prove my point
Jump on a typo made with a tired mind. I'm shaking in my boots.
You are not really talking about curvature, but of the perceived horizon. In cases where it is possible to see as you claim (also seeing Chicago across Lake Michigan), what is in effect is the "fata morgana," a kind of atmospheric refraction that allows light to curve close to the curvature of the Earth. This is particularly the case with microwaves, which leads to calculating the radar horizon range as though the radius of the Earth were 4/3 of its physical value. (This effect goes away as the radar path becomes higher in the atmosphere.)
It is well understood that when the Sun is visibly touching the horizon, it is geometrically already under the horizon. This is due to refraction effects. But the sun still sinks lower and is progressively eclipsed by the horizon from the bottom to its top.
So microwave towers prove nothing for you. They are needed to "see" over the ground clutter and to have a communication path to the next nearest tower. They don't prove anything (you don't even hint at what they are supposed to prove).