|
Post by PUshift on Oct 9, 2010 16:31:17 GMT -4
That GLP thread seems now to have come to an end, no more postings since several days. Bloody bodyparts of arguments lying around, it`s a mess. Those who survived are ready to take their defeat with a "thick skin". Nomuse (and other users of this forum) came out without any injuries, just did a brilliant job. Just let them go on their own logical way crashing into the next wall of stupidity. I enjoyed it a lot. For those HBs, a change of mind seems to be an option. Acceptance of an own mistake in this dimension is not an option because it needed to get a new life afterwards. For real scientists it must be, beneath general frustrations, healthy to be sent back to their laboratory or drawing board already after the first fail-of-proof on a new theory. If they had to wait until trashing the last 10 years of work at once it´ll be more difficult to accept. HB´s are already in a simular phase (without having worked out even a small part of knowlegde in that whole time) since they never iterate, just repeat and always STAY FOR T1 only. Not even moving anyhow seems still to be an option. please correct english mistakes of mine, thank you. (I´m not even sure if this sentence was expressed correctly) :-)
|
|
|
Post by astronaut23 on Oct 9, 2010 23:41:35 GMT -4
I heard a funny one the other day. On youtube someone posted that if you believe men could go to the moon then you would need 2 football field size fuel tanks more of fuel than they had? I think I've realized that hoax believers don't understand the physics of spaceflight. No wonder they can't believe. They think they have to burn the engines all the way to the moon and back just like a plane or car? They don't realize that they coasted 99% of the time?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Oct 10, 2010 0:52:22 GMT -4
For heaven's sake, the filmmakers of Despicable Me got that right!
|
|
|
Post by Glom on Oct 11, 2010 10:09:34 GMT -4
The French certainly say comma or vergule more specifically.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Oct 11, 2010 21:12:06 GMT -4
I heard a funny one the other day. On youtube someone posted that if you believe men could go to the moon then you would need 2 football field size fuel tanks more of fuel than they had? Hey, I think I know that guy. Or I ran into someone like him who also couldn't understand that rockets don't burn all the way to their destinations. I tried, I really tried to explain the concept of ballistic flight in several different ways.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Oct 12, 2010 4:03:58 GMT -4
The fact that a ball keeps moving even after you let go is a mystery to these people then?
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Oct 12, 2010 4:41:02 GMT -4
UK football field size or that other type they play over the pond? Important to get the facts right you know.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Oct 12, 2010 6:07:55 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Oct 12, 2010 17:48:43 GMT -4
The fact that a ball keeps moving even after you let go is a mystery to these people then? Apparently so. Movies like Star Wars don't help. The first scene of the first movie begins with a huge Empire star cruiser flying overhead, its engines continually ablaze. By the time Star Wars came out, I guess most people had forgotten those scenes in "2001" showing the Discovery with its engines silent.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Oct 12, 2010 20:05:26 GMT -4
The fact that a ball keeps moving even after you let go is a mystery to these people then? Apparently so. Movies like Star Wars don't help. The first scene of the first movie begins with a huge Empire star cruiser flying overhead, its engines continually ablaze. By the time Star Wars came out, I guess most people had forgotten those scenes in "2001" showing the Discovery with its engines silent. Wait, isn't the very existence of 2001 the Ultimate Proof that the whole thing Could Have Been Faked though? Because everything was so accurate and all, on account of Kubrick being such an obsessive cinematographer...
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Oct 12, 2010 20:35:50 GMT -4
Wait, isn't the very existence of 2001 the Ultimate Proof that the whole thing Could Have Been Faked though? Because everything was so accurate and all, on account of Kubrick being such an obsessive cinematographer...I realize that the above was said rather "tongue-in-cheek" in keeping with the overall tone of the thread... however, with regards to the "accuracy" of 2001 vs. the reality of Apollo: Astrobrant2's "Kubric, 2001, and Apollo" parts 1 and 2 ** FYI: the audio for the first few minutes of part 1 is from a trailer for 2001 and is quite loud compared to the rest of the video. ** Cz
|
|
|
Post by thetart on Oct 15, 2010 4:59:13 GMT -4
UK football field size or that other type they play over the pond? Important to get the facts right you know. Well if it is Stoke City FCs ground they won't make it cos they put the touclines in as close as possible so that guy who takes the throw ins gets an advantage. If it was Arsenals pitch they might just make it, according to my calculations.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Oct 15, 2010 11:27:37 GMT -4
Those videos are nice, but I'm going to call shenanigans on the "flaws" in the way the artefact is illuminated; the book goes to great lengths to point out how weird the thing is when lit, in that it responds like a light-sucking void rather than a matt black slab of stone. I think Kubrick was simply attempting to convey this.
|
|