The real question is, who has taken which pill.
Also i wouldn't worry about discussing this stuff here. Its the only place I discuss it. And I dont take differences of opinion personally.
Printable View
The real question is, who has taken which pill.
Also i wouldn't worry about discussing this stuff here. Its the only place I discuss it. And I dont take differences of opinion personally.
The Red Pill brings with it a very painful, awkward, uncomfortable, alienating, difficult, challenging, radical departure from what you were taught as a child is the truth. The nice comfy world that you have grown to love is replaced with something much more difficult.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron Gustaveson
The Blue Pill represents the easy acceptance, compliance, go-with-the-herd mentality that does not require a complete top-to-bottom readjustment of your belief system.
I'm assuming you won't argue with that?
Aaron, if you and I walk into the town square, each of us defending our side of this debate. Which of us do you think faces ridicule, insults, and attacks? Which view point do you think equates to which pill?
Perhaps I misunderstand, but it seems like you're saying I ate the blue one and you ate the red one?
Can you imagine how much more successful Eddie would be (financially, socially) if he didn't say the stuff he says? No more pot, not more 911, no more JFK... way more money, way easier acceptance into the existing system... which pill is that again?
All the people who think Fox news or CNN is telling them truth, they all believe the same thing, that moon landings are real, 911 was a dude in a cave, JFK was LHO by himself, Pearl Harbor was a surprise, Gulf of T was an attack, Hitler was not supplied and funded by western bankers, the FED has the well-being of humanity in mind...
Which viewpoint gets you beat up if you proclaim it in the wrong crowd? Do you think the Architects and Engineers for 911 truth will smash your face if you hand out pamphlets at their speaking engagement? Now consider the opposite scenario... Which pill is which again?
I suppose you're right, it is a matter of who took which pill. And perhaps my blue pill has confused and lulled me into the idea that I ate the red one? Perhaps. I have an alternative hypothesis :)
Goddammit.
All I wanted was to celebrate the badassery of one of the smartest guys in the world.
Fuck.
I dont think Eddie would be any more successful if he didnt voice his views.
And yes Ross, NDT is a badass. Sorry, i can't help myself.
EVERY GOD DAMN TIME! This is why we can't have nice thing! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ross Davidson
The people are crying out for a hero to come forth! Sadly, all that's available is a bored half-drunk geophysicist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Murray
Since we only care about final and initial values, we don't actually don't need to do any calculus at all, just some algebra.
All we need is the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation:
delV = Ve * ln( mo / mf)
delV is the change in velocity we need (.7*2400=1680) [m/s]
Ve is the exhaust velocity (average speed of the exhaust jet) [m/s]
mo/mf is the ratio of initial to final mass
Ve of the lunar lander is 3005 m/s
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_Propulsion_System
This number isn't controversial at all - go to your local air show and you can see an SR71 with an exhaust velocity close to 20000 m/s
So what can we calculate with the above equation? The fuel mass we need!
1680 = 3005 * ln(mo/mf)
1680/3005 = ln(mo/mf)
mo/mf=e^(1680/3005)
mo/mf=1.75
So they needed to carry 75% of the thing's weight in fuel! Or, put another way, they needed 42% of their total mass to be fuel. Wow, is that even possible?! Sure! Just bring along a little engine helper thingy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_...Service_Module
That's not weird at all. Again, go to your local air show; the SR71 has a mo/mf ratio of 2.83, and even the F22 has a ratio of 1.93. Hell, your car is around 1.05, i.e., not insignificant.
Ok, so how long do we have to burn to achieve our 1680 m/s? The lunar lander was about 15000 kg. That means we need 11250 kg of fuel. With a fuel ejection (burn) rate of 30kg/s...
11250/30=375s
Or just over 6 minutes.
In summary, I have no idea if we landed on the moon or not. But we sure as shit *could* do it if we wanted to.
That's the descent engine, not the ascent engine. Wikipedia lists ascent engine at 2220 m/secQuote:
Originally Posted by Amir Allam
You also list the F22's ratio of 1.93. Here's a picture of it
https://chivethebrigade.files.wordpr...gine-920-8.jpg
After you fix your data from the 3000 to 2220 m/sec what is the new mo/mf ratio needed from the engine required by the ascent module?
How much does that f22 engine weigh do you think, to be able to produce 1.9? Now consider they claim the dry weight of the ascent module was only 4000kg.
So where on this thing, do we find an engine capable of putting out that kind of thrust?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LM...tration_02.jpg
Nowhere.
also note only the top half of that thing is the ascent module.
Here is an F22 engine firing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71emUESjfZE
And here is the ascent module firing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Obd_jTO66-0
The idea that these are even close to the same is laughable.
In this image of the F22 engine you can see it's over 20 feet long
http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/f...=871&mode=view
The ascent module, including 2 astronauts, all the fuel, supplies, technical equipment, o2, everything they needed was only 12' x 14' x 13'.
Here is another good one... in this image you can see a little exhaust port under the ascent module that is supposed to be an engine exhaust. But where's the engine above it? Nowhere, that's where the astronauts were supposed to be.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missio...ages/lm_lg.gif
Here is another image showing the ascent module on the top half of the drawing. Note the little drawing of the guy standing in it for scale.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...inedrawing.png
And here is picture of a rocket capable of producing the thrust required:
http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/images/f22-02.jpg