Why Did We Get Into Space

Can you say why please?

Sure. I posted the answer already.

I have no idea Sophergeo where you get the notion that a force formula predicts that heavier than air flying machines are impossible. The formula tells us how one force on a plane behaves.

A plane that is heavier than air experiences a number of forces one of which is gravity. The same is true for lighter than air flying machines. A simple model for the forces involves thrust, lift, drag, and gravity.

The formula you provided shows how to calculate one of these forces. To fly a plane must have a net force that overcomes the forces of gravity and drag.
 
Lord Kelvin believed in gravitation. Period. No correction required but I appreciate your effort.
So economists are gravitational economists?
Pig farmers are gravitational pig farmers?
Sloppy terminolgy requires correction.

Why did Lord Kelvin say heavier than air flying machines are impossible? Because he believed F = G x m1m2/r^2.
Rubbish, F = G x m1m2/r^2 has nothing whatsoever to do with his comment on the feasibility of heavier than air machines.
It was an engineering comment made by a non-engineer.
 
So economists are gravitational economists?
Pig farmers are gravitational pig farmers?
Sloppy terminolgy requires correction.
Still waiting to hear why you think Lord Kelvin rejected gravitation and why he thought heavier than air flying machines are impossible.

Rubbish, F = G x m1m2/r^2 has nothing whatsoever to do with his comment on the feasibility of heavier than air machines.
It was an engineering comment made by a non-engineer.
Still waiting to hear why you think Lord Kelvin rejected gravitation and why he thought heavier than air flying machines are impossible.
 
Everything. F = G x m1m2/r^2 doesn't describe anything in the known universe. The moon does not fall to the Earth at 9.8 meters per second squared but rather falls away from the Earth at 3.8 cm per year. And ozone which is heavier than oxygen defies gravity. And clouds defy gravity. All the chemical compounds and elements in the atmosphere defy gravity.

Again, this is all misleading.

The moon does not fall to the Earth at 9.8 meters per second squared but rather falls away from the Earth at 3.8 cm per year

The is wrong. The moon does fall towards the Earth. That is only one of the forces acting on the moon. The moon is in motion. There is a force tangential to its motion. The net result is a moon in orbit.

ozone which is heavier than oxygen defies gravity
Gravity acts on ozone. Why have you decided that it defies gravity?

And clouds defy gravity
Help me out here on your thinking. What do you think a cloud is?

All the chemical compounds and elements in the atmosphere defy gravity.
To assist you in understanding that gravity works on everything including air, water, people, mountains, etc. please tell us why you think air defies gravity?
 
What forces are you talking about? The electromagnetic force? But I thought gravity is the dominant force in the universe.

I spelled them out already in a previous post.
 
Again, this is all misleading.
Facts are misleading?

Why are facts misleading? Because they contradict your occult 17th century hypothesis?

The is wrong. The moon does fall towards the Earth.
The moon falls away from the Earth at 3.8 cm per year. It's a fact. Laser Ranging from the Apollo Program.

That is only one of the forces acting on the moon.
You mean electromagnetism is a force acting on the moon? But I thought gravitation is the dominant force in the universe. Nevermind the fact that electromagnetism is 2 x 10^39 times more powerful than the alleged force of gravitation.

The moon is in motion.
Relative to what? Relative to the Earth, the moon is in motion away from the Earth at 3.8 cm per year.

There is a force tangential to its motion.
How do you know that?

Gravity acts on ozone. Why have you decided that it defies gravity?
Ozone is found at the highest levels of the atmosphere which defies gravity. Since the atmosphere is a mixture, ozone which is heavier than oxygen should fall to the Earth by specific gravity. But it does not.

Help me out here on your thinking. What do you think a cloud is?
Water is heavier than nitrogen.

To assist you in understanding that gravity works on everything including air, water, people, mountains, etc. please tell us why you think air defies gravity?
The air is made of nitrogen, oxygen, argon, and carbon dioxide, and trace compounds.

Argon is the heaviest and should fall to the bottom, but defies gravity because it is 1% of the atmosphere at any altitude.
 
Still waiting to hear why you think Lord Kelvin rejected gravitation and why he thought heavier than air flying machines are impossible.
Still waiting to hear why you think Lord Kelvin rejected gravitation and why he thought heavier than air flying machines are impossible.

I haven't said anywhere that he rejected gravitation.
And I have stated that he made a comment on engineering feasibility and that it was an error in judgement.
Which parts don't you understand?
 
I haven't said anywhere that he rejected gravitation.
And I have stated that he made a comment on engineering feasibility and that it was an error in judgement.
Which parts don't you understand?
Well I'm glad you admit Lord Kelvin believed in gravitation. And it is for this reason (F = G x m1m2/r^2) he didn't think heavier than air flying machines are possible. Still waiting for anyone to demonstrate otherwise.
 
Well I'm glad you admit Lord Kelvin believed in gravitation.
Nothing to "admit", it was never in dispute as far as I was concerned.

And it is for this reason (F = G x m1m2/r^2) he didn't think heavier than air flying machines are possible. Still waiting for anyone to demonstrate otherwise.
And no, it wasn't for that reason, it was an ENGINEERING judgement made erroneously.
 
It was kind of a dumb thing to say on Lord Kelvin's part. There are many examples in nature of heavier than air flight...so he had to know it was possible...just whether or not man could copy natures engineering. Obviously he got it a little wrong.
 
It was kind of a dumb thing to say on Lord Kelvin's part. There are many examples in nature of heavier than air flight...so he had to know it was possible...just whether or not man could copy natures engineering. Obviously he got it a little wrong.

Kinda dumb?
History is replete with examples.
“640K ought to be enough for anybody.” Bill Gates
“The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives.” Admiral William Leahy
"It will be years--not in my time--before a woman will become Prime Minister."
Margaret Thatcher
etc etc...

Oh, and it wasn't Kelvin's only mistake...
Radio has no future.
X-rays will prove to be a hoax.
 
Sources for those quotes?
The only ones that come up on Google are posts by you in previous incarnations.
 
Obviously Sophergeo you already know what you post is false. Very funny.

I can play this game, too.

Facts are misleading?
What facts?

The moon falls away from the Earth at 3.8 cm per year
And where is it falling to?

But I thought gravitation is the dominant force in the universe.
But the nuclear force is stronger.

Ozone is found at the highest levels of the atmosphere which defies gravity. Since the atmosphere is a mixture, ozone which is heavier than oxygen should fall to the Earth by specific gravity. But it does not.
How do you know that?

Water is heavier than nitrogen.
When did you measure this?

Argon is the heaviest and should fall to the bottom, but defies gravity because it is 1% of the atmosphere at any altitude.
Why?

That was so much fun writing nonsense. I bet you get a kick out of it, don't you?
 
"...it's [magnetism] a joke in astronomy...." -- Phil Plait, writer, August 2008
Ah, thank you.
I notice you misquote it to make your point;
It’s fiendishly complex, so much so that it’s a joke in astronomy:

"There's no observational evidence that I know of that indicates electric and magnetic forces are important on cosmological scales." -- Jeremiah P. Ostriker, astrophysicist, 1991
Since I don't have the book I can't comment.
But could it possible you've also misquoted that?

"He [Velikovsky] invents electro-magnetic forces capable of doing precisely what he wants them to do. There is no scientific evidence whatever for the powers of these forces." -- Martin Gardner, mathematician, 1957
Hmm, also not quite supporting your view: Gardner's comment is about Velikovsky's invented forces - i.e. his interpretation, rather than the accepted attributes.
 
Last edited:
You really do have comprehension problems don't you?
Of course it doesn't.
Which doesn't make your point.
You were misleading if not deliberately dishonest with that quote, I'm done with you.
 
Back
Top