Chatroom*

Zero gravity planes only demonstrate that things fall at a constant rate, not the cause of that falling.

Pictures were faked in darkroom "photoshops" before the means of digital manipulation.

Also sophisticated miniatures & special effects have been employed in the space program from its inception.

"Douglas Trumbull, the industry pioneer behind the special effects of 2001: A Space Odyssey, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and Blade Runner joins post-secondary students and faculty to discuss his remarkable career in visual effects and his own directorial projects.This Higher Learning event was held on December 9, 2010 at TIFF Bell Lightbox." https://youtu.be/FBaZQojd1_s

This guy worked for NASA before being hired by Stanley Kubrick to create special effects for 2001. He describes all of this and the means by which NASA faked its early missions in the video above.

First, do you have any proof that the moon landing was take in a darkroom? Also, specifically affects haven’t been used or were in its infancy at that time. 3 point on zero gravity planes: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travel-truths/how-do-zero-gravity-planes-work-parabolic-flights/amp/

Do you have any proof that it wasn't?

https://incredible-adventures.com/zero-g-how.html

Zero g planes aren't evidence that mass attracts mass. I already accept that things fall at 9.8m/s/s

It’s evidence about the breaking of gravity. I also provided expirements Newton did himself.

Newton himself acknowledge that he didn't know what the cause of gravitation was.

Also you’re saying that NASA’s annual budget was all for nothing?

So?

That doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.

Do you you know what strong force is?

If NASA was willing to lie about their missions, obviously they would also be willing to lie about their budget.

In an atom was keeps the protons together is strong force in an atom. We don’t exactly know why it happens. But, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

Their budget report is not a strong argument to support the reality of their missions.

That’s not my only argument. It was a point. Also IT would have been congress who was creating the funding that lies not NASA.

If it was true. Which it isn’t.

That's true, we don't know why atoms stay together. I already said I agree that things fall at the rate Newton measured. But only if it's caused by mass attracting mass would object tend toward sphericity - that's what this argument was originally about.

You don't know for a fact whether it's true or not.

It's a claim that isn't easy to prove or disprove. Personally, I am highly skeptical of it.

Nope. My argument was that matter as it gets bigger will be forced into a physical shape due to the force of gravity forcing it into that shape.

Also who is agent smith

I keep seeing that.

Why would the fact that things fall on earth force objects into spherical shapes?

agent smith is a bot

It’s kinda a long explanation so here: https://theconversation.com/amp/curious-kids-why-is-the-earth-round-80311

Do you really think I'm simply unaware of basic physics?

The point is that you're simply taking experts' word for it rather than demanding tangible and reproducible evidence.

Reproducible evidence? It’s been reproduced thousands of times with each of our planets in our solar system. Also, what better explanation do you have?

No it hasn't. You are assuming that the movement of the "planets" is caused by the same force that causes things to fall on earth.

That's where the evidence is lacking.

I dont have a better explanation. But my lack of a better explanation is not proof that your speculative mathematics provide one.

I think that the "experiment" used to derive the gravitational constant is bogus.

Without solid evidence of "Big G", the heliocentric model is merely speculative.

I’m not asumimg it. It has been proven. We are able to measure the gravitation lull and orbit around objects. These equations have been created by newton himself.

Pull*

I gtg to bed