RE: The Moon landing vs Interstellar

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

The Moon landing vs Interstellar

in conspiracy •  7 years ago  (edited)

It shows the further away, the less we care about laws of nature.

It only seems to make sense at first sight, but it doesn't. Why the bigger ship if it could be done with a much smaller ship? Also it is not just "A is bigger and therefore B should be bigger", it is the enormous difference in power for a relatively small difference in gravity.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Theres more than just gravity to take into consideration. Earth also has a denser atmosphere, while the moon is practically a vacuum. Its like how trying to run under water takes way more force than running on land.

I can kind of see what you're saying about caring less about the laws of nature further away. We know a lot about black holes from observation and calculations, but nobody has ever passed through one and lived to tell the story.. Also, whatever spacecraft they invent doesn't have to function in reality, so they dont have to take physics into consideration. A movie like Interstellar allows creative license to make up whatever science-(fiction) works with the story. Its not a documentary.

Actually, black holes are an excellent example of this.

Black holes are a scientific thought experiment designed to fix the problem of their not being enough gravity to make a galaxy work. We have never actually seen one. And we only assume that since gravity is in affect here, it is the effect for the galaxy.

And then, this astronomer lady found out that the entire galaxy rotates as if all the stars were stuck to a plate. The outer stars rotate the same amount of degrees per time unit as the inner stars. And so, to explain this phenomena, they came up with dark matter. (remember the story of the dragon in the garage?)

So, black holes and dark matter are used to explain something far away, because we just assume gravity is what makes everything go round. Why haven't we dropped that assumption and looked for something much better at explaining the phenomena: such a large and small galactic force?

There is also no new galactic force required, though it is true that there may be forces at work on this scale that we do not have knowledge of.
You should look up the electric universe (see links in @jschindler's comment below, or just google it). They provide very elegant proofs for many things that baffle mainstream scientists.

Yep, I know the electric universe model. But it still doesn't explain how the entire galaxy rotates as one.

To me there are three pares of push-pull forces

  • Large and small nuclear forces (teeny tiny)
  • Large and small electric forces (man sized)
  • Large and small galactic forces (great huge)