On 4/14/2022 7:30 PM, A Friend wrote:
> In article
> <887672195.671668148.916339.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> A Friend
>>>>> chromebook test
>>>>>
>>>>> "Both nations seek to broaden their space exploration initiatives,
>>>>> together
>>>>> and individually, with plans to explore the moon and Mars during the next
>>>>> 30
>>>>> years," he said. "If successful, these efforts will likely lead to
>>>>> attempts
>>>>> by Beijing and Moscow to exploit the moon's natural resources."
>>>>
>>>> That only makes sense if you're going to use lunar material to build
>>>> colonies. Getting stuff from the moon to Earth is going to be very
>>>> expensive, and I can't imagine what might be on the moon that would be
>>>> worth it.
>>>
>>> The Moon is a dead end, colonization (beyond small scientific teams)
>>> is totally impractical and any resources that might be there (say, cobalt
>>> for use in batteries) would cost so much to extract, process and return
>>> to Earth that it simply won¹t happen.
>>>
>>> Mars is the only viable real estate in the solar system outside Earth
>>> and before someone says it; No, the Moon is NOT a stepping stone to
>>> get to Mars, in fact the time, money and resources expended on a Moon
>>> program will be nothing more then corporate welfare and will only set
>>> the Mars program back even further.
>>>
>>
>> We need somewhere to dump all the nuclear waste.
>>
>> In EARTHSTORM! they told us that the entire core of the moon is solid
>> uranium. That¹s probably valuable.
>>
>> In DR WHO they told us that the moon is just a big hollow shell of a space
>> dragon egg. That¹s probably not as valuable.
>
>
> It's 'way easier just to dump it all into the sun.

Actually its not. Orbital mechanics are a bitch.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 4/15/2022 9:06 AM, shawn wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 08:09:33 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 4/14/2022 7:30 PM, A Friend wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <887672195.671668148.916339.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
>>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> A Friend
>>>>>>> chromebook test
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Both nations seek to broaden their space exploration initiatives,
>>>>>>> together
>>>>>>> and individually, with plans to explore the moon and Mars during the next
>>>>>>> 30
>>>>>>> years," he said. "If successful, these efforts will likely lead to
>>>>>>> attempts
>>>>>>> by Beijing and Moscow to exploit the moon's natural resources."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That only makes sense if you're going to use lunar material to build
>>>>>> colonies. Getting stuff from the moon to Earth is going to be very
>>>>>> expensive, and I can't imagine what might be on the moon that would be
>>>>>> worth it.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Moon is a dead end, colonization (beyond small scientific teams)
>>>>> is totally impractical and any resources that might be there (say, cobalt
>>>>> for use in batteries) would cost so much to extract, process and return
>>>>> to Earth that it simply won¹t happen.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mars is the only viable real estate in the solar system outside Earth
>>>>> and before someone says it; No, the Moon is NOT a stepping stone to
>>>>> get to Mars, in fact the time, money and resources expended on a Moon
>>>>> program will be nothing more then corporate welfare and will only set
>>>>> the Mars program back even further.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We need somewhere to dump all the nuclear waste.
>>>>
>>>> In EARTHSTORM! they told us that the entire core of the moon is solid
>>>> uranium. That¹s probably valuable.
>>>>
>>>> In DR WHO they told us that the moon is just a big hollow shell of a space
>>>> dragon egg. That¹s probably not as valuable.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's 'way easier just to dump it all into the sun.
>>
>> Actually its not. Orbital mechanics are a bitch.
>
> If we can get it into space and just lob it towards the sun that's
> good enough. If it hits Venus or Mercury that shouldn't be an issue.
> If it misses them then it is bound to get to the sun eventually. Just
> need to make sure we give enough of a push to get there.

Its the "eventually" part that's the problem. Unless you apply a very
significant delta-V in a specific way just "lobbing" it inwards results
in a comet like orbit around the sun for the next few million years.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 4/15/2022 2:50 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>> On 4/15/2022 9:06 AM, shawn wrote:
>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 08:09:33 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/14/2022 7:30 PM, A Friend wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <887672195.671668148.916339.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
>>>>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> A Friend
>>>>>>>>> chromebook test
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Both nations seek to broaden their space exploration initiatives,
>>>>>>>>> together
>>>>>>>>> and individually, with plans to explore the moon and Mars during the next
>>>>>>>>> 30
>>>>>>>>> years," he said. "If successful, these efforts will likely lead to
>>>>>>>>> attempts
>>>>>>>>> by Beijing and Moscow to exploit the moon's natural resources."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That only makes sense if you're going to use lunar material to build
>>>>>>>> colonies. Getting stuff from the moon to Earth is going to be very
>>>>>>>> expensive, and I can't imagine what might be on the moon that would be
>>>>>>>> worth it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Moon is a dead end, colonization (beyond small scientific teams)
>>>>>>> is totally impractical and any resources that might be there (say, cobalt
>>>>>>> for use in batteries) would cost so much to extract, process and return
>>>>>>> to Earth that it simply won¹t happen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mars is the only viable real estate in the solar system outside Earth
>>>>>>> and before someone says it; No, the Moon is NOT a stepping stone to
>>>>>>> get to Mars, in fact the time, money and resources expended on a Moon
>>>>>>> program will be nothing more then corporate welfare and will only set
>>>>>>> the Mars program back even further.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We need somewhere to dump all the nuclear waste.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In EARTHSTORM! they told us that the entire core of the moon is solid
>>>>>> uranium. That¹s probably valuable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In DR WHO they told us that the moon is just a big hollow shell of a space
>>>>>> dragon egg. That¹s probably not as valuable.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's 'way easier just to dump it all into the sun.
>>>>
>>>> Actually its not. Orbital mechanics are a bitch.
>>>
>>> If we can get it into space and just lob it towards the sun that's
>>> good enough. If it hits Venus or Mercury that shouldn't be an issue.
>>> If it misses them then it is bound to get to the sun eventually. Just
>>> need to make sure we give enough of a push to get there.
>>
>> Its the "eventually" part that's the problem. Unless you apply a very
>> significant delta-V in a specific way just "lobbing" it inwards results
>> in a comet like orbit around the sun for the next few million years.
>>
>
> Didn’t we go through this recently about the TV movie EARTH II where
> Mariette Hartley wanted to get rid of an atomic bomb so she just opened the
> airlock and waited until the rotating station let her see the sun and gave
> it a push?
>
> They really should’ve executed her for that.
>
If we did I missed it.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 2022-04-15 5:50 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>> On 4/15/2022 9:06 AM, shawn wrote:
>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 08:09:33 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/14/2022 7:30 PM, A Friend wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <887672195.671668148.916339.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
>>>>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> A Friend
>>>>>>>>> chromebook test
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Both nations seek to broaden their space exploration initiatives,
>>>>>>>>> together
>>>>>>>>> and individually, with plans to explore the moon and Mars during the next
>>>>>>>>> 30
>>>>>>>>> years," he said. "If successful, these efforts will likely lead to
>>>>>>>>> attempts
>>>>>>>>> by Beijing and Moscow to exploit the moon's natural resources."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That only makes sense if you're going to use lunar material to build
>>>>>>>> colonies. Getting stuff from the moon to Earth is going to be very
>>>>>>>> expensive, and I can't imagine what might be on the moon that would be
>>>>>>>> worth it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Moon is a dead end, colonization (beyond small scientific teams)
>>>>>>> is totally impractical and any resources that might be there (say, cobalt
>>>>>>> for use in batteries) would cost so much to extract, process and return
>>>>>>> to Earth that it simply won¹t happen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mars is the only viable real estate in the solar system outside Earth
>>>>>>> and before someone says it; No, the Moon is NOT a stepping stone to
>>>>>>> get to Mars, in fact the time, money and resources expended on a Moon
>>>>>>> program will be nothing more then corporate welfare and will only set
>>>>>>> the Mars program back even further.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We need somewhere to dump all the nuclear waste.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In EARTHSTORM! they told us that the entire core of the moon is solid
>>>>>> uranium. That¹s probably valuable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In DR WHO they told us that the moon is just a big hollow shell of a space
>>>>>> dragon egg. That¹s probably not as valuable.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's 'way easier just to dump it all into the sun.
>>>>
>>>> Actually its not. Orbital mechanics are a bitch.
>>>
>>> If we can get it into space and just lob it towards the sun that's
>>> good enough. If it hits Venus or Mercury that shouldn't be an issue.
>>> If it misses them then it is bound to get to the sun eventually. Just
>>> need to make sure we give enough of a push to get there.
>>
>> Its the "eventually" part that's the problem. Unless you apply a very
>> significant delta-V in a specific way just "lobbing" it inwards results
>> in a comet like orbit around the sun for the next few million years.
>>
>
> Didn’t we go through this recently about the TV movie EARTH II where
> Mariette Hartley wanted to get rid of an atomic bomb so she just opened the
> airlock and waited until the rotating station let her see the sun and gave
> it a push?
>
> They really should’ve executed her for that.
>
Or at least the writers for having written something like that despite
the availability of technical advisers who would explain that it wasn't
that easy.

--
Rhino

On 4/16/2022 8:55 AM, Rhino wrote:
> On 2022-04-15 5:50 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>> On 4/15/2022 9:06 AM, shawn wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 08:09:33 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/14/2022 7:30 PM, A Friend wrote:
>>>>>> In article
>>>>>> <887672195.671668148.916339.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
>>>>>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> A Friend
>>>>>>>>>> chromebook test
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Both nations seek to broaden their space exploration
>>>>>>>>>> initiatives,
>>>>>>>>>> together
>>>>>>>>>> and individually, with plans to explore the moon and Mars
>>>>>>>>>> during the next
>>>>>>>>>> 30
>>>>>>>>>> years," he said. "If successful, these efforts will likely
>>>>>>>>>> lead to
>>>>>>>>>> attempts
>>>>>>>>>> by Beijing and Moscow to exploit the moon's natural resources."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That only makes sense if you're going to use lunar material to
>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>> colonies. Getting stuff from the moon to Earth is going to be very
>>>>>>>>> expensive, and I can't imagine what might be on the moon that
>>>>>>>>> would be
>>>>>>>>> worth it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Moon is a dead end, colonization (beyond small scientific
>>>>>>>> teams)
>>>>>>>> is totally impractical and any resources that might be there
>>>>>>>> (say, cobalt
>>>>>>>> for use in batteries) would cost so much to extract, process and
>>>>>>>> return
>>>>>>>> to Earth that it simply won¹t happen.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mars is the only viable real estate in the solar system outside
>>>>>>>> Earth
>>>>>>>> and before someone says it; No, the Moon is NOT a stepping stone to
>>>>>>>> get to Mars, in fact the time, money and resources expended on a
>>>>>>>> Moon
>>>>>>>> program will be nothing more then corporate welfare and will
>>>>>>>> only set
>>>>>>>> the Mars program back even further.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We need somewhere to dump all the nuclear waste.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In EARTHSTORM! they told us that the entire core of the moon is
>>>>>>> solid
>>>>>>> uranium. That¹s probably valuable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In DR WHO they told us that the moon is just a big hollow shell
>>>>>>> of a space
>>>>>>> dragon egg. That¹s probably not as valuable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's 'way easier just to dump it all into the sun.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually its not.  Orbital mechanics are a bitch.
>>>>
>>>> If we can get it into space and just lob it towards the sun that's
>>>> good enough. If it hits Venus or Mercury that shouldn't be an issue.
>>>> If it misses them then it is bound to get to the sun eventually. Just
>>>> need to make sure we give enough of a push to get there.
>>>
>>> Its the "eventually" part that's the problem.  Unless you apply a very
>>> significant delta-V in a specific way just "lobbing" it inwards results
>>> in a comet like orbit around the sun for the next few million years.
>>>
>>
>> Didn’t we go through this recently about the TV movie EARTH II where
>> Mariette Hartley wanted to get rid of an atomic bomb so she just
>> opened the
>> airlock and waited until the rotating station let her see the sun and
>> gave
>> it a push?
>>
>> They really should’ve executed her for that.
>>
> Or at least the writers for having written something like that despite
> the availability of technical advisers who would explain that it wasn't
> that easy.
>
What makes you think the writers and technical advisors are allowed to
talk to each other? As I understand it, the writers write, send the
script off to the director who proceeds to ignore most of it as not
being in tune with his "vision". The technical advisors are present on
set to see what the director's "vision" gets wrong and be ignored when
they tell them. At best you've got to institutionally ignored groups
talking to each so they can be ignored collectively instead of individually.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 4/16/2022 2:47 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>> On 4/16/2022 8:55 AM, Rhino wrote:
>>> On 2022-04-15 5:50 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 4/15/2022 9:06 AM, shawn wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 08:09:33 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>>>>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/14/2022 7:30 PM, A Friend wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>> <887672195.671668148.916339.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
>>>>>>>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> A Friend
>>>>>>>>>>>> chromebook test
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Both nations seek to broaden their space exploration
>>>>>>>>>>>> initiatives,
>>>>>>>>>>>> together
>>>>>>>>>>>> and individually, with plans to explore the moon and Mars
>>>>>>>>>>>> during the next
>>>>>>>>>>>> 30
>>>>>>>>>>>> years," he said. "If successful, these efforts will likely
>>>>>>>>>>>> lead to
>>>>>>>>>>>> attempts
>>>>>>>>>>>> by Beijing and Moscow to exploit the moon's natural resources."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That only makes sense if you're going to use lunar material to
>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>> colonies. Getting stuff from the moon to Earth is going to be very
>>>>>>>>>>> expensive, and I can't imagine what might be on the moon that
>>>>>>>>>>> would be
>>>>>>>>>>> worth it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Moon is a dead end, colonization (beyond small scientific
>>>>>>>>>> teams)
>>>>>>>>>> is totally impractical and any resources that might be there
>>>>>>>>>> (say, cobalt
>>>>>>>>>> for use in batteries) would cost so much to extract, process and
>>>>>>>>>> return
>>>>>>>>>> to Earth that it simply won¹t happen.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Mars is the only viable real estate in the solar system outside
>>>>>>>>>> Earth
>>>>>>>>>> and before someone says it; No, the Moon is NOT a stepping stone to
>>>>>>>>>> get to Mars, in fact the time, money and resources expended on a
>>>>>>>>>> Moon
>>>>>>>>>> program will be nothing more then corporate welfare and will
>>>>>>>>>> only set
>>>>>>>>>> the Mars program back even further.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We need somewhere to dump all the nuclear waste.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In EARTHSTORM! they told us that the entire core of the moon is
>>>>>>>>> solid
>>>>>>>>> uranium. That¹s probably valuable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In DR WHO they told us that the moon is just a big hollow shell
>>>>>>>>> of a space
>>>>>>>>> dragon egg. That¹s probably not as valuable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's 'way easier just to dump it all into the sun.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually its not.  Orbital mechanics are a bitch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we can get it into space and just lob it towards the sun that's
>>>>>> good enough. If it hits Venus or Mercury that shouldn't be an issue.
>>>>>> If it misses them then it is bound to get to the sun eventually. Just
>>>>>> need to make sure we give enough of a push to get there.
>>>>>
>>>>> Its the "eventually" part that's the problem.  Unless you apply a very
>>>>> significant delta-V in a specific way just "lobbing" it inwards results
>>>>> in a comet like orbit around the sun for the next few million years.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Didn’t we go through this recently about the TV movie EARTH II where
>>>> Mariette Hartley wanted to get rid of an atomic bomb so she just
>>>> opened the
>>>> airlock and waited until the rotating station let her see the sun and
>>>> gave
>>>> it a push?
>>>>
>>>> They really should’ve executed her for that.
>>>>
>>> Or at least the writers for having written something like that despite
>>> the availability of technical advisers who would explain that it wasn't
>>> that easy.
>>>
>> What makes you think the writers and technical advisors are allowed to
>> talk to each other? As I understand it, the writers write, send the
>> script off to the director who proceeds to ignore most of it as not
>> being in tune with his "vision". The technical advisors are present on
>> set to see what the director's "vision" gets wrong and be ignored when
>> they tell them. At best you've got to institutionally ignored groups
>> talking to each so they can be ignored collectively instead of individually.
>>
>
> Close. There are different kinds of technical advisers. The technical
> advisor for actual technical filmmaking stuff is on the set and is ignored
> when he says “that shot won’t work because the green screen isn’t in the
> right place“ and then the Director tries to blame them when they go to do
> the effects and are told they can’t. The technical advisor for stuff in the
> script never sees anybody in person. Somebody just sends them the script
> and they send it back with a bunch of notations that are studiously
> ignored. Then when they hand the script to the special effects guys and the
> special effects guys say “this is wrong“ they are told the script has
> already been approved by the technical advisors. Generally either on or
> off set a producer will authorize additional charges to cover the stuff
> they’ve got wrong and then refuse to pay it when the bill comes due.
>
But there was a JAG episode where the Admiral was an on-set technical
advisor trying to tell the director that the character in the show they
were shooting wouldn't in a thousand years do the things that JAG was
showing Harm doing routinely! Shirley you aren't suggesting that a TV
show would get how a TV show is made wrong!

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 4/16/2022 6:18 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>> On 4/16/2022 2:47 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>> On 4/16/2022 8:55 AM, Rhino wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-04-15 5:50 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/15/2022 9:06 AM, shawn wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 08:09:33 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>>>>>>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2022 7:30 PM, A Friend wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>> <887672195.671668148.916339.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
>>>>>>>>>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Friend
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chromebook test
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Both nations seek to broaden their space exploration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initiatives,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> together
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and individually, with plans to explore the moon and Mars
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> during the next
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 30
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years," he said. "If successful, these efforts will likely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lead to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attempts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by Beijing and Moscow to exploit the moon's natural resources."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That only makes sense if you're going to use lunar material to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>>>>> colonies. Getting stuff from the moon to Earth is going to be very
>>>>>>>>>>>>> expensive, and I can't imagine what might be on the moon that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> worth it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Moon is a dead end, colonization (beyond small scientific
>>>>>>>>>>>> teams)
>>>>>>>>>>>> is totally impractical and any resources that might be there
>>>>>>>>>>>> (say, cobalt
>>>>>>>>>>>> for use in batteries) would cost so much to extract, process and
>>>>>>>>>>>> return
>>>>>>>>>>>> to Earth that it simply won¹t happen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mars is the only viable real estate in the solar system outside
>>>>>>>>>>>> Earth
>>>>>>>>>>>> and before someone says it; No, the Moon is NOT a stepping stone to
>>>>>>>>>>>> get to Mars, in fact the time, money and resources expended on a
>>>>>>>>>>>> Moon
>>>>>>>>>>>> program will be nothing more then corporate welfare and will
>>>>>>>>>>>> only set
>>>>>>>>>>>> the Mars program back even further.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We need somewhere to dump all the nuclear waste.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In EARTHSTORM! they told us that the entire core of the moon is
>>>>>>>>>>> solid
>>>>>>>>>>> uranium. That¹s probably valuable.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In DR WHO they told us that the moon is just a big hollow shell
>>>>>>>>>>> of a space
>>>>>>>>>>> dragon egg. That¹s probably not as valuable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's 'way easier just to dump it all into the sun.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Actually its not.  Orbital mechanics are a bitch.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If we can get it into space and just lob it towards the sun that's
>>>>>>>> good enough. If it hits Venus or Mercury that shouldn't be an issue.
>>>>>>>> If it misses them then it is bound to get to the sun eventually. Just
>>>>>>>> need to make sure we give enough of a push to get there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Its the "eventually" part that's the problem.  Unless you apply a very
>>>>>>> significant delta-V in a specific way just "lobbing" it inwards results
>>>>>>> in a comet like orbit around the sun for the next few million years.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Didn’t we go through this recently about the TV movie EARTH II where
>>>>>> Mariette Hartley wanted to get rid of an atomic bomb so she just
>>>>>> opened the
>>>>>> airlock and waited until the rotating station let her see the sun and
>>>>>> gave
>>>>>> it a push?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They really should’ve executed her for that.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Or at least the writers for having written something like that despite
>>>>> the availability of technical advisers who would explain that it wasn't
>>>>> that easy.
>>>>>
>>>> What makes you think the writers and technical advisors are allowed to
>>>> talk to each other? As I understand it, the writers write, send the
>>>> script off to the director who proceeds to ignore most of it as not
>>>> being in tune with his "vision". The technical advisors are present on
>>>> set to see what the director's "vision" gets wrong and be ignored when
>>>> they tell them. At best you've got to institutionally ignored groups
>>>> talking to each so they can be ignored collectively instead of individually.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Close. There are different kinds of technical advisers. The technical
>>> advisor for actual technical filmmaking stuff is on the set and is ignored
>>> when he says “that shot won’t work because the green screen isn’t in the
>>> right place“ and then the Director tries to blame them when they go to do
>>> the effects and are told they can’t. The technical advisor for stuff in the
>>> script never sees anybody in person. Somebody just sends them the script
>>> and they send it back with a bunch of notations that are studiously
>>> ignored. Then when they hand the script to the special effects guys and the
>>> special effects guys say “this is wrong“ they are told the script has
>>> already been approved by the technical advisors. Generally either on or
>>> off set a producer will authorize additional charges to cover the stuff
>>> they’ve got wrong and then refuse to pay it when the bill comes due.
>>>
>> But there was a JAG episode where the Admiral was an on-set technical
>> advisor trying to tell the director that the character in the show they
>> were shooting wouldn't in a thousand years do the things that JAG was
>> showing Harm doing routinely! Shirley you aren't suggesting that a TV
>> show would get how a TV show is made wrong!
>>
>
> The onset technical advisor for that episode told them that the admiral
> would never be on set!
>
> I wasn’t talking about stuff like how to handle a gun like BTR would. I was
> referring to when we did hundreds of science films for kids and they had
> technical advisers vetting the science in the scripts and none of them knew
> what the fuck they were talking about. And I am the one being told to
> animate stuff wrong and refusing to teach kids wrong. Those technical
> advisers work at the script level and never get near the sat. So I never
> had the opportunity to strangle them.
>
Kind of sad and a bit scary that (supposedly) educated adults couldn't
understand basic grade school science enough to get it right or realize
when someone else was getting it wrong. And worse, paying someone else
to get it wrong!

On 4/17/2022 12:50 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 18:18:50 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 14:47:14 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> What makes you think the writers and technical advisors are allowed to
>>>>>> talk to each other? As I understand it, the writers write, send the
>>>>>> script off to the director who proceeds to ignore most of it as not
>>>>>> being in tune with his "vision". The technical advisors are present on
>>>>>> set to see what the director's "vision" gets wrong and be ignored when
>>>>>> they tell them. At best you've got to institutionally ignored groups
>>>>>> talking to each so they can be ignored collectively instead of individually.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Close. There are different kinds of technical advisers. The technical
>>>>> advisor for actual technical filmmaking stuff is on the set and is ignored
>>>>> when he says “that shot won’t work because the green screen isn’t in the
>>>>> right place“ and then the Director tries to blame them when they go to do
>>>>> the effects and are told they can’t. The technical advisor for stuff in the
>>>>> script never sees anybody in person. Somebody just sends them the script
>>>>> and they send it back with a bunch of notations that are studiously
>>>>> ignored. Then when they hand the script to the special effects guys and the
>>>>> special effects guys say “this is wrong“ they are told the script has
>>>>> already been approved by the technical advisors. Generally either on or
>>>>> off set a producer will authorize additional charges to cover the stuff
>>>>> they’ve got wrong and then refuse to pay it when the bill comes due.
>>>>
>>>> I often wonder how much of that sort of thing do they actually want
>>>> (presumably for some dramatic effect) and how much of it is just
>>>> something that happened that they don't want to fix due to time/cost?
>>>> Also if the special effects guys went ahead and did it the right way
>>>> would anyone actually notice that it wasn't as they were asked
>>>> (perhaps in the rotation of a station like Babylon 5) as long as the
>>>> asked for script wasn't done for story/dramatic reasons.
>>>>
>>>
>>> For the most part it’s that these people are all deeply stupid.
>>>
>>> At Fox animation a bunch of us got into a discussion about if you shoot the
>>> gun straight up how fast will the bullet be going when it comes back down
>>> and hits you in the head. The majority felt that it would be going much
>>> faster when it came back down and hit you on the head. Finally somebody
>>> that I’m the ashamed to say was a friend of mine says that we should all
>>> vote because that way we’d be certain to get it right. By then I was in the
>>> back of the room pounding my head on the desk and in the distance could
>>> hear myself muttering “you don’t vote on physics questions”
>>
>> LOL. Voting might work if you had a large enough sample size and there
>> was no discussion beforehand. I'm surprised they didn't realize the
>> bullet has to hit zero at some point to come back down and then fall
>> down at the normal rate for all falling object. Even if many didn't
>> know that I would have thought once someone brought the idea up most
>> of the others would have realized that was right.
>>
>
> Nope. I was the only one presenting the answer “no faster than it went up”
> and I was unable to convince anyone else whatsoever.
>
> But then I took physics courses in high school and college
>
I think you became more educated than them just by signing up for high
school.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 4/17/2022 3:15 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article
> <770475467.671873685.718353.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 18:18:50 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
>>> wrote:
>
>>>> At Fox animation a bunch of us got into a discussion about if you shoot
>>>> the gun straight up how fast will the bullet be going when it comes back
>>>> down and hits you in the head. The majority felt that it would be going
>>>> much faster when it came back down and hit you on the head. Finally
>>>> somebody that I'm the ashamed to say was a friend of mine says that we
>>>> should all vote because that way we'd be certain to get it right. By
>>>> then I was in the back of the room pounding my head on the desk and in
>>>> the distance could hear myself muttering "You don't vote on physics
>>>> questions"
>>>
>>> LOL. Voting might work if you had a large enough sample size and there
>>> was no discussion beforehand. I'm surprised they didn't realize the
>>> bullet has to hit zero at some point to come back down and then fall
>>> down at the normal rate for all falling object. Even if many didn't
>>> know that I would have thought once someone brought the idea up most
>>> of the others would have realized that was right.
>
>> Nope. I was the only one presenting the answer "no faster than it went up"
>> and I was unable to convince anyone else whatsoever.
>
> Less faster than it went up. A falling bullet will achieve terminal
> velocity but an ascending bullet has no such limitation and will emerge
> from the barrel of the gun at speeds significantly faster than terminal
> velocity.

A physicist you're not. The bullet is decelerating going up because of
gravity accelerating at the same rate coming down. So when you say
"faster" you sound confused because it's either accelerating or
decelerating depending on if it's going up or down. "Faster" would
depend entirely on what point in the trajectory it is. The only correct
thing you got was muzzle velocity (the point where the bullet leaves the
muzzle) is faster than terminal velocity but for most (much?) of its
travel the force of gravity is the determining factor.

On 4/17/2022 11:45 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 01:54:18 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 4/17/2022 12:50 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 18:18:50 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 14:47:14 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> For the most part it’s that these people are all deeply stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>> At Fox animation a bunch of us got into a discussion about if you shoot the
>>>>> gun straight up how fast will the bullet be going when it comes back down
>>>>> and hits you in the head. The majority felt that it would be going much
>>>>> faster when it came back down and hit you on the head. Finally somebody
>>>>> that I’m the ashamed to say was a friend of mine says that we should all
>>>>> vote because that way we’d be certain to get it right. By then I was in the
>>>>> back of the room pounding my head on the desk and in the distance could
>>>>> hear myself muttering “you don’t vote on physics questions”
>>>>
>>>> LOL. Voting might work if you had a large enough sample size and there
>>>> was no discussion beforehand. I'm surprised they didn't realize the
>>>> bullet has to hit zero at some point to come back down and then fall
>>>> down at the normal rate for all falling object. Even if many didn't
>>>> know that I would have thought once someone brought the idea up most
>>>> of the others would have realized that was right.
>>>>
> Surely it should be obvious that a bullet shot at a known speed
> straight up (e.g. all the speed going up with none devoted to lateral
> velocity) would continue to go up until gravity reduced its upward
> speed to zero at which point the entire speed coming down would be due
> to gravity which if you can calculate the height at which that is is a
> very simple calculation.
>
"Terminal Velocity". Gravity will accelerate it until the deceleration
from air resistance equals the acceleration from gravity. A bullet's
maximum falling speed will not equal its muzzle velocity.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 4/17/2022 5:53 PM, shawn wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 17:44:16 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 01:54:18 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/17/2022 12:50 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 18:18:50 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 14:47:14 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For the most part it?s that these people are all deeply stupid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At Fox animation a bunch of us got into a discussion about if you shoot the
>>>>>>> gun straight up how fast will the bullet be going when it comes back down
>>>>>>> and hits you in the head. The majority felt that it would be going much
>>>>>>> faster when it came back down and hit you on the head. Finally somebody
>>>>>>> that I?m the ashamed to say was a friend of mine says that we should all
>>>>>>> vote because that way we?d be certain to get it right. By then I was in the
>>>>>>> back of the room pounding my head on the desk and in the distance could
>>>>>>> hear myself muttering ?you don?t vote on physics questions?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL. Voting might work if you had a large enough sample size and there
>>>>>> was no discussion beforehand. I'm surprised they didn't realize the
>>>>>> bullet has to hit zero at some point to come back down and then fall
>>>>>> down at the normal rate for all falling object. Even if many didn't
>>>>>> know that I would have thought once someone brought the idea up most
>>>>>> of the others would have realized that was right.
>>>>>>
>>> Surely it should be obvious that a bullet shot at a known speed
>>> straight up (e.g. all the speed going up with none devoted to lateral
>>> velocity) would continue to go up until gravity reduced its upward
>>> speed to zero at which point the entire speed coming down would be due
>>> to gravity which if you can calculate the height at which that is is a
>>> very simple calculation.
>>>
>>> Not being clued on muzzle velocities I'm not equipped to calculate
>>> that but that's the general idea.
>>>
>>>>> Nope. I was the only one presenting the answer ?no faster than it went up?
>>>>> and I was unable to convince anyone else whatsoever.
>>>
>>> Of course not since if gravitational attraction was stronger than the
>>> muzzle velocity it would not have gone up in the first place.
>>>
>>>>> But then I took physics courses in high school and college
>>>
>>> So did I but surely even a bright 15 year old could understand the
>>> above logic - if it has more force pushing it upwards than downwards
>>> it will go up, if not it will come down.
>>>
>>> The ONLY case I know of where it comes down faster than it went up is
>>> to Wile E Coyote in Roadrunner cartoons. Highly entertaining but poor
>>> physics!
>>>
>>>> I think you became more educated than them just by signing up for high
>>>> school.
>>>
>>> In our area physics as a separate discipline is for grade 11 and 12
>>> before that being merely part of the general 'science' curriculum. We
>>> had learned Newton's laws in junior high (they're fairly intuitive
>>> though the math is a bit harder) and learned Kepler's laws as part of
>>> our grade 12 pre-calculus classes. (Orbital velocities and stuff like
>>> that)
>>>
>>
>> My seventh grade science teacher taught us that it’s the spinning of the
>> earth that keeps us stuck to the surface. That probably had a lot to do
>> with me refusing to animate incorrect science films for grade schoolers.
>
> Did he go into any details on how that works? Also why doesn't it work
> if I spin a wet plate? Shouldn't the water want to stick to the plate
> when it is spinning? Is it a problem because I'm not spinning it fast
> enough?
>
> I truly want to know the reasoning.

I was going to say how can you know something that doesn't exist but
apparently the teacher somehow managed to.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 4/17/2022 7:20 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>> On 4/17/2022 5:53 PM, shawn wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 17:44:16 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 01:54:18 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>>>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/17/2022 12:50 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 18:18:50 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 14:47:14 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For the most part it?s that these people are all deeply stupid.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At Fox animation a bunch of us got into a discussion about if you shoot the
>>>>>>>>> gun straight up how fast will the bullet be going when it comes back down
>>>>>>>>> and hits you in the head. The majority felt that it would be going much
>>>>>>>>> faster when it came back down and hit you on the head. Finally somebody
>>>>>>>>> that I?m the ashamed to say was a friend of mine says that we should all
>>>>>>>>> vote because that way we?d be certain to get it right. By then I was in the
>>>>>>>>> back of the room pounding my head on the desk and in the distance could
>>>>>>>>> hear myself muttering ?you don?t vote on physics questions?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> LOL. Voting might work if you had a large enough sample size and there
>>>>>>>> was no discussion beforehand. I'm surprised they didn't realize the
>>>>>>>> bullet has to hit zero at some point to come back down and then fall
>>>>>>>> down at the normal rate for all falling object. Even if many didn't
>>>>>>>> know that I would have thought once someone brought the idea up most
>>>>>>>> of the others would have realized that was right.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> Surely it should be obvious that a bullet shot at a known speed
>>>>> straight up (e.g. all the speed going up with none devoted to lateral
>>>>> velocity) would continue to go up until gravity reduced its upward
>>>>> speed to zero at which point the entire speed coming down would be due
>>>>> to gravity which if you can calculate the height at which that is is a
>>>>> very simple calculation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not being clued on muzzle velocities I'm not equipped to calculate
>>>>> that but that's the general idea.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope. I was the only one presenting the answer ?no faster than it went up?
>>>>>>> and I was unable to convince anyone else whatsoever.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course not since if gravitational attraction was stronger than the
>>>>> muzzle velocity it would not have gone up in the first place.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> But then I took physics courses in high school and college
>>>>>
>>>>> So did I but surely even a bright 15 year old could understand the
>>>>> above logic - if it has more force pushing it upwards than downwards
>>>>> it will go up, if not it will come down.
>>>>>
>>>>> The ONLY case I know of where it comes down faster than it went up is
>>>>> to Wile E Coyote in Roadrunner cartoons. Highly entertaining but poor
>>>>> physics!
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think you became more educated than them just by signing up for high
>>>>>> school.
>>>>>
>>>>> In our area physics as a separate discipline is for grade 11 and 12
>>>>> before that being merely part of the general 'science' curriculum. We
>>>>> had learned Newton's laws in junior high (they're fairly intuitive
>>>>> though the math is a bit harder) and learned Kepler's laws as part of
>>>>> our grade 12 pre-calculus classes. (Orbital velocities and stuff like
>>>>> that)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My seventh grade science teacher taught us that it’s the spinning of the
>>>> earth that keeps us stuck to the surface. That probably had a lot to do
>>>> with me refusing to animate incorrect science films for grade schoolers.
>>>
>>> Did he go into any details on how that works? Also why doesn't it work
>>> if I spin a wet plate? Shouldn't the water want to stick to the plate
>>> when it is spinning? Is it a problem because I'm not spinning it fast
>>> enough?
>>>
>>> I truly want to know the reasoning.
>>
>> I was going to say how can you know something that doesn't exist but
>> apparently the teacher somehow managed to.
>>
>
> I have no idea what the reasoning is.

The reasoning is non-existent.

> Simple playground physics tell you
> that the merry-go-round will toss you off if you’re not careful. But I have
> heard lots of people say they were taught this in the 50s and 60s.
>
> If you ask the question about rotation and gravity on Mr. Google you will
> find a truly frightening number of people asking the same question but
> almost nobody asks them where the hell they came up with such a stupid idea
> in the first place.
>
> Here’s the best one I found:
>
> https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/95091/does-rotation-cause-gravity/95098
>
> “I want to ask that what causes gravity.
>
> My opinion is that it is the rotation that causes gravity, when we see a
> whirlpool in water it takes anything that comes near to it in to the center
> of it.
>
> I have a doubt that is even gravity caused due to rotation of Earth. When
> earth rotates, it takes the atmosphere with it and that pressure is what we
> experience it as gravity, as it takes towards the center of the earth we
> assume it as a downward force. Is my assumption correct?”
>
> Truly the spirit of Clodreamer lives on.
>
If they didn't think of it themselves then no one else could possibly
have gotten it right either. "NO one can tell what's real and what isn't!"

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 4/17/2022 9:20 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>> On 4/17/2022 5:53 PM, shawn wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 17:44:16 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 01:54:18 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>>>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/17/2022 12:50 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 18:18:50 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 14:47:14 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For the most part it?s that these people are all deeply stupid.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At Fox animation a bunch of us got into a discussion about if you shoot the
>>>>>>>>> gun straight up how fast will the bullet be going when it comes back down
>>>>>>>>> and hits you in the head. The majority felt that it would be going much
>>>>>>>>> faster when it came back down and hit you on the head. Finally somebody
>>>>>>>>> that I?m the ashamed to say was a friend of mine says that we should all
>>>>>>>>> vote because that way we?d be certain to get it right. By then I was in the
>>>>>>>>> back of the room pounding my head on the desk and in the distance could
>>>>>>>>> hear myself muttering ?you don?t vote on physics questions?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> LOL. Voting might work if you had a large enough sample size and there
>>>>>>>> was no discussion beforehand. I'm surprised they didn't realize the
>>>>>>>> bullet has to hit zero at some point to come back down and then fall
>>>>>>>> down at the normal rate for all falling object. Even if many didn't
>>>>>>>> know that I would have thought once someone brought the idea up most
>>>>>>>> of the others would have realized that was right.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> Surely it should be obvious that a bullet shot at a known speed
>>>>> straight up (e.g. all the speed going up with none devoted to lateral
>>>>> velocity) would continue to go up until gravity reduced its upward
>>>>> speed to zero at which point the entire speed coming down would be due
>>>>> to gravity which if you can calculate the height at which that is is a
>>>>> very simple calculation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not being clued on muzzle velocities I'm not equipped to calculate
>>>>> that but that's the general idea.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope. I was the only one presenting the answer ?no faster than it went up?
>>>>>>> and I was unable to convince anyone else whatsoever.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course not since if gravitational attraction was stronger than the
>>>>> muzzle velocity it would not have gone up in the first place.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> But then I took physics courses in high school and college
>>>>>
>>>>> So did I but surely even a bright 15 year old could understand the
>>>>> above logic - if it has more force pushing it upwards than downwards
>>>>> it will go up, if not it will come down.
>>>>>
>>>>> The ONLY case I know of where it comes down faster than it went up is
>>>>> to Wile E Coyote in Roadrunner cartoons. Highly entertaining but poor
>>>>> physics!
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think you became more educated than them just by signing up for high
>>>>>> school.
>>>>>
>>>>> In our area physics as a separate discipline is for grade 11 and 12
>>>>> before that being merely part of the general 'science' curriculum. We
>>>>> had learned Newton's laws in junior high (they're fairly intuitive
>>>>> though the math is a bit harder) and learned Kepler's laws as part of
>>>>> our grade 12 pre-calculus classes. (Orbital velocities and stuff like
>>>>> that)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My seventh grade science teacher taught us that it’s the spinning of the
>>>> earth that keeps us stuck to the surface. That probably had a lot to do
>>>> with me refusing to animate incorrect science films for grade schoolers.
>>>
>>> Did he go into any details on how that works? Also why doesn't it work
>>> if I spin a wet plate? Shouldn't the water want to stick to the plate
>>> when it is spinning? Is it a problem because I'm not spinning it fast
>>> enough?
>>>
>>> I truly want to know the reasoning.
>>
>> I was going to say how can you know something that doesn't exist but
>> apparently the teacher somehow managed to.
>>
>
> I have no idea what the reasoning is. Simple playground physics tell you
> that the merry-go-round will toss you off if you’re not careful. But I have
> heard lots of people say they were taught this in the 50s and 60s.
>
> If you ask the question about rotation and gravity on Mr. Google you will
> find a truly frightening number of people asking the same question but
> almost nobody asks them where the hell they came up with such a stupid idea
> in the first place.
>
> Here’s the best one I found:
>
> https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/95091/does-rotation-cause-gravity/95098
>
> “I want to ask that what causes gravity.
>
> My opinion is that it is the rotation that causes gravity,

How stupid are you? Mass causes gravity. The gravity prevents the
centrifugal force of the Earth spinning from sending things flying into
space. It's not complicated. If you're trying to find out why mass
creates gravity that's a whole 'nother discussion.