NASA Fakery Fun
Reduced Gravity Simulator for Study of Mans Self Locomotion ~ 1965 NASA Langley Research Center
NASA researches Hollywood style harness special effects techniques. We are supposed to think zero gravity is a real thing. It is not. It has never actually been demonstrated. No one has ever orbited the world. No artificial satellite has ever been sent into the heavens as advertised.
Newton's mathematical magic cannot hide the fact that his cannon ball thought experiment ignores demonstrable ballistic physics, the Moon is not like a falling apple despite insane peer reviewed history to the contrary. A bullet dropped from the end of a gun barrel hits the ground in the same amount of time a bullet fired from the gun would. Newton did no real experiment nor did anyone else. There was no reason to believe anyone or anything could be made to orbit the Earth. Newton's concept relies on the fallacious idea that a fixed velocity can balance with what is obviously an accelerated phenomena, (gravity). Orbital mechanic formula makes use of what is called "the gravitational constant". The word constant is misleading as gravity itself is not a constant velocity but an accelerated one. If we drop an apple it falls at a rate of about 10 meters a second, gaining speed so that it falls about 10 meters a second faster per second of falling. It starts off at a rate of 10 meters per second for the first second, it accelerates to 20 meters by the second second and on to 30 meters by the third second, and on... The orbital velocity is essentially one that is considered to be a fixed velocity (with some magical fudging needed to ignore observable problems). Orbital mechanics is simply fallaciously founded, and is backed with illogically applied mathematical equation proving nothing but the fact that math is a language and language can be used to lie or otherwise present an incorrect and distorted view of reality.
Reduced Gravity Simulator for Study of Mans Self Locomotion ~ 1965 NASA Langley Research Center source: Jeff Quitney
NASA = Hollywood Stage Illusion
"David Copperfield has performed a levitation illusion in several magic shows since 1992 in which he appears to fly on stage for several minutes, while surrounded by audience members. The flight is notable for its graceful motion and unencumbered appearance. The illusion was included in Copperfield's CBS TV special The Magic of David Copperfield XIV: Flying—Live The Dream (1992), and has been repeated several times during Copperfield's live tours around the world. The method was created by John Gaughan. An essential contribution to make fluid movements was given by his assistant, dancer and choreographer Joanie Spina."
"During the trick, Copperfield flies acrobatically on the stage, performs a backflip in midair, and then has spinning hoops passed around him, supposedly to prove that he is not suspended by wires. He then floats down into an acrylic glass box which has previously been examined by two audience members, and continues to float inside after the box is covered. An assistant walks over the top of the box, and Copperfield walks upside down moving his feet under the assistant's feet. He then selects a female volunteer from his audience and flies with her in a fashion similar to Superman carrying Lois Lane. The illusion sometimes ends with a falcon named Icarus grasping Copperfield by the wrist and flying off stage with him. A blue backcloth is used in the background, and the television version uses fake clouds hanging from the ceiling, taking advantage of a larger stage than is used in theatrical appearances. The performance is accompanied by an orchestration called "East of Eden Suite" by film composer Lee Holdridge, originally written as the theme music for a 1981 miniseries based on the novel East of Eden. Before performing, Copperfield often declares that it took him seven years to develop the performance, and shows a video describing for how long men had dreamed of flying, and how many people before him had tried unsuccessfully. Copperfield performed a much-shortened version of the illusion as the entrance in his sixteenth television special, The Magic of David Copperfield XV: Fires Of Passion, in 1993. The performance used a different background and music, in addition to burning spinning hoops."
"John Gaughan described how the trick works in US Patent #5,354,238. According to the patent, the performer is supported by two fan-shaped arrays of fine wires that remain invisible to the viewing audience. The wires are about 1⁄4 mm thick, and support about 10 kg each; the arrays contain more than enough wires to support the performer's weight. The wire arrays are mounted at the hips, near the human center of mass, to a harness worn under the clothing. This creates a balance point facilitating a wide range of movements while suspended. The wires are attached to a complex computer-controlled rig above the stage that maintains the tension in each wire, and keeps each array of wires perpendicular to the audience's line of sight so that the wires never overlap one another, which might allow the audience to see them. During the later phases of the performance, two hoops are used simultaneously, which aids the deception as the hoops do not come into contact with the wires. Instead, each ring is brought flush to the wires before being twisted under Copperfield. In the glass box demonstration, the top of the box is threaded between the two sets of wires in a vertical position, before being rotated 90 degrees and lowered into place. The wires remain in place while the performer is in the glass box, passing through crevices between the lid and the sides. Since the box limits movement and he is only able to rotate on one axis, he stays side-on to the front of the audience while in the box. When flying with a volunteer, he holds her in front of him, and she does not come into contact with the set-up."
The Book of Newton's So-Called Laws:
"Leibniz eventually accused Newton of regarding gravity as a kind of “occult quality”, that is, as a quality of bodies that is somehow hidden within them and beyond the philosopher's understanding. Newton's gloss on Rule 3 in the Principia, discussed below, only made matters worse from Leibniz's point of view, since it tacitly (or functionally) treats gravity as a kind of universal quality akin to extension or impenetrability. But unlike them, it was occult, imperceptible and unintelligible."
"Once the Principia was published, Newton had a vexed relationship with the mechanical philosophy, an orientation within natural philosophy that is associated strongly with nearly every significant early modern philosopher, including Descartes, Boyle, Huygens, Leibniz, and Locke. One of the reasons for this complex relationship can be understood if we consider Newton's attitude toward forces in an abstract way. His second law indicates that a body moving rectilinearly will continue to do so unless a force is impressed on it. This is not equivalent to claiming that a body moving rectilinearly will continue to do so unless another body impacts upon it. A vis impressa—an impressed force—in Newton's system is not the same as a body, nor even a quality of a body, as we have seen; but what is more, some impressed forces need not involve contact between bodies at all. For instance, gravity is a kind of centripetal force, and the latter, in turn, is a species of impressed force. Hence a body moving in a straight line will continue to do so until it experiences a gravitational pull, in which case it will deviate from a straight line motion, even if no body impacts upon it. Indeed, the gravitational pull might originate with a mass that is millions of miles away. As we have seen, an impressed force is an action exerted on a body. Hence the gravity exerted on a moving body is an action (the Latin term is actio), which is obviously a causal notion. This is not an empirical claim per se; it is merely a reflection of Newton's laws, together with his notion of an impressed force, and his further idea that gravity is one kind of impressed force. These elements of the Principia make conceptual room for a causal interaction between two bodies separated by a vast distance, one enabled by Newton's concept of an impressed force. Aspects of this idea became known in philosophical circles as the problem of action at a distance (Hesse 1961). Many of Newton's most influential contemporaries objected vigorously to the fact that his philosophy had made room for—if not explicitly defended—the possibility of distant action between material bodies. Leibniz and Huygens in particular rejected this aspect of Newton's work in the strongest terms, and it remained a point of contention between Newton and Leibniz for the rest of their lives. Both Leibniz and Huygens were convinced that all natural change occurs through contact action, and that any deviation from this basic mechanist principle within natural philosophy would lead to serious difficulties, including the revival of outmoded Aristotelian ideas. By the seventh proposition of Book III of the Principia, as we have seen, Newton reached the following conclusion (1999: 810): “Gravity acts on all bodies universally and is proportional to the quantity of matter in each”. Leibniz eventually accused Newton of regarding gravity as a kind of “occult quality”, that is, as a quality of bodies that is somehow hidden within them and beyond the philosopher's understanding. Newton's gloss on Rule 3 in the Principia, discussed below, only made matters worse from Leibniz's point of view, since it tacitly (or functionally) treats gravity as a kind of universal quality akin to extension or impenetrability. But unlike them, it was occult, imperceptible and unintelligible.
Newton was well aware that the Principia's methodology of discovering the forces present in nature was controversial, and not merely because of questions about action at a distance. So when he revised the text, under the editorship of Roger Cotes, for publication in a second edition in 1713, he added other methodological remarks. These remarks included what Newton called “regulae philosophandi”, or rules of philosophy, which became the focal point of vigorous discussion and debate well into the eighteenth century. The first two rules concern causal reasoning, but it is the third rule that generated the most debate, for it involved both an aspect of Newton's controversial argument for universal gravity and also a rare public statement by Newton of what he regarded as the “foundation” of natural philosophy. The third rule concerns an induction problem: we have perceptions and experiments that provide us with knowledge of the objects and natural phenomena in our neck of the universe, but on what basis can we reach a conclusion concerning objects and phenomena throughout the restof the universe? Newton himself reached such a conclusion about gravity in proposition seven of Book III of the Principia. Part of Newton's answer is presented in rule 3:
Those qualities of bodies that cannot be intended and remitted [i.e., increased and diminished] and that belong to all bodies on which experiments can be made should be taken as qualities of all bodies universally.
We know, say, that a clump of dirt has certain qualities such as extension and mobility, but how do we know that the entire earth has such qualities? It surely lies beyond the reach of our experiments, or at any rate, it did in Newton's day. Newton says that the sun and the earth interact according to his law of gravity, but how do we know that the sun contains a quantity of matter, that it is a material body with the same basic qualities that characterize the earth or the moon? It wasn't at all obvious at the time that the sun is a material body at all. Newton thinks that gravity reaches into the very center of the sun, but what did anyone in 1713 know about such things? Newton glosses his third rule in part as follows, connecting it with his laws of motion:
That all bodies are movable and persevere in motion or in rest by means of certain forces (which we call forces of inertia) we infer from finding these properties in the bodies that we have seen. The extension, hardness, impenetrability, mobility, and force of inertiaof the whole arise from the extension, hardness, impenetrability, mobility and force of inertia of each of the parts; and thus we conclude that every one of the least parts of all bodies is extended, hard, impenetrable, movable, and endowed with a force of inertia. And this is the foundation of all natural philosophy. (Newton 1999: 795–96)
Many of Newton's readers in 1713 would have granted him the following inference: although we do not have any perceptions of, say, the interior of the earth, or even of many ordinary objects within our grasp, we can reasonably infer that everything with certain basic properties—something akin to what John Locke, borrowing a term of Robert Boyle's, called the “primary qualities”—at the macroscopic level is comprised of micro-particles that are characterized by those same basic properties. But at the end of his gloss of Rule 3, Newton applies this same (or analogous) reasoning to the force of gravity, arguing as follows: since we experience the fact that all bodies on or near the earth gravitate toward the earth—in cases such as free fall—and that the moon gravitates toward the earth, etc., we can infer that all bodies everywhere gravitate toward all other bodies. This argument would appear to suggest that gravity—which, as we have seen, is a kind of impressed force, an action—is somehow akin to qualities like extension and impenetrability. So is Newton suggesting that gravity is actually a quality of all bodies? Leibniz and his followers pounced: if Newton is, at least tacitly, regarding gravity as a quality, then he had indeed revived the occult qualities of the Scholastics, for here we have a quality that is not explicable in mechanical terms, and what is worse, one that is not intelligible to philosophers. This question became the subject of intense debate throughout the first half of the eighteenth century (see the last section below)."
Cartoon Physics Are Not Real No Matter How Historically Peer Reviewed
Sir Isaac Newton could perform no real experiment nor could anyone else. The real experiments were supposed to be the work of international space programs. We know now that all that is fake. Hollywood studio effects are no replacement for real scientific experiment. Newton's thought experiment is a fallacious as any of Einstein's. Here Newton simply ignores the demonstrable fact that gravity is an accelerated velocity and that the cannonball's forward velocity is fixed. The latter can never balance with the former. Newton ignores demonstrable ballistic physics that shows us that gravity's pull is independent from any forward motion. The apple hits the ground at the same time it would if it were fired from a cannon or simply dropped from the end of cannon muzzle. Apples and demonstrable gravitational effect are not at all like the orbiting Moon as Sir Isaac incorrectly imagined. Modern cosmology is a solar based cult religion and not a real science at all. There was never any logical reason for anyone to believe in artificial orbits in the first place. This also leaves asides the fact that rockets cannot work in vacuum despite a century or so of hype to the contrary. The immense distances and scale of the solar system model is also problematic and something people simply ignore. The insane speeds that NASA and other space agencies are said to have achieved are also fantastic lies that people simply overlook and just believe can be actually achieved. A rocket is supposed to achieve something like a velocity of 20,000 mph in order to escape Earth's pull, or so the story goes. The fastest man made technology any of us can ever use is gun based. A speeding bullet is able to achieve its feat of speed due to size. The huge Atlas sized rocket, an Ancient Egyptian Obelisk reimagined for Cold War Era Atomic Age Lies™, would be an unlikely candidate for reaching high speeds of some 20,000 mph. People believe that rockets would magically have enough fuel to fly all the way to the Moon and back and yet most have no idea what that distance actually is and how incredibly small we are in comparison. Our rockets would be smaller than microscopic dust compared to the vastness of outer space. It's not just that we are insignificantly small it's also that our technology is as well. I doubt any man made rocket has achieved anywhere near the heights claimed by lying world governments. I also think that real rockets have to be a lot smaller and are a lot less impressive than the legendary harbingers of nuclear destruction. People have been so conditioned to believe that they need authorities to tell then what to think that most people will ignore me as some kind of internet crack pot, when in fact I am simply stating the obvious. I am screaming that the sky is blue and grass is green. I think if all the NASA true believers would stop and actually go back and go through the scientific historical record in order and with a clear head they'd easily see the same ad hoc patchwork and the same religious adherence to insisting the Earth must be moving, that it must be rotating on its imagined axis and that it must be orbiting the Sun, despite all actual evidence to the contrary. Despite what we actually and naturally can witness and what we naturally experience. Instead we are supposed to believe in a MATRIX like model of reality that is only a mental construct with no basis in the real Natural world.
Newton's Cannon 2 source: Alec Karfonta