Home
Forums
New posts
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Other Topics
Off topic discussion
How much technology has been lost throughout history?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="911" data-source="post: 959590" data-attributes="member: 11221"><p>I also have my doubts about this. Though I am not completely convinced (more research needed), I lean heavily towards the lunar hoax. I don't have much of an expertise in photography (much of the debunking has come from experts who have pointed out NASA photographic blunders), but I am an engineer. Just to name two issues, and without going on a too big a tangent here:</p><p></p><p>-On the surface of the moon, a fully loaded astronaut weighs about 58lb (26kg). He should be able to jump 4-5ft with relatively little risk (due to the slower travel speeds), and little effort. Think how high you are able to fling a 26kg weight on earth...</p><p></p><p>-The Lunar Module weighs nearly 3 tons on the moon (17T on earth), and all its vertical thrust is concentrated on the main central nozzle, which stands very low to the ground. Given the fine, loose dust on the moon, and the slow, prolonged landing with the engine thrust fully focused on the landing spot, there should have been one massive dust cloud that would have submerged the whole area, made a small crater and covered the sides of the module with dust.</p><p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUrA42Js8Zg" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUrA42Js8Zg</a></p><p></p><p>/lunar tangent</p><p></p><p>I think the loss of ancient wisdom is far more centered on works in philosophy, literature and arts than on technology. The problem with ancient technology is that they had to get things done with far bigger constraints, and they had a lot of time to accomplish them (generations). For example, the fact that the Romans used concrete without rebar meant that it had to be stronger (and by default lighter).</p><p></p><p>There is the aspect of suppressed technological breakthroughs, which some have brought up above. There might have been a lot of this going on in the field of energy, with more efficient combustion engines or power generation methods that were sidelined by energy interests.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="911, post: 959590, member: 11221"] I also have my doubts about this. Though I am not completely convinced (more research needed), I lean heavily towards the lunar hoax. I don't have much of an expertise in photography (much of the debunking has come from experts who have pointed out NASA photographic blunders), but I am an engineer. Just to name two issues, and without going on a too big a tangent here: -On the surface of the moon, a fully loaded astronaut weighs about 58lb (26kg). He should be able to jump 4-5ft with relatively little risk (due to the slower travel speeds), and little effort. Think how high you are able to fling a 26kg weight on earth... -The Lunar Module weighs nearly 3 tons on the moon (17T on earth), and all its vertical thrust is concentrated on the main central nozzle, which stands very low to the ground. Given the fine, loose dust on the moon, and the slow, prolonged landing with the engine thrust fully focused on the landing spot, there should have been one massive dust cloud that would have submerged the whole area, made a small crater and covered the sides of the module with dust. [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUrA42Js8Zg[/URL] /lunar tangent I think the loss of ancient wisdom is far more centered on works in philosophy, literature and arts than on technology. The problem with ancient technology is that they had to get things done with far bigger constraints, and they had a lot of time to accomplish them (generations). For example, the fact that the Romans used concrete without rebar meant that it had to be stronger (and by default lighter). There is the aspect of suppressed technological breakthroughs, which some have brought up above. There might have been a lot of this going on in the field of energy, with more efficient combustion engines or power generation methods that were sidelined by energy interests. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Other Topics
Off topic discussion
How much technology has been lost throughout history?
Top
