Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
how would they go to the lavatory,they could not take their suits off.
Show More
And i have an other reason why i don't think they really went to the moon.
when Nixon rang them on the moon there was no time delay during their conversation,now this was 50 years ago. strange to say the least 250 thousand miles away and Nixon could talk to them as if he was phoning from the next room.in 1969 if you phoned someone in America from England phone delay in conversation was at least 3 to 4 seconds due to distance but it seems our Richard had no problems calling Neil on the moon.even though Huston had a time delay.
when Nixon rang them on the moon there was no time delay during their conversation,now this was 50 years ago. strange to say the least 250 thousand miles away and Nixon could talk to them as if he was phoning from the next room.in 1969 if you phoned someone in America from England phone delay in conversation was at least 3 to 4 seconds due to distance but it seems our Richard had no problems calling Neil on the moon.even though Huston had a time delay.
Another myth perpetuated by people who can't be bothered to listen to the original recording and don't understand simple physics. There is a delay while sound travels to the moon and the reply back from the astronauts. As soon as the astronauts' talk is received at Huston Nixon can speak immediately.
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2014/02/21/raw-nixon-calls-the-moon-1969.nasa-att/video/playlists/buzz-aldrin/
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2014/02/21/raw-nixon-calls-the-moon-1969.nasa-att/video/playlists/buzz-aldrin/
planet of the apes is a good film too, but ive yet to see us trying
to recover the space shuttle crews from a time warp.
to recover the space shuttle crews from a time warp.
Charlie 22 Jul 19 11:03 Joined: 01 Dec 01 | Topic/replies: 26,831 | Blogger: Charlie's blog
Another myth perpetuated by people who can't be bothered to listen to the original recording and don't understand simple physics.
All from the man who advocates butter planes disappearing into steel structured towers and planes vanishing into thin air at shanksville. ??????????????
Simple physics my f***ing 8rse ????
Get a grip man ffs. Time after time you sink lower into the quagmire of hogwash
What a buffoon you really are.
Another myth perpetuated by people who can't be bothered to listen to the original recording and don't understand simple physics.
All from the man who advocates butter planes disappearing into steel structured towers and planes vanishing into thin air at shanksville. ??????????????
Simple physics my f***ing 8rse ????
Get a grip man ffs. Time after time you sink lower into the quagmire of hogwash
What a buffoon you really are.
Simple physics for most of us but beyond your comprehension.
I hope Charlie's not going to throw another one of his tantrums again.
It's about time Dr Drippin got some new material he seems limited to talking about bottom spanking and tantrums.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/moon-landing-conspiracy-theory-apollo-11-nasa-aldrin-armstrong-a9014141.html
.
.
brass normally a free thinker in the mould of Leonardo da Vinci but I feel he's on the wrong trajectory this time.
Just swear on the Bible you actually walked on the Moon.... That's the deal breaker for me... 
so the commodore 64 took them to the moon and back again ,but they splashed down in the wrong place,no wonder they got rid of the commodore 64 .
and as for it being impossible to keep it a secret,i know a secret kept by 3 billion people called santa claus
One for our resident expert on physics.. " Charlie "
1. Newton’s Third Law of Motion: “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” An aluminum plane hitting a thick steel beam will have the same effect as steel beam being swung at the same speed and hitting the plane. It makes no difference which one is moving as to the effect on the plane and the beam. In both cases the thick steel beam will do damage to the plane and the beam will emerge relatively undamaged. The faster the speed at the point of impact, the more damage that will be done to the plane. Try punching a steel girder. No matter how fast your hand is traveling, you will not be able to break through it; you will eventually break your hand. It matters not if the girder is swung at your hand or you swing your hand at the girder; assuming the impact is at the same speed, the injury to your hand would be the same.
Keep believing Charlie baby but please stop posting your own personal laws of physics as they just dont make any sense.
1. Newton’s Third Law of Motion: “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” An aluminum plane hitting a thick steel beam will have the same effect as steel beam being swung at the same speed and hitting the plane. It makes no difference which one is moving as to the effect on the plane and the beam. In both cases the thick steel beam will do damage to the plane and the beam will emerge relatively undamaged. The faster the speed at the point of impact, the more damage that will be done to the plane. Try punching a steel girder. No matter how fast your hand is traveling, you will not be able to break through it; you will eventually break your hand. It matters not if the girder is swung at your hand or you swing your hand at the girder; assuming the impact is at the same speed, the injury to your hand would be the same.
Keep believing Charlie baby but please stop posting your own personal laws of physics as they just dont make any sense.
Buildings have windows. And they aren't made of steel. The plane probably hit the window?
I agree if it had hit the steel part would have bounced right off the building.
I agree if it had hit the steel part would have bounced right off the building.
Get back on the other thread detroller. Your input is required there to answer your " fake " statement
Jul 23, 2019 -- 2:50PM, John.W.Henry. wrote:
One for our resident expert on physics.. " Charlie " 1. Newton’s Third Law of Motion: “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” An aluminum plane hitting a thick steel beam will have the same effect as steel beam being swung at the same speed and hitting the plane. It makes no difference which one is moving as to the effect on the plane and the beam. In both cases the thick steel beam will do damage to the plane and the beam will emerge relatively undamaged. The faster the speed at the point of impact, the more damage that will be done to the plane. Try punching a steel girder. No matter how fast your hand is traveling, you will not be able to break through it; you will eventually break your hand. It matters not if the girder is swung at your hand or you swing your hand at the girder; assuming the impact is at the same speed, the injury to your hand would be the same.Keep believing Charlie baby but please stop posting your own personal laws of physics as they just dont make any sense.
Just what is the point your are making?
As usual the point i am making is that as in most other matters you havent really got a scooby do about anything
Clueless is the word that evaded me.
Clueless is the word that evaded me.
Go on try and answer a question for once in your life. What is the point you are making?
Butter plane physics Charlie.. Think about it again and again and again.
You spout it but you dont really understand what you are saying do you ?????
I have no idea what banana boat you sailed in on but i am pretty damn sure they were relieved when you hopped off and didnt take the return trip
You spout it but you dont really understand what you are saying do you ?????
I have no idea what banana boat you sailed in on but i am pretty damn sure they were relieved when you hopped off and didnt take the return trip
It is what i judge you on Charlie. You know it is hence why i cannot take you seriously 
Yet i find you on here preaching about physics..you couldn't make it up
Let's look at the evidence on this thread.
I have not mentioned planes. I have not made up any physics. I have not preached about physics. You on the other hand have come up with numerous incorrect statements. You have also not answered any questions. Are you really that insecure that you can't answer a question?
I have not mentioned planes. I have not made up any physics. I have not preached about physics. You on the other hand have come up with numerous incorrect statements. You have also not answered any questions. Are you really that insecure that you can't answer a question?
Charlie 22 Jul 19 13:54 Joined: 01 Dec 01 | Topic/replies: 26,869 | Blogger: Charlie's blog
Simple physics for most of us but beyond your comprehension.
Rate reply:
| report block user
Simple physics for most of us but beyond your comprehension.
Rate reply:
| report block user
You state you understand simple physics ? Yes or No ?
1. Newton’s Third Law of Motion: “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” An aluminum plane hitting a thick steel beam will have the same effect as steel beam being swung at the same speed and hitting the plane. It makes no difference which one is moving as to the effect on the plane and the beam. In both cases the thick steel beam will do damage to the plane and the beam will emerge relatively undamaged. The faster the speed at the point of impact, the more damage that will be done to the plane. Try punching a steel girder. No matter how fast your hand is traveling, you will not be able to break through it; you will eventually break your hand. It matters not if the girder is swung at your hand or you swing your hand at the girder; assuming the impact is at the same speed, the injury to your hand would be the same.
Most of us, I think, understood Newton's Laws of Physics at school.
This is exactly why i cannot trust you to be honest
Pleas quote me where I said butter planes. You're waffling again.
It's pointless talking to you because you just make things up and never answer any questions.
Nope. You say it all of time on your 911 posts. You are all conspiracy theorists you say. Well sadly Charlie herein is where you lie again because you accept that narrative yet you say you understand physics ???
No Charlie it is pointless talking to you becoz you lie
I have never mentioned butter planes on any thread. Prove me wrong.
Dont get aggressive Charlie. It doesnt suit you. Looks like you are getting nervous again
Lets not get hung up on butter...lets go for margarine instead
When a compulsive liar is found out he tries to hide behind a sofa
When you grow a pair and start to answer questions I'll come back. Until then you're not worthy of discourse. Just carry on in your fantasy world and you'll be ok.
Lets just get to the nitty gritty of this one to since i have shown you up for what you are on the london bombing thread... You beleive the narrative for 911 so you accept that the planes that crashed into the towers defied the laws of physics ? Correct ?
it is not me we are worried about Charlie .. It is the world of contradiction you reside in which is the problem
John, according to Newton's law what should have happened if a plane collides with a steel structure like the twin towers?
A simple answer please. No waffle.
A simple answer please. No waffle.
Not what the narrative says... Thats all i need to know to know its a lie. BOOM BOOM,
Now you tell me what should have happened if they couldnt aim straight for the window as you indicated earlier ???
Somebody seems to have misunderstood Newton's laws.
If only 2 objects in play 1) a plane , 2) steel beam then the equal and opposite applies- although the opinion that a steel berm being fired at 400mph at a commercial jet will not be damaged is only an opinion as no evidence has been presented.
Where the laws of physics example falls apart is that a steel beam in a building is no longer just a steel beam. It is anchored in place by the rest of the building. It is no longer a 1000kg beam of steel. It is part of a 10, 000,000 kg building. The steel bar is not going anywhere fast, the energy of the plane collision is going through an anchored steel bar.
Then just a case of working out strength of steel bar & what happens to all the energy- sound, heat etc.
Why would anyone compare this to hitting a steel bar with a human hand. Just stick to mass & velocity of plane, bar & then some engineering about strength of the materials.
Not sure what has got to do with a trip to moon, seems way off topic.
If only 2 objects in play 1) a plane , 2) steel beam then the equal and opposite applies- although the opinion that a steel berm being fired at 400mph at a commercial jet will not be damaged is only an opinion as no evidence has been presented.
Where the laws of physics example falls apart is that a steel beam in a building is no longer just a steel beam. It is anchored in place by the rest of the building. It is no longer a 1000kg beam of steel. It is part of a 10, 000,000 kg building. The steel bar is not going anywhere fast, the energy of the plane collision is going through an anchored steel bar.
Then just a case of working out strength of steel bar & what happens to all the energy- sound, heat etc.
Why would anyone compare this to hitting a steel bar with a human hand. Just stick to mass & velocity of plane, bar & then some engineering about strength of the materials.
Not sure what has got to do with a trip to moon, seems way off topic.
Mex.. Some1 hasnt got a scooby do ..
Here is a clue ..
Name begins with an M and ends in an O
And heres another ... There aint a whole lot in between those letters.
Here is a clue ..
Name begins with an M and ends in an O
And heres another ... There aint a whole lot in between those letters.
So you hijack a thread with your 9/11 conspiracy, quote a law of physics, and when someone talks about physics you conveniently go back to how they don't have a scooby? You have now refused to respond to two legitimate questions on your off topic claim.
Please don't do this. Don't hijack a thread. At least save others from your usual nonsense.
Please don't do this. Don't hijack a thread. At least save others from your usual nonsense.
John
You bought Physics into this thread even though you have been previously told (by somebody else) to gain an education.
You claim it makes no difference if a 400,000kg plane crashes into a 100kg steel beam at 100m/s or if it is the 100kg steel beam also travelling at 100m/s crashing into a stationary 400,000kg plane.
Really?
Would you care to calculate the Kinetic energy in your two examples just to show you are correct & that you do understand basic Physics.
Maybe once you have posted your two calculations you could clarify which user of the forum "doesn't have a Scooby do"?
You bought Physics into this thread even though you have been previously told (by somebody else) to gain an education.
You claim it makes no difference if a 400,000kg plane crashes into a 100kg steel beam at 100m/s or if it is the 100kg steel beam also travelling at 100m/s crashing into a stationary 400,000kg plane.
Really?
Would you care to calculate the Kinetic energy in your two examples just to show you are correct & that you do understand basic Physics.
Maybe once you have posted your two calculations you could clarify which user of the forum "doesn't have a Scooby do"?
i didnt notice anything from jwh when the orgy of moon commemoration was going on worldwide. every paper and all news channels went on about it. yet jw, usually prolific, was silent. how odd. embarrassment? unable to get up, such was his devastation at being proved an idiot? or silenced by the illuminati, who didnt want their party spoiled by a great seeker-after-truth? the huge number of seriously clever scientists from dozens of countries rolled out to talk about the event must have troubled even an intellectual colossus like jw. how frustrating it must be that you know something did not happen, but 100% of experts in the field say you are a loon. incredibly frustrating. a bit like adolf in the bunker ranting against the world. they are all wrong!
luckily, hes now come to life and will crank it up again.
luckily, hes now come to life and will crank it up again.
LOL Search for where JWH (who constantly insults others for being scientifically clueless but fails to consider that on a forum this large he will be dealing with some very educated people, and they won't be conspiracy nuts, and he will be laughed at) gets his quote from. He's getting his "awesome physics knowledege" from a copy and paste of a 9/11 conspiracy book written for and read by the tin foil coiffured and then repeated on scientifically illiterate conspiracy nut sites.
Armstrong forgot to pack his camera when they were packing up to leave the moon,some day someone will go back and get it,but somehow i think it may be a candid camera
JWH claims he has an A level A grade in common sense. Yet when you ask him what should have happened when the planes collided, he doesn't know. But he claims what happened shouldn't have happened, because of Newton's third law.
I have a 96% in Alevel physics. Plus an engineering degree. I would say I am eligible to at least have a decent discussion if he is willing to elaborate on how he thinks the planes did not conform to Newton's third law. But he doesn't want to discuss. All he knows is how to make fun of people who question his funny claims.
Remember he's the same guy who said in 2001, you couldn't make a phone call from a plane. When I pointed out you could do that in 1984, he got so p1ssed that he nicknamed me the airfone troll.
I have a 96% in Alevel physics. Plus an engineering degree. I would say I am eligible to at least have a decent discussion if he is willing to elaborate on how he thinks the planes did not conform to Newton's third law. But he doesn't want to discuss. All he knows is how to make fun of people who question his funny claims.
Remember he's the same guy who said in 2001, you couldn't make a phone call from a plane. When I pointed out you could do that in 1984, he got so p1ssed that he nicknamed me the airfone troll.
dt: I would say I am eligible to at least have a decent discussion if he is willing to elaborate on how he thinks the planes did not conform to Newton's third law. But he doesn't want to discuss.
JHW: YAWN
The Waffler can't explain anything. A pity because I was looking for him to explain Newton's Second Law in the context of the Twin Towers.
JHW: YAWN
The Waffler can't explain anything. A pity because I was looking for him to explain Newton's Second Law in the context of the Twin Towers.
Armstrong forgot to pack his camera
Cameras then weren't like they are now. They had to adjusted for changes to light and distance.
Imagine trying to take snapshots with a camera strapped to your chest and no viewfinder to look through.
Or trying to adjust the camera wearing thick inflated gloves when you couldn't see what you were doing.
Yet all the pictures came out perfectly focused and centralised.
Still think the pictures weren't shot in a studio?
Cameras then weren't like they are now. They had to adjusted for changes to light and distance.
Imagine trying to take snapshots with a camera strapped to your chest and no viewfinder to look through.
Or trying to adjust the camera wearing thick inflated gloves when you couldn't see what you were doing.
Yet all the pictures came out perfectly focused and centralised.
Still think the pictures weren't shot in a studio?
Spoken by someone who knows nothing about the cameras, how they operated and the pictures they took.
Could be busy on here today Dr C .. I for one dont want to venture out much in this heat. Especially in my spacesuit
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-cae8ffbd65555afc45b1af583cb22b4d
yet another blunder by the fake moon landers.
yet another blunder by the fake moon landers.
You can lead the penguins to the water but you cannot get them to fly in the air.. No matter how hard they flap their wings
Very similar to the astronauts trying to bump start the lunar matchbox motorway buggy
Go grapple with the fairies grappler. As is the normal another minute of my life wasted talking to a lost extra from the walking dead
Very similar to the astronauts trying to bump start the lunar matchbox motorway buggy
Go grapple with the fairies grappler. As is the normal another minute of my life wasted talking to a lost extra from the walking dead
Thank you for leading us to the water. One day we will figure out how that plane crashing into the twin towers defied Newton's third law. One day...
Jul 23, 2019 -- 6:13PM, John.W.Henry. wrote:
When a compulsive liar is found out he tries to hide behind a sofa
You can come out now you can't stay there forever.
Just Checking 24 Jul 19 22:03 Joined: 25 Jun 06 | Topic/replies: 28,739 | Blogger: Just Checking's blog
LOL Search for where JWH (who constantly insults others for being scientifically clueless but fails to consider that on a forum this large he will be dealing with some very educated people, and they won't be conspiracy nuts, and he will be laughed at) gets his quote from. He's getting his "awesome physics knowledge" from a copy and paste of a 9/11 conspiracy book written for and read by the tin foil coiffured and then repeated on scientifically illiterate conspiracy nut sites.
Missed this gem from Mr " Not checked anything properly but i have amassed nearly 30K of posted drivel !!!!!! ". Just hates reality that guy. Really believes this is a forum with a large educated power base ?????
And if you think being laughed at bothers me one iota then think again
When you stand against the majority they will always try to belittle you on mass however if you know you have " done the research " you only need to look out for posters who may be able to take you forward. Those that try to simply bring you down to their " highly educated level " are worthless. You may just want to check that if you get a few spare moments
I will have to check that myself
All i see from this non checker is the usual tin foil nonsense Is that all any of them have ????
Not seen much from this particular poster to set me on the road to a higher education thats for sure..
Suggest you just keep on checking that your neck is above your shoulders. That would just about be your limit i suspect from reading your gimp like postings.
LOL Search for where JWH (who constantly insults others for being scientifically clueless but fails to consider that on a forum this large he will be dealing with some very educated people, and they won't be conspiracy nuts, and he will be laughed at) gets his quote from. He's getting his "awesome physics knowledge" from a copy and paste of a 9/11 conspiracy book written for and read by the tin foil coiffured and then repeated on scientifically illiterate conspiracy nut sites.
Missed this gem from Mr " Not checked anything properly but i have amassed nearly 30K of posted drivel !!!!!! ". Just hates reality that guy. Really believes this is a forum with a large educated power base ?????
And if you think being laughed at bothers me one iota then think again
When you stand against the majority they will always try to belittle you on mass however if you know you have " done the research " you only need to look out for posters who may be able to take you forward. Those that try to simply bring you down to their " highly educated level " are worthless. You may just want to check that if you get a few spare moments
I will have to check that myself
All i see from this non checker is the usual tin foil nonsense
Is that all any of them have ???? Not seen much from this particular poster to set me on the road to a higher education thats for sure..
Suggest you just keep on checking that your neck is above your shoulders. That would just about be your limit i suspect from reading your gimp like postings.
I have no need to hide Charlie
I just pick my battles.
You goons are old news .. I need new enemies.. lol
keeps me sharp
I just pick my battles.
You goons are old news .. I need new enemies.. lol
keeps me sharp
It matters not if the girder is swung at your hand or you swing your hand at the girder; assuming the impact is at the same speed, the injury to your hand would be the same.
As our new resident physics expert please explain this to me.
Place a 10 ton block of steel on the ground. Climb a ladder and drop from 10' onto the block. You'll accelerate due to gravity.
Now you stand on the ground and get a crane to hoist the 10 ton block above you and then drop it on you. It will accelerate at the same speed.
It would seem to me that the block dropping on you would do a lot more damage to you than when you dropped on the block even though both speeds were the same. Why is that?
As our new resident physics expert please explain this to me.
Place a 10 ton block of steel on the ground. Climb a ladder and drop from 10' onto the block. You'll accelerate due to gravity.
Now you stand on the ground and get a crane to hoist the 10 ton block above you and then drop it on you. It will accelerate at the same speed.
It would seem to me that the block dropping on you would do a lot more damage to you than when you dropped on the block even though both speeds were the same. Why is that?
Some things defy physics at least in terms of our comprehension -
The sun's atmosphere, known as the corona, extends more than a million kilometres from its surface and reaches temperatures of two million degrees. When compared to the mere 5000 degrees the surface of the sun reaches, there's no explanation for why the temperature is so high.
The sun's atmosphere, known as the corona, extends more than a million kilometres from its surface and reaches temperatures of two million degrees. When compared to the mere 5000 degrees the surface of the sun reaches, there's no explanation for why the temperature is so high.
John
You claim to have an "A" in "common sense " clearly you don't.
You bought Newton & Physics to this thread yet when ask you a simple Physics question regarding the Kinetic energy of a steel beam or a mush heavier aeroplane travelling at the same velocity you refuse to answer. You even refuse to post a link to the site you cut n pasted this "science " from
Do you "not have a Scooby Do" John?
Please don't run away & cry in the corner John. Just calculate the energy of the plane & steel beam.
You claim to have an "A" in "common sense " clearly you don't.
You bought Newton & Physics to this thread yet when ask you a simple Physics question regarding the Kinetic energy of a steel beam or a mush heavier aeroplane travelling at the same velocity you refuse to answer. You even refuse to post a link to the site you cut n pasted this "science " from
Do you "not have a Scooby Do" John?
Please don't run away & cry in the corner John. Just calculate the energy of the plane & steel beam.
Charlie • July 25, 2019 4:01 PM BST
It matters not if the girder is swung at your hand or you swing your hand at the girder; assuming the impact is at the same speed, the injury to your hand would be the same.
ha ha he actually said that? Maybe I should unblock him for clown value.
It matters not if the girder is swung at your hand or you swing your hand at the girder; assuming the impact is at the same speed, the injury to your hand would be the same.
ha ha he actually said that? Maybe I should unblock him for clown value.
they had a wee machine with them that nasa invented to make water,the mixed hydrogen and oxygen and then added chlorine 1nto it to make it pure and hey presto they had clean fresh drinking water ,which was a must to keep alive,"now i dont doubt this,but you would think that this innovative super idea could be given to the state of california who suffer from a serious water crisis every summer,after all they know how to make drinking water and yet scientists still search for solution to to california water problem.Why can the just not make a bigger version of the wee machine on apollo 11
dave he's copy and pasting it from a 9/11 troother book with physics for conspiracy nuts.
Rumour is the Univerity of Troothers were going to continue the work of Stephen Hawking after he died, but after a hard night on weed and watching a Doctor Who marathon, they decided he was actually Davros and his work was part of a takeover conspiracy by the Daleks.
Rumour is the Univerity of Troothers were going to continue the work of Stephen Hawking after he died, but after a hard night on weed and watching a Doctor Who marathon, they decided he was actually Davros and his work was part of a takeover conspiracy by the Daleks.
Spoon fed plus pressured by your peers and of the masses, that we really went to the moon on the back of 60's technology.
Yep, lap it up folks. Don't think for yourself...we really went to the moon
Yep, lap it up folks. Don't think for yourself...we really went to the moon
Jul 25, 2019 -- 8:35PM, TheBetterBettor wrote:
Spoon fed plus pressured by your peers and of the masses, that we really went to the moon on the back of 60's technology.Yep, lap it up folks. Don't think for yourself...we really went to the moon
Well done TBB we did.
Dave - I'm afraid that "common sense John" did actually post that insight to Newton's 3rd law.
Needless to say no mathematic proof or even an equation.
The "reason" according to John is (drum roll)
If you punch a steel bar it hurts (might even break bones in your hand) &
If a steel bar is swung into your hand it also hurts (may even break bones in your hand )
Poor Newton- why do the uneducated male "truthers " think they know more about science than a 12 year old child. Clearly no common sense- they don't have a Scooby Do.
Needless to say no mathematic proof or even an equation.
The "reason" according to John is (drum roll)
If you punch a steel bar it hurts (might even break bones in your hand) &
If a steel bar is swung into your hand it also hurts (may even break bones in your hand )
Poor Newton- why do the uneducated male "truthers " think they know more about science than a 12 year old child. Clearly no common sense- they don't have a Scooby Do.
Jul 25, 2019 -- 4:01PM, Charlie wrote:
It matters not if the girder is swung at your hand or you swing your hand at the girder; assuming the impact is at the same speed, the injury to your hand would be the same.As our new resident physics expert please explain this to me.Place a 10 ton block of steel on the ground. Climb a ladder and drop from 10' onto the block. You'll accelerate due to gravity.Now you stand on the ground and get a crane to hoist the 10 ton block above you and then drop it on you. It will accelerate at the same speed.It would seem to me that the block dropping on you would do a lot more damage to you than when you dropped on the block even though both speeds were the same. Why is that?
I'd really love an explanation of this from John.
With his A grade in common sense as he claims, shouldn't be too hard to give an explanation.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539