O/T Artemis II - is this just

[Spuddy Speight]

To repeat my simple question, can you tell me who are these "Aerospace scientists" and where you got that figure from?

It is a reality in this day and age that Spuddy Speight could be a bot purely created to spread misinformation. Conspiracy theories are used by hostile foreign actors to create distrust in western democratic societies, that's a real conspiracy. Maybe he is an artifical creation, maybe he is doing their bidding for free.

Hundreds of thousands are involved in these projects, to have such a narrow world view to only be able to imagine ground control is mind numbingly naive.

What do you think of the russian astronaughts who spend months at a time on board the space station, and with video of them floating around long before AI, and them being away from their families for months at a time. Are they in on your grand conspiracy too?

The phrase"simple question" is patronizing. I could imagine you giving me a pat on the head and saying, "There, there". It ain't gonna happen.
I could ask you and some others (not all) posting on this thread if they were okay in themselves. It's difficult for some people to absorb so much information.

Some of you might like to look at Albert Einstein and his view on reality.

Albert Einstein viewed reality as a "four-dimensional spacetime continuum where time and space are relative rather than absolute".
He famously described reality as an "illusion, albeit a very persistent one", implying our sensory perceptions do not reveal the underlying, deeper physical reality, which is curved and governed by geometry.

Oh, and the apparent weightlessness inside mock up space stations?
You might like to look up the following.
Creating a "loss of gravity" or weightlessness inside an airplane achieved through parabolic flight, a manoeuvre where the aircraft follows a specific arc that mimics free fall.
The latter was achieved long before AI was released to the world.

You might need to do more research before challenging reality.

[Townerslovechild]

Look at his username ..ie,Mr Potato Head,think that says it all.

[Spuddy Speight]

Look at his username ..ie,Mr Potato Head,think that says it all.

It's a shame. Not being able to follow the debate on this thread.
However, there's always your colouring book and crayons.
Having said that, best not, you might not be able to keep the colours inside the lines.

[John2]

The phrase"simple question" is patronizing. I could imagine you giving me a pat on the head and saying, "There, there". It ain't gonna happen.
I could ask you and some others (not all) posting on this thread if they were okay in themselves. It's difficult for some people to absorb so much information.

Some of you might like to look at Albert Einstein and his view on reality.

Albert Einstein viewed reality as a "four-dimensional spacetime continuum where time and space are relative rather than absolute".
He famously described reality as an "illusion, albeit a very persistent one", implying our sensory perceptions do not reveal the underlying, deeper physical reality, which is curved and governed by geometry.

Oh, and the apparent weightlessness inside mock up space stations?
You might like to look up the following.
Creating a "loss of gravity" or weightlessness inside an airplane achieved through parabolic flight, a manoeuvre where the aircraft follows a specific arc that mimics free fall.
The latter was achieved long before AI was released to the world.

You might need to do more research before challenging reality.

I'm leaning towards thinking you might be an AI.

Your world view is dumb enough to be patronised.

So, your answer that your figure of maximum hypothetically survivable speed for humans is around 15,345 mph comes from Albert Einstein. Can you provide a single source from the internet collaborating this figure as coming from Einstein? Or anywhere credible?

Of course the simulation of weightlessness can be achieved using airplanes - the filming of Apollo 13 being a great example...

But again, this proves how dumb your position is, that movie was famously difficult to film because they could only get about 30 seconds of weightlessness at a time IIRC. We have continuous video footage of astronauts on the space station decades before AI could be responsible that far exceed this duration.

Every excuse digs deeper and raises more questions than it answers... the ultimate one that tickles me the most is your failure to explain the motivations of all world governments and scientists spanning decades and the entire political spectrum to maintain this charade?

[Spuddy Speight]

Are you alright?
You don't seem to have fact checked some of the ideas you've posted.
It's easily done, but hey, you can always come back to this thread when you've completed the task.

[Heliosphan78]

Albert Einstein viewed reality as a "four-dimensional spacetime continuum where time and space are relative rather than absolute".
He famously described reality as an "illusion, albeit a very persistent one", implying our sensory perceptions do not reveal the underlying, deeper physical reality, which is curved and governed by geometry.

You're not actually saying anything at all here really, just muddying the waters.

We're 3D beings, so our perception here on planet earth is 3D. That is our reality. A 2D being would only perceive a world where things only move left, right, forwards or backwards. There is no up or down in a 2D world, that's a different perception.

So how do you reconcile that with a rocket taking off into space? I've got absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make.

[John2]

Are you alright?
You don't seem to have fact checked some of the ideas you've posted.
It's easily done, but hey, you can always come back to this thread when you've completed the task.

ah, you're just a troll, what a sad existence.

[Spuddy Speight]

,

You're not actually saying anything at all here really, just muddying the waters.

We're 3D beings, so our perception here on planet earth is 3D. That is our reality. A 2D being would only perceive a world where things only move left, right, forwards or backwards. There is no up or down in a 2D world, that's a different perception.

So how do you reconcile that with a rocket taking off into space? I've got absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make.

If you've got absolutely no idea what point I'm trying to make, why have you suddenly decided to join a debate which some others are struggling with, including yourself.
There's no sense in that. As for 3D and 2D, one of the answers lies with the planet Earth and how many miss the blatantly obvious and how we perceive its very existence.
It was obvious to me even as a child. And it's very real. It's no biggie but very thought provoking nonetheless.
Maybe I'm trying to encourage people to question what we take for granted but never question.
Good luck with your 3D modelling.

[Spuddy Speight]

ah, you're just a troll, what a sad existence.

You really need to check out the meaning of the word 'troll' before posting.

[Heliosphan78]

If you've got absolutely no idea what point I'm trying to make, why have you suddenly decided to join a debate which some others are struggling with, including yourself.
There's no sense in that. As for 3D and 2D, one of the answers lies with the planet Earth and how many miss the blatantly obvious and how we perceive its very existence.
It was obvious to me even as a child. And it's very real. It's no biggie but very thought provoking nonetheless.
Maybe I'm trying to enourage people to question what we take for granted but never question.
Good luck with your 3D modelling.

I haven't joined a debate because there isn't one actually happening. All I've seen is John ask you a couple of questions which you've chosen to ignore and now you seem to have retreated into your own little world of ambiguity.

You don't actually say anything in your post above, literally nothing. I've read it a couple of times and I've taken nothing from it. It just reads like a confused mess.

Have another go but if you can't write with a degree of clarity, I won't reply.