Gravity is a fact, but how it works, is only theoretical, as it cannot be fully explained.
Not in dispute, but if you think 'just a theory' means the same in science as it does to anyone else you really don't know what you're talking about. A scientific theory has to a) fit the available evidence, and b) survive rigorous testing. Newton's theories fit observation remarkably well in all but deep gravity wells, Einstein's cover everything that newton's cover and a few more bits. It's a refinement, not a complete re-writing that means everything done using Newton's equations is wrong.
“We have no evidence whatsoever for dark matter, other than otherwise inexplicable gravitational; effects, but these are only inexplicable if gravity follows the law we have written.”
“As others have noted, the law relates to observations, not explanations, and that requires a theory. Whether our theory is correct remains to be seen”
“For gravitation, General Relativity is a theory that tries to explain how gravitation arises and works.”
And once again, none of this is in dispute. The point you are failing (or refusing) to grasp is that whatever refinements to our theory of gravity that are required to explain the galactic scale problems will not affect the theories and equations used on the scale of anything within our solar system to any significant degree.
“Funny, earlier on you argued that it was a big leap from small scale to planetary scale to cosmic scale”
It certainly is, what’s your point?
Can't you even follow your own arguments? I point out that Newton's theories allow me to predict the behaviour of everything from a dropped hammer to a planetary orbit and you say it's a big leap, now you're arguing that gravity is gravity. Make up your mind, or present your arguments more coherently.
“Centuries of observation on a planetary system scale confirm the calculations used to predict the behaviour of objects in gravity fields work on those scales well enough”
Ok so you assume, knowing it well enough would be good enough to put men on the moon. And I know you will also presume, it was close enough to be able to launch a probe, and by using multiple sling shots around various celestial bodies, it would be able to rendezvous with an object travelling at 34,000mph, ten years from launch and 300,000,000 miles away, and then remotely perform complicated manoeuvres to achieve orbit around the said object, while taking pictures, before deliberately crashing part of it into the object, with a delay in transmission of around fifty minutes there and back. Apollo was one thing, but the ESA totally lost the plot with that one.
I presume or assume nothing. I conclude based on my own observations and understanding. Your incredulity that some specialists could pull off such a mission is irrelevant to the reality of the situation. If you can't figure out how observing the behaviour of literally thousands or even millions of objects within and beyond the solar system over centuries using ever more precise and accurate techniques provides a solid foundation for calculating the trajectory to launch a spacecraft to rendezvous with a comet that is really your problem, and no-one else's.
that scaled down model of the LEM is pathetic.
Thank you for demonstrating how little of the record you have actually seen. That would be the 'scaled down' model that every TV broadcast from every mission includes footage of the astronauts working next to, climbing up and into or out and down from, yes?
It’s not even obvious, that the camera is panning, as it may just be moving sideways
If you can't tell the difference between a tracking and panning shot, again, not our problem. But again, as always, everything is fake that might possibly contradict you.
“any and all evidence that disagrees with him is either from NASA (liars) or from a third party supporting NASA (also liars)”
So find a way around it and think for yourselves for once.
I did, and I do. You, on the other hand, are parrotting practically verbatim some long-debunked crap.
And which live events were these, which they wouldn’t have known the day before?
For someone who claims to have drawn their own conclusions, you consistently demonstrate the (sadly expacted and all-too-familiar) near total lack of familiarity with the record. I'm pretty comfortable in saying that everyone on this discussion has seen and heard more of the record for Apollo than you even know exists.
“For example: the Earth is NOT on the lunar horizon as seen from Clavius. Kubrick was not an astronomer”
He didn’t have guidance from those people at NASA on that one. Do any of you actually put any thought into this drivel you are spouting?
I'm also going to assume you've never taken the time to look at the Moon yourself and figure out where Clavius is, or had sufficient grasp of geometry to figure out the implications for what anyone standing there would see. Input from NASA is not required.
So you think that actor in the space suit was Buzz Aldrin?
Further ignorance of the record noted.
It was Buzz Aldrin who was the fool. The rest of his life was wrecked by his foolish decision to take part in this huge fraud.
Ever met the man? I have. His life sure as hell isn't wrecked.
