We just have to catch them before they merge with those damn Chenjesu.

He mentions why it looks old on the home page, point number 12.

Mitigation like this doesn't get in the way of business, and so bears little fruit, waggle-finger-wise.

That was it, it was holocaust denial. Thanks. Old brain is old.

My favourite news outlet has been publicly funded for its entire life, and that funding model hasnt changed.

20 years ago it had extremely high quality journalism, and an award winning website.

Today, its quality is through the floor and its website is shite. Most of the stories are reposts from other sites or “feel good” stories that should not be on a news site (and this site has its own “magazine” section, which is where those stories should be).

The problem in today’s journalism is not money, no matter what they try and tell you.

Didn't one of them go full-on Nazi in like a day?

Ireland, Canada, Australia, Singapore, Pakistan, Namibia, New Zealand, Liberia, Lesotho, and the Philippines also use the "soccer" term.

Many other countries (Afganistan, Algeria, Armenia, Bahrain, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Croatia, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Greece, - you know what fuck it I'm to the G's and I'm tired of typing them) call the game by some local name which sometimes translates to "foot ball" but not always.

Bottom line - this website is based in the US. Most of its users are from the US. Its not going to be uncommon for US English - where the game is called soccer - to be the language used here.

How many Olympic-sized swimming pools?

That example only works in hindsight. Yes, they had a somewhat accurate calculation of the size of the Earth, and therefore could potentially guess that there was "something" between Europe and swinging back around to Asia, but that is only now accurate because we've determined the actual size of Earth and what that thing in between is.

At the time until proven otherwise it could have just as easily been that their math was wrong the whole time.

What does using your brain have to do with the law?

No.

Ok, I see where you are going wrong.

Under newtonian physics, a body remains at rest, or in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, except insofar as it is acted upon by a force.

The moment you thrust in a particular direction away from your direction of travel, that is the "acted upon by a force" - your direction changes.

The moment that thrust stops, the change in direction stops, and you revert to "in motion at a constant speed in a straight line".

Your thrust needs to be constant to fully change direction, until you have reached the new direction you want.

There wasn't enough fuel between Columbia and Soyuz to continually thrust enough to both end up going in the same direction.

Its the constant thrust that you are missing - newtonian physics dont help here because thats oriented around continuing in a straight line, whereas for this orbital change you need a curve, and that needs a constant force for the duration of the curve.

Again, no one is saying you cant.

But you consistently seem to avoid the answer being given to you.

Its about the change in energy involved. Which means thrusting in a particular direction for a particular amount of time.

And none of the elements involved in this thread has the energy available to make the change in orbit. If they had more fuel, then they could have thrusted for longer and changed orbits. But they didn't have the fuel available. So they couldn't meet the energy requirements. So they cant match orbits.

It cant come from nowhere.

You cant throw a sail out and catch the wind.

You have a fixed amount of fuel on board, with no way to refuel and no sources from which to refuel from.

Imagine you are on a boat heading toward Niagra Falls - you are in the centre of the river, and need to make it to the bank before you go over the falls. If you have a powerful motor and a lot of fuel, you will probably make it. If you have a feeble motor and a lot of fuel, you might not make it. If you have a powerful motor and a thimble full of fuel, you arent going to make it. If you just have oars, you arent going to make it.

Same deal. You need a certain amount of energy to do these things, and that energy wasnt available.

The "olden times" arent exactly perfect in that regard however.

More than one show has latched on to an idea generated from fandom - hell, in Battle Star Galactica (2003), the concept of the Final Five wasn't even a thing until the show runners cottoned on to the amount of fan speculation around the remaining unnamed human-form Cylons, but they quickly pivoted to it becoming central to the show and ditched their original concepts.

Orbital mechanics is a mind fuck all in its own.

Even if you are in an identical orbit to the ISS, and 500km behind it on the orbital path, how do you catch it up?

Well, you have to slow down.

By slowing down, you put yourself in a lower orbit, which actually is a shorter orbit, which means you orbit faster, which means you catch the ISS up. You then speed back up to slow down to match the ISS orbit.

If you thrust yourself toward the ISS (ie by firing your rockets behind you), you slow down in relation to the ISS because you move yourself into a higher orbit, which is actually a longer orbit, so you take longer doing it, so the ISS speeds off into the distance.

All of that is just assuming you are matching perfect orbits and are trying to catch up with the object in front of you. You burn fuel changing orbits twice.

Changing the direction you are heading takes even more fuel. A lot more.

Neither Soyuz nor the Space Shuttle have that sort of fuel on board. Their manoeuvring systems is for small adjustments to catch up with something as described above - they depend on the big ass rocket or fuel tank they rode to orbit on in order to get them into the right orbit.