It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship

Well DUH, conker!!!

OF COURSE if the shield was NOT attached to the rocket it wouldn't immobilise it!

No need to 'calculate' any 'complex flow charts' for THAT, you embarrassingly risible fraud!

My point is that if, as NASA claims, ALL THE THRUST IS PRODUCED INSIDE THE ROCKET, then HOW does a simple shield blocking the exhaust immobilise the stupid useless f**king thing?!?

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU THAT YOU AVOID THE OBVIOUS IMPLICATIONS OF THIS FACT??!!??

Really...

Not LOL!!!

Not LOL!!! at all...

11cookeawe1: Stop spamming the thread with your faux-naive b.s.

P.S. Oh! Another page turned I see; so that was your purpose, 11cookeaw1... Duly noted.

Duly. Noted...

Well DUH, conker!!!

OF COURSE if the shield was NOT attached to the rocket it wouldn't immobilise it!

No need to 'calculate' any 'complex flow charts' for THAT, you embarrassingly risible fraud!

My point is that if, as NASA claims, ALL THE THRUST IS PRODUCED INSIDE THE ROCKET, then HOW does a simple shield blocking the exhaust immobilise the stupid useless f**king thing?!?

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU THAT YOU AVOID THE OBVIOUS IMPLICATIONS OF THIS FACT??!!??

Really...

Not LOL!!!

Not LOL!!! at all...

11cookeawe1: Stop spamming the thread with your faux-naive b.s.

P.S. Oh! Another page turned I see; so that was your purpose, 11cookeaw1... Duly noted.

Duly. Noted...

If disk is not attached to the rocket then it will not stop the rocket however it is attached to the rocket it will affect the rocket.

The thrust is produced by the interaction of the exhaust and the rocket. Normally it ONLY happens before the exhaust leaves the thrusters. However, here the exhaust is interacting with the rocket AFTER leaving the thrusters.

The exhaust is exerting a force on the disk, which as it is attached to the rocket, has an affect on the rocket.

The exhaust ONLY produces thrust WHEN IT IS ACTING ON THE ROCKET.

You really need to look at how NASA claims a rocket works.

They claim it is due to a pressure imbalance within the combustion chamber; this is the only way they can justify it working in vacuum conditions.

Yet my experiment shows that the thrust is NOT all created within the combustion chamber, & that the exhaust interacting with an outside mass BELOW the exhaust will immobilise the rocket.

So the exhaust in NASA's model can push both UP and DOWN...

Does that sound right to you?

Really; just think about it, okay?

Just Try...

Well DUH, conker!!!

OF COURSE if the shield was NOT attached to the rocket it wouldn't immobilise it!

Then what's the point of attaching the shield to the rocket?

My point is that if, as NASA claims, ALL THE THRUST IS PRODUCED INSIDE THE ROCKET, then HOW does a simple shield blocking the exhaust immobilise the stupid useless f**king thing?!?

  Didn't you just agree that if the shield is not attached to the rocket then the rocket will not be immobilized?

By the way, did you know that pretty much all rockets are launched very near to the ground or some other blast shield?  If the thrust is being blocked by the ground, then how can the thrust interact with enough air to be able to take off?

For the last time.
THE SHEILD WILL ONLY STOP THE ROCKET IF IT IS ATTACHED TO IT.

Because the shield is attached to the rocket the exhaust is pushing down on part of the rocket.

Oh by the way have you actually DONE this experiment or ad least linked to a video of someone else doing it. If you haven't then this is just baseless speculation.

Let me give you an explanation to what is happening.
Remember the "throwing balls while on a skateboard experiment.
Well imagine you attached a wooden plank to the skate board and the balls you threw were to keep hitting the plank. This would prevent you from accelerating forward.

LOL!!!

& on the circle-jerk goes...

The exhaust pushes UP...

The exhaust pushes DOWN...

The exhaust DOES NOT affect an outside mass...

The exhaust DOES affect an outside mass...

The thrust is produced INSIDE the rocket...

The thrust is produced OUTSIDE the rocket...

Etc, etc, etc...

You lot have NO coherent model of how a rocket works do you?

& you refuse to propose one.

Yet on you type, for ever & ever, ad infinitum...

Yes, I have performed this experiment.

& yes, the results DO support my model of rocketry.

Further, as you have no coherent objections to my model, or even a coherent model of your own - let alone easily verified evidence & simple experiments to support it - I now declare this subject closed & the proposal 'a rocket produces thrust by pushing against an outside mass such as the atmosphere' PROVEN.

Ergo: no 'space travel'.

Sorry, cultists; you had your chance & you blew it.

So what's that now? Four- Nil to me? Five?

Dunno; I've lost count...

You lot are good with numbers though; care to help out?

LOL!!!

LOL!!!

& on the circle-jerk goes...

The exhaust pushes UP...

The exhaust pushes DOWN...

The exhaust DOES NOT affect an outside mass...

The exhaust DOES affect an outside mass...

The thrust is produced INSIDE the rocket...

The thrust is produced OUTSIDE the rocket...

Etc, etc, etc...

You lot have NO coherent model of how a rocket works do you?

& you refuse to propose one.

Yet on you type, for ever & ever, ad infinitum...

Yes, I have performed this experiment.

& yes, the results DO support my model of rocketry.

Further, as you have no coherent objections to my model, or even a coherent model of your own - let alone easily verified evidence & simple experiments to support it - I now declare this subject closed & the proposal 'a rocket produces thrust by pushing against an outside mass such as the atmosphere' PROVEN.

Ergo: no 'space travel'.

Sorry, cultists; you had your chance & you blew it.

So what's that now? Four- Nil to me? Five?

Dunno; I've lost count...

You lot are good with numbers though; care to help out?

LOL!!!

Okay then, exactly what happened in your experiment. Secondly, do it again but this time film yourself. I am not going to rely on your word.

We have explained to you repeatedly how a rocket works, but you have just ignored us .

Oh, indeed, 11cookeaw1; you have provided PLENTY of 'explanations'.

But you have provided ZERO evidence, experiments or logic to back up those 'explanations'.

Except for your tired old nag of a 'man-on-skateboard' analogy that I see you're STILL trying to spam even after multiple debunkings.

You have also refused to address the relevant points in the posts of sceptimatic, legion & myself, indulged in endless evasion & circular reasoning, misapplied basic laws of physics such as Newton 3, denied the validity of others such as free expansion of gas in a vacuum, & generally made utter fools of yourselves.

You clearly have no coherent position & are thus dismissed.

Therefore this debate is closed & the proposal: 'a rocket produces thrust by pushing on an outside mass such as the atmosphere' is declared as FACT until proven otherwise.

Welcome to the world of SCIENCE, space-cultists.

Now go outside & enjoy the fireworks.

You have not once debunked the man on a skateboard analogy instead you have simply claimed that it's wrong. And you have yet to prove that you' em actually done your "experiment".
And I already showed you a video of a rocket engine producing thrust in a vacuum.
Finally, exactly how have we missaplied Newton 3.

You have also refused to address the relevant points in the posts of sceptimatic, legion & myself, indulged in endless evasion & circular reasoning, misapplied basic laws of physics such as Newton 3, denied the validity of others such as free expansion of gas in a vacuum, & generally made utter fools of yourselves.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever discussed your thoughts on Newton's laws and rocket thrust with a college physics professor?  Or do you think that physics teachers are brainwashed too?

If you want to keep using the force POV (which is wrong, because force isn't even constant), you have the rocket being pushed both forward via thrust and backwards via the thrust hitting the shield (causing a momentum exchange), as I explained before. You have equal momentum vectors going in exactly oposite directions, causing them to cancel each other. Result? v=0

This thread is becoming interesting,   Papa Legba,  think's he is cleverly trolling a bunch of people,   when he completely missed the fact that  is the one being trolled.  LOL.  indeed.

The story so far,  conservation of momentum is a consequence of Newton's third law,  and explains clearly how rockets work,  known since the 1600's in most of the civilized world,  perhaps the only exception being the imagination of Papa Legba who has his own unique version of reality.

More generally,  conservation of momentum derives from the invariance of the laws of physics with respect to translation.  See Noether's Theorum,  if you are up on Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics.

PS.   Conker,   How would  I go about getting a quote to manufacture a flat earth,...   just for experimental purposes you understand.

PS.   Conker,   How would  I go about getting a quote to manufacture a flat earth,...   just for experimental purposes you understand.

I apologise but I do not understand what do you mean

Quote

PS.   Conker,   How would  I go about getting a quote to manufacture a flat earth,...   just for experimental purposes you understand.

I apologise but I do not understand what do you mean

I was going by your avatar,  I thought you might be the alter-ego of the famous (award winning) Magrathean  planet designer.

Quote from: guv on July 04, 2015, 07:41:07 AM

Great wise and all knowing septic just how big can a rocket get before it wont work?.

Well let's start at 3000 tons and work backwards from that. So now we are looking at other rocket's smaller. All of them that go to space are the one's that don't work and are not the sizes proclaimed to be.

So if they can get to space they wont work. Bloody handy for the flatwits.

Quote from: guv on July 04, 2015, 07:41:07 AM

Great wise and all knowing septic just how big can a rocket get before it wont work?.

Well let's start at 3000 tons and work backwards from that. So now we are looking at other rocket's smaller. All of them that go to space are the one's that don't work and are not the sizes proclaimed to be.

How did nobody catch this? Sceptic is retarded.

Rockets that can get to space DON'T work?

Okay.

Here you go septic, is this one small enough for you,

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

All legion, sceptimatic & my own experiments & evidence are easily tried or verified at home by neutral readers.

Yours are not, though; because you have not provided any.

The 'man-on-skateboard' FALSE ANALOGY was debunked by myself in reply#622, page 32, then in more detail in reply#1569, page 79.

Further; unlike myself, you do not even have a consistent position for how rocket propulsion is achieved, as neutral readers will now be all too painfully aware.

As they will be aware of your constant lies, flip-flops, evasion & attempts at brainwashing through peer-pressure; all of which provide evidence to confirm you as the Cultists I have implied you are all along.

What's more, Rayzor's claim that you are in fact trolling further undermines your cause. Thanks, Evil Edna!

For any neutral wishing to investigate this subject further, I recommend you visit cluesforum.info & read the thread 'Does rocketry work in the vacuum?'

A wealth of other information on the Great Space Hoax can also be found there.

Perhaps some of you space-cultists would care to leave this cosy little hugbox of a forum, join cluesforum.info & attempt to refute their findings?

Now THAT would be LOL!!!

All legion, sceptimatic & my own experiments & evidence are easily tried or verified at home by neutral readers.

Yours are not, though; because you have not provided any.

The 'man-on-skateboard' FALSE ANALOGY was debunked by myself in reply#622, page 32, then in more detail in reply#1569, page 79.

Further; unlike myself, you do not even have a consistent position for how rocket propulsion is achieved, as neutral readers will now be all too painfully aware.

As they will be aware of your constant lies, flip-flops, evasion & attempts at brainwashing through peer-pressure; all of which provide evidence to confirm you as the Cultists I have implied you are all along.

What's more, Rayzor's claim that you are in fact trolling further undermines your cause. Thanks, Evil Edna!

For any neutral wishing to investigate this subject further, I recommend you visit cluesforum.info & read the thread 'Does rocketry work in the vacuum?'

A wealth of other information on the Great Space Hoax can also be found there.

Perhaps some of you space-cultists would care to leave this cosy little hugbox of a forum, join cluesforum.info & attempt to refute their findings?

Now THAT would be LOL!!!

Now there's an interesting thought,  Papa Legba is getting fitted for a customized tin foil hat,   I want to see a picture of that.   Oh,  here it is.



Welcome to conspiracy central,  THE  clueless forum,  featuring  the latest "truther"  from the 911 forum,  Papa Legba  himself.   Yay!

Look what I just found.

http://history.nasa.gov/ap08fj/pdf/sa503-flightmanual.pdf

Saturn V manual.

Quote from: Conker on July 04, 2015, 07:03:47 PM

Quote

PS.   Conker,   How would  I go about getting a quote to manufacture a flat earth,...   just for experimental purposes you understand.

I apologise but I do not understand what do you mean

I was going by your avatar,  I thought you might be the alter-ego of the famous (award winning) Magrathean  planet designer.

God damnit, I didn't got the reference! Shame on me. I think you are the first one to notice.

Look what I just found.

http://history.nasa.gov/ap08fj/pdf/sa503-flightmanual.pdf

Saturn V manual.

Nice manual. I've only just opened it to read the foreword which is 4 sheets down and I notice two people who signed it.

Arthur RUDOLPH  and D.K  SLAYton.
What's wrong with that? Oh probably nothing, even though Rudolph and his slay (sleigh)....ah well I'll read on.
Let's see who can bring up any other silliness like this, because these people love to take the absolute piss out of the public by blatantly doing this.
They are not quite brazen enough to sign off as Mickey mouse, YET but in time when they realise how comatose and gullible people seem to want to be...it'll come.

Now this is back then. It's all about having fun with them as they relieve you of your tax dollars.

Quote from: guv on July 05, 2015, 03:30:45 AM

Look what I just found.

http://history.nasa.gov/ap08fj/pdf/sa503-flightmanual.pdf

Saturn V manual.

Nice manual. I've only just opened it to read the foreword which is 4 sheets down and I notice two people who signed it.

Arthur RUDOLPH  and D.K  SLAYton.
What's wrong with that? Oh probably nothing, even though Rudolph and his slay (sleigh)....ah well I'll read on.
Let's see who can bring up any other silliness like this, because these people love to take the absolute piss out of the public by blatantly doing this.
They are not quite brazen enough to sign off as Mickey mouse, YET but in time when they realise how comatose and gullible people seem to want to be...it'll come.

Now this is back then. It's all about having fun with them as they relieve you of your tax dollars.

Really Scepti, really?

It must be so hard to be you, seeing a bogeyman around every corner.

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 05, 2015, 06:31:37 AM

Quote from: guv on July 05, 2015, 03:30:45 AM

Look what I just found.

http://history.nasa.gov/ap08fj/pdf/sa503-flightmanual.pdf

Saturn V manual.

Nice manual. I've only just opened it to read the foreword which is 4 sheets down and I notice two people who signed it.

Arthur RUDOLPH  and D.K  SLAYton.
What's wrong with that? Oh probably nothing, even though Rudolph and his slay (sleigh)....ah well I'll read on.
Let's see who can bring up any other silliness like this, because these people love to take the absolute piss out of the public by blatantly doing this.
They are not quite brazen enough to sign off as Mickey mouse, YET but in time when they realise how comatose and gullible people seem to want to be...it'll come.

Now this is back then. It's all about having fun with them as they relieve you of your tax dollars.

Really Scepti, really?

It must be so hard to be you, seeing a bogeyman around every corner.

Good detectives have to examine all avenues no matter how clear or absurd they may be. They also rely on gut feeling as well. It's all part of solving issues to get to a truth.

Not everyone can be like me. It takes lot's of logic and the ability to allow yourself to see things that other's just can't or won't.
You appear like the kid who kept on losing his school lunch money from his coat and kept scratching his head as to why it always happens, even though you checked there were no holes in your pocket's and you don't recall giving it away.
You never think to look around you and wonder if it's a thief amid your bunch of friends, because you just know it's not that, right?

This is your mindset. Gullible. Too trusting. Unable to question something which you believe in your own mind is impossible or extremely so unlikely as to not warrant investigation.

You see, I'm the bastard that will set a trap or go around the people capable of stealing my lunch money and I'd be questioning to see who looks more guilty or who slips up. I'd make it my mission to find out. That's just me and it's why I just don't accept bullshit like a twat, like you.

Oh! So there's a manual for the Saturn V?

Well that settles it then; it must have existed...

LOL!!!

Wait a minute though - check out the website www.projectrho.com atomic rockets; it has all the specs of both 'real' & 'imaginary' space vehicles all bundled together...

Can any of you space-cultists honestly tell the difference?

It's harder than you think!

Whatever; 3,000-tonne aluminium-sheeting-&-mild-steel-bracing flying machines, powered by 3,400-tonne-thrust-travelling-at-3km/s explosions set off directly beneath them..?

LMAO!!!

Oh, & Rayzor/ZennerOne/ausGeoff/Evil Edna/Etc; ROFLMAO!!!

Quote from: Doglover on July 05, 2015, 07:04:09 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 05, 2015, 06:31:37 AM

Quote from: guv on July 05, 2015, 03:30:45 AM

Look what I just found.

http://history.nasa.gov/ap08fj/pdf/sa503-flightmanual.pdf

Saturn V manual.

Nice manual. I've only just opened it to read the foreword which is 4 sheets down and I notice two people who signed it.

Arthur RUDOLPH  and D.K  SLAYton.
What's wrong with that? Oh probably nothing, even though Rudolph and his slay (sleigh)....ah well I'll read on.
Let's see who can bring up any other silliness like this, because these people love to take the absolute piss out of the public by blatantly doing this.
They are not quite brazen enough to sign off as Mickey mouse, YET but in time when they realise how comatose and gullible people seem to want to be...it'll come.

Now this is back then. It's all about having fun with them as they relieve you of your tax dollars.

Really Scepti, really?

It must be so hard to be you, seeing a bogeyman around every corner.

Good detectives have to examine all avenues no matter how clear or absurd they may be. They also rely on gut feeling as well. It's all part of solving issues to get to a truth.

Not everyone can be like me. It takes lot's of logic and the ability to allow yourself to see things that other's just can't or won't.
You appear like the kid who kept on losing his school lunch money from his coat and kept scratching his head as to why it always happens, even though you checked there were no holes in your pocket's and you don't recall giving it away.
You never think to look around you and wonder if it's a thief amid your bunch of friends, because you just know it's not that, right?

This is your mindset. Gullible. Too trusting. Unable to question something which you believe in your own mind is impossible or extremely so unlikely as to not warrant investigation.

You see, I'm the bastard that will set a trap or go around the people capable of stealing my lunch money and I'd be questioning to see who looks more guilty or who slips up. I'd make it my mission to find out. That's just me and it's why I just don't accept bullshit like a twat, like you.

Wow! Sherlock Holmes, Columbo, Miss Marple, Alex Jones, and Eddie Haskell all rolled into one giant brain.

Say what you like about sceptimatic, but at least he's got brains enough to 'detect' that a 3,000-tonne flying machine, constructed no better than your average barn & stood arse upright, cannot be hurled into the sky by setting off a 3,400-tonnes-of-thrust-travelling-at-3kms/s explosion underneath it.

It don't take no Sherlock Holmes to 'detect' THAT claim is bullshit.

But meh; believe what you like, Cultists.

'Science' is clearly a dirty word for you lot, so nowt you say surprises me any more...

LOL!!!

Say what you like about sceptimatic, but at least he's got brains enough to 'detect' that a 3,000-tonne flying machine, constructed no better than your average barn & stood arse upright, cannot be hurled into the sky by setting off a 3,400-tonnes-of-thrust-travelling-at-3kms/s explosion underneath it.

What makes you think it's constructed no better then an average barn?  A barn is thrown together with wood after making a few measurements, and the Saturn V costs tens of millions of dollars to build and that does not even include the years of R&D which wen into it.

 What century do you live in, mikeman, where barns are made of wood?

Or are you Amish instead of Mormon?

Whatever; grow up.

Also; what is the temperature of Liquid Hydrogen; NASA's favourite ROCKET fuel...

& what is the temperature of ABSOLUTE ZERO?

Just LOL!!!