The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: mexicanwave on October 25, 2012, 04:16:20 AM
-
Interesting little moon video.
Hammer vs Feather - Physics on the Moon: Galileo and Apollo 15 (http://#)
So what is happening here for the conspiracy theorists?
Wires attached to feather? Doesn't look like it.
Slowed down video? Doesn't look like it.
To me it looks like those objects are falling slower than they would on earth due to reduced gravity.
Not that I am some fancy scientist... just that I trust, ye know, SCIENCE and use a little common sense.
That Galileo was a smart chap. Smarter than even Tom Bishop!!
-
Galileo didn't say objects would fall slower on the Moon ???
-
Galileo didn't say objects would fall slower on the Moon ???
Eh??
Did I say that he did say that??
The video is an experiment that took place on the moon to confirm Galileo's discovery of falling objects in gravity fields.
I stated that Galileo was a clever chap.
So... what exactly are you saying?
Also, any thoughts on the video??
-
Beorn, I think that little Smiley you posted might actually be a self portrait.
If you truly believe this FE nonsense then I wouldn't be surprised.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img27/8067/aw8rdh.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/27/aw8rdh.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)[/img]
-
Galileo didn't say objects would fall slower on the Moon ???
Eh??
Did I say that he did say that??
The video is an experiment that took place on the moon to confirm Galileo's discovery of falling objects in gravity fields.
I stated that Galileo was a clever chap.
So... what exactly are you saying?
I think that he's saying that you might be confusing Galileo with Newton.
-
Galileo didn't say objects would fall slower on the Moon ???
Eh??
Did I say that he did say that??
The video is an experiment that took place on the moon to confirm Galileo's discovery of falling objects in gravity fields.
I stated that Galileo was a clever chap.
So... what exactly are you saying?
I think that he's saying that you might be confusing Galileo with Newton.
No, I am not. Watch the video. Also look up Galileo gravity. Newton wasn't the only one working on gravity theories.
Galileo, Newton, Kepler. All accepted the Copernicus system that the earth was a sphere, rotating on its axis around the sun.
Also all rather clever men who were seeking the truth, and had no motivation to be involved in a conspiracy that would some 400 years later be rejected by Internet idiots that still believe the earth to be flat.
-
So what of the video? What excuse can you concoct that would explain the not only lowered gravity, but the lack of air resistance.
Aside from of course arguing over whether or not Galileo cared about gravity. I don't want you to daintily prance around the answer, but instead try to answer it in a way that can actually convince people. Obviously if you are real then something convinced you of this. What is it?
-
So what is happening here for the conspiracy theorists?
Wires attached to feather? Doesn't look like it.
Slowed down video? Doesn't look like it.
To me it looks like those objects are falling slower than they would on earth due to reduced gravity.
Not that I am some fancy scientist... just that I trust, ye know, SCIENCE and use a little common sense.
That Galileo was a smart chap. Smarter than even Tom Bishop!!
This evidence proves nothing. The feather could be weighted to overcome air resistance. The film could have been recorded at higher speed so that it is slower on playback.
If you really "used a little common sense" then you would be looking for another argument.
-
The footage was shot in a vacuum-sealed room.
-
The person did say the objects will hit the ground at the same time, he did not say they would hit the moon.
-
a vacuum sealed room doesn't account for reduced gravity
-
a vacuum sealed room doesn't account for reduced gravity
Changing the speed of the film does.
-
a vacuum sealed room doesn't account for reduced gravity
Changing the speed of the film does.
But that would mean that the hands of the person dropping the objects would be going almost impossibly fast. Especially in those gloves.
-
Not if the person in the suit opens his hands slowly.
-
Fair enough.
-
raising objections doesn't even start to disprove the movie!
-
It wont work, Flat Eric. Of course they won't believe a video. The whole theory is held up by the belief that NASA's videos are fake. You can't try to argue "Its real" to "Its not real"
But its real.
-
a vacuum sealed room doesn't account for reduced gravity
Changing the speed of the film does.
But that would mean that the hands of the person dropping the objects would be going almost impossibly fast. Especially in those gloves.
Look at 0.17 of the film.
Look how fast his hand moves.
If the vid was slowed his hand would be moving ridiculously fast here.
I see no evidence of the film being speeded up and slowed, then speeded up again.
This would be VERY noticable. Look at any example you can find in cinema. Or, even better, do a zetetic experiment!!
So, the video speed is normal, it is not in a vacum (coz this would make zero difference) the feather is not weighted, the hammer is not a feather. It was shot on the moon.
Any objections???
-
a vacuum sealed room doesn't account for reduced gravity
Changing the speed of the film does.
But that would mean that the hands of the person dropping the objects would be going almost impossibly fast. Especially in those gloves.
Look at 0.17 of the film.
Look how fast his hand moves.
If the vid was slowed his hand would be moving ridiculously fast here.
I see no evidence of the film being speeded up and slowed, then speeded up again.
This would be VERY noticable. Look at any example you can find in cinema. Or, even better, do a zetetic experiment!!
So, the video speed is normal, it is not in a vacum (coz this would make zero difference) the feather is not weighted, the hammer is not a feather. It was shot on the moon.
Any objections???
If this was shot in a vacuum, it would make a difference. It would look just as it looks.
-
How does a vacuum affect human reflexes? It is not a vacuum inside the space suit.
-
a vacuum sealed room doesn't account for reduced gravity
Changing the speed of the film does.
But that would mean that the hands of the person dropping the objects would be going almost impossibly fast. Especially in those gloves.
Look at 0.17 of the film.
Look how fast his hand moves.
If the vid was slowed his hand would be moving ridiculously fast here.
I see no evidence of the film being speeded up and slowed, then speeded up again.
This would be VERY noticable. Look at any example you can find in cinema. Or, even better, do a zetetic experiment!!
So, the video speed is normal, it is not in a vacum (coz this would make zero difference) the feather is not weighted, the hammer is not a feather. It was shot on the moon.
Any objections???
Lets try this from a different angle. Write down all the reasons that you think it's impossible to have been shot on earth. Now, as a thought experiment, pretend you think it's a fake and come up with explanations for each of your points. Notice how childishly easy it is to dismiss each point. Now, this does not prove that the landing was fake, but it may give you some perspective on what you accept as undeniable proofs when you should be pausing to think about them.
-
Same can be said for any FE point.
-
Same can be said for any FE point.
Sure, it can be said like how I can say that Ancient Egyptians invented microwave ovens. How these thins differ is that we have the ability to question ourselves and our standpoints aren't ridiculous.
Also, I see that you have failed to divine the purpose of the thought experiment. Please try again.
-
Same can be said for any FE point.
Sure, it can be said like how I can say that Ancient Egyptians invented microwave ovens. How these thins differ is that we have the ability to question ourselves and our standpoints aren't ridiculous.
Also, I see that you have failed to divine the purpose of the thought experiment. Please try again.
I have yet to see a single FE theory or point that cannot be jst as childishly dismissed as you say the moon landing video was.
-
a vacuum sealed room doesn't account for reduced gravity
Changing the speed of the film does.
But that would mean that the hands of the person dropping the objects would be going almost impossibly fast. Especially in those gloves.
Look at 0.17 of the film.
Look how fast his hand moves.
If the vid was slowed his hand would be moving ridiculously fast here.
I see no evidence of the film being speeded up and slowed, then speeded up again.
This would be VERY noticable. Look at any example you can find in cinema. Or, even better, do a zetetic experiment!!
So, the video speed is normal, it is not in a vacum (coz this would make zero difference) the feather is not weighted, the hammer is not a feather. It was shot on the moon.
Any objections???
Lets try this from a different angle. Write down all the reasons that you think it's impossible to have been shot on earth. Now, as a thought experiment, pretend you think it's a fake and come up with explanations for each of your points. Notice how childishly easy it is to dismiss each point. Now, this does not prove that the landing was fake, but it may give you some perspective on what you accept as undeniable proofs when you should be pausing to think about them.
Ok
Here is why I think it is impossible that the moon videos were shot on earth.
1 - The utterly convincing reduced gravity. Apollo 16 EVAs 2 (falling down on the Moon) (http://#noexternalembed)
I have probably seen every big budget sci-fi film of the last 30 years. Not one of these films has ever been able to show a convincing reduced / zero g environment. Not with modern cgi and certainly not ones made in the 60's. In fact even to this day any attempt at filming zero g looks 100% fake. Have you seen Appollo 13 with Tom Hanks??
2 - The utterly convincing video and images from the moon landings. Similar point to the above, I think it was impossible for these to be recreated in any kind of convincing way at the time. Apollo lunar module prepares for docking (http://#)
3 - The sheer amount of people that would be required to stage and fake something of this scale and magnitude. I believe it would be impossible to keep them all quiet and prevent them from outing the secret.
4 - This image (amongst others)
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?http://lonewolfsden.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/Earth-From-The-Moon-1-1024x768.jpg (http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?http://lonewolfsden.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/Earth-From-The-Moon-1-1024x768.jpg)
Are you telling me this is a painting?
5 - The Russians. Who were obviously rather pissed at being beaten to the moon.
Would they not have loved to have exposed a hoax of this scale? Would they not have done everything in their power to do so?
Ok, I gotta go don't have time to do any more. Might add some later.
As for your thought experiment... sorry, I won't be doing that. I cannot even pretend to be that stupid.
-
Here is why I think it is impossible that the moon videos were shot on earth.
1 - The utterly convincing reduced gravity. Apollo 16 EVAs 2 (falling down on the Moon) (http://#noexternalembed)
I have probably seen every big budget sci-fi film of the last 30 years. Not one of these films has ever been able to show a convincing reduced / zero g environment. Not with modern cgi and certainly not ones made in the 60's. In fact even to this day any attempt at filming zero g looks 100% fake. Have you seen Appollo 13 with Tom Hanks??
I have seen quite a few movies that are more realistic than real life.
2 - The utterly convincing video and images from the moon landings. Similar point to the above, I think it was impossible for these to be recreated in any kind of convincing way at the time. Apollo lunar module prepares for docking (http://#)
See #1
3 - The sheer amount of people that would be required to stage and fake something of this scale and magnitude. I believe it would be impossible to keep them all quiet and prevent them from outing the secret.
Yes, and I am sure no secrets can ever be kept by more than 3 people, especially when money and death threats are involved.
4 - This image (amongst others)
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?http://lonewolfsden.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/Earth-From-The-Moon-1-1024x768.jpg (http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?http://lonewolfsden.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/Earth-From-The-Moon-1-1024x768.jpg)
Are you telling me this is a painting?
Are you telling me it is undeniable proof of anything?
5 - The Russians. Who were obviously rather pissed at being beaten to the moon.
Would they not have loved to have exposed a hoax of this scale? Would they not have done everything in their power to do so?
The Russians would not dare ruin our prank. We had too much evidence of their shenanigans for them to expose us.
[/quote]
-
I have seen quite a few movies that are more realistic than real life.
Which movies are those?
Which movies have you seen that showed realistic reduced / zero g?
I can give you examples of some that I have seen that do not even come close.
Apollo 13 with Tom Hanks.
The actors are clearly on wires and/or just moving their bodies a little slower to give the impression of zero g.
A big budget movie that of all of them should have got it right. It is very far from convincing.
Houston, We Have a Problem - Apollo 13 (4/11) Movie CLIP (1995) HD (http://#ws)
Note, the bits that are convincing in this clip were filmed aboard a zero g jet in parabolic flight.
Yes, and I am sure no secrets can ever be kept by more than 3 people, especially when money and death threats are involved.
3 people? I think you might find that a moon conspiracy would involve thousands, probably tens of thousand of people to be involved. Also have you ever seen interviews of talks by those involved over the decades? They seem to be successful, fulfilled scientists and engineers. Proud of their achievements and in no way seem to be under duress or in fear of their lives.
Are you telling me it is undeniable proof of anything?
On it's own, no. But along with the mind boggling amount of other photographic and video evidence it is absolute undeniable proof!
Look at space images from the 60's, 70's and up until now, from the ISS & spacewalks. Just thousands upon thousands of images and videos that simply cannot ALL be faked. Impossible. Utterly impossible!
http://industrieclothing.tumblr.com/post/15941369437/gemini (http://industrieclothing.tumblr.com/post/15941369437/gemini)
Ask yourself. Do these pictures look fake?
The Russians would not dare ruin our prank. We had too much evidence of their shenanigans for them to expose us.
Fair enough, so back to the other points.
Please, go look at as many space images as you can, and instead of seeing fake, actually consider that they are real.
Coz... they are.
-
You keep referencing Apollo 13. You do realize that it was a movie meant for entertainment, right?
-
You keep referencing Apollo 13. You do realize that it was a movie meant for entertainment, right?
What a snide and evasive comment.
Of course I do, and you know I do.
You also know fine well why I am referencing it. But seeing as you have made me, I will explain again.
You say the moon landings are a hoax. Staged and filmed, Much like a hollywood movie, no?
Surely using the same techniques?
It was you who said "I have seen quite a few movies that are more realistic than real life."
Really? What?
I am showing this movie and could show EVERY other sci-fi movie and nothing comes close to as convincing me it is anything other than staged and definitely shot on earth. In 1g with some tricks.
The actual moon videos on the other hand look real. Coz they are real.
Now please come back with another short, evasive, stupid response that answers nothing and only makes you look more of a fool.
-
The movie was not made to try to convince people that space flight was possible. It was made for entertainment only. Please do not try to use it to prove the Earth is round. It only makes you look dumb.
-
You keep referencing Apollo 13. You do realize that it was a movie meant for entertainment, right?
What a snide and evasive comment.
Of course I do, and you know I do.
You also know fine well why I am referencing it. But seeing as you have made me, I will explain again.
You say the moon landings are a hoax. Staged and filmed, Much like a hollywood movie, no?
Surely using the same techniques?
It was you who said "I have seen quite a few movies that are more realistic than real life."
Really? What?
I am showing this movie and could show EVERY other sci-fi movie and nothing comes close to as convincing me it is anything other than staged and definitely shot on earth. In 1g with some tricks.
The actual moon videos on the other hand look real. Coz they are real.
Now please come back with another short, evasive, stupid response that answers nothing and only makes you look more of a fool.
A plane in a dive from high enough up simulates weightlessness quite well.
-
The movie was not made to try to convince people that space flight was possible. It was made for entertainment only. Please do not try to use it to prove the Earth is round. It only makes you look dumb.
Do you even read posts before smashing your ham fists off the keyboard and sending your response?
The movie I referred to was not to prove the earth is round, it was referred to to show the difficulty in replicating zero / reduced gravity.
Get it now?
No, prob not. As usual you will come back with some trite response that makes me explain it all again.
FE'ers have no right to call anyone dumb!
-
You keep referencing Apollo 13. You do realize that it was a movie meant for entertainment, right?
What a snide and evasive comment.
Of course I do, and you know I do.
You also know fine well why I am referencing it. But seeing as you have made me, I will explain again.
You say the moon landings are a hoax. Staged and filmed, Much like a hollywood movie, no?
Surely using the same techniques?
It was you who said "I have seen quite a few movies that are more realistic than real life."
Really? What?
I am showing this movie and could show EVERY other sci-fi movie and nothing comes close to as convincing me it is anything other than staged and definitely shot on earth. In 1g with some tricks.
The actual moon videos on the other hand look real. Coz they are real.
Now please come back with another short, evasive, stupid response that answers nothing and only makes you look more of a fool.
A plane in a dive from high enough up simulates weightlessness quite well.
Yes, as I explained in my previous post that you obviously haven't read. Parabolic flight simulates zero / reduced gravity.
Are you telling me the moon landing videos were all filmed on 747 in parabolic flight?
-
Hammer vs Feather - Physics on the Moon: Galileo and Apollo 15 (http://#)
Now, back to the original point. What do FE'ers believe is actually happening in this video?
-
You keep referencing Apollo 13. You do realize that it was a movie meant for entertainment, right?
What a snide and evasive comment.
Of course I do, and you know I do.
You also know fine well why I am referencing it. But seeing as you have made me, I will explain again.
You say the moon landings are a hoax. Staged and filmed, Much like a hollywood movie, no?
Surely using the same techniques?
It was you who said "I have seen quite a few movies that are more realistic than real life."
Really? What?
I am showing this movie and could show EVERY other sci-fi movie and nothing comes close to as convincing me it is anything other than staged and definitely shot on earth. In 1g with some tricks.
The actual moon videos on the other hand look real. Coz they are real.
Now please come back with another short, evasive, stupid response that answers nothing and only makes you look more of a fool.
A plane in a dive from high enough up simulates weightlessness quite well.
Yes, as I explained in my previous post that you obviously haven't read. Parabolic flight simulates zero / reduced gravity.
Are you telling me the moon landing videos were all filmed on 747 in parabolic flight?
No, that would be silly.
I'm simply pointing out that there are ways to trick the viewer into believing something is happening a specific way.
-
which one was used to "fake" the space landings?
-
which one was used to "fake" the space landings?
No single trick could be used to simulate all the things you saw.
-
which ones then?
how did they do it?
-
The movie was not made to try to convince people that space flight was possible. It was made for entertainment only. Please do not try to use it to prove the Earth is round. It only makes you look dumb.
Do you even read posts before smashing your ham fists off the keyboard and sending your response?
The movie I referred to was not to prove the earth is round, it was referred to to show the difficulty in replicating zero / reduced gravity.
Get it now?
No, prob not. As usual you will come back with some trite response that makes me explain it all again.
FE'ers have no right to call anyone dumb!
The movie was made for entertainment purposes. The main focus was on acting, story line, and supporting the plot. Had the main focus been on convincing the viewer that they were really in space, I am sure that the special effects would have been more impressive. However, in this case, the special effects only had to be convincing enough to allow the story to flow.
Let me know if I have to explain it in smaller words.
-
The movie was not made to try to convince people that space flight was possible. It was made for entertainment only. Please do not try to use it to prove the Earth is round. It only makes you look dumb.
Do you even read posts before smashing your ham fists off the keyboard and sending your response?
The movie I referred to was not to prove the earth is round, it was referred to to show the difficulty in replicating zero / reduced gravity.
Get it now?
No, prob not. As usual you will come back with some trite response that makes me explain it all again.
FE'ers have no right to call anyone dumb!
The movie was made for entertainment purposes. The main focus was on acting, story line, and supporting the plot. Had the main focus been on convincing the viewer that they were really in space, I am sure that the special effects would have been more impressive. However, in this case, the special effects only had to be convincing enough to allow the story to flow.
Let me know if I have to explain it in smaller words.
No I got that. Now why don't you try going back to the original point and explaining that away?
How did NASA fake those vids? Use any length of word you like.
Though please try to avoid using 'flat' and 'earth' one after the other, because it is quite simply the silliest combination of two words in the English language.
-
Avatar Trailer The Movie (New Extended HD Trailer) (http://#ws) Look we've been in space and stuff. Got some onubtanium while we were at it.
-
Look we've been in space and stuff. Got some onubtanium while we were at it.
You do realize that this type of attitude doesn't help your argument one bit, don't you?
-
Look we've been in space and stuff. Got some onubtanium while we were at it.
You do realize that this type of attitude doesn't help your argument one bit, don't you?
I find this happens a lot on here.
Put up a question, get a deflection back.
Put up a video, told to research better.
Make a point they cannot answer, and it is ignored with some minor element of the post picked up and beat to death with no real focus on the original point.
I am not the most adept at debating, and I often pop in here only briefly with little time to come back and forward.
Yet the actual response from FE'ers has been less than pathetic.
Not only am I completely, utterly unconvinced about FE, but I am unconvinced that even the FE'ers are convinced!
I am going back to my original thought... this is just a brilliant and elaborate internet meme that has successfully trolled us all!
-
Look we've been in space and stuff. Got some onubtanium while we were at it.
You do realize that this type of attitude doesn't help your argument one bit, don't you?
I find this happens a lot on here.
Put up a question, get a deflection back.
Put up a video, told to research better.
Make a point they cannot answer, and it is ignored with some minor element of the post picked up and beat to death with no real focus on the original point.
I am not the most adept at debating, and I often pop in here only briefly with little time to come back and forward.
Yet the actual response from FE'ers has been less than pathetic.
Not only am I completely, utterly unconvinced about FE, but I am unconvinced that even the FE'ers are convinced!
I am going back to my original thought... this is just a brilliant and elaborate internet meme that has successfully trolled us all!
- I've been looking through the questions from Q&A. They all get answered in a very timely manner.
- It is always good to do better research.
- What point did you make that we couldn't answer?
-
- What point did you make that we couldn't answer?
[/quote]
How exactly are moon videos faked?
How is zero / reduced gravity faked?
-
- What point did you make that we couldn't answer?
How exactly are moon videos faked?
How is zero / reduced gravity faked?
[/quote]
Avatar Trailer The Movie (New Extended HD Trailer) (http://#ws) Look we've been in space and stuff. Got some onubtanium while we were at it.
It's totally impossible to fake stuff in videos.
-
- What point did you make that we couldn't answer?
How exactly are moon videos faked?
How is zero / reduced gravity faked?
[/quote]
With a movie studio.
CGI works.
-
- What point did you make that we couldn't answer?
How exactly are moon videos faked?
How is zero / reduced gravity faked?
With a movie studio.
CGI works.
[/quote]
CGI???
In the 60's???
-
- What point did you make that we couldn't answer?
How exactly are moon videos faked?
How is zero / reduced gravity faked?
With a movie studio.
CGI works.
CGI???
In the 60's???
I don't recall seeing any floating people or orange juice bubbles in the 60s videos. All I saw was a bunch of guys in completely enclosed space suits with no way to see their hair float.
What video do you see that is so gravity defying that it can't be replicated with wires or film speed changes?
-
None!
-
- What point did you make that we couldn't answer?
How exactly are moon videos faked?
How is zero / reduced gravity faked?
With a movie studio.
CGI works.
CGI???
In the 60's???
I don't recall seeing any floating people or orange juice bubbles in the 60s videos. All I saw was a bunch of guys in completely enclosed space suits with no way to see their hair float.
What video do you see that is so gravity defying that it can't be replicated with wires or film speed changes?
All of them. I see no evidence of wires or slow motion.
I see reality.
(http://)
(http://)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=7ciStUEZK-Y&NR=1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=7ciStUEZK-Y&NR=1)
(http://)
oh there are plenty more too!
-
The moon landings were faked from top to bottom.
A few reasons why they were faked ( among many) is the fact that.
1. No man made rocket could leave Earth's atmosphere into the vacuum of space as we are told space is.
2. Even if a rocket could get out of Earth's atmosphere, it would be useless in the vacuum of space. Oh and I know about Newtons law, which would be rendered useless in a vacuum.
Perhaps you don't understand Newton's laws or how rockets work as well as you think that you do.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1846/how-do-rockets-work-in-the-vacuum-of-space (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1846/how-do-rockets-work-in-the-vacuum-of-space)
-
The moon landings were faked from top to bottom.
A few reasons why they were faked ( among many) is the fact that.
1. No man made rocket could leave Earth's atmosphere into the vacuum of space as we are told space is.
2. Even if a rocket could get out of Earth's atmosphere, it would be useless in the vacuum of space. Oh and I know about Newtons law, which would be rendered useless in a vacuum.
Perhaps you don't understand Newton's laws or how rockets work as well as you think that you do.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1846/how-do-rockets-work-in-the-vacuum-of-space (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1846/how-do-rockets-work-in-the-vacuum-of-space)
But do they need propulsion all the time? I thought they moved (in space) by inertia most of the time (but that is not explained there), because as there is no friction in space, rockets maintain the speed and course they had when they left the earth orbit.
-
But do they need propulsion all the time? I thought they moved (in space) by inertia most of the time (but that is not explained there), because as there is no friction in space, rockets maintain the speed and course they had when they left the earth orbit.
Yes, inertia is a wonderful thing. So are the gravitational influences of the earth and moon. According to the conspiracy (NASA), when a spacecraft achieves a speed of 25,000 mph or so, then it can overcome the gravitational influence of the earth and escape its bonds. As the spacecraft races for the moon, the earth's gravitation doesn't give up quite so easily and does manage to slow the spacecraft somewhat. However, as it nears the moon, the moon's gravitational influence becomes greater than that of the earth and the spacecraft starts to pick up speed again (although not as significantly as it would on the return trip to the earth).
-
The moon landings were faked from top to bottom.
A few reasons why they were faked ( among many) is the fact that.
1. No man made rocket could leave Earth's atmosphere into the vacuum of space as we are told space is.
2. Even if a rocket could get out of Earth's atmosphere, it would be useless in the vacuum of space. Oh and I know about Newtons law, which would be rendered useless in a vacuum.
Perhaps you don't understand Newton's laws or how rockets work as well as you think that you do.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1846/how-do-rockets-work-in-the-vacuum-of-space (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1846/how-do-rockets-work-in-the-vacuum-of-space)
Yes I understand Newtons law and it works fine on Earth but it's pointless in a vacuum that we are told space is.
Of course we are told a rocket works against itself and we are told to do the medicine ball challenge by sitting on a wheeled chair on a flat surface and throwing the medicine ball away from you and you will go in the opposite direction and they tell you this has nothing to do with atmosphere.
The truth is, it has everything to do with the atmosphere as you are pushing a heavy ball against air, plus the downward force of gravity, both are a barrier for the ball.
In a vacuum , you have nothing to push against.
DId you read the link?
Here it is again:
The truth is that the rocket does have something to push against: namely, its own fuel. Let's illustrate with an example you kids can try at home. First, you need to get yourself into some sort of frictionless situation. Wearing ice skates on a slippery ice rink would be good, or maybe your office has a chair that rolls really well on a hard surface. Next, you'll need a medicine ball. You are the rocket and the medicine ball is your fuel. Toss the medicine ball. You'll notice that as you shove the medicine ball forwards, you yourself lurch backwards. Ta-da, the miracle of physics! (If you think this is because the medicine ball pushed on the air, then try the experiment without the medicine ball--just push on the air with your hands, see how far you lurch backwards.)
So there is something to push against? I don't understand why you are so intent on disproving physics itself. I am sure most of the FEers even would understand how an object can push away fuel in a vacuum and it will move.
-
Cartwheel, a vacuum is nothing, it is devoid of everything. Nothing can be propelled in it.
If you didn't like that last link, then try this one. It has lots of pretty pictures.
http://techpanacea.blogspot.com/2012/06/evolution-of-and-origins-of-rocket.html (http://techpanacea.blogspot.com/2012/06/evolution-of-and-origins-of-rocket.html)
-
It doesn't matter what pictures are shown, rockets can not and will not work in the vacuum of space as we are told.
So you like to dismiss evidence without even looking at it? You'll fit right in. Welcome aboard.
-
Cartwheel, a vacuum is nothing, it is devoid of everything. Nothing can be propelled in it.
The simple experiment is done on Earth and passed off as a law that applies to space as well, a vacuum as we are told but it's rubbish.
Sceptimatic,
Sit in an office chair with wheels; throw a heavy object. Did you roll backwards? Was the air in the room what made it possible for you to move??
(markjo, i know your exp said same thing i just thought i'd shorten it)
-
Cartwheel, a vacuum is nothing, it is devoid of everything. Nothing can be propelled in it.
The simple experiment is done on Earth and passed off as a law that applies to space as well, a vacuum as we are told but it's rubbish.
First of all, outer space is not a perfect vacuum, obviously it has planets and stars in it.
Secondly, YOu don't need to push off of something to move. You just need to provide a force in the opposite direction as you and it would be like you are propelling yourself forwards with the same force. The sources clearly state that rockets would work in a vacuum. The FEers understand it too, they are just saying that it hasn't happened yet.
-
One of the neat facts about rocket engines is that they tend to work better in a vacuum than in an atmosphere.
http://quest.nasa.gov/space/teachers/rockets/principles.html (http://quest.nasa.gov/space/teachers/rockets/principles.html)
One of the most commonly asked questions about rockets is how they can work in space where there is no air for them to push against. The answer to this question comes from the Third Law. Imagine the skateboard again. On the ground, the only part air plays in the motions of the rider and the skateboard is to slow them down. Moving through the air causes friction, or as scientists call it, drag. The surrounding air impedes the action-reaction.
As a result rockets actually work better in space than they do in air. As the exhaust gas leaves the rocket engine it must push away the surrounding air; this uses up some of the energy of the rocket. In space, the exhaust gases can escape freely.
-
Ok, as we have been told; a rocket is no different to a kids balloon as in, fill it with air, nip the end and let it go and it flies through the air until the air is expelled.
Obviously rockets use fuel to burn but the concept is similar.
So here's the experiment.
What you need.
I really large balloon and one really small one.
A tube that fits the neck of the balloons.
Lay the large balloon flat on the table....we will call this balloon, the vacuum of space as it has no air inside it.
Attach the tube to this balloon.
Now blow up the small balloon....(This is your rocket) and nip neck at the base, then attach it to the tube, so now you have one tube in both necks of the balloons.
Release your grip on the smaller balloon and what you will see is, the small balloon, (rocket) will expel it's air into the other larger balloon , (space) but it will not want to shoot away because the larger balloon has took away all it's air as fast as it could expel it.
The reason why the small balloon refuses to shoot off, is because the air it's expelling is encountering no resistance and is just being swallowed up by the larger balloon.
Try it.
I made a drawing
(http://picturestack.com/915/536/msEUntitled1fHr.png)
The balloon A is blowing air to the left, so it should be moving to the right (as the arrows show), the reason it doesn't, is because it it attached to another balloon, the balloon B is using exactly the same air balloon A is expelling to move to the left. The same expelled air that should make ballon A move to left is making balloon B move to right, as they are attached by a tube, none of them moves.
-
Roberto:
You have the large balloon ' A' (top) with air inside it.
The large balloon is mimicking space so it has no air inside it from the start...only the small balloon (B) has air inside it.
Oh i thought they were the same balloon, in that case the small ballon doesn't move because it is attached by a tube to a heavy object and the air force is not enough to move it.
For instance, when you throw the medicine ball away from you at a slow pace, you will be lucky to move an inch, but if you throw it as hard as you can, you will move backwards, yet people believe it's the mass and nothing to do with the atmosphere , yet it's the weight of that ball against the atmosphere , plus the downward force of gravity that plays a part.
Firstly, if you throw it at speed, you are creating more friction against the air whilst the downward force acts upon you as you throw the ball. Both of these actions cause you to move in the opposite direction.
You are not understanding the logic of the ball and chair experiment.
In first place, the same friction against the air you mention as stopping the ball is also stopping you too from moving to the opposite direction, so you are not only pushing the ball against the air because there is also air behind you (all arround) that you need to be pushed against before moving, the same friction is stopping the ball is stopping you also. The reason you move is force, not friction (a force strong enough to overcome that friction), for every action there is a reaction, in vaccum too, so i made another drawing. This rocket throws a ball as propulsion.
(http://picturestack.com/916/261/us1Untitled1E2x.png)
As the rocket pushes the ball in one direction, it is being pushed by the same force, caused by the spring, in the opposite direction.
The force in this case is the spring, in the chair and ball experiment, the force is your arms, the faster the spring stretches (stronger force), just the same as the fastest you push the ball with your arms (stronger force) will make the reaction also stronger, the reaction of the ball and rocket or chair moving faster (with more strength) in opposite directions.
-
Tape the tube to the smaller balloon neck and insert the other end into the large balloon, just enough so that it creates a mild seal. The larger balloon (airless) will take the air from the smaller balloon before it has a chance to shoot off.
As for the chair experiment, yes I understand about the mass, plus you have air behind you, I understand that on Earth, the heavier the object thrown forwards, the more you will be propelled backwards, whilst sat in that chair with feet off the ground.
The point is, you are throwing that mass away from you, so regardless of air being equal behind you as well as in front before you throw the medicine ball, the the weight of the ball being thrown against the air in front, plus the immediate gravitational pull on your arms as you are about to release the ball, will propel you backwards.
In space, there is no mass and there is no air, so Newtons law is rendered useless.
The ball "being thrown against air" force is nullified by the air behind you, that you are being pushed against, so take that out If you pushed against a wall you would move, if you pushed against a wall but there was a wall behind you you wouldnt move. I don't understand what you mean by gravitation pull of your arms, because is the push that moves you both.
I will try to explain why it would be possible to move in space in some other way, lets say you take a ball to space and you push it in front of you, lets talk about the ball, it will start moving because you pushed it, after your arms stop pushing it, it will still be moving forever in the same direction, because there is nothing to stop it, no air to slow it down. And because of you pushing the ball you will also be moving in the opposite direction, if the ball mass was bigger than yours you will be moving faster than the ball and vice verse.
Actually there is mass in space and vacuum, the earth is in vacuum and it has mass.
-
There is no mass in space (vacuum).
You weigh nothing and anything in space with you weighs nothing.
You could push that medicine ball away because of the spring in your arms, yet that's all you would be doing as you would move nowhere.
As frustrating as my answer will seem to you. Your answer is the same to me. I don't mean that in a nasty way of course, I'm saying that what you understand to be the truth , makes no sense to me.
Mass and weight is not the same thing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass)
"You could push that medicine ball away because of the spring in your arms, yet that's all you would be doing as you would move nowhere."
Would the ball move?
-
Yes the ball would move but only because you are physically pushing that ball away from you by the movement of your arms.
Yes, the ball will move because of the force of my arms, but it doesn't matter if they are my arms or if the ball had arms, Im also pushing myself away from the ball. We both move.
The same would apply if you had hold of a full sized rocket. The rocket and you would weigh nothing, so therefore if that rocket had a small handle that you could get hold of, you could use the spring of your arms to fling that into space.
If I was in space and pushed really hard against a rocked (is that what you mean) I would be pushing myself away from the rocket, but also the rocket away from me, because of the rocket having more mass than I do, I will move much faster than the rocket (which will barely move, or its movement will be imperceptible), but that is because my arms dont make much force as fueled propulsion would.
I repeat, there is mass in space http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1006042326536 (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1006042326536) mass is a property of the matter, as long as you are made of matter you have mass.
-
Robereto:
If we take the vacuum of space as the nothingness we are told it is then mass or weight is nullified. It does not exist.
Mass is a property of matter, there is no reason for it to disappear. Vacuum doesn't nullify anything, weight is just something you can measure because of earth gravity acting on objects, in space gravity still exists between objects. Being in vacuum doesn't mean that you are vacuum, you are still the same matter with the same property, but you can't measure weight because weight is based on gravity, mass is not. Mass is a property of matter.
"we were never told" vacuum nullifies the matter, all matter has mass. I think someone at some point explained that wrong to you, it is not how you think it is, nor is anyone implying that in vacuum there is no matter.
There is no reason to believe that because we are surrounded by vacuum we also become vacuum.
Im just trying to explain you that, but now I think you are just trying to debate based on a false assumption (that in vacuum everything is vacuum, even us) that I don't know why you made.
(corrected some words)
-
Ok, so space has gravity, right?
So which way is this gravity pulling?
Gravity is the force that attract objects to each other, on earth, the earth is the center of gravity because of its huge mass, so everything on it (we) is being pulled to earth. On space, out of earth gravitational force gravitation is still the force that attracts objects to each other, if we have a big object and a small object they will be attracted to each other, but depending on the difference of their mass, the small object will move faster towards the big object while the big will move slower towards the small object.
Another concept related to gravity is the orbit, if a small object is moving really fast near a big object, the gravity pulls the small object but if the speed of the small object is enough to escape gravity in certain degree, it will start moving in circles around the big object without ever completely "falling" on it, if the small object slows down, it will eventually fall, if it speeds up it will eventually escape the orbit. That is the explanation of planets rotating the sun and not being directly attracted to it. Also the moon to the earth.
And if I am an astronaut near a rocket i will be pulled to the rocket and the rocket to me, but in a really almost imperceptible pull, not comparable with the one a planet creates.
-
Ok, so space has gravity, right?
So which way is this gravity pulling?
Gravity is the force that attract objects to each other, on earth, the earth is the center of gravity because of its huge mass, so everything on it (we) is being pulled to earth. On space, out of earth gravitational force gravitation is still the force that attracts objects to each other, if we have a big object and a small object they will be attracted to each other, but depending on the difference of their mass, the small object will move faster towards the big object while the big will move slower towards the small object.
Another concept related to gravity is the orbit, if a small object is moving really fast near a big object, the gravity pulls the small object but if the speed of the small object is enough to escape gravity in certain degree, it will start moving in circles around the big object without ever completely "falling" on it, if the small object slows down, it will eventually fall, if it speeds up it will eventually escape the orbit. That is the explanation of planets rotating the sun and not being directly attracted to it. Also the moon to the earth.
And if I am an astronaut near a rocket i will be pulled to the rocket and the rocket to me, but in a really almost imperceptible pull, not comparable with the one a planet creates.
This is basically a theory though.
This seemed to me like a good answer, I will just quote it
Theory is the highest level of certainty in Science. There is no higher standard to attempt. Some hypothesis have been given the name of laws for historic reasons, but every real scientist knows that they are not higher than a theory. For example, Newton's Laws are really theories, which have been tested through the centuries to a high level of certainty and work great for any circumstance where relativistic effects are negligible.
The treatment of gravity is painfully wrong in this thread. Again, it is not just a theory, it is a theory.
-
Naturally a scientist can make the average Joe look really silly when the average Joe questions anything and the same applies to newtons law.
This is what is at the very center of each of your rants. You do not want Science to come up with answers, you want Science to be condescending with Average Joe to make him look less ignorant.
The truth is, with a little bit of work you can make your two-balloon-and-a-pipe experiment work, and it will work nicely if you make it right. But, of course, you are not taking into account that your big balloon is so big and heavy that no amount of air from the small balloon will get it to move. The experiment is designed to fail.
You can, of course, get a vacuum pump and make the experiment right, with a balloon in vacuum and a pin that makes it burst. Or you can make a very simple experiment with a wheel chair or skates. You can throw a large but not so heavy massage ball, and then throw a heavier but smaller bowling ball, at the same speed. You will be propelled more by the bowling ball even though the air resistance is almost nil, and less with the massage ball, even though the air resistance is a lot more. You see, you don't even need to create a vacuum to learn about Newton's Laws.
-
First of all, you need to read the experiment properly. It wasn't about making the larger balloon move, it was to show that the smaller air filled balloon, (the rocket) expelling it's air into the larger flat balloon(the vacuum of space) and showing that the smaller balloon wouldn't want to pull away because it's air is swallowed up by the flat lager balloon.
I do want scientists to come up with answers but genuine answers that can be proved without using clearly doctored images and video of space.
Oh and throwing the larger lighter ball would indeed propel you less than the smaller heavier one because of the lighter weight meaning you don't have to exert as much force with your arms against gravity.
It's the friction of the atmosphere , plus gravity that propels you backwards when you throw the ball and the heavier it is the more downward force is places on it meaning you have to expend a lot more energy to throw it.
He said the small balloon will in fact move, but is attached to a larger balloon that could potentially stop it from moving (if it is a rigid tube, for example).
-
I would if i had some sort of light (light enough as to not stop the small balloon movement) flexible hose, otherwise the small balloon wont move because of being attached to a rigid tube attached to a heavier object (the bigger balloon).
-
"The smaller balloon will expel all it's air into the larger balloon, which has no air inside it and the larger balloon will swallow it, leaving the smaller balloon in exactly the same place it was when it was full of air."
Because they are both attached, if the big one doesn't move neither will the small one
-
Oh and throwing the larger lighter ball would indeed propel you less than the smaller heavier one because of the lighter weight meaning you don't have to exert as much force with your arms against gravity.
It's the friction of the atmosphere , plus gravity that propels you backwards when you throw the ball and the heavier it is the more downward force is places on it meaning you have to expend a lot more energy to throw it.
I do not want to laugh at the expense of others, but this really is hilarious. In this experiment the force of gravity is perpendicular to the movement! You are talking about gravity because you don't even know what to rant about. There are no downward forces actually producing or expending work in this experiment!.
In fact, this experiment would have the exact same result on Earth, with "g" equal to 9.86 m/s/s or on the moon, with a sixth of that gravitational pull (or choose the planet or moon you like, the result will be the same). It would have different results if done inside a very viscous fluid, but your claim refers to the Earth's atmosphere. Here the friction with the atmosphere is negligible for this whole experiment.
Who is doing the shoehorning now?
-
which has the greatest resistance?
a - person sat on a chair touching the floor
b - exercise ball
-
air resistance and friction. fuck man why do these guys have to spell everything out for you?
because you are so stupid i will answer.
a,
-
does calling me silly make you smarter? i think you are the person building the reputation here for being a complete tool.
O.M.G this guy says stuff we all disagree with. call the conspiracy he is onto something here.
im bored not frustrated. the tone that i respond in does not reflect my feelings. you are not powerful enough to break my emotional barrier.
I AM INTERNET PROOF!
ok on topic. have you calculated the speed needed for the ball to generate enough air resistance to move the person on the chair? or are you guessing?
-
did you make the calculations i asked for? and are you aware of mass? im sure it was discussed earlier in this thread.
-
did you make the calculations i asked for?
-
air resistance and friction play a big part if the experiment in done in an atmosphere,
you should make the calculations to see if the ball has more resistance then the chair. this is an important part of the experiment.
-
i dont think you understand. again. im not bored now, bye.
-
Ok sceptimatic, imagine A and C are two random objects, B is a bomb with all the elements inside needed to cause an explosion. They are in vacuum.
(http://picturestack.com/201/564/y3BUntitled1oGY.png)
If B explodes what do you think will happen to A and C? Assuming they are objects resistant enough as to not be destroyed by the explosion.
-
You are under the impression that you throw the ball and friction plus gravity has no play in it which is wrong IMO.
You are, as usual, using your opinions as replacement for actual experiments or actual application of Newton's Laws.
Nobody cares about your opinions. The result of the experiment will certainly not be affected by your opinions. If you are going to rant against Physics and you are not going to do the actual scientific work, your opinion is worthless.
You decry the lack of simplistic Physics that an Average Joe can understand, but you declare, as if you were some kind of expert, that gravity does have an effect in this experiment. And you also come up with your opinion that friction affects this experiment, without saying which friction you are talking about, and expect to be taken seriously. Come on, are you the amazing expert who does not have to do the experiments because you know the result before doing them, or are you the Average Joe who need simplistic Physics?
-
So basically your problem is that you don't think physic laws work in vacuum. Besides there being no reason to think that way, is contradictory to what you have been saying all this time, as you have never seen objects in vacuum, yet you claim to know how they would react.
-
So basically your problem is that you don't think physic laws work in vacuum. Besides there being no reason to think that way, is contradictory to what you have been saying all this time, as you have never seen objects in vacuum, yet you claim to know how they would react.
All I have to go on is the actual words of those at the top. Those who say rockets work in the vacuum of space.
I have to go on what I know the vacuum of space is, which is basically nothing...devoid of anything matter wise.
I have to go by the theory of being told that something thrown in space would go forever unless acted upon by another force, for example an asteroid or planet etc.
Knowing how a vacuum flask works, it's common sense to think the very opposite would work in the vacuum of space which is, a flask having it's welded bobble broken would allow the atmosphere into it in super quick time, I'm sure you have heard the rush of air into one or something like a vacuum.
Well the same thing would happen with a rocket in space, except that the air/fuel would be dispensed into the void immediately the nozzle was opened.
Your common sense might be broken, an explosion would release energy in every direction, it would have been the same if instead of a bomb i placed a contracted spring between both objects and asked what would happen if it expands, you think nothing would happen.
-
Ok sceptimatic, imagine A and C are two random objects, B is a bomb with all the elements inside needed to cause an explosion. They are in vacuum.
(http://picturestack.com/201/564/y3BUntitled1oGY.png)
If B explodes what do you think will happen to A and C? Assuming they are objects resistant enough as to not be destroyed by the explosion.
A and C will disintegrate the gravity will pull them into one sphere, then it will start orbiting the sun.
-
So basically your problem is that you don't think physic laws work in vacuum. Besides there being no reason to think that way, is contradictory to what you have been saying all this time, as you have never seen objects in vacuum, yet you claim to know how they would react.
All I have to go on is the actual words of those at the top. Those who say rockets work in the vacuum of space.
I have to go on what I know the vacuum of space is, which is basically nothing...devoid of anything matter wise.
I have to go by the theory of being told that something thrown in space would go forever unless acted upon by another force, for example an asteroid or planet etc.
Knowing how a vacuum flask works, it's common sense to think the very opposite would work in the vacuum of space which is, a flask having it's welded bobble broken would allow the atmosphere into it in super quick time, I'm sure you have heard the rush of air into one or something like a vacuum.
Well the same thing would happen with a rocket in space, except that the air/fuel would be dispensed into the void immediately the nozzle was opened.
Your common sense might be broken, an explosion would release energy in every direction, it would have been the same if instead of a bomb i placed a contracted spring between both objects and asked what would happen if it expands, you think nothing would happen.
A contracted spring is a different matter. That would send both balls opposite ways.
A bomb explosion would mean release of gasses with that energy, gas is matter.
-
Yes I know, I just question whether a bomb could detonate in the vacuum of space.
And, as always, you end up with an argument of incredulity, as if your opinion on a matter that you have not studied or experimented on could be valid in any way whatsoever.
-
Yes I know, I just question whether a bomb could detonate in the vacuum of space.
And, as always, you end up with an argument of incredulity, as if your opinion on a matter that you have not studied or experimented on could be valid in any way whatsoever.
Have you see a bomb detonate in the vacuum of space?
I have seen a super-fast combustion occurring in space. From there to an explosion, it is only a small step.
-
Yes I know, I just question whether a bomb could detonate in the vacuum of space.
And, as always, you end up with an argument of incredulity, as if your opinion on a matter that you have not studied or experimented on could be valid in any way whatsoever.
Have you see a bomb detonate in the vacuum of space?
I have seen a super-fast combustion occurring in space. From there to an explosion, it is only a small step.
Have you really?
What kind of bomb caused this?
I would guess that he's referring to a rocket engine, which is often described as a controlled explosion.
-
This can't be right as he describes a super fast combustion and then an explosion.
A rockets fuel simply ignites and then burns , in Earth's atmosphere of course.
Are you saying that rocket combustion isn't super-fast?
-
Yes I know, I just question whether a bomb could detonate in the vacuum of space.
And, as always, you end up with an argument of incredulity, as if your opinion on a matter that you have not studied or experimented on could be valid in any way whatsoever.
Have you see a bomb detonate in the vacuum of space?
I have seen a super-fast combustion occurring in space. From there to an explosion, it is only a small step.
Have you really?
What kind of bomb caused this?
I would guess that he's referring to a rocket engine, which is often described as a controlled explosion.
Exactly. I have followed, as thousands of other people also have, the launching of a rocket as far as a telescope can show it, which is well into outer space. In fact, after just a few seconds the rockets are already in air that is so thin that not even airplanes can fly on it, and instead of faltering, the rockets accelerate even faster than just after launch.
-
Yes I know, I just question whether a bomb could detonate in the vacuum of space.
And, as always, you end up with an argument of incredulity, as if your opinion on a matter that you have not studied or experimented on could be valid in any way whatsoever.
Have you see a bomb detonate in the vacuum of space?
I have seen a super-fast combustion occurring in space. From there to an explosion, it is only a small step.
Have you really?
What kind of bomb caused this?
I would guess that he's referring to a rocket engine, which is often described as a controlled explosion.
You are guessing he's seen a rocket engine working in space?
This can't be right as he describes a super fast combustion and then an explosion.
A rockets fuel simply ignites and then burns , in Earth's atmosphere of course.
Sceptimatic, I think you should admit defeat here. It's getting ridiculous.
Insisting that nothing would happen to two objects between a bomb simply because you feel you must is stupid. I will try and explain this very simply as you have often requested. The energy is in the bomb, when the bomb explodes it releases energy. The energy is transferred to the objects and moves the objects.
You said you accept that something thrown in space would travel forever if uninterrupted. It's the same principal. The energy is in the arm that throws. Just as it is in the bomb. It is transferred from one to the other.
That you think objects either side of the bomb would be unaffected suggests you think that the vacuum is actually full of stuff. Enough stuff to hold the objects in place despite the energy from the bomb pushing against them. Quite contradictory.
If you argue that an explosion cannot occur in a vacuum then you are also wrong. Explosions happen all the time in space, supernovae for example.
Again, all the energy is contained within the star, bomb, arm, rocket, whatever. A firework will even work underwater simply because it carries its own supply of oxygen within its gunpowder. It carries its own energy, which can be transferred.
The vacuum cannot contain or stop the explosion as it seems you are suggesting it can.
-
... a super fast combustion and then an explosion.
And please learn some reading skills. Science requires at least High School level reading skills. The explosion you are mentioning exists only in your neurons.
-
You don't know what the vacuum of space can do. Fireworks working under water is on Earth not in the vacuum of space.
You are just going on what you have been told to accept.
Once and for all, tell us what do you expect the vacuum of space to have. Vacuum is absence of atoms. Vacuum in a bottle and vacuum in outer space lack of the exact same thing you are saying that changes the Laws of Newton: air.
So, does outer space lack a different kind of air than vacuum in a vacuum chamber? What specific thing is one kind of vacuum lacking that the other kind does not lack? Are you telling us that it is a magical property, which manifests itself only to you?
Or are you in dire need of somebody who will explain to you in simple enough words what the lack of atoms means?
-
Exactly. I have followed, as thousands of other people also have, the launching of a rocket as far as a telescope can show it, which is well into outer space. In fact, after just a few seconds the rockets are already in air that is so thin that not even airplanes can fly on it, and instead of faltering, the rockets accelerate even faster than just after launch.
So you have seen a rocket go high into the sky. What are you trying to prove here?
I'm talking about the vacuum of space, not high in the sky.
You don't seem to be very good at understanding what people tell you. I don't think we are getting anywhere doing this, and now you seem to imply that you do not believe in atoms?
-
Nope, I'm saying he mentions a super fast combustion and then an explosion.
Once the fuel combusts, it just burns, so I'm gathering it's not a rocket he's talking about.
No, this is what he said.
I have seen a super-fast combustion occurring in space. From there to an explosion, it is only a small step.
He is clearly saying that there is only a small difference between super-fast combustion and an explosion. Countless videos of rockets exploding prove this point.
-
Exactly. I have followed, as thousands of other people also have, the launching of a rocket as far as a telescope can show it, which is well into outer space. In fact, after just a few seconds the rockets are already in air that is so thin that not even airplanes can fly on it, and instead of faltering, the rockets accelerate even faster than just after launch.
So you have seen a rocket go high into the sky. What are you trying to prove here?
I'm talking about the vacuum of space, not high in the sky.
You don't seem to be very good at understanding what people tell you. I don't think we are getting anywhere doing this, and now you seem to imply that you do not believe in atoms?
I believe in things that can been seen.
Have you seen an atom?
So now you don't believe atoms?
Have you ever seen Sweden? If not I presume you don't believe in that either?
-
Exactly. I have followed, as thousands of other people also have, the launching of a rocket as far as a telescope can show it, which is well into outer space. In fact, after just a few seconds the rockets are already in air that is so thin that not even airplanes can fly on it, and instead of faltering, the rockets accelerate even faster than just after launch.
So you have seen a rocket go high into the sky. What are you trying to prove here?
I'm talking about the vacuum of space, not high in the sky.
You don't seem to be very good at understanding what people tell you. I don't think we are getting anywhere doing this, and now you seem to imply that you do not believe in atoms?
Fair enough. It all depends on how people interpret the word explosion.
The fact is, he hasn't seen it in space. Just high up in the sky.
-
What I cannot do, is see an atom and neither can you or anyone else on this planet.
Guess again.
(http://www.pinktentacle.com/images/atom_pen.jpg)
http://pinktentacle.com/2008/10/atomic-pen-writes-with-individual-atoms/ (http://pinktentacle.com/2008/10/atomic-pen-writes-with-individual-atoms/)
An Osaka University research team (http://www.afm.eei.eng.osaka-u.ac.jp/en/index.html) has demonstrated an "atomic pen" that can inscribe nano-sized text on metal by manipulating individual atoms on the surface.
-
Give me a break will you. You are making me laugh now.
That's okay, I've been laughing at you for days.
-
Give me a break will you. You are making me laugh now.
That's okay, I've been laughing at you for days.
i cant laugh as my face hurts through face palming like a boss
-
Exactly. I have followed, as thousands of other people also have, the launching of a rocket as far as a telescope can show it, which is well into outer space. In fact, after just a few seconds the rockets are already in air that is so thin that not even airplanes can fly on it, and instead of faltering, the rockets accelerate even faster than just after launch.
So you have seen a rocket go high into the sky. What are you trying to prove here?
I'm talking about the vacuum of space, not high in the sky.
You don't seem to be very good at understanding what people tell you. I don't think we are getting anywhere doing this, and now you seem to imply that you do not believe in atoms?
I believe in things that can been seen.
Have you seen an atom?
So now you don't believe atoms?
Have you ever seen Sweden? If not I presume you don't believe in that either?
I've been to many places and many places I haven't but if I wanted to , I could get on a plane and go there and see for myself.
What I cannot do, is see an atom and neither can you or anyone else on this planet.
If you had enough money you could fly in a b2 to the edge of space or indeed go into space with the Russians. A few very wealthy people already have
-
Give me a break will you. You are making me laugh now.
That's okay, I've been laughing at you for days.
No bother.
Face it. The other FE'ers have abandoned you. The fight is over. The ridiculous belief in FE cannot stand up against science, reason, logic, evidence or even plain old common sense. It is the most backward belief in all the stupidity of the Internet combined. You are arguing against things that have been known for hundreds, and in some cases thousands of years.
Let it go man... You will be better for it. Trust us. There is a big round world out there. Accept it and be happy.
-
I'm an not a flat Earther.
You should be. You would fit right in.
-
I'm an not a flat Earther.
You should be. You would fit right in.
I take it you go with a rotating Earth.
The rotating Earth is the most ridiculous theory of all other theories about what Earth actually is and does.
How people can go with a 1040 mph spinning Earth astounds me but each to their own.
Can I ask why you think a rotating earth is so ridiculous?
Why is a '1040mph spinning earth' so astounding?
-
I'm an not a flat Earther.
You should be. You would fit right in.
I take it you go with a rotating Earth.
The rotating Earth is the most ridiculous theory of all other theories about what Earth actually is and does.
How people can go with a 1040 mph spinning Earth astounds me but each to their own.
Can I ask why you think a rotating earth is so ridiculous?
Why is a '1040mph spinning earth' so astounding?
My own body from eyes to balance tells me the rotating Earth is BS.
Like I explained before. You have to accept that an atmosphere can grip a solid and rotate with it in unison whilst we go about our business.
Just look around you , you do not need to be told it spins, it should be absolute common sense that it does not spin.
Why should it be common sense? Because I can't see it or feel it spinning?
-
I'm an not a flat Earther.
You should be. You would fit right in.
I take it you go with a rotating Earth.
The rotating Earth is the most ridiculous theory of all other theories about what Earth actually is and does.
How people can go with a 1040 mph spinning Earth astounds me but each to their own.
Can I ask why you think a rotating earth is so ridiculous?
Why is a '1040mph spinning earth' so astounding?
My own body from eyes to balance tells me the rotating Earth is BS.
Like I explained before. You have to accept that an atmosphere can grip a solid and rotate with it in unison whilst we go about our business.
Just look around you , you do not need to be told it spins, it should be absolute common sense that it does not spin.
Why should it be common sense? Because I can't see it or feel it spinning?
Yep.
Plus it requires an atmosphere to grip a solid and rotate with that solid at exactly the same speed.
Don't get me wrong here... if you want to go with that, then I'm in no position to change your mind. I just personally think it's the most none-sense theory out of any other theory.
Really?
When you are in an aeroplane do you feel yourself moving at 500+mph?
-
I'm an not a flat Earther.
You should be. You would fit right in.
I take it you go with a rotating Earth.
The rotating Earth is the most ridiculous theory of all other theories about what Earth actually is and does.
How people can go with a 1040 mph spinning Earth astounds me but each to their own.
Can I ask why you think a rotating earth is so ridiculous?
Why is a '1040mph spinning earth' so astounding?
My own body from eyes to balance tells me the rotating Earth is BS.
Like I explained before. You have to accept that an atmosphere can grip a solid and rotate with it in unison whilst we go about our business.
Just look around you , you do not need to be told it spins, it should be absolute common sense that it does not spin.
Why should it be common sense? Because I can't see it or feel it spinning?
Yep.
Plus it requires an atmosphere to grip a solid and rotate with that solid at exactly the same speed.
Don't get me wrong here... if you want to go with that, then I'm in no position to change your mind. I just personally think it's the most none-sense theory out of any other theory.
Really?
When you are in an aeroplane do you feel yourself moving at 500+mph?
No...
Because you are surrounded by an aluminium skin as a barrier to the atmosphere outside.
We are told to accept that the Earth's atmosphere grips the solid Earth and moves with it at the same speed.
It's absolute none-sense.
Yet you feel the acceleration as you take off. Why does the aluminium barrier not shield you from this?
-
No...
Because you are surrounded by an aluminium skin as a barrier to the atmosphere outside.
We are told to accept that the Earth's atmosphere grips the solid Earth and moves with it at the same speed.
It's absolute none-sense.
We have already told you how it works, remember? gravity? friction? remember that you didn't know how friction worked and we told you about the experiment with the glass and the water?
We also talked about how the earth atmosphere is surrounded by vacuum so there is no friction outside making it slow down or wear off from earth. Remember how after tens of messages you finally understood it but said that you didn't want to believe it anyway? so it was a huge waste of time.
-
I understood what you and others theories were from the off but you are twisting it now.
You are mentioning the vacuum but I'm talking about an atmosphere supposedly gripping a solid Earth .
I honestly and truthfully cannot understand how people can go along with this theory, it's crazy.
This Earth is stationary and the theory I go with.
Not twisting it, we also covered that in the discussion, gravity, remember? gravity plus friction makes earth atmosphere moving with the earth. How the atmosphere grips the solid earth? friction, glass or ball experiment.
Anyway, just letting mexicanwave know.
Let me put this to you.
If you grew up without the benefit of anyone telling you anything or the benefit of reading books, watching videos or anything else and I came up to you and asked you to lay back and watch the Sun all day, I then asked you what you observed....you would tell me that the Sun is moving in the sky.
There is no way in hell you would tell me that you can see/feel the Earth spinning.
Well, to start i would observe how my vision disappears. Ok, so that is were the ancient myths came from, why is this huge shinning ball moving around us? why does lava come out of rocks? etc etc. Who and how do you think discovered the earth is spinning around the sun? a scientist in white coat that learned it from another in his science class at school? (note how that doesnt makes sense) Of course not, it was made based on observation and experimentation, not lying on the ground all day watching the sun and wondering. No, that is how myths are made.
-
No...
Because you are surrounded by an aluminium skin as a barrier to the atmosphere outside.
We are told to accept that the Earth's atmosphere grips the solid Earth and moves with it at the same speed.
It's absolute none-sense.
We have already told you how it works, remember? gravity? friction? remember that you didn't know how friction worked and we told you about the experiment with the glass and the water?
We also talked about how the earth atmosphere is surrounded by vacuum so there is no friction outside making it slow down or wear off from earth. Remember how after tens of messages you finally understood it but said that you didn't want to believe it anyway? so it was a huge waste of time.
I understood what you and others theories were from the off but you are twisting it now.
You are mentioning the vacuum but I'm talking about an atmosphere supposedly gripping a solid Earth .
I honestly and truthfully cannot understand how people can go along with this theory, it's crazy.
This Earth is stationary and the theory I go with.
Let me put this to you.
If you grew up without the benefit of anyone telling you anything or the benefit of reading books, watching videos or anything else and I came up to you and asked you to lay back and watch the Sun all day, I then asked you what you observed....you would tell me that the Sun is moving in the sky.
There is no way in hell you would tell me that you can see/feel the Earth spinning.
Not twisting it, we also covered that in the discussion, gravity, remember? gravity plus friction makes earth atmosphere moving with the earth. How the atmosphere grips the solid earth? friction, glass or ball experiment.
Anyway, just letting mexicanwave know.
Thanks man... I'm losing the will with sceptimatic.
Seems if I ask enough questions of his theories he eventually contradicts himself though.
-
No...
Because you are surrounded by an aluminium skin as a barrier to the atmosphere outside.
We are told to accept that the Earth's atmosphere grips the solid Earth and moves with it at the same speed.
It's absolute none-sense.
We have already told you how it works, remember? gravity? friction? remember that you didn't know how friction worked and we told you about the experiment with the glass and the water?
We also talked about how the earth atmosphere is surrounderd by vacuum so there is no friction outside making it slow down or wear off from earth. Remember how after tens of messages you finally understood it but said that you didn't want to believe it anyway? so it was a huge waste of time.
I understood what you and others theories were from the off but you are twisting it now.
You are mentioning the vacuum but I'm talking about an atmosphere supposedly gripping a solid Earth .
I honestly and truthfully cannot understand how people can go along with this theory, it's crazy.
This Earth is stationary and the theory I go with.
Let me put this to you.
If you grew up without the benefit of anyone telling you anything or the benefit of reading books, watching videos or anything else and I came up to you and asked you to lay back and watch the Sun all day, I then asked you what you observed....you would tell me that the Sun is moving in the sky.
There is no way in hell you would tell me that you can see/feel the Earth spinning.
Not twisting it, we also covered that in the discussion, gravity, remember? gravity plus friction makes earth atmosphere moving with the earth. How the atmosphere grips the solid earth? friction, glass or ball experiment.
Anyway, just letting mexicanwave know.
Thanks man... I'm losing the will with sceptimatic.
Seems if I ask enough questions of his theories he eventually contradicts himself though.
How am I contradicting myself?
I think quoting Buzz Aldrin whilst stating that you know 'for an absolute fact' that no one has landed on the moon is rather contradictory.
On the other thread.
-
He quoted a liar telling a lie.What is the problem?
-
He quoted a liar telling a lie.What is the problem?
Another Victory for the moon landing!
Thank you hoppy!