Quite often on these boards it's asserted or implicated that NASA tells lies.
Does anyone have any specific, concrete examples of NASA lying? By this I mean examples either of NASA admitting to falsehood, or of there being generally and authoritatively accepted evidence that contradicts what NASA has said.
I'm not asking for conspiracy theory kind of stuff, or people's opinions. Just proper evidence. Ideally there would be citations, both for what NASA has claimed and also for the contradiction.
Quite often on these boards it's asserted or implicated that NASA tells lies.
Does anyone have any specific, concrete examples of NASA lying? By this I mean examples either of NASA admitting to falsehood, or of there being generally and authoritatively accepted evidence that contradicts what NASA has said.
I'm not asking for conspiracy theory kind of stuff, or people's opinions. Just proper evidence. Ideally there would be citations, both for what NASA has claimed and also for the contradiction.
You must be joking.
Quite often on these boards it's asserted or implicated that NASA tells lies.
Does anyone have any specific, concrete examples of NASA lying? By this I mean examples either of NASA admitting to falsehood, or of there being generally and authoritatively accepted evidence that contradicts what NASA has said.
I'm not asking for conspiracy theory kind of stuff, or people's opinions. Just proper evidence. Ideally there would be citations, both for what NASA has claimed and also for the contradiction.
You must be joking.
Quite often on these boards it's asserted or implicated that NASA tells lies.
Does anyone have any specific, concrete examples of NASA lying? By this I mean examples either of NASA admitting to falsehood, or of there being generally and authoritatively accepted evidence that contradicts what NASA has said.
I'm not asking for conspiracy theory kind of stuff, or people's opinions. Just proper evidence. Ideally there would be citations, both for what NASA has claimed and also for the contradiction.
You must be joking.
I'm not joking at all. Internet searches for 'NASA lies' just come up with conspiracy theories. Are there any actual, documented lies?
Quite often on these boards it's asserted or implicated that NASA tells lies.
Does anyone have any specific, concrete examples of NASA lying? By this I mean examples either of NASA admitting to falsehood, or of there being generally and authoritatively accepted evidence that contradicts what NASA has said.
I'm not asking for conspiracy theory kind of stuff, or people's opinions. Just proper evidence. Ideally there would be citations, both for what NASA has claimed and also for the contradiction.
You must be joking.
I'm not joking at all. Internet searches for 'NASA lies' just come up with conspiracy theories. Are there any actual, documented lies?
Is NASA lying? Is Water Wet? I just did a search for 'is water wet' and Google says it isn't.
Quite often on these boards it's asserted or implicated that NASA tells lies.
Does anyone have any specific, concrete examples of NASA lying? By this I mean examples either of NASA admitting to falsehood, or of there being generally and authoritatively accepted evidence that contradicts what NASA has said.
I'm not asking for conspiracy theory kind of stuff, or people's opinions. Just proper evidence. Ideally there would be citations, both for what NASA has claimed and also for the contradiction.
You must be joking.
I'm not joking at all. Internet searches for 'NASA lies' just come up with conspiracy theories. Are there any actual, documented lies?
Is NASA lying? Is Water Wet? I just did a search for 'is water wet' and Google says it isn't.
So you've been taking it for granted that NASA lies, without realizing that you have no evidence. Now that someone is calling you out on that, you're trying to shift the blame onto them.
Quite often on these boards it's asserted or implicated that NASA tells lies.
Does anyone have any specific, concrete examples of NASA lying? By this I mean examples either of NASA admitting to falsehood, or of there being generally and authoritatively accepted evidence that contradicts what NASA has said.
I'm not asking for conspiracy theory kind of stuff, or people's opinions. Just proper evidence. Ideally there would be citations, both for what NASA has claimed and also for the contradiction.
You must be joking.
I'm not joking at all. Internet searches for 'NASA lies' just come up with conspiracy theories. Are there any actual, documented lies?
Is NASA lying? Is Water Wet? I just did a search for 'is water wet' and Google says it isn't.
So you've been taking it for granted that NASA lies, without realizing that you have no evidence. Now that someone is calling you out on that, you're trying to shift the blame onto them.
Nice try.
Now that is funny. It would have been more respectable to admit that you do not have any evidence. The water is wet example is nice. This is an experiment, which everyone can perform at home. It is in fact so easy to perform that it is not necessary to document the outcome.Is NASA lying? Is Water Wet? I just did a search for 'is water wet' and Google says it isn't.
So you've been taking it for granted that NASA lies, without realizing that you have no evidence. Now that someone is calling you out on that, you're trying to shift the blame onto them.
NASA and every government agency in the world, including 100's of other industries HAVE to lie en mass for the flat earth conspiracy to work.
With out a super global conspiracy they have nothing.
It would be interesting to try to estimate the percentage of the earths population which would have to be lying about a flat earth.As I wrote somewhere here a month or so ago, we (me an my colleagues) did try such exercise on a lazy friday eve. :) I admit, we weren't exactly sober, but we estimated some 40% population of our country (Ukraine) to have to keep quiet since mid 50s. This includes all sorts of astronomers, geodesists, rocket designers and builders, politicians and local authorities obviously, accountants in all related government institutions... And lots and lots of other people of various specialities indirectly involved in building the rockets and satellites for USSR/Russia, e.g. people on metalwork factories making rocket/satellite parts, tracking stations, observatories...
I would guess a much lower percentage, although it still would be quite high. For example local authorities or the people making rocket/satellite parts do not necessarily know that what they are working on is a fraud.It would be interesting to try to estimate the percentage of the earths population which would have to be lying about a flat earth.As I wrote somewhere here a month or so ago, we (me an my colleagues) did try such exercise on a lazy friday eve. :) I admit, we weren't exactly sober, but we estimated some 40% population of our country (Ukraine) to have to keep quiet since mid 50s. This includes all sorts of astronomers, geodesists, rocket designers and builders, politicians and local authorities obviously, accountants in all related government institutions... And lots and lots of other people of various specialities indirectly involved in building the rockets and satellites for USSR/Russia, e.g. people on metalwork factories making rocket/satellite parts, tracking stations, observatories...
Not sure how it extrapolates to entire Earth, but I imagine it's still a huge chunk of Earth population. If there was a hoax making all these people's jobs impossible, it would've slipped out over all this time.
For example local authorities or the people making rocket/satellite parts do not necessarily know that what they are working on is a fraud.That thought is a mistake. You're assuming people tiny parts of a huge machine don't wonder what they're doing or why is this piece have to be shaped exactly like this, or a boss not wanting to learn how exactly this part classifies for reports, and additionally what it would cost on black market. While there are such exceptions among "common workers" they are that - exceptions. Most people will poke everyone around and turn entire internet upside-down in search what the hell they're making. They may not exactly need it since they have a drawing but most people are curious about weirdly shaped parts, you know. :) And again, taking our local realities into account... they'll what to know if it's profitable to try and sneak one "extra" that "nobody would notice" out and resell personally. :)
NASA never admits its lies, they just make the lie an industry standard. For example, if NASA says that they have a satellite in polar orbit, then everyone believes that they have a satellite in polar orbit. No need to prove this claim or anything, it just becomes "true."
(If you want to be nitpicking you can include every person (equipped with a bit common sense) in the southern hemisphere.
Edit: Oh right, I forgot: We have google earth, which maps our planet as a globe with quite accurate precision (say we allow a 5% error in measured distances in google earth). Then the earth can not be flat, since curvature is invariant under isometries (saying if we map something and preserve distances, then we also preserve curvature). So (especially in the southern hemisphere) the distances have to be very different from the ones provided by google earth. Noone noticed until now, so many people in the southern hemisphere have to be included in the conspiracy.
Well, technically they could build those satellites, mount them on a rocket and send that rocket upwards. Of course it will hit the dome/explode/lose thrust as soon as it leaves the atmosphere, depends whom you ask. The only people involved in this conspiracy are the ones faking the data which comes from the rocket and the satellites. Of course if you build everything accurately as you tell the public, there is not that much profit to be made, but well... it has to be a big conspiracy, otherwise it would all collapse.For example local authorities or the people making rocket/satellite parts do not necessarily know that what they are working on is a fraud.That thought is a mistake. You're assuming people tiny parts of a huge machine don't wonder what they're doing or why is this piece have to be shaped exactly like this, or a boss not wanting to learn how exactly this part classifies for reports, and additionally what it would cost on black market. While there are such exceptions among "common workers" they are that - exceptions. Most people will poke everyone around and turn entire internet upside-down in search what the hell they're making. They may not exactly need it since they have a drawing but most people are curious about weirdly shaped parts, you know. :) And again, taking our local realities into account... they'll what to know if it's profitable to try and sneak one "extra" that "nobody would notice" out and resell personally. :)
NASA never admits its lies, they just make the lie an industry standard. For example, if NASA says that they have a satellite in polar orbit, then everyone believes that they have a satellite in polar orbit. No need to prove this claim or anything, it just becomes "true."
Quite often on these boards it's asserted or implicated that NASA tells lies.
Does anyone have any specific, concrete examples of NASA lying? By this I mean examples either of NASA admitting to falsehood, or of there being generally and authoritatively accepted evidence that contradicts what NASA has said.
I'm not asking for conspiracy theory kind of stuff, or people's opinions. Just proper evidence. Ideally there would be citations, both for what NASA has claimed and also for the contradiction.
You must be joking.
I'm not joking at all. Internet searches for 'NASA lies' just come up with conspiracy theories. Are there any actual, documented lies?
Is NASA lying? Is Water Wet? I just did a search for 'is water wet' and Google says it isn't.
Quite often on these boards it's asserted or implicated that NASA tells lies.
Does anyone have any specific, concrete examples of NASA lying? By this I mean examples either of NASA admitting to falsehood, or of there being generally and authoritatively accepted evidence that contradicts what NASA has said.
I'm not asking for conspiracy theory kind of stuff, or people's opinions. Just proper evidence. Ideally there would be citations, both for what NASA has claimed and also for the contradiction.
For example local authorities or the people making rocket/satellite parts do not necessarily know that what they are working on is a fraud.That thought is a mistake. You're assuming people tiny parts of a huge machine don't wonder what they're doing or why is this piece have to be shaped exactly like this, or a boss not wanting to learn how exactly this part classifies for reports, and additionally what it would cost on black market. While there are such exceptions among "common workers" they are that - exceptions. Most people will poke everyone around and turn entire internet upside-down in search what the hell they're making. They may not exactly need it since they have a drawing but most people are curious about weirdly shaped parts, you know. :) And again, taking our local realities into account... they'll what to know if it's profitable to try and sneak one "extra" that "nobody would notice" out and resell personally. :)
NASA lies about Newton's 3rd Law. as it claims both Forces can be exerted on the same Object yet still result in Motion.
This is basically like saying I can lift myself off the ground by pulling on my bootlaces.
This one Big Lie invalidates pretty much all the rest of their claims.
You're asking for times when a well funded agency admitted to lying?
Or
When authorities admitted NASA lied?
There are two press conferences you might want to look at, the apollo11 press conference where they seem like they just got buttfucked,rather than returning from the most amazing mission never.
And the mars Rover press conference where the Elvis haired lead engineer can't answer any of the crowds questions
NASA lies about Newton's 3rd Law. as it claims both Forces can be exerted on the same Object yet still result in Motion.
This is basically like saying I can lift myself off the ground by pulling on my bootlaces.
This one Big Lie invalidates pretty much all the rest of their claims.
No you just don't understand Newton's third. And in this case the fact that one object becomes two and that net momentum is zeroes each new object moves away from each other. ie a rocket and its fuel.
Okay, but then every single authority in physics has to lie about this law. You know, everyone who ever graduated in physics. Some of them are quite intelligent. I highly doubt that.NASA lies about Newton's 3rd Law. as it claims both Forces can be exerted on the same Object yet still result in Motion.
This is basically like saying I can lift myself off the ground by pulling on my bootlaces.
This one Big Lie invalidates pretty much all the rest of their claims.
No you just don't understand Newton's third. And in this case the fact that one object becomes two and that net momentum is zeroes each new object moves away from each other. ie a rocket and its fuel.
You say I don't understand N3 then write garbage like that?
Let us never forget, 'Mainframes', that you did not even know the Newtonian definition of the term 'Force' until I told you...
Toodle-pip, Walter Mitty!
You're asking for times when a well funded agency admitted to lying?you mean the tiny part of the press conference that hoaxies cherry-pick because the rest doesn't fit the description? And they forget that this conference was a full week after they go back and had been stuck in quarantine away from their families and at that point just wanted to see their wives and children? There are plenty of photos and videos of them while still in quarantine and after the conference being jovial and the opposite of the small clip hoaxies like to cherry-pick but I doubt many hoaxies even know about them. Very few hoaxies know anything about Apollo that isn't presented in a youtube video.
Or
When authorities admitted NASA lied?
There are two press conferences you might want to look at, the apollo11 press conference where they seem like they just got buttfucked,rather than returning from the most amazing mission never.
hoaxies... hoaxies... hoaxies... hoaxies...
every single authority in physics has to lie about this law.
NASA never admits its lies, they just make the lie an industry standard. For example, if NASA says that they have a satellite in polar orbit, then everyone believes that they have a satellite in polar orbit. No need to prove this claim or anything, it just becomes "true."
You're asking for times when a well funded agency admitted to lying?
Or
When authorities admitted NASA lied?
I'm asking for examples of verified, substantiated lies, either from admission or from reputable third party evidence.There are two press conferences you might want to look at, the apollo11 press conference where they seem like they just got buttfucked,rather than returning from the most amazing mission never.
And the mars Rover press conference where the Elvis haired lead engineer can't answer any of the crowds questions
I'm guessing you mean this (http://) and this (http://)? What lies do you think these footages substantiate?
Edit: fixed links.
Would you be so generous to present this source?every single authority in physics has to lie about this law.
It takes about 5 minutes of googling to find respected experts on physics education describing NASA's interpretation of N3 as 'wrong', for precisely the reasons I stated.
I'm looking at one now...
And no, I won't tell you where it is.
That would be convincing, if there was no other explanation for it.
Unfortunately for the tinfoil hat brigade, there is a very simple and mundane explanation for all of it.
The file may well have been created in 2012, but that doesn't tell you anything at all about what image was shown in the file. It's probable that the file which was created was a blank template of a standardised size and resolution, so that images of any kind could be pasted in there and be made ready for serving up on their website at the right size and quality. I use something exactly like that for making CD sleeves - the template was made in 2013 and I just drop new image layers in to change the pictures. But if you look at the created date of a sleeve I made two weeks ago, you'll see December 2013 - OMG, HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE!!!! DINOSAUR NEIL MUST BE LYING!!!
As for the supposed 5 hour editing time? There is no evidence that it was being edited for 5 hours, merely that 5 hours elapsed between it being opened and it being saved. The person could have opened it and then dealt with some of the other tasks his job entails before saving it later on. To try and use that as "proof" of image tampering is comical.
His comments about the compression being too much for a level 6 JPG are irrelevant - it's known that New Horizons sent back compressed data initially, which is why we got pictures relatively quickly, but also why it will take months to get all the high quality data back from it. The Dutch moron should have done his homework.
If you can find me some of these that were published in the past with the exact date/time I will lend your theory some credibility. Otherwise it's a lie.
Also, Dinosaur Niel, I just downloaded the pic for examination myself. The date in question is the 'date taken' Please explain that.
Would you be so generous to present this source?
Would you be so generous to present this source?
Nope.
Same as I won't tell you the source of the physicist who says 'NASA notoriously has problems with Newton's 3rd Law'...
Or where the real aerospace engineers who regard NASA as a dirty word hang out...
Or where I got my data as to the true performance of the V2 rocket from.
When you scum vandalised a wikipedia article I cited, then tried to say I vandalised it myself, I knew that there were no depths to which you are not prepared to stoop.
So I will never, ever, make your snuffing out of the lights of truth easy for you again.
Now stfu & gtfo, thought-policing disinfo-scum.
If you can find me some of these that were published in the past with the exact date/time I will lend your theory some credibility. Otherwise it's a lie.
No, not being able to hand you evidence of something doesn't affect whether it's true or not. If I said I had a macaroni ready meal for lunch, but couldn't prove it because I didn't keep the box, does that mean I didn't have a macaroni ready meal for lunch? :P
If NASA is really doing this fakery, then surely there'd be lots of these oddly dated files - which you are now claiming would be evidence that I was right and you were wrong. Make your mind up!Also, Dinosaur Niel, I just downloaded the pic for examination myself. The date in question is the 'date taken' Please explain that.
It depends on how the EXIF data was read and written. To some programs, created/taken are the same thing. If you took a photo of today's newspaper, posted it on here, I took a screen capture and pasted it into a file from last week and then saved that file, what would the "date taken" say then, huh? What would it say? Did I just invent a time machine, or is there a more logical explanation?
Also, have the courtesy to spell my name correctly, it's written there in front of you.
If you can find me some of these that were published in the past with the exact date/time I will lend your theory some credibility. Otherwise it's a lie.
No, not being able to hand you evidence of something doesn't affect whether it's true or not. If I said I had a macaroni ready meal for lunch, but couldn't prove it because I didn't keep the box, does that mean I didn't have a macaroni ready meal for lunch? :P
If NASA is really doing this fakery, then surely there'd be lots of these oddly dated files - which you are now claiming would be evidence that I was right and you were wrong. Make your mind up!Also, Dinosaur Niel, I just downloaded the pic for examination myself. The date in question is the 'date taken' Please explain that.
It depends on how the EXIF data was read and written. To some programs, created/taken are the same thing. If you took a photo of today's newspaper, posted it on here, I took a screen capture and pasted it into a file from last week and then saved that file, what would the "date taken" say then, huh? What would it say? Did I just invent a time machine, or is there a more logical explanation?
Also, have the courtesy to spell my name correctly, it's written there in front of you.
So I think what you're trying to say is the people at NASA aren't liars, they're just not intelligent enough to understand the need to use or publish correct data. Are you a supporter of inaccurate information Niel?
If you can find me some of these that were published in the past with the exact date/time I will lend your theory some credibility. Otherwise it's a lie.
No, not being able to hand you evidence of something doesn't affect whether it's true or not. If I said I had a macaroni ready meal for lunch, but couldn't prove it because I didn't keep the box, does that mean I didn't have a macaroni ready meal for lunch? :P
If NASA is really doing this fakery, then surely there'd be lots of these oddly dated files - which you are now claiming would be evidence that I was right and you were wrong. Make your mind up!Also, Dinosaur Niel, I just downloaded the pic for examination myself. The date in question is the 'date taken' Please explain that.
It depends on how the EXIF data was read and written. To some programs, created/taken are the same thing. If you took a photo of today's newspaper, posted it on here, I took a screen capture and pasted it into a file from last week and then saved that file, what would the "date taken" say then, huh? What would it say? Did I just invent a time machine, or is there a more logical explanation?
Also, have the courtesy to spell my name correctly, it's written there in front of you.
So I think what you're trying to say is the people at NASA aren't liars, they're just not intelligent enough to understand the need to use or publish correct data. Are you a supporter of inaccurate information Niel?
There is no "need" to ensure an obscure field in one individual file (which has no impact on its scientific value) is correct. You'll notice also from the Dutch Moron's video that it details the colour format as being RGB, which is not what is received from the spacecraft, but I don't see you screaming "fake!" over that. Or is it just that you didn't notice that?
So you're admitting they are publishing inaccurate information its just this press release and photo aren't really that important? Gotcha.
Papa won't provide the source because it doesn't exist.
Quite often on these boards it's asserted or implicated that NASA tells lies.
Does anyone have any specific, concrete examples of NASA lying? By this I mean examples either of NASA admitting to falsehood, or of there being generally and authoritatively accepted evidence that contradicts what NASA has said.
I'm not asking for conspiracy theory kind of stuff, or people's opinions. Just proper evidence. Ideally there would be citations, both for what NASA has claimed and also for the contradiction.
(ii) in 1968 NASA tested their lunar mission "heat shield". At the re-entry, it was disappearing at the rate of about 5 mm/s. The heat was so high they could not even record the temperature values. After 90 or so seconds of the re-entry the heat shield was burned through, the spaceship was burned through and the test had ended with a complete disaster. I could not find any reports about the successful testing of the heat shield before the Moon landing fairy tale, yet in 1969 they triumphantly "returned" from the Moon. How?
Also, Dinosaur Niel, I just downloaded the pic for examination myself. The date in question is the 'date taken' Please explain that.
Papa won't provide the source because it doesn't exist.
It does & I'm reading it now: 'NASA is wrong' he says...
What's more, no-one in the comments section disagrees with him.
Lulzy stuff.
You REALLY want that information don't you?
Won't get it!
Now go vandalise a wiki-article you creepy thought-police scumbags.
So you're admitting they are publishing inaccurate information its just this press release and photo aren't really that important? Gotcha.
Huh? Stop trying to make a semantic argument, it's the classic sign of a troll with nowhere to go. Your definition of "publishing inaccurate information" is stretching the truth beyond breaking point, because the photo is published (in other words presented for public consumption) with accompanying info stating that it was taken in 2015. Information which can only be found by examining non-visual data from a file is not "published" information, is it? That's like someone stealing something from a shop and then claiming it was "given" to them because nobody actively stopped them taking it.
Go home.
There is no "need" to ensure an obscure field in one individual file (which has no impact on its scientific value) is correct.
(ii) in 1968 NASA tested their lunar mission "heat shield". At the re-entry, it was disappearing at the rate of about 5 mm/s. The heat was so high they could not even record the temperature values. After 90 or so seconds of the re-entry the heat shield was burned through, the spaceship was burned through and the test had ended with a complete disaster. I could not find any reports about the successful testing of the heat shield before the Moon landing fairy tale, yet in 1969 they triumphantly "returned" from the Moon. How?
Well done for your tabloid style piece of misrepresentation. Firstly, your description of the test (I assume from this document: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19680021275.pdf) being a complete disaster is garbage. The test was a failure, but the causes of failure were fairly well understood and were the result of excessive turbulence and wind shear blowing off some of the protective char that was intended to remain in place. To say the heat was so high they could not record the temperature values is bollocks. Some of the thermocouples got hotter than their calibrated values or ceased to function, but there are whole graphs full of temperature data throughout the test in the document appendices.
Also, there were several other tests conducted which were successful - the fact that they don't come up as the top document when you Google "apollo heat shield test" was probably enough to put you off looking any further.
"Apparently, a catastrophic failure of the heat-shield material occurred during the latter portion of the data period. However, this failure cannotA catastrophic failure of the heat-shield is no catastrophic failure of the test. I am quite certain that very useful data was derived from this test which was used to improve heat-shields to make them work like they do today.
be related to the changing environmental conditions that were computed
for the hemispherical nose shape."
Sure, you might call that test a "catastrophic failure", not a "complete disaster", should you prefer.
I have ran out of excuses for you Legba.
And it's common knowledge that they do so...Anyone imagine Papa Legba speaking with a dothraki accent?
Oh yes it is!
So you're admitting they are publishing inaccurate information its just this press release and photo aren't really that important? Gotcha.
Huh? Stop trying to make a semantic argument, it's the classic sign of a troll with nowhere to go. Your definition of "publishing inaccurate information" is stretching the truth beyond breaking point, because the photo is published (in other words presented for public consumption) with accompanying info stating that it was taken in 2015. Information which can only be found by examining non-visual data from a file is not "published" information, is it? That's like someone stealing something from a shop and then claiming it was "given" to them because nobody actively stopped them taking it.
Go home.QuoteThere is no "need" to ensure an obscure field in one individual file (which has no impact on its scientific value) is correct.
Do you remember writing this? You already admitted there is no need to publish correct information, so there is no point in debating with you. Go to some other forum and debate with people who don't care about facts, you'll do better there.
I didn't follow any links provided by you - I did my own research and went directly to the source material.
(ii) in 1968 NASA tested their lunar mission "heat shield". At the re-entry, it was disappearing at the rate of about 5 mm/s. The heat was so high they could not even record the temperature values. After 90 or so seconds of the re-entry the heat shield was burned through, the spaceship was burned through and the test had ended with a complete disaster. I could not find any reports about the successful testing of the heat shield before the Moon landing fairy tale, yet in 1969 they triumphantly "returned" from the Moon. How?
Well done for your tabloid style piece of misrepresentation. Firstly, your description of the test (I assume from this document: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19680021275.pdf) being a complete disaster is garbage. The test was a failure, but the causes of failure were fairly well understood and were the result of excessive turbulence and wind shear blowing off some of the protective char that was intended to remain in place. To say the heat was so high they could not record the temperature values is bollocks. Some of the thermocouples got hotter than their calibrated values or ceased to function, but there are whole graphs full of temperature data throughout the test in the document appendices.
Also, there were several other tests conducted which were successful - the fact that they don't come up as the top document when you Google "apollo heat shield test" was probably enough to put you off looking any further.
I meant NASA article of 1968 I mentioned earlied. Bro', if you're a human, not a malfunctioning bot, you'll be able to read my previous post about that heat shield test, with the quotations from the article. By the way, the article is very good, and I provided the link.
Why I doubt you're a human? Simply because you're apparently not able to read and/or understand the document you've pointed to. It clearly says:
"Apparently, a catastrophic failure of the heat-shield material occurred during the latter portion of the data period. However, this failure cannot
be related to the changing environmental conditions that were computed
for the hemispherical nose shape."
Sure, you might call that test a "catastrophic failure", not a "complete disaster", should you prefer.
:P
Anyway, I am glad you're perfectly satisfied with the lunar basil story.
:P
8)
;D
I didn't follow any links provided by you - I did my own research and went directly to the source material.
(ii) in 1968 NASA tested their lunar mission "heat shield". At the re-entry, it was disappearing at the rate of about 5 mm/s. The heat was so high they could not even record the temperature values. After 90 or so seconds of the re-entry the heat shield was burned through, the spaceship was burned through and the test had ended with a complete disaster. I could not find any reports about the successful testing of the heat shield before the Moon landing fairy tale, yet in 1969 they triumphantly "returned" from the Moon. How?
Well done for your tabloid style piece of misrepresentation. Firstly, your description of the test (I assume from this document: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19680021275.pdf) being a complete disaster is garbage. The test was a failure, but the causes of failure were fairly well understood and were the result of excessive turbulence and wind shear blowing off some of the protective char that was intended to remain in place. To say the heat was so high they could not record the temperature values is bollocks. Some of the thermocouples got hotter than their calibrated values or ceased to function, but there are whole graphs full of temperature data throughout the test in the document appendices.
Also, there were several other tests conducted which were successful - the fact that they don't come up as the top document when you Google "apollo heat shield test" was probably enough to put you off looking any further.
I meant NASA article of 1968 I mentioned earlied. Bro', if you're a human, not a malfunctioning bot, you'll be able to read my previous post about that heat shield test, with the quotations from the article. By the way, the article is very good, and I provided the link.
Why I doubt you're a human? Simply because you're apparently not able to read and/or understand the document you've pointed to. It clearly says:
"Apparently, a catastrophic failure of the heat-shield material occurred during the latter portion of the data period. However, this failure cannot
be related to the changing environmental conditions that were computed
for the hemispherical nose shape."
Sure, you might call that test a "catastrophic failure", not a "complete disaster", should you prefer.
:P
Anyway, I am glad you're perfectly satisfied with the lunar basil story.
:P
8)
;D
You reveal your ignorance here. A catastrophic failure in this context means a failure of the heat shield which would have resulted in danger to the capsule. The fact that you think this is interchangeable with "the whole test was a complete disaster" shows you either didn't read or didn't understand the details of that failure.
I imagine you also didn't read page 9 of the results which says that the heat shield did not remain hemispherical throughout the test, hence "this failure cannot be related to the changing environmental conditions that were computed for the hemispherical nose shape". In other words, if the aerodynamic effects were as originally predicted, then the shield shoudn't have failed. However, they weren't, because of uneven surface recession, so the turbulence exceeded that which was predicted. Clear enough for you?
I will quote here from the conclusion: "Although many uncertainties are present in the analysis, the removal of the char layer by aerodynamic shear was believed to be the controlling mechanism for surface recession."
I never read anything about lunar basil.
So, show me the NASA reports on successful heat shield testings at 11,000 km/s and 11,000 K dated up to 6 months from August, 1968. THERE IS NONE. NONE! NONE!!!
NONE!!!!!!
Google showed it to me, so its true. Might as well get your truth from the tele!
So, show me the NASA reports on successful heat shield testings at 11,000 km/s and 11,000 K dated up to 6 months from August, 1968. THERE IS NONE. NONE! NONE!!!
NONE!!!!!!
This is hysterical.
Within two minutes of firing up Google, I had found a summary of mission tests, including those of command modules in atmosphere - it looks like there were ten altogether. Within another two minutes, I had the technical reports from one of those missions in front of me, detailing that the heat shield test was successful.
It seems you're not even capable of using a simple search engine, so I will leave it to the good people of the forum to make up their own minds about whether there were indeed heat shield tests, or whether there were NONE!! NONE!! NONE!!! as you claim. They are free to look on Google as I did.
Good day, sir.
Google showed it to me, so its true. Might as well get your truth from the tele!
So, show me the NASA reports on successful heat shield testings at 11,000 km/s and 11,000 K dated up to 6 months from August, 1968. THERE IS NONE. NONE! NONE!!!
NONE!!!!!!
This is hysterical.
Within two minutes of firing up Google, I had found a summary of mission tests, including those of command modules in atmosphere - it looks like there were ten altogether. Within another two minutes, I had the technical reports from one of those missions in front of me, detailing that the heat shield test was successful.
It seems you're not even capable of using a simple search engine, so I will leave it to the good people of the forum to make up their own minds about whether there were indeed heat shield tests, or whether there were NONE!! NONE!! NONE!!! as you claim. They are free to look on Google as I did.
Good day, sir.
So, show me the NASA reports on successful heat shield testings at 11,000 km/s and 11,000 K dated up to 6 months from August, 1968. THERE IS NONE. NONE! NONE!!!
NONE!!!!!!
This is hysterical.
Within two minutes of firing up Google, I had found a summary of mission tests, including those of command modules in atmosphere - it looks like there were ten altogether. Within another two minutes, I had the technical reports from one of those missions in front of me, detailing that the heat shield test was successful.
It seems you're not even capable of using a simple search engine, so I will leave it to the good people of the forum to make up their own minds about whether there were indeed heat shield tests, or whether there were NONE!! NONE!! NONE!!! as you claim. They are free to look on Google as I did.
Good day, sir.
my opponent in this debate is using "I can't find any documentation on the internet" as his method of proof that there were no heat shield tests conducted and that therefore the lunar landings did not happen. You must concede that is a step lower than my method of proof.
Well, I did not just look on Google, like you, I digged into that. Besides, it's not me. Wikipedia, for example, shows nothing within 6 months from the only real test that was performed.
If you still can not understand the situation:
it's freaking 11,000 degrees K.
So, just show me the NASA report about successful testing of their heat shield at 11,000 m/s re-entry, dated from August 1968 to May 1969,
;D ;D ;D
Otherwise,
HOW DID THEY RETURN FROM THE MOON???
::)
Meh.Sorry, I think I missed the part where you added citations for your statements.
Funny how in real-life hypersonic wind tunnel tests your 'blunt bodies' melt far quicker than 'pointy' designs...
Then there's the problem of keeping the 'blunt body' capsules stable when travelling through the atmosphere rather than simply flipping to present the more streamlined end to the airflow (path of least resistance you know?)...
Though they'd probably just tumble out of control as the entire thing would be a fiery mess of molten death within seconds anyway.
So I guess we can just file your whole post - of which I am sure you are most inordinately proud - in the category of 'NASA Lies'.
Thanks for that!
Actually Mr Papa. If you knew anything about aerodynamics you should know that the apollo capsules where aerodynamicly stable. Needed zero additional stability. Unless of course you think rain drops fall pointy side down?
Raindrops start out spherical but do not end spherical.Actually Mr Papa. If you knew anything about aerodynamics you should know that the apollo capsules where aerodynamicly stable. Needed zero additional stability. Unless of course you think rain drops fall pointy side down?
Raindrops are spherical, dickhead.
But the mere fact that you are comparing the behaviour of a Fluid to a Solid shows the bankruptcy of your position.
There is clearly no end to your lies...
Or NASA's.
Who you work for...
Don't you, markjo?
Toodle-pip, Liar.
Quote
Well, I did not just look on Google, like you, I digged into that. Besides, it's not me. Wikipedia, for example, shows nothing within 6 months from the only real test that was performed.
If you still can not understand the situation:
it's freaking 11,000 degrees K.
So, just show me the NASA report about successful testing of their heat shield at 11,000 m/s re-entry, dated from August 1968 to May 1969,
;D ;D ;D
Otherwise,
HOW DID THEY RETURN FROM THE MOON???
::)
You are asking this question with very little understanding of how that heat interacts with a capsule. It seems you misunderstand how heat shields, re-entry and what that test was all about.
- First, that test you are referring to was not testing an Apollo heat shield, it was testing an ablative material used on an Apollo capsule. If you read the report you find that the ablative material actually performed better than expected. There is more to designing a capsule than ablative shielding, you’re completely ignoring the aerodynamic design.
- The shape of the test heat shield was massively different than the shape of the Apollo capsule, and was done so on purpose. The test wanted to push the material to its limits to TEST it. Apollo capsules must obviously survive, so they use safe designs. Ill get into the shape a bit more later.
- Read the document and find the term "stagnation point". Stagnation point is basically the point where the pressure build between the capsule balances out to incoming air, meaning that air is mostly still or "stagnant" at that point. Stagnation point is where the bow shock wave is, and also where the massive amount of heat that you talk about sits. Between the stagnation point and the ablative material are gasses much cooler than the heat at the stagnation point. Those gasses come from the atmosphere and the ablative shield. This area between the stagnation point at the shield is important in protecting the capsule.
I'm going to give you a real life example you can test at home right now to show you how this works.
Go heat a stove plate (glass tops are the best) or any flat surface that can go way above 120'C. Drop some water (drop sized) on the hot surface and watch what happens. The water does not instantly evaporate, it dances over the surface. That is because the water touching the surface instantly evaporates insulating the rest of the drop from the heat. This is called the leidenfrost effect, and well designed heat shields with ablative shielding work just like that,
- Capsule shape determines how air moves around the capsule, and where the stagnation point is. Long story short, a pointy object enters faster getting hotter, a rounded “blunt” object has a bigger surface area, and pushes the stagnation point further out.
The images below show you where the stagnation point is. It is where the pressure is maximised between the capsule and incoming air. The pacemaker test vehicle was designed like example 1."initial concept" and Apollo was the 1957 shape.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Blunt_body_reentry_shapes.png/1024px-Blunt_body_reentry_shapes.png)
- The test capsule was designed that the nose part was touching this stagnation point. They did this to see how it would react to the temperatures. This would be a terrible design for a manned capsule.
Here is the nose of the Pacemaker vehicle that they used to test the ablative material. Notice the stagnation point on the surface of the capsule.
(http://i.imgur.com/8TVj56O.png)
If you want a safe design you would make sure the stagnation point is as far away from the surface as possible. That is what they did with Apollo and all subsequent landers.
This is the Apollo shape.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Apollo_Block1_CM.PNG)
The stagnation point of Apollo was about 500mm away from the surface of the heat shield. So the heat shields job is much easier than simply 11000K, its closer to 1500k (not sure about exact temperatures)
lindenfrost effect... liedenfrost effect...
lindenfrost effect... liedenfrost effect...
You do not even know how to spell the utter bullshit you spam.
Stagnation point is where the bow shock wave is, and also where the massive amount of heat that you talk about sits. Between the stagnation point and the ablative material are gasses much cooler than the heat at the stagnation point.
And you are such a wonderful fellow. We are just so lucky to have someone so :P perfect in every way :P !lindenfrost effect... liedenfrost effect...
You do not even know how to spell the utter bullshit you spam.
Quote from: Anthony Drewe So people say |
Quote from: Mac Davis I can't wait |
"Apparently, a catastrophic failure of the heat-shield material occurred during the latter portion of the data period. However, this failure cannotA catastrophic failure of the heat-shield is no catastrophic failure of the test. I am quite certain that very useful data was derived from this test which was used to improve heat-shields to make them work like they do today.
be related to the changing environmental conditions that were computed
for the hemispherical nose shape."
Sure, you might call that test a "catastrophic failure", not a "complete disaster", should you prefer.
So, just show me the NASA report about successful testing of their heat shield at 11,000 m/s re-entry, dated from August 1968 to May 1969You're probably thinking about the unmanned Apollo 4 mission, conducted on Nov. 9, 1967.
The mission was the first launch from the Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39, specifically built for the Saturn V. Since this was an all-up test, it was the S-IC first stage and S-II second stage's first launch. It would also be the first time that the S-IVB third stage would be restarted in Earth orbit, and the first time that the Apollo spacecraft would reenter the Earth's atmosphere at the speed of a lunar return trajectory.
Well.. thank you.. i guess?"Apparently, a catastrophic failure of the heat-shield material occurred during the latter portion of the data period. However, this failure cannotA catastrophic failure of the heat-shield is no catastrophic failure of the test. I am quite certain that very useful data was derived from this test which was used to improve heat-shields to make them work like they do today.
be related to the changing environmental conditions that were computed
for the hemispherical nose shape."
Sure, you might call that test a "catastrophic failure", not a "complete disaster", should you prefer.
Dear Kami, what an interesting style you have. Mild, rhythmic, pleasant, elegant, well-balanced, graceful... Too good for a... Wait a minute... Whom I see and hear from behind the lines is a... young lady!
::)
Unless I am mistaken, of course...
8)
;)
Anyway, that hole in the spaceship per se normally would not mean much. They were testing the new material, it failed, so what. The problem is that there are no further reports about successful 11,000 m/s Apollo module re-entry tests before the Moon story and they did not have much time before the launch... so, how would they return if they were walking on the Moon? Or... were they?
::)
"I am quite certain that very useful data was derived from this test..."
Well, it depends on what data you're looking for. I hoped to find the real data on the temperature patterns, but the test generated none, for the sensors failed due to extreme heat.
Stagnation point is where the bow shock wave is, and also where the massive amount of heat that you talk about sits. Between the stagnation point and the ablative material are gasses much cooler than the heat at the stagnation point.
Stagnation point is where the bow shock wave is, and also where the massive amount of heat that you talk about sits. Between the stagnation point and the ablative material are gasses much cooler than the heat at the stagnation point.
LMFAO!!!
Stagnation point is where the bow shock wave is, and also where the massive amount of heat that you talk about sits. Between the stagnation point and the ablative material are gasses much cooler than the heat at the stagnation point.
LMFAO!!!
Well constructed argument....
Well constructed argument....
Well constructed shitpost.
Stagnation point is where the bow shock wave is, and also where the massive amount of heat that you talk about sits. Between the stagnation point and the ablative material are gasses much cooler than the heat at the stagnation point.
Well, it depends on what data you're looking for. I hoped to find the real data on the temperature patterns, but the test generated none, for the sensors failed due to extreme heat.
You really don't understand when you've been beaten, do you?
Stagnation point is where the bow shock wave is, and also where the massive amount of heat that you talk about sits. Between the stagnation point and the ablative material are gasses much cooler than the heat at the stagnation point.
So, just show me the NASA report about successful testing of their heat shield at 11,000 m/s re-entry, dated from August 1968 to May 1969You're probably thinking about the unmanned Apollo 4 mission, conducted on Nov. 9, 1967.
https://archive.org/details/nasa_techdoc_19900066482
The tl;dr version:Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_4#ObjectivesThe mission was the first launch from the Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39, specifically built for the Saturn V. Since this was an all-up test, it was the S-IC first stage and S-II second stage's first launch. It would also be the first time that the S-IVB third stage would be restarted in Earth orbit, and the first time that the Apollo spacecraft would reenter the Earth's atmosphere at the speed of a lunar return trajectory.
The unmanned Apollo 6 (April 4, 1968) also tested reentry, but only from about 10,000 m/s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_6#Orbit
Granted, neither flight was in your arbitrary time range, but I think that was probably just you showing off your ignorance yet again.
Well.. thank you.. i guess?"Apparently, a catastrophic failure of the heat-shield material occurred during the latter portion of the data period. However, this failure cannotA catastrophic failure of the heat-shield is no catastrophic failure of the test. I am quite certain that very useful data was derived from this test which was used to improve heat-shields to make them work like they do today.
be related to the changing environmental conditions that were computed
for the hemispherical nose shape."
Sure, you might call that test a "catastrophic failure", not a "complete disaster", should you prefer.
Dear Kami, what an interesting style you have. Mild, rhythmic, pleasant, elegant, well-balanced, graceful... Too good for a... Wait a minute... Whom I see and hear from behind the lines is a... young lady!
::)
Unless I am mistaken, of course...
8)
;)
Anyway, that hole in the spaceship per se normally would not mean much. They were testing the new material, it failed, so what. The problem is that there are no further reports about successful 11,000 m/s Apollo module re-entry tests before the Moon story and they did not have much time before the launch... so, how would they return if they were walking on the Moon? Or... were they?
::)
"I am quite certain that very useful data was derived from this test..."
Well, it depends on what data you're looking for. I hoped to find the real data on the temperature patterns, but the test generated none, for the sensors failed due to extreme heat.
Although I have to disappoint you, I am no young lady ;D
The reason for this style might be that I have to put some thought to my grammar as I am no native speaker..
as for the test, MaNaeSWolf and markjo posted some documents, though I personally did not have the time to read them (except for the tldr, of course)
Edit: even a negative Test result can be useful. At least you know you need to improve your ablative Material. Also, i think I remember i read that only some of the Sensors had failed
Are you all right, dear markjo?
So, dear markjo, first you post irrelevant data. Then, you openly admit their irrelevance. After which you make your conclusion about me showing off my ignorance yet again.What was so important about your arbitrary time frame for the heat shield tests? The fact is that there were 2 unmanned test missions that tested the command module heat shield at or near lunar mission reentry speeds. Does the fact that those tests happened before August 1968 invalidate them for some reason or other?
So, in August 1968 NASA had no real re-entry temperature data for the Apollo shield material.Incorrect. I just told you that they had real world test data collected from the reentry of the Apollo 4 and Apollo 6 test flights.
Are you all right, dear markjo?Still providing free uncalled-for psychoanalysis, I see. I hope you appreciate that I referred Papa Legba to your free service.
;D ;D ;D
HOW DID THEY RETURN FROM THE MOON???
So, show me the NASA reports on successful heat shield testings at 11,000 km/s and 11,000 K dated up to 6 months from August, 1968. THERE IS NONE. NONE! NONE!!!
NONE!!!!!!
This is hysterical.
Within two minutes of firing up Google, I had found a summary of mission tests, including those of command modules in atmosphere - it looks like there were ten altogether. Within another two minutes, I had the technical reports from one of those missions in front of me, detailing that the heat shield test was successful.
It seems you're not even capable of using a simple search engine, so I will leave it to the good people of the forum to make up their own minds about whether there were indeed heat shield tests, or whether there were NONE!! NONE!! NONE!!! as you claim. They are free to look on Google as I did.
Good day, sir.
Well, I did not just look on Google, like you, I digged(sic) into that. Besides, it's not me. Wikipedia, for example, shows nothing within 6 months from the only real test that was performed.
If you still can not understand the situation:
it's freaking 11,000 degrees K. Or 19,340 degrees F.
So, just show me the NASA report about successful testing of their heat shield at 11,000 m/s re-entry, dated from August 1968 to May 1969,
;D ;D ;D
Otherwise,
HOW DID THEY RETURN FROM THE MOON???
::)
Are you all right, dear markjo?
He is pushing 100 years old and thinks the world is round. Do you think he is alright? He is lucky if he figures out how to turn his computer on. lol
NASA never admits its lies, they just make the lie an industry standard. For example, if NASA says that they have a satellite in polar orbit, then everyone believes that they have a satellite in polar orbit. No need to prove this claim or anything, it just becomes "true."
Do you have any evidence that when NASA says they have a satellite in polar orbit, they don't?
Proving a negative is not always impossible. If I said: prove that yellow elephants do not exist, then you would be unable to do so. But if I said: prove that this specific elephant (while showing a picture or something like that) does not exist the way I describe it, it is possible. That's exactly what NASA does. They have datasheets about their polar satellites and there are even live-maps online, which show every satellite's position.NASA never admits its lies, they just make the lie an industry standard. For example, if NASA says that they have a satellite in polar orbit, then everyone believes that they have a satellite in polar orbit. No need to prove this claim or anything, it just becomes "true."
Do you have any evidence that when NASA says they have a satellite in polar orbit, they don't?
Are you asking me to prove a negative? Come back when you've had a course in logic.
Well, it depends on what data you're looking for. I hoped to find the real data on the temperature patterns, but the test generated none, for the sensors failed due to extreme heat.
Apart from the whole graphfuls of data that are in the appendix, which I already pointed out to you.
You really don't understand when you've been beaten, do you?
So, dear markjo, first you post irrelevant data. Then, you openly admit their irrelevance. After which you make your conclusion about me showing off my ignorance yet again.What was so important about your arbitrary time frame for the heat shield tests? The fact is that there were 2 unmanned test missions that tested the command module heat shield at or near lunar mission reentry speeds. Does the fact that those tests happened before August 1968 invalidate them for some reason or other?
BTW, the manned Apollo 8 mission was in December of 1968, well within your arbitrary time frame.So, in August 1968 NASA had no real re-entry temperature data for the Apollo shield material.Incorrect. I just told you that they had real world test data collected from the reentry of the Apollo 4 and Apollo 6 test flights.
As its end, I would rather choose the moment reasonably close to that launch to the Moon. Say, May 1969. 'Cause they must have had the heat shield ready, successfully tested at 11 km/s re-entry and installed before going to the Moon, correct? So, where are those successful test(s) data?Just because the "Not_so_Humble_non_Scientist" can't find a reference to something 47 years later proves it didn't happen - tell me another!
Or... Do you think they developed the Apollo heat shield after Apollo started to the Moon?
;D ;D ;D
Are you all right, dear markjo?Still providing free uncalled-for psychoanalysis, I see. I hope you appreciate that I referred Papa Legba to your free service.
;D ;D ;D
He seems to have some sort of OCD problem in that he goes into a near infinite loop of "copying and pasting" the same thing over and over whenever anyone disagrees with anything he says (which is all the time)!
But, as you well know I'm just a tyro in this and you practice it so often, so I sure Papa would benefit from your ministrations.
;D ;D Much appreciated. ;D ;D
Are you all right, dear markjo?Still providing free uncalled-for psychoanalysis, I see. I hope you appreciate that I referred Papa Legba to your free service.
;D ;D ;D
He seems to have some sort of OCD problem in that he goes into a near infinite loop of "copying and pasting" the same thing over and over whenever anyone disagrees with anything he says (which is all the time)!
But, as you well know I'm just a tyro in this and you practice it so often, so I sure Papa would benefit from your ministrations.
;D ;D Much appreciated. ;D ;D
Wow. My dear rabinoz, what happened to you? It sounds like you're writing from some kind of asylum. What are you talking about?
Look, man. Say, you've built a "spaceship" and tested it. During re-entry, at 11 km/s, the heat shield material failed and there was a hole in the spaceship. You do not have even the real temperature data. What would you do next?
As to Papa Legba, whose majestic yet vigorous style and zeal are truly remarkable. Possibly, Papa Legba would call the whole story somewhat like "NA$A's shpazeship heat shield"... though I must confess I could hardly imagine what that great man would have invented for such an occasion.
::)
Ummm... No. The report was published in August, 1968. The test took place in October, 1965.So, dear markjo, first you post irrelevant data. Then, you openly admit their irrelevance. After which you make your conclusion about me showing off my ignorance yet again.What was so important about your arbitrary time frame for the heat shield tests? The fact is that there were 2 unmanned test missions that tested the command module heat shield at or near lunar mission reentry speeds. Does the fact that those tests happened before August 1968 invalidate them for some reason or other?
BTW, the manned Apollo 8 mission was in December of 1968, well within your arbitrary time frame.So, in August 1968 NASA had no real re-entry temperature data for the Apollo shield material.Incorrect. I just told you that they had real world test data collected from the reentry of the Apollo 4 and Apollo 6 test flights.
"What was so important about your arbitrary time frame for the heat shield tests?" etc.
It's not mine. Just read the article, dear markjo. The NASA article says they were testing the material for the Apollo mission heatshield, in August 1968, at 11 km/s re-entry.
Well, it depends on what data you're looking for. I hoped to find the real data on the temperature patterns, but the test generated none, for the sensors failed due to extreme heat.
Apart from the whole graphfuls of data that are in the appendix, which I already pointed out to you.
You really don't understand when you've been beaten, do you?
"You really don't understand when you've been beaten, do you?"
You must be speaking to yourself, dear Dinosaur Neil...
;D ;D ;D
Where are the real temperature data?
8)
NASA never admits its lies, they just make the lie an industry standard. For example, if NASA says that they have a satellite in polar orbit, then everyone believes that they have a satellite in polar orbit. No need to prove this claim or anything, it just becomes "true."
Do you have any evidence that when NASA says they have a satellite in polar orbit, they don't?
Are you asking me to prove a negative? Come back when you've had a course in logic.
Ummm... No. The report was published in August, 1968. The test took place in October, 1965.
Did you even read the report beyond what you cherry picked out of it?
Maybe you had better take another look at it to refresh your memory.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19680021275.pdf
I think that it's a bit much expecting him to read enough of the report to figure out that the data that he's referring to was collected almost 3 years earlier.Ummm... No. The report was published in August, 1968. The test took place in October, 1965.
Did you even read the report beyond what you cherry picked out of it?
Maybe you had better take another look at it to refresh your memory.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19680021275.pdf
Oh come on, you give the Not_very_Humble_Not_Much_of_a_Scientist a bit much credit.
Doesn't that report have sums and technical looking graph thingos in it? It's a bit much expecting him understand them!
I think that it's a bit much expecting him to read enough of the report to figure out that the data that he's referring to was collected almost 3 years earlier.Ummm... No. The report was published in August, 1968. The test took place in October, 1965.
Did you even read the report beyond what you cherry picked out of it?
Maybe you had better take another look at it to refresh your memory.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19680021275.pdf
Oh come on, you give the Not_very_Humble_Not_Much_of_a_Scientist a bit much credit.
Doesn't that report have sums and technical looking graph thingos in it? It's a bit much expecting him understand them!
Wow. My dear rabinoz, what happened to you?
You happened to me? I don't see are after effects of this great happening!Wow. My dear rabinoz, what happened to you?
I happened to him.
I happened to all of them.
lol.
Anyhoo; NASA lies about Newton's 3rd Law inasmuch as it claims both forces can be created on the same object & still produce motion.
Simple stuff...
Now watch the custard pies fly as all the Clowns go nuts.
Well, it depends on what data you're looking for. I hoped to find the real data on the temperature patterns, but the test generated none, for the sensors failed due to extreme heat.
Apart from the whole graphfuls of data that are in the appendix, which I already pointed out to you.
You really don't understand when you've been beaten, do you?
"You really don't understand when you've been beaten, do you?"
You must be speaking to yourself, dear Dinosaur Neil...
;D ;D ;D
Where are the real temperature data?
8)
So you're saying that this document PROVES that NASA couldn't send a man to the moon, yet at the same time saying that some of the information presented within the document is false.
Right. OK.
;D
I myself was writing scientific articles and I know how a good article looks. This one was written by good professionals, no doubt. Essentially, it says that in August 1968 NASA had no material for Apollo heat shield.No, it doesn't say that at all. The report was released in August, 1968, but the experiment that it describes occurred in October, 1965.
I think that it's a bit much expecting him to read enough of the report to figure out that the data that he's referring to was collected almost 3 years earlier.Ummm... No. The report was published in August, 1968. The test took place in October, 1965.
Did you even read the report beyond what you cherry picked out of it?
Maybe you had better take another look at it to refresh your memory.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19680021275.pdf
Oh come on, you give the Not_very_Humble_Not_Much_of_a_Scientist a bit much credit.
Doesn't that report have sums and technical looking graph thingos in it? It's a bit much expecting him understand them!
I myself wanted to humbly ask you how could it happen that the test was performed in 1965, but it took 3 years for data processing and publication of the results. Or yet another strange thing, let's refresh our memory. The first page of the publication says: "August 1968". However, Page 12 is dated "May 21, 1968". So, it looks like they spent 3 months just to print that nice title page and graw a beatiful NASA logo... well, anyway, that's not the main issue I'd like to asked your opinion about.Maybe they had other things on their minds at the time. Things like working on the heat shield material.
That main problem is the following. If you, dear markjo and you, dear rabinoz, have ever bothered to actually read the publication our dear markjo so kindly referred to the rest of us:Perhaps not, but the Apollo 4 command module reentry was.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19680021275.pdf ,
you would have surely noticed that the test was not conducted at the re-entry, at 11 km/s.
I myself wanted to humbly ask you how could it happen that the test was performed in 1965, but it took 3 years for data processing and publication of the results. Or yet another strange thing, let's refresh our memory. The first page of the publication says: "August 1968". However, Page 12 is dated "May 21, 1968". So, it looks like they spent 3 months just to print that nice title page and graw a beatiful NASA logo... well, anyway, that's not the main issue I'd like to asked your opinion about.Maybe they had other things on their minds at the time. Things like working on the heat shield material.That main problem is the following. If you, dear markjo and you, dear rabinoz, have ever bothered to actually read the publication our dear markjo so kindly referred to the rest of us:Perhaps not, but the Apollo 4 command module reentry was.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19680021275.pdf ,
you would have surely noticed that the test was not conducted at the re-entry, at 11 km/s.
I think that it's a bit much expecting him to read enough of the report to figure out that the data that he's referring to was collected almost 3 years earlier.Ummm... No. The report was published in August, 1968. The test took place in October, 1965.
Did you even read the report beyond what you cherry picked out of it?
Maybe you had better take another look at it to refresh your memory.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19680021275.pdf
Oh come on, you give the Not_very_Humble_Not_Much_of_a_Scientist a bit much credit.
Doesn't that report have sums and technical looking graph thingos in it? It's a bit much expecting him understand them!
Remember papa Legba is his hero and he considers him a great scholar. So that should let you know what you are dealing with.
Humble seems like a nice enough person, just misguided, uneducated or both.
At what time? Dear markjo, buddy, the data were processed and the report was finished in 1968. In August. How they could work on the heat shield material without knowing the results? How the Apollo module could re-enter at 11 km/s in 1967, if they did not even have the report on the temperatures at 3 km/s before August 1968?So you're saying that the people who performed the experiment and analyzed the data had to wait over 2 years to get the formal report of their own experiment?
At what time? Dear markjo, buddy, the data were processed and the report was finished in 1968. In August. How they could work on the heat shield material without knowing the results? How the Apollo module could re-enter at 11 km/s in 1967, if they did not even have the report on the temperatures at 3 km/s before August 1968?So you're saying that the people who performed the experiment and analyzed the data had to wait over 2 years to get the formal report of their own experiment?
I think that it's far more likely that they knew the preliminary results within a few days or weeks and used those results in their ongoing work.
Look, man. First you provided the link to the publication and now you're asking me if I am saying:Yes, I read that the experiment occurred in October of 1965.
"that the people who performed the experiment and analyzed the data had to wait over 2 years to get the formal report of their own experiment?"
Can't you read the publication yourself?
"I think that it's far more likely that they knew the preliminary results within a few days or weeks and used those results in their ongoing work."I mean that the people who conducted the experiment had access to the raw data almost immediately and were able to use that data to improve the heat shield shortly afterwards.
Holey shpazeship! What do you mean by that? The NASA technical note was fake or they were hiding their knowledge?
;D
Look, man. First you provided the link to the publication and now you're asking me if I am saying:Yes, I read that the experiment occurred in October of 1965.
"that the people who performed the experiment and analyzed the data had to wait over 2 years to get the formal report of their own experiment?"
Can't you read the publication yourself?"I think that it's far more likely that they knew the preliminary results within a few days or weeks and used those results in their ongoing work."I mean that the people who conducted the experiment had access to the raw data almost immediately and were able to use that data to improve the heat shield shortly afterwards.
Holey shpazeship! What do you mean by that? The NASA technical note was fake or they were hiding their knowledge?
;D
Don't forget that they called it the space race for a reason. A lot of people were working at a breakneck pace in order to meet the late president Kennedy's goal of landing a man on moon by the end of the decade. There is no way that the heat shield guys would have waited 2 years just to get the formal report so that they continue their work.
Dear markjo, my friend,
I was about to ask you again if you're all right, but have just remembered that jroa so clearly explained that here: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66925.msg1788782#msg1788782 .
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you've never had a scientific paper published or are even familiar with the process of, let alone the reason for, having one published.Look, man. First you provided the link to the publication and now you're asking me if I am saying:Yes, I read that the experiment occurred in October of 1965.
"that the people who performed the experiment and analyzed the data had to wait over 2 years to get the formal report of their own experiment?"
Can't you read the publication yourself?"I think that it's far more likely that they knew the preliminary results within a few days or weeks and used those results in their ongoing work."I mean that the people who conducted the experiment had access to the raw data almost immediately and were able to use that data to improve the heat shield shortly afterwards.
Holey shpazeship! What do you mean by that? The NASA technical note was fake or they were hiding their knowledge?
;D
Don't forget that they called it the space race for a reason. A lot of people were working at a breakneck pace in order to meet the late president Kennedy's goal of landing a man on moon by the end of the decade. There is no way that the heat shield guys would have waited 2 years just to get the formal report so that they continue their work.
Well, the document itself does not seem to support your hypothesis. It does not explain the reason(s) for the delay, as if it was perfectly normal for them. Remember, they spent about 3 months just to attach the title page with that nice NASA logo. Comparing to that, a sloth looks much like a cheetah.
;D
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you've never had a scientific paper published or are even familiar with the process of, let alone the reason for, having one published.Look, man. First you provided the link to the publication and now you're asking me if I am saying:Yes, I read that the experiment occurred in October of 1965.
"that the people who performed the experiment and analyzed the data had to wait over 2 years to get the formal report of their own experiment?"
Can't you read the publication yourself?"I think that it's far more likely that they knew the preliminary results within a few days or weeks and used those results in their ongoing work."I mean that the people who conducted the experiment had access to the raw data almost immediately and were able to use that data to improve the heat shield shortly afterwards.
Holey shpazeship! What do you mean by that? The NASA technical note was fake or they were hiding their knowledge?
;D
Don't forget that they called it the space race for a reason. A lot of people were working at a breakneck pace in order to meet the late president Kennedy's goal of landing a man on moon by the end of the decade. There is no way that the heat shield guys would have waited 2 years just to get the formal report so that they continue their work.
Well, the document itself does not seem to support your hypothesis. It does not explain the reason(s) for the delay, as if it was perfectly normal for them. Remember, they spent about 3 months just to attach the title page with that nice NASA logo. Comparing to that, a sloth looks much like a cheetah.
;D
Dear markjo, my friend,
I was about to ask you again if you're all right, but have just remembered that jroa so clearly explained that here: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66925.msg1788782#msg1788782 .
Can't you stop this stupid condescending attitude?
You are just so concerned with everybody's welfare.I've never seen a more smug[1] hypocritical poster here!
Do you really think that 51 or so years ago NASA was publishing stuff primarily for your benefit.Not likely! They would have had access to their own data long before it was released to the public.Also, did every detail of tests get published? I have no idea, and neither do you.
Of course, your attitude to everything concerned with you nemesis NASA is,"Guilty until proven innocent", by prosecutor, defense attorney, witnesses, judge and jury, the one and only completely unbiased NASAphobic_Humble_Scientist.;D Yes, real fair trial NASA gets around here! ;D
Of course, had I but known Humble_Scientist was going to audit all this data 51 years later, I could have warned them, but since I had never met anyone like the Humble_Scientist, I could hardly foresee it, pity!
PS: The Globe was decided on by reasonable people some two millenia before NASA, and even the rotating earth hundreds of years before NASA (yes, that's a bit harder to prove!) so blaming NASA is really a case of"closing the cage after the bird's flown away!"NASA just went with the widely accepted ideas and convincingly proved them correct. I do not accept that NASA ever had any intention of "proving the earth a Globe", everyone knew that!
[1] Mind you your partner in crime Papa Legba might beat on this, and your language is a bit more moderate.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you've never had a scientific paper published or are even familiar with the process of, let alone the reason for, having one published.Look, man. First you provided the link to the publication and now you're asking me if I am saying:Yes, I read that the experiment occurred in October of 1965.
"that the people who performed the experiment and analyzed the data had to wait over 2 years to get the formal report of their own experiment?"
Can't you read the publication yourself?"I think that it's far more likely that they knew the preliminary results within a few days or weeks and used those results in their ongoing work."I mean that the people who conducted the experiment had access to the raw data almost immediately and were able to use that data to improve the heat shield shortly afterwards.
Holey shpazeship! What do you mean by that? The NASA technical note was fake or they were hiding their knowledge?
;D
Don't forget that they called it the space race for a reason. A lot of people were working at a breakneck pace in order to meet the late president Kennedy's goal of landing a man on moon by the end of the decade. There is no way that the heat shield guys would have waited 2 years just to get the formal report so that they continue their work.
Well, the document itself does not seem to support your hypothesis. It does not explain the reason(s) for the delay, as if it was perfectly normal for them. Remember, they spent about 3 months just to attach the title page with that nice NASA logo. Comparing to that, a sloth looks much like a cheetah.
;D
Holey shpazeship! Yet another guess of you, dear markjo, and you're wrong again...
For sale by the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information
Springfield, Virginia 22151 - CFSTI price $3.00
Holey shpazeship! Yet another guess of you, dear markjo, and you're wrong again...
For sale by the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information
Springfield, Virginia 22151 - CFSTI price $3.00
Do you suppose that NASA is selling the report to their own scientists and engineers so that they can do their jobs?
Holey shpazeship! Yet another guess of you, dear markjo, and you're wrong again...
Then explain this passage at the bottom of the second page means:QuoteFor sale by the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information
Springfield, Virginia 22151 - CFSTI price $3.00
IMHO it means:
"For sale by the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information Springfield, Virginia 22151 - CFSTI price $3.00"
Why?
Do you suppose that NASA is selling the report to their own scientists and engineers so that they can do their jobs?
Holey shpazeship! Yet another guess of you, dear markjo, and you're wrong again...
Then explain this passage at the bottom of the second page means:QuoteFor sale by the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information
Springfield, Virginia 22151 - CFSTI price $3.00
IMHO it means:
"For sale by the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information Springfield, Virginia 22151 - CFSTI price $3.00"
Why?
My dear markjo...You really are a condescending prick, aren't you?
...this is not the first time you are asking me to answer as if I knew what NASA's doing. How should I know?Obviously you know that NASA had to wait almost 3 years for a report to be published so that they could use their own test data, so it sounds like you know NASA's doings much better than I do.
You really are a condescending prick, aren't you?
STFU Geoff.
Plus, NASA Lies about Newton's 3rd Law & everybody with a brain knows it...
So that's you out, Scarecrow.
STFU Geoff.
Plus, NASA Lies about Newton's 3rd Law & everybody with a brain knows it...
So that's you out, Scarecrow.
Quite often on these boards it's asserted or implicated that NASA tells lies.
Does anyone have any specific, concrete examples of NASA lying? By this I mean examples either of NASA admitting to falsehood, or of there being generally and authoritatively accepted evidence that contradicts what NASA has said.
I'm not asking for conspiracy theory kind of stuff, or people's opinions. Just proper evidence. Ideally there would be citations, both for what NASA has claimed and also for the contradiction.
Quite often on these boards it's asserted or implicated that NASA tells lies.
Does anyone have any specific, concrete examples of NASA lying? By this I mean examples either of NASA admitting to falsehood, or of there being generally and authoritatively accepted evidence that contradicts what NASA has said.
I'm not asking for conspiracy theory kind of stuff, or people's opinions. Just proper evidence. Ideally there would be citations, both for what NASA has claimed and also for the contradiction.
Simple. You see images of Earth all you see is a bunch of different balls. LOL! All of the images have to be the same! Hello, it's the Earth! You shills think the Earth can automagically change color and stuff! Come on that has to be the craziest stuff ever...
(http://flache-erde.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/nasa-erdmodelle.jpg)
Quite often on these boards it's asserted or implicated that NASA tells lies.
Does anyone have any specific, concrete examples of NASA lying? By this I mean examples either of NASA admitting to falsehood, or of there being generally and authoritatively accepted evidence that contradicts what NASA has said.
I'm not asking for conspiracy theory kind of stuff, or people's opinions. Just proper evidence. Ideally there would be citations, both for what NASA has claimed and also for the contradiction.
Simple. You see images of Earth all you see is a bunch of different balls. LOL! All of the images have to be the same! Hello, it's the Earth! You shills think the Earth can automagically change color and stuff! Come on that has to be the craziest stuff ever...
(http://flache-erde.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/nasa-erdmodelle.jpg)
Welcome to the site, please read moar so you can ask intelligent questions.
Thanks.
Quite often on these boards it's asserted or implicated that NASA tells lies.
Does anyone have any specific, concrete examples of NASA lying? By this I mean examples either of NASA admitting to falsehood, or of there being generally and authoritatively accepted evidence that contradicts what NASA has said.
I'm not asking for conspiracy theory kind of stuff, or people's opinions. Just proper evidence. Ideally there would be citations, both for what NASA has claimed and also for the contradiction.
Simple. You see images of Earth all you see is a bunch of different balls. LOL! All of the images have to be the same! Hello, it's the Earth! You shills think the Earth can automagically change color and stuff! Come on that has to be the craziest stuff ever...
(http://flache-erde.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/nasa-erdmodelle.jpg)
Welcome to the site, please read moar so you can ask intelligent questions.
Thanks.
Satanic shill I've been embracing the flat earth for months now I don't need that, thanks.
Plus, NASA Lies about Newton's 3rd Law & everybody with a brain knows it...
NASA Lies about Newton's 3rd Law & it's easy to prove, as they describe both forces being exerted on the same object.
Plus, NASA Lies about Newton's 3rd Law & everybody with a brain knows it...Guess that lets you out, Papa Lima Tango.
It's interesting how those that know they've lost the plot have to fall back on foul language and misrepresentation (like you know Geoff's gone west, as it were).
Bye, bye loser. Give my regards to the rest of the "Terrible Triplets".
.
You get no equations from me, ever. No equations are needed to explain anything. You want to live on them then go ahead.
My dear markjo...You really are a condescending prick, aren't you?...this is not the first time you are asking me to answer as if I knew what NASA's doing. How should I know?Obviously you know that NASA had to wait almost 3 years for a report to be published so that they could use their own test data, so it sounds like you know NASA's doings much better than I do.
So, let's us go back to the topic and briefly summarize what all of us have found. Namely, you, dear markjo, provided the link that points to that NASA technical note:On what date was that experiment performed?
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19680021275.pdf
It is dated August 1968 and says that the material for the Apollo heat shield catastrophically failed and the hole in the model spaceship appeared after 95.5 seconds of flight, which had the maximum velocity of about 3 km/s (3,139 m/s or 10,299 ft/s) and maximum height (apogee) of about 23,178 m (76,045 ft).
On what date was that experiment performed?
How many component parts?On what date was that experiment performed?
The 3rd stage of Grieving is Bargaining...
Classic case.
Anyhoo; NASA Lies about Newton's 3rd law & you can easily prove it by counting the number of Objects a rocket (singular noun) is...
If the number of Objects you count a rocket as being is ONE, then NASA are lying about N3.
Cue retards!
Thus, a technical note dated, for example, "August 1968" contributed to existing knowledge that NASA had before. This is the bleeding edge of what NASA knows, as of August 1968. Agreed? Now, dear rabinoz, could you please have a look at the first page of the document? At the bottom of the page, to the right? What date do you see? Isn't it "August 1968"? What a pleasant surprise!
So, "NASA Technical Note NASA TN D-4713" contains the last information on the topic that NASA had in August 1968. Is it clear? I do hope so.
Is it possible that NASA published this valuable note and, at the same time, was hiding some results? Of course, not. Please have a look at the last page, again, and read:
Stagnation point is where the bow shock wave is, and also where the massive amount of heat that you talk about sits. Between the stagnation point and the ablative material are gasses much cooler than the heat at the stagnation point.
Here's a good example of the shills ignoring a thread when they're losing & starting another to try again, specifically the 'reaction engine formula' nonsense one...How many objects is a car?
Anyhoo; NASA Lies about Newton's 3rd law & you can easily prove it by counting the number of Objects a rocket (singular noun) is...
If the number of Objects you count a rocket as being is ONE, then NASA are lying about N3 because N3 requires TWO entirely separate Objects.
Cue retards!
Here's a good example of the shills ignoring a thread when they're losing & starting another to try again, specifically the 'reaction engine formula' nonsense one...
Anyhoo; NASA Lies about Newton's 3rd law & you can easily prove it by counting the number of Objects a rocket (singular noun) is...
If the number of Objects you count a rocket as being is ONE, then NASA are lying about N3 because N3 requires TWO entirely separate Objects.
Cue retards!
In terms of how it functions according to Newton's 3rd law a rocket is One Object.You probably think that light needs a medium to propagate through too.
The medium through which it moves, i.e. the atmosphere, is Object Two, with which it creates a force-pairing in order to produce motion.
Try asking a real scientist like Lord kelvin about that, 'John', you desperate old fuck.You probably won't get one either with that kind of attitude.
Cos idgaf.
In terms of how it functions according to Newton's 3rd law a rocket is One Object.You're thinking of propeller driven airplanes.
The medium through which it moves, i.e. the atmosphere, is Object Two, with which it creates a force-pairing in order to produce motion.
Simple stuff, which everybody acknowledges except for idiots, shills & lying NASA.
Hi Mainframes!
If an object with mass pushes against nothing, then of course its momentum will be conserved.
In the case of a gas, this has been experimentally proven; you know, Free Expansion of gasses in a vacuum & all that?
So, as ever, you have no point whatsoever except to promote your lying shill garbage...
Which lovely 'John Davis' allows you to do, ad infinitum...
Because 'John Davis' is markjo.
Simple stuff & lol.
Now fuck off.
Sorry 'John' but you seem to think persisting in your sock-shill bullshit will change the laws of physics...The laws of physics are just fine as they are.
Try asking a real scientist like Lord kelvin about that, 'John', you desperate old fuck.
Cos idgaf.
In terms of how it functions according to Newton's 3rd law a rocket is One Object.
The medium through which it moves, i.e. the atmosphere, is Object Two, with which it creates a force-pairing in order to produce motion.
Simple stuff, which everybody acknowledges except for idiots, shills & lying NASA.
Examples of Interaction Force PairsThen the answer:
Consider the motion of a car on the way to school. A car is equipped with wheels that spin. As the wheels spin, they grip the road and push the road backwards. Since forces result from mutual interactions, the road must also be pushing the wheels forward. The size of the force on the road equals the size of the force on the wheels (or car); the direction of the force on the road (backwards) is opposite the direction of the force on the wheels (forwards). For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction. Action-reaction force pairs make it possible for cars to move along a roadway surface.
2. For years, space travel was believed to be impossible because there was nothing that rockets could push off of in space in order to provide the propulsion necessary to accelerate. This inability of a rocket to provide propulsion is because ...
a. ... space is void of air so the rockets have nothing to push off of.
b. ... gravity is absent in space.
c. ... space is void of air and so there is no air resistance in space.
d. ... nonsense! Rockets do accelerate in space and have been able to do so for a long time.
See Answer
from Physics Classroom - Home, Newton's Laws - Lesson 4 - Newton's Third Law of Motion (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law) Nope, it's not in there!Check your understanding answerAnswer: D
It is a common misconception that rockets are unable to accelerate in space. The fact is that rockets do accelerate. There is indeed nothing for rockets to push off of in space - at least nothing which is external to the rocket. But that's no problem for rockets. Rockets are able to accelerate due to the fact that they burn fuel and push the exhaust gases in a direction opposite the direction which they wish to accelerate.
Perhaps you have seen the examples of Newton's 3rd where a single object splits in two and still conserved momentum with each object moving in opposite direction to the other.
STFU Geoff'n'John.Are you suggesting that the man on a skateboard with medicine balls experiment isn't a valid example of Newton's third law?Perhaps you have seen the examples of Newton's 3rd where a single object splits in two and still conserved momentum with each object moving in opposite direction to the other.
Is it 'man on fucking skateboard with fucking medicine ball' time again you dickhead?
Quite often on these boards it's asserted or implicated that NASA tells lies.
Does anyone have any specific, concrete examples of NASA lying? By this I mean examples either of NASA admitting to falsehood, or of there being generally and authoritatively accepted evidence that contradicts what NASA has said.
I'm not asking for conspiracy theory kind of stuff, or people's opinions. Just proper evidence. Ideally there would be citations, both for what NASA has claimed and also for the contradiction.
You must be joking.
STFU Geoff'n'John.Are you suggesting that the man on a skateboard with medicine balls experiment isn't a valid example of Newton's third law?Perhaps you have seen the examples of Newton's 3rd where a single object splits in two and still conserved momentum with each object moving in opposite direction to the other.
Is it 'man on fucking skateboard with fucking medicine ball' time again you dickhead?
Then why don't you humor me and say the words?STFU Geoff'n'John.Are you suggesting that the man on a skateboard with medicine balls experiment isn't a valid example of Newton's third law?Perhaps you have seen the examples of Newton's 3rd where a single object splits in two and still conserved momentum with each object moving in opposite direction to the other.
Is it 'man on fucking skateboard with fucking medicine ball' time again you dickhead?
You know exactly what I am suggesting...