The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: cikljamas on July 20, 2019, 05:46:10 AM

Title: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 20, 2019, 05:46:10 AM
First off : Apollo was not a hoax, but a straight up con of epic proportions.

Secondly : feel free to watch the best documentary ever uploaded on youtube about APOLLO - HOAX OF THE CENTURY (pay attention : download it, and reupload it on your channels, as soon as you can, since youtube is shutting my channel down) :

APOLLO - HOAX OF THE CENTURY - part 1 :

APOLLO - HOAX OF THE CENTURY - part 2 :

APOLLO - HOAX OF THE CENTURY - part 3 :

APOLLO - HOAX OF THE CENTURY - part 4 :

APOLLO - HOAX OF THE CENTURY - part 5 :


ON TOP OF THAT :

APOLLO HOAX - WHY RUSSIA NEVER SPILLED THE BEANS :


Moon landing propaganda is like software code being installed on people's brains. And it's purpose is to utterly warp a person's perception of their reality and their senses, to the point that they are likely to believe all manner of nonsense because once you accept that men have gone to the moon, a feat which I'm not even convinced will ever be within the realms of possibility seeing as there isn't even any evidence the moon is actually this rock in space that humans can fly to and land on, but once you accept this garbage you are much more likely to accept other totally unproven "facts" from these deceivers. Suddenly you have people believing unquestioningly the universe started with a big bang explosion from absolutely nothing that happened 14 billion years ago (impossible to know what happened 50,000 years ago let alone 14 BILLION, talk about total insanity) or that people evolved from bacteria in the ocean, all utter nonsense that can never ever be demonstrated, tested or proven in any way. Just math equations and computer models that are entirely made up. But once a person accepts just one of their mind warping propaganda programs, they inevitably end up believing them all.

I think the apollo missions play a big part in how people form their beliefs about the world and the universe so much so that accepting them as hoax would cause their worldviews to collapse and I don’t think most people today are ready to face that kind of a fundamental change in their lives. It changes everything. The apollo missions are nasa’s way of proving to people that they got all the answers and that everything is the way they claim it is because they’re the only ones that have been out there. Now you have billions of people in the world who believe in them and their doctrine and anyone who disagrees with them is portrayed as an insane paranoid conspiracy theorist. The technique used by narcissists to destroy the credibility of their victims.

Simple OFFICIAL science debunks the moon landing. - It's called Van Allen Belt, the radiation would kill everyone and all electronics. The materials used aluminum, nickel/iron, and titanium would have all melted due to the extreme radiation and temperatures.
How could they survive the radiation and high temperature, WITH THAT SUITE. i think that a bunch of fan could never handle that, cause that (include all things on back pack) will broken and become unusable on such a hot temperatures...Just how... is it calculated to know the temperature on the moon? Being the moon is some 1/4 million miles away? The temps calculated for the earth are not always accurate, let-alone to tell us the temps on the moons surface are such.  Are they shooting a beam to the moon such as one checking the temp of his steak on the grill? A 1/4 million miles away. Forgive—a thermometer was stuck in the soil upon arrival.

Our measurments show that the maximum radiation level as of 1958 is equivalent to between 10 and 100 roentgens per hour, depending on the still-undetermined proportion of protons to electrons. Since a human being exposed for two days to even 10 roentgens would have only an even chance of survival, the radiation belts obviously present an obstacle to space flight. Unless some practical way can be found to shield space-travelers against the effects of the radiation, manned space rockets can best take off through the radiation-free zone over the poles. A "space station" must orbit below 400 miles or beyond 30 000 miles from the earth. We are now planning a satellite flight that will test the efficacy of various methods of shielding. The hazard of space-travelers may not even end even when they have passed the terrestrial radiation belts... James Van Allen

Do tell where all the O2 was kept for them to breathe, for a scuba divers tank will only last for about an hour without complicated rebreather technology. Surly there was no such device then. -Two astronots breathing 02 from the time they left earth, to the time they returned to earth about seven days just where was all this 02 stored? A SCUBA divers tank which holds 80 cubit feet of air would calculate to 13,440 cubic feet of air needed for roughly 7 days just for two people. The air locks between the lunar rover and the outside, none. NONE!!! Fantasy the lot.

In1986 I was a 2nd Lt. and a newly minted, USAF officer and aviator, flying C-130s. One of my first operational missions was to fly some troops to Andrews AFB. We stayed in D.C. for two days. On one day, we wemt to the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum. When I saw the LEM and especially when I saw the lunar rover exhibit, a life size mock-up, I told one of my crewmates, another 2nd Lt., copilot, that this is b.s., no way they landed the LEM with that rover. After seeing that exhibit, I started questioning the veracity of the lunar landings. Most professional aviators do not have the balls to even question the lunar missions, let alone say that they were fake. Look at 911, any active aviator who questions 911 will be grounded. Few will say a thing when they know the Pentagon strike was a virtual impossibility. John Basilone

Blazing Saddles, Boyz in the Hood, Star Wars, and Back to the Future are just a few of the hundreds of films collected in the Library of Congress. But we’re to believe NASA can’t preserve the telemetry data from the moon missions. Hahahahahah!!!
Don’t get me wrong. Those are all great films but I believe the significance of the moon data  may be just a tad bit more important. I guess it’s hard to hold on to something that never existed.

"The only bird who can talk is the Parrot and he didn't fly very well.. There are great ideas left undiscovered to those who can peel away one of truths most protective layers."
- Neil Armstrong --------- Don't be a parrot people..

IN ADDITION :

ROCKETS CAN'T FLY IN A VACUUM :


One other guy (below one other similar video) left this very interesting comment :

No... Rockets do not make what they push against to work. It's fluid dynamics...it does not matter if it's water... Or air... It works the exact same way...its like saying that a submarine makes the water that the propeller pushes against while it's on land.. people will agree that the submarine would not move..The same exact thing will happen to a rocket in space.. That is the dumbest and most idiotic wrong explanation of how rockets work that is even possible. Because space is as close of a perfect vacuum there is ...it is impossible to have thrust... Saying that a rocket pushes off it's own gas from combustion is ludicrous... It's no different than saying that you can blow hard enough into a vacuum cleaner and make positive pressure... A vacuum cleaner is a very extremely small fraction of the vacuum of space....just like a vacuum cleaner will suck the air right out of your lungs... Space will do the same exact thing to a rocket... Only many many many many many many many many times quicker and the molecules will go in every direction evenly making thrust  impossible ....using small box like this moron... You release pressure into the box and after the box gets to 0 pressure... The rocket.. "can"...will apply force to the container until there is enough pressure to prevent this from happening then it will push off of its own gasses inside the box... This does absolutely nothing but prove that you should not listen to anything this idiot says at all... ever... until he admits this experiment is flawed and invalid.  If he does not at least do that... Then he is purposely deceiving people....personally I think he is deceiving people. I work with pressures and vacuums every single day I work and I guarantee that there is not a single person on this planet that can prove what I said was incorrect or untrue.  He does not have a vacuum pump that is able to take the gasses out of that chamber as fast as its being put in... Like it would be in space....he pulled a vacuum and closed a valve taking the vacuum pump ..."space" out of the experiment....invalid experiment... And he got the wrong conclusion because the experiment was invalid...

In his next response he said this :

You still did not say that I was wrong... So what the fuck was the point of your comment because I don't see one... you are a troll that somehow benifits off of the deceptions of the government...if u can't prove me wrong... Than go fuck yourself ...if you can prove wrong me then do it....are you telling me you do not know how things move through water...because thats all you need to understand  for proof rockets do not work in a vacuum... It's really that simple....will a submarine move that is on land that makes  the water that the propeller pushes against even if there was no friction between the submarine and ground... You are telling people that the submarine would move... research articles for what... How things move through water?...the only person that is not being logical is you... And also... What was your point of throwing in the GPS reference... Is that the only counter argument you have against what I said...are you saying that rockets work in space because the GPS loses reception in a tunnel... Damn you are desperate for a counter argument if u  threw that in there...who ever gave you a high school diploma needs to be fired... That's if you didn't drop out... Which I think is most likely

Finally, look what happens when you fly over the target :

Two days ago i uploaded video by the name YOUTUBE IS SHUTTING DOWN MY CHANNEL, and after a few hours they shut that video, too, so feel free to acquaint yourself with their fake excuse by reading just a few excerpts from my "hate speech" video :
https://i.postimg.cc/HWzxHpzV/1-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-3-1.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/0jXPSyXn/2-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-4.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/PJ7nxFNF/3-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-4-1.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/fyp1ZtgG/4-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-4-2.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/x8wpBrXY/5-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-4-3.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/N0GtdThD/6-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-4-4.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/90ZsmF5z/7-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-4-5.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/YSPPQmth/8-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-4-6.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/L4LWZXw8/9-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-4-7.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/xdXxjTLY/10-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-4-8.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/G3FMmfTB/11-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-5.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/fWfKN01m/12-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-6.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/9QKPpPq5/13-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-6-1.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/CM7jtpf4/14-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-6-2.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/rwBWW8vq/15-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-6-3.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/PJVvqhWs/16-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-6-4.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/13qVyk42/17-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-6-5.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/QxBHq2gC/18-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-6-6.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/FKxRRNvW/19-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-5.jpg

I made this collage of screenshots on this guy's request :
https://i.postimg.cc/c4hz1ztx/YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-SEI-SHIN.jpg
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Platonius21 on July 20, 2019, 06:12:10 AM
since youtube is shutting my channel down)
No kidding. Why could that possibly be??
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: dutchy on July 20, 2019, 07:01:35 AM
First off : Apollo was not a hoax, but a straight up con of epic proportions.

Secondly : feel free to watch the best documentary ever uploaded on youtube about APOLLO - HOAX OF THE CENTURY (pay attention : download it, and reupload it on your channels, as soon as you can, since youtube is shutting my channel down) :

APOLLO - HOAX OF THE CENTURY - part 1 :

APOLLO - HOAX OF THE CENTURY - part 2 :

APOLLO - HOAX OF THE CENTURY - part 3 :

APOLLO - HOAX OF THE CENTURY - part 4 :

APOLLO - HOAX OF THE CENTURY - part 5 :


ON TOP OF THAT :

APOLLO HOAX - WHY RUSSIA NEVER SPILLED THE BEANS :


Moon landing propaganda is like software code being installed on people's brains. And it's purpose is to utterly warp a person's perception of their reality and their senses, to the point that they are likely to believe all manner of nonsense because once you accept that men have gone to the moon, a feat which I'm not even convinced will ever be within the realms of possibility seeing as there isn't even any evidence the moon is actually this rock in space that humans can fly to and land on, but once you accept this garbage you are much more likely to accept other totally unproven "facts" from these deceivers. Suddenly you have people believing unquestioningly the universe started with a big bang explosion from absolutely nothing that happened 14 billion years ago (impossible to know what happened 50,000 years ago let alone 14 BILLION, talk about total insanity) or that people evolved from bacteria in the ocean, all utter nonsense that can never ever be demonstrated, tested or proven in any way. Just math equations and computer models that are entirely made up. But once a person accepts just one of their mind warping propaganda programs, they inevitably end up believing them all.

I think the apollo missions play a big part in how people form their beliefs about the world and the universe so much so that accepting them as hoax would cause their worldviews to collapse and I don’t think most people today are ready to face that kind of a fundamental change in their lives. It changes everything. The apollo missions are nasa’s way of proving to people that they got all the answers and that everything is the way they claim it is because they’re the only ones that have been out there. Now you have billions of people in the world who believe in them and their doctrine and anyone who disagrees with them is portrayed as an insane paranoid conspiracy theorist. The technique used by narcissists to destroy the credibility of their victims.

Simple OFFICIAL science debunks the moon landing. - It's called Van Allen Belt, the radiation would kill everyone and all electronics. The materials used aluminum, nickel/iron, and titanium would have all melted due to the extreme radiation and temperatures.
How could they survive the radiation and high temperature, WITH THAT SUITE. i think that a bunch of fan could never handle that, cause that (include all things on back pack) will broken and become unusable on such a hot temperatures...Just how... is it calculated to know the temperature on the moon? Being the moon is some 1/4 million miles away? The temps calculated for the earth are not always accurate, let-alone to tell us the temps on the moons surface are such.  Are they shooting a beam to the moon such as one checking the temp of his steak on the grill? A 1/4 million miles away. Forgive—a thermometer was stuck in the soil upon arrival.

Our measurments show that the maximum radiation level as of 1958 is equivalent to between 10 and 100 roentgens per hour, depending on the still-undetermined proportion of protons to electrons. Since a human being exposed for two days to even 10 roentgens would have only an even chance of survival, the radiation belts obviously present an obstacle to space flight. Unless some practical way can be found to shield space-travelers against the effects of the radiation, manned space rockets can best take off through the radiation-free zone over the poles. A "space station" must orbit below 400 miles or beyond 30 000 miles from the earth. We are now planning a satellite flight that will test the efficacy of various methods of shielding. The hazard of space-travelers may not even end even when they have passed the terrestrial radiation belts... James Van Allen

Do tell where all the O2 was kept for them to breathe, for a scuba divers tank will only last for about an hour without complicated rebreather technology. Surly there was no such device then. -Two astronots breathing 02 from the time they left earth, to the time they returned to earth about seven days just where was all this 02 stored? A SCUBA divers tank which holds 80 cubit feet of air would calculate to 13,440 cubic feet of air needed for roughly 7 days just for two people. The air locks between the lunar rover and the outside, none. NONE!!! Fantasy the lot.

In1986 I was a 2nd Lt. and a newly minted, USAF officer and aviator, flying C-130s. One of my first operational missions was to fly some troops to Andrews AFB. We stayed in D.C. for two days. On one day, we wemt to the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum. When I saw the LEM and especially when I saw the lunar rover exhibit, a life size mock-up, I told one of my crewmates, another 2nd Lt., copilot, that this is b.s., no way they landed the LEM with that rover. After seeing that exhibit, I started questioning the veracity of the lunar landings. Most professional aviators do not have the balls to even question the lunar missions, let alone say that they were fake. Look at 911, any active aviator who questions 911 will be grounded. Few will say a thing when they know the Pentagon strike was a virtual impossibility. John Basilone

Blazing Saddles, Boyz in the Hood, Star Wars, and Back to the Future are just a few of the hundreds of films collected in the Library of Congress. But we’re to believe NASA can’t preserve the telemetry data from the moon missions. Hahahahahah!!!
Don’t get me wrong. Those are all great films but I believe the significance of the moon data  may be just a tad bit more important. I guess it’s hard to hold on to something that never existed.

"The only bird who can talk is the Parrot and he didn't fly very well.. There are great ideas left undiscovered to those who can peel away one of truths most protective layers."
- Neil Armstrong --------- Don't be a parrot people..

IN ADDITION :

ROCKETS CAN'T FLY IN A VACUUM :


One other guy (below one other similar video) left this very interesting comment :

No... Rockets do not make what they push against to work. It's fluid dynamics...it does not matter if it's water... Or air... It works the exact same way...its like saying that a submarine makes the water that the propeller pushes against while it's on land.. people will agree that the submarine would not move..The same exact thing will happen to a rocket in space.. That is the dumbest and most idiotic wrong explanation of how rockets work that is even possible. Because space is as close of a perfect vacuum there is ...it is impossible to have thrust... Saying that a rocket pushes off it's own gas from combustion is ludicrous... It's no different than saying that you can blow hard enough into a vacuum cleaner and make positive pressure... A vacuum cleaner is a very extremely small fraction of the vacuum of space....just like a vacuum cleaner will suck the air right out of your lungs... Space will do the same exact thing to a rocket... Only many many many many many many many many times quicker and the molecules will go in every direction evenly making thrust  impossible ....using small box like this moron... You release pressure into the box and after the box gets to 0 pressure... The rocket.. "can"...will apply force to the container until there is enough pressure to prevent this from happening then it will push off of its own gasses inside the box... This does absolutely nothing but prove that you should not listen to anything this idiot says at all... ever... until he admits this experiment is flawed and invalid.  If he does not at least do that... Then he is purposely deceiving people....personally I think he is deceiving people. I work with pressures and vacuums every single day I work and I guarantee that there is not a single person on this planet that can prove what I said was incorrect or untrue.  He does not have a vacuum pump that is able to take the gasses out of that chamber as fast as its being put in... Like it would be in space....he pulled a vacuum and closed a valve taking the vacuum pump ..."space" out of the experiment....invalid experiment... And he got the wrong conclusion because the experiment was invalid...

In his next response he said this :

You still did not say that I was wrong... So what the fuck was the point of your comment because I don't see one... you are a troll that somehow benifits off of the deceptions of the government...if u can't prove me wrong... Than go fuck yourself ...if you can prove wrong me then do it....are you telling me you do not know how things move through water...because thats all you need to understand  for proof rockets do not work in a vacuum... It's really that simple....will a submarine move that is on land that makes  the water that the propeller pushes against even if there was no friction between the submarine and ground... You are telling people that the submarine would move... research articles for what... How things move through water?...the only person that is not being logical is you... And also... What was your point of throwing in the GPS reference... Is that the only counter argument you have against what I said...are you saying that rockets work in space because the GPS loses reception in a tunnel... Damn you are desperate for a counter argument if u  threw that in there...who ever gave you a high school diploma needs to be fired... That's if you didn't drop out... Which I think is most likely

Finally, look what happens when you fly over the target :

Two days ago i uploaded video by the name YOUTUBE IS SHUTTING DOWN MY CHANNEL, and after a few hours they shut that video, too, so feel free to acquaint yourself with their fake excuse by reading just a few excerpts from my "hate speech" video :
https://i.postimg.cc/HWzxHpzV/1-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-3-1.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/0jXPSyXn/2-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-4.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/PJ7nxFNF/3-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-4-1.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/fyp1ZtgG/4-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-4-2.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/x8wpBrXY/5-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-4-3.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/N0GtdThD/6-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-4-4.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/90ZsmF5z/7-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-4-5.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/YSPPQmth/8-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-4-6.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/L4LWZXw8/9-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-4-7.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/xdXxjTLY/10-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-4-8.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/G3FMmfTB/11-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-5.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/fWfKN01m/12-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-6.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/9QKPpPq5/13-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-6-1.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/CM7jtpf4/14-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-6-2.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/rwBWW8vq/15-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-6-3.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/PJVvqhWs/16-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-6-4.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/13qVyk42/17-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-6-5.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/QxBHq2gC/18-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-6-6.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/FKxRRNvW/19-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-5.jpg

I made this collage of screenshots on this guy's request :
https://i.postimg.cc/c4hz1ztx/YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-SEI-SHIN.jpg
Thanks !!!!

I am going to check it all out !!
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 20, 2019, 07:08:53 AM
You are useless.

Can rockets fly in a vacuum? Be useful (at least once in your whole useless life) and prove that they can... You can't? Of course you can't! You are of no use to anyone since you are a perfect example of useless eater, aren't you? If you think you are not, then prove me wrong! Do i ask too much of you? Don't worry, we all know you will never produce any useful argument whatsoever, however, despite that you will always find an excuse for being perfectly fine with living with yourself (as such), will you not? LOL
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: sokarul on July 20, 2019, 07:09:55 AM
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=81808.0
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 20, 2019, 07:19:16 AM
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=81808.0

It boils down to this :

Rocket doesn't need atmosphere. It pushes itself off own gasses.

Good luck with that.

Now, try to explain why and how rocket pushes itself off own gasses!

Oh wait, this is your explanation (isn't it) :

At the very moment of the exit, at that spot is not vacuum any more, those gasses are there still under pressure.
At the next moment they were gone backwards, but the rocket already received the increase of speed forward,
ready to receive next increase by the next layer of gasses.


Well,

Theoretical physics can prove that an elephant can hang off a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy!
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 20, 2019, 07:24:53 AM
@ Sokarul, maybe you would like to put next two paragraphs through their paces (in your own words) :

One other guy (below one other similar video) left this very interesting comment :

No... Rockets do not make what they push against to work. It's fluid dynamics...it does not matter if it's water... Or air... It works the exact same way...its like saying that a submarine makes the water that the propeller pushes against while it's on land.. people will agree that the submarine would not move..The same exact thing will happen to a rocket in space.. That is the dumbest and most idiotic wrong explanation of how rockets work that is even possible. Because space is as close of a perfect vacuum there is ...it is impossible to have thrust... Saying that a rocket pushes off it's own gas from combustion is ludicrous... It's no different than saying that you can blow hard enough into a vacuum cleaner and make positive pressure... A vacuum cleaner is a very extremely small fraction of the vacuum of space....just like a vacuum cleaner will suck the air right out of your lungs... Space will do the same exact thing to a rocket... Only many many many many many many many many times quicker and the molecules will go in every direction evenly making thrust  impossible ....using small box like this moron... You release pressure into the box and after the box gets to 0 pressure... The rocket.. "can"...will apply force to the container until there is enough pressure to prevent this from happening then it will push off of its own gasses inside the box... This does absolutely nothing but prove that you should not listen to anything this idiot says at all... ever... until he admits this experiment is flawed and invalid.  If he does not at least do that... Then he is purposely deceiving people....personally I think he is deceiving people. I work with pressures and vacuums every single day I work and I guarantee that there is not a single person on this planet that can prove what I said was incorrect or untrue.  He does not have a vacuum pump that is able to take the gasses out of that chamber as fast as its being put in... Like it would be in space....he pulled a vacuum and closed a valve taking the vacuum pump ..."space" out of the experiment....invalid experiment... And he got the wrong conclusion because the experiment was invalid...

In his next response he said this :

You still did not say that I was wrong... So what the fuck was the point of your comment because I don't see one... you are a troll that somehow benifits off of the deceptions of the government...if u can't prove me wrong... Than go fuck yourself ...if you can prove wrong me then do it....are you telling me you do not know how things move through water...because thats all you need to understand  for proof rockets do not work in a vacuum... It's really that simple....will a submarine move that is on land that makes  the water that the propeller pushes against even if there was no friction between the submarine and ground... You are telling people that the submarine would move... research articles for what... How things move through water?...the only person that is not being logical is you... And also... What was your point of throwing in the GPS reference... Is that the only counter argument you have against what I said...are you saying that rockets work in space because the GPS loses reception in a tunnel... Damn you are desperate for a counter argument if u  threw that in there...who ever gave you a high school diploma needs to be fired... That's if you didn't drop out... Which I think is most likely

Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: sokarul on July 20, 2019, 07:28:23 AM
Take the argument over to the other thread. It’s all explained there.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 20, 2019, 07:30:19 AM
First off : Apollo was not a hoax, but a straight up con of epic proportions.

Secondly : feel free to watch the best documentary ever uploaded on youtube about APOLLO - HOAX OF THE CENTURY (pay attention : download it, and reupload it on your channels, as soon as you can, since youtube is shutting my channel down) :

APOLLO - HOAX OF THE CENTURY - part 1 :

APOLLO - HOAX OF THE CENTURY - part 2 :

APOLLO - HOAX OF THE CENTURY - part 3 :

APOLLO - HOAX OF THE CENTURY - part 4 :

APOLLO - HOAX OF THE CENTURY - part 5 :


ON TOP OF THAT :

APOLLO HOAX - WHY RUSSIA NEVER SPILLED THE BEANS :


Moon landing propaganda is like software code being installed on people's brains. And it's purpose is to utterly warp a person's perception of their reality and their senses, to the point that they are likely to believe all manner of nonsense because once you accept that men have gone to the moon, a feat which I'm not even convinced will ever be within the realms of possibility seeing as there isn't even any evidence the moon is actually this rock in space that humans can fly to and land on, but once you accept this garbage you are much more likely to accept other totally unproven "facts" from these deceivers. Suddenly you have people believing unquestioningly the universe started with a big bang explosion from absolutely nothing that happened 14 billion years ago (impossible to know what happened 50,000 years ago let alone 14 BILLION, talk about total insanity) or that people evolved from bacteria in the ocean, all utter nonsense that can never ever be demonstrated, tested or proven in any way. Just math equations and computer models that are entirely made up. But once a person accepts just one of their mind warping propaganda programs, they inevitably end up believing them all.

I think the apollo missions play a big part in how people form their beliefs about the world and the universe so much so that accepting them as hoax would cause their worldviews to collapse and I don’t think most people today are ready to face that kind of a fundamental change in their lives. It changes everything. The apollo missions are nasa’s way of proving to people that they got all the answers and that everything is the way they claim it is because they’re the only ones that have been out there. Now you have billions of people in the world who believe in them and their doctrine and anyone who disagrees with them is portrayed as an insane paranoid conspiracy theorist. The technique used by narcissists to destroy the credibility of their victims.

Simple OFFICIAL science debunks the moon landing. - It's called Van Allen Belt, the radiation would kill everyone and all electronics. The materials used aluminum, nickel/iron, and titanium would have all melted due to the extreme radiation and temperatures.
How could they survive the radiation and high temperature, WITH THAT SUITE. i think that a bunch of fan could never handle that, cause that (include all things on back pack) will broken and become unusable on such a hot temperatures...Just how... is it calculated to know the temperature on the moon? Being the moon is some 1/4 million miles away? The temps calculated for the earth are not always accurate, let-alone to tell us the temps on the moons surface are such.  Are they shooting a beam to the moon such as one checking the temp of his steak on the grill? A 1/4 million miles away. Forgive—a thermometer was stuck in the soil upon arrival.

Our measurments show that the maximum radiation level as of 1958 is equivalent to between 10 and 100 roentgens per hour, depending on the still-undetermined proportion of protons to electrons. Since a human being exposed for two days to even 10 roentgens would have only an even chance of survival, the radiation belts obviously present an obstacle to space flight. Unless some practical way can be found to shield space-travelers against the effects of the radiation, manned space rockets can best take off through the radiation-free zone over the poles. A "space station" must orbit below 400 miles or beyond 30 000 miles from the earth. We are now planning a satellite flight that will test the efficacy of various methods of shielding. The hazard of space-travelers may not even end even when they have passed the terrestrial radiation belts... James Van Allen

Do tell where all the O2 was kept for them to breathe, for a scuba divers tank will only last for about an hour without complicated rebreather technology. Surly there was no such device then. -Two astronots breathing 02 from the time they left earth, to the time they returned to earth about seven days just where was all this 02 stored? A SCUBA divers tank which holds 80 cubit feet of air would calculate to 13,440 cubic feet of air needed for roughly 7 days just for two people. The air locks between the lunar rover and the outside, none. NONE!!! Fantasy the lot.

In1986 I was a 2nd Lt. and a newly minted, USAF officer and aviator, flying C-130s. One of my first operational missions was to fly some troops to Andrews AFB. We stayed in D.C. for two days. On one day, we wemt to the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum. When I saw the LEM and especially when I saw the lunar rover exhibit, a life size mock-up, I told one of my crewmates, another 2nd Lt., copilot, that this is b.s., no way they landed the LEM with that rover. After seeing that exhibit, I started questioning the veracity of the lunar landings. Most professional aviators do not have the balls to even question the lunar missions, let alone say that they were fake. Look at 911, any active aviator who questions 911 will be grounded. Few will say a thing when they know the Pentagon strike was a virtual impossibility. John Basilone

Blazing Saddles, Boyz in the Hood, Star Wars, and Back to the Future are just a few of the hundreds of films collected in the Library of Congress. But we’re to believe NASA can’t preserve the telemetry data from the moon missions. Hahahahahah!!!
Don’t get me wrong. Those are all great films but I believe the significance of the moon data  may be just a tad bit more important. I guess it’s hard to hold on to something that never existed.

"The only bird who can talk is the Parrot and he didn't fly very well.. There are great ideas left undiscovered to those who can peel away one of truths most protective layers."
- Neil Armstrong --------- Don't be a parrot people..

IN ADDITION :

ROCKETS CAN'T FLY IN A VACUUM :


One other guy (below one other similar video) left this very interesting comment :

No... Rockets do not make what they push against to work. It's fluid dynamics...it does not matter if it's water... Or air... It works the exact same way...its like saying that a submarine makes the water that the propeller pushes against while it's on land.. people will agree that the submarine would not move..The same exact thing will happen to a rocket in space.. That is the dumbest and most idiotic wrong explanation of how rockets work that is even possible. Because space is as close of a perfect vacuum there is ...it is impossible to have thrust... Saying that a rocket pushes off it's own gas from combustion is ludicrous... It's no different than saying that you can blow hard enough into a vacuum cleaner and make positive pressure... A vacuum cleaner is a very extremely small fraction of the vacuum of space....just like a vacuum cleaner will suck the air right out of your lungs... Space will do the same exact thing to a rocket... Only many many many many many many many many times quicker and the molecules will go in every direction evenly making thrust  impossible ....using small box like this moron... You release pressure into the box and after the box gets to 0 pressure... The rocket.. "can"...will apply force to the container until there is enough pressure to prevent this from happening then it will push off of its own gasses inside the box... This does absolutely nothing but prove that you should not listen to anything this idiot says at all... ever... until he admits this experiment is flawed and invalid.  If he does not at least do that... Then he is purposely deceiving people....personally I think he is deceiving people. I work with pressures and vacuums every single day I work and I guarantee that there is not a single person on this planet that can prove what I said was incorrect or untrue.  He does not have a vacuum pump that is able to take the gasses out of that chamber as fast as its being put in... Like it would be in space....he pulled a vacuum and closed a valve taking the vacuum pump ..."space" out of the experiment....invalid experiment... And he got the wrong conclusion because the experiment was invalid...

In his next response he said this :

You still did not say that I was wrong... So what the fuck was the point of your comment because I don't see one... you are a troll that somehow benifits off of the deceptions of the government...if u can't prove me wrong... Than go fuck yourself ...if you can prove wrong me then do it....are you telling me you do not know how things move through water...because thats all you need to understand  for proof rockets do not work in a vacuum... It's really that simple....will a submarine move that is on land that makes  the water that the propeller pushes against even if there was no friction between the submarine and ground... You are telling people that the submarine would move... research articles for what... How things move through water?...the only person that is not being logical is you... And also... What was your point of throwing in the GPS reference... Is that the only counter argument you have against what I said...are you saying that rockets work in space because the GPS loses reception in a tunnel... Damn you are desperate for a counter argument if u  threw that in there...who ever gave you a high school diploma needs to be fired... That's if you didn't drop out... Which I think is most likely

Finally, look what happens when you fly over the target :

Two days ago i uploaded video by the name YOUTUBE IS SHUTTING DOWN MY CHANNEL, and after a few hours they shut that video, too, so feel free to acquaint yourself with their fake excuse by reading just a few excerpts from my "hate speech" video :
https://i.postimg.cc/HWzxHpzV/1-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-3-1.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/0jXPSyXn/2-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-4.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/PJ7nxFNF/3-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-4-1.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/fyp1ZtgG/4-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-4-2.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/x8wpBrXY/5-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-4-3.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/N0GtdThD/6-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-4-4.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/90ZsmF5z/7-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-4-5.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/YSPPQmth/8-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-4-6.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/L4LWZXw8/9-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-4-7.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/xdXxjTLY/10-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-4-8.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/G3FMmfTB/11-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-5.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/fWfKN01m/12-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-6.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/9QKPpPq5/13-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-6-1.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/CM7jtpf4/14-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-6-2.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/rwBWW8vq/15-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-6-3.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/PJVvqhWs/16-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-6-4.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/13qVyk42/17-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-6-5.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/QxBHq2gC/18-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-6-6.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/FKxRRNvW/19-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-5.jpg

I made this collage of screenshots on this guy's request :
https://i.postimg.cc/c4hz1ztx/YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-SEI-SHIN.jpg
Thanks !!!!

I am going to check it all out !!

You welcome! You won't be disappointed!
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 20, 2019, 07:33:10 AM
Take the argument over to the other thread. It’s all explained there.

If it is explained there, then you don't even have to use your own words, you can simply quote few most important (crucial) sentences (that make the core of your argument), can't you?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: sokarul on July 20, 2019, 07:42:09 AM

(https://j.gifs.com/7L4J9Q.gif)
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 20, 2019, 08:02:28 AM

(https://j.gifs.com/7L4J9Q.gif)

You haven't noticed (since you haven't watched it, in the first place), but this scientist is referring to your argument (as well) in the video :



ON TOP OF THAT, I AM GOING TO USE SOMEONE ELSE'S WORDS (ON THIS MATTER) AGAIN (SORRY FOR THAT) :

I still don't see how this explains why rockets can provide thrust in a vacuum at all, one must be foolish to take this as a valid experiment. The balloon pressurized the vacuum and gave it something to push off of, along with the walls of the chamber itself. The only way to prove either side is to get an infinite vacuum and a rocket inside of it (Good luck getting the funding!!). Some may attempt explaining this by stating the example of a person throwing a cinder block standing on a skateboard and relating it to a rocket forcing out hot expanding gasses, but they are different. One is like firing a heavy round from a rifle, and the other is firing a blank, except the rifles are fired in an infinite vacuum. Rockets work in an infinite vacuum only in a NASA studio paid for with our taxes. I will try to address the explanation given by InfernoVortex, there is no gas in space that expands to push the rocket, the rocket thrust doesn't have mass for the rocket to push off of and a vacuum would dissipate the hot gases very quickly. This is the most absurd claim ever. Now to wait for all the little scientists to tell me I'm stupid and say "Its science silly, you are just too stupid to understand it."

The Action Lab ....please explain how a rocket pushes off it's own gas... That's got to  the dumbest reason I have ever heard as the reason a rocket would work in space... So as an example... You are stating a rocket has an exhaust of 100 Psi then it ejects exhaust at 500 psi and this is how rockets work?....instead of the very obvious reason the can has thrust in  this example is because force is being applied to the container...in order for Newton's third law a force must be applied to something else in order to be able to get an opposite reaction....so with a rocket that weighs a million lbs in space... The rocket would have to apply 1 million pounds of thrust off of something just to get it to begin to move...
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: mightyfletch on July 20, 2019, 08:12:57 AM
The Apollo landings all happened as advertised. (This is super easy)

Rockets: The spacecraft is propelled away from the gases when they are expelled. It doesn't push off empty space. It's like if you kick someone in space, you'll drift back as well.  That's a super simple concept even a child can understand.

Apollo 15 left a retroreflector on the moon.  You can aim a poweeful laser at it from Earth and no matter what the angle of incidence, it will reflect back (that's what a retroreflector is). Using this ranging technique, you cam also measure the curvature of Earth and see that it is indeed a globe.

There's video proof of Neil Armstrong flying a training mission at Edwards AFB, showing you can land the LEM.  On the moon, it's easier, because the gravity is weaker.

Radio signals:

Every nation on Earth could have independently verified the lunar landings since our radio signals were coming from the moon.  Russia had every reason to capitalize on the propoganda win of a faked landing.

Supporting evidence:
Weather: You can gather the weather observations of all the weather stations across the U.S. and they match up with the film they shot on their departure to the moon.

The live video was shot in 10 frames per second.  You can't slow that down for some effect. That's not how overcranking works. Also, it was live. 

Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: mightyfletch on July 20, 2019, 08:27:05 AM

(https://j.gifs.com/7L4J9Q.gif)

You haven't noticed (since you haven't watched it, in the first place), but this scientist is referring to your argument (as well) in the video :



ON TOP OF THAT, I AM GOING TO USE SOMEONE ELSE'S WORDS (ON THIS MATTER) AGAIN (SORRY FOR THAT) :

I still don't see how this explains why rockets can provide thrust in a vacuum at all, one must be foolish to take this as a valid experiment. The balloon pressurized the vacuum and gave it something to push off of, along with the walls of the chamber itself. The only way to prove either side is to get an infinite vacuum and a rocket inside of it (Good luck getting the funding!!). Some may attempt explaining this by stating the example of a person throwing a cinder block standing on a skateboard and relating it to a rocket forcing out hot expanding gasses, but they are different. One is like firing a heavy round from a rifle, and the other is firing a blank, except the rifles are fired in an infinite vacuum. Rockets work in an infinite vacuum only in a NASA studio paid for with our taxes. I will try to address the explanation given by InfernoVortex, there is no gas in space that expands to push the rocket, the rocket thrust doesn't have mass for the rocket to push off of and a vacuum would dissipate the hot gases very quickly. This is the most absurd claim ever. Now to wait for all the little scientists to tell me I'm stupid and say "Its science silly, you are just too stupid to understand it."

The Action Lab ....please explain how a rocket pushes off it's own gas... That's got to  the dumbest reason I have ever heard as the reason a rocket would work in space... So as an example... You are stating a rocket has an exhaust of 100 Psi then it ejects exhaust at 500 psi and this is how rockets work?....instead of the very obvious reason the can has thrust in  this example is because force is being applied to the container...in order for Newton's third law a force must be applied to something else in order to be able to get an opposite reaction....so with a rocket that weighs a million lbs in space... The rocket would have to apply 1 million pounds of thrust off of something just to get it to begin to move...

Think of it this way.  Place a bomb next to a soccerball.  The soccerball with fly off away from the ball when the bomb explodes.  This bomb does not rely on the air pressure around it to do this, but the explosive material inside it.  Now take a bullet.  When you fire it from a gun, the bullet will still travel fast, regardless of any air behind it.  So, with a rocket, the body of the rocket moves because the rockets fuel is directing a very powerful explosion in one direction.  That exploding fire doesn't rely on air to push the rocket body.  It relies on the tons of exploding rocket fuel for this force.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Macarios on July 20, 2019, 08:55:21 AM
Theoretical physics can prove that an elephant can hang off a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy!

Too bad the Earth was allready measured hundreds of thousands of times as a globe
and theoretical physics can't prove it was flat any more. :)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Prove that the rocket propellant has no mass and velocity,
and you will prove that the rocket can't work in vacuum.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: wise on July 20, 2019, 10:10:59 AM
HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY to all !
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 20, 2019, 10:17:42 AM
Theoretical physics can prove that an elephant can hang off a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy!

Too bad the Earth was allready measured hundreds of thousands of times as a globe
and theoretical physics can't prove it was flat any more. :)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Prove that the rocket propellant has no mass and velocity,
and you will prove that the rocket can't work in vacuum.

Who is talking about flat earth here? You know very well that i don't believe in flat-earth stupid theory, and despite that you bring in the discussion totally unrelated topic. Only total idiots and lowlife scumbags use such derailing/deceptive techniques in order to try to discredit their opponents...

The fact that the nozzle makes the car go slower is the fact that the escaping air in the nozzle expands (pressure drop) and slows down, is the nozzle to big then the force isn't big enough to pusch the car.
Thats why rockets need different nozzles (for max performance) depending on the air pressure.

And let's have a look at rockets flying in a vacuum :

NASA sais : Its Newtons third law, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction

so when i push against a wall with 50 kg the wall pushes back with 50 kg ????

  - A wall is lifeless and can't pusch back (reaction) ??
  - something opposite is equal ??

doesn't sound that right does it, when i push against a wall and the wall does not move, it's not pushing back but RESISTING my action from 50 kg and it feels to me as if the wall would be pusching.

so resistance is a very importent part of newtons third law

let's look at a example with a football :

  1. i kick a football made of concreet that can not move with 50 kg, to me it would feel as if the football would hit my foot with 50 kg so Fr = -Fa x 1 (1 is the factor of resistance = max)

  2. this time it is a normal football, it won't feel to me as if the football hits my foot with 50 kg but maybe only 25kg so Fr = -Fa x 0.5

  3. and when i kick and miss the football (resistance = zero / vacuum) i dont feel any force on my foot so Fr = - Fa x 0


you can also do the same experiment with a wall,
When it is fixed on the ground you can't move it, put it on some wheels then you can move it and you will experience a smaller force
And ofcourse when you try this on ice (very low resistance) nothing will move because you can't push without the necessary resistance that stops your feet from slipping

Then why do they teach newton's third law as beeing Fr=-Fa and not Fr=-Fa x r (resistance coefficient)
Well if they don't hide the fact that resistance is needed they can't keep the space myth alive

ACCOMPANYING VIDEO :
ROCKETS CAN'T FLY IN A VACUUM - 2 :
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: sokarul on July 20, 2019, 10:34:32 AM
Theoretical physics can prove that an elephant can hang off a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy!

Too bad the Earth was allready measured hundreds of thousands of times as a globe
and theoretical physics can't prove it was flat any more. :)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Prove that the rocket propellant has no mass and velocity,
and you will prove that the rocket can't work in vacuum.

Who is talking about flat earth here? You know very well that i don't believe in flat-earth stupid theory, and despite that you bring in the discussion totally unrelated topic. Only total idiots and lowlife scumbags use such derailing/deceptive techniques in order to try to discredit their opponents...

The fact that the nozzle makes the car go slower is the fact that the escaping air in the nozzle expands (pressure drop) and slows down, is the nozzle to big then the force isn't big enough to pusch the car.
Thats why rockets need different nozzles (for max performance) depending on the air pressure.

And let's have a look at rockets flying in a vacuum :

NASA sais : Its Newtons third law, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction

so when i push against a wall with 50 kg the wall pushes back with 50 kg ????

  - A wall is lifeless and can't pusch back (reaction) ??
  - something opposite is equal ??

doesn't sound that right does it, when i push against a wall and the wall does not move, it's not pushing back but RESISTING my action from 50 kg and it feels to me as if the wall would be pusching.

so resistance is a very importent part of newtons third law

let's look at a example with a football :

  1. i kick a football made of concreet that can not move with 50 kg, to me it would feel as if the football would hit my foot with 50 kg so Fr = -Fa x 1 (1 is the factor of resistance = max)

  2. this time it is a normal football, it won't feel to me as if the football hits my foot with 50 kg but maybe only 25kg so Fr = -Fa x 0.5

  3. and when i kick and miss the football (resistance = zero / vacuum) i dont feel any force on my foot so Fr = - Fa x 0


you can also do the same experiment with a wall,
When it is fixed on the ground you can't move it, put it on some wheels then you can move it and you will experience a smaller force
And ofcourse when you try this on ice (very low resistance) nothing will move because you can't push without the necessary resistance that stops your feet from slipping

Then why do they teach newton's third law as beeing Fr=-Fa and not Fr=-Fa x r (resistance coefficient)
Well if they don't hide the fact that resistance is needed they can't keep the space myth alive

ACCOMPANYING VIDEO :
ROCKETS CAN'T FLY IN A VACUUM - 2 :


Instead of kicking a football push it with your hands. It will look something like this.


(https://j.gifs.com/7L4J9Q.gif)

See how air plays zero part in this.  It's all about the mass of the ball and how hard you can push it.

Glad we got that cleared up. Unless of course you can "Prove that the rocket propellant has no mass and velocity," as Macarios has asked.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Macarios on July 20, 2019, 03:10:27 PM
Theoretical physics can prove that an elephant can hang off a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy!

Too bad the Earth was allready measured hundreds of thousands of times as a globe
and theoretical physics can't prove it was flat any more. :)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Prove that the rocket propellant has no mass and velocity,
and you will prove that the rocket can't work in vacuum.

Who is talking about flat earth here? You know very well that i don't believe in flat-earth stupid theory, and despite that you bring in the discussion totally unrelated topic. Only total idiots and lowlife scumbags use such derailing/deceptive techniques in order to try to discredit their opponents...

My apologies if you thought that he comment about the FE was pointing at you.
This is FE forum and you aren't the only one that reas messages here.

I should've been more specific. My bad.

BTW, I don't need to "discredit you" for any reason, we are not talking about you or me here.

The fact that the nozzle makes the car go slower is the fact that the escaping air in the nozzle expands (pressure drop) and slows down, is the nozzle to big then the force isn't big enough to pusch the car.
Thats why rockets need different nozzles (for max performance) depending on the air pressure.

And let's have a look at rockets flying in a vacuum :

NASA sais : Its Newtons third law, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction

so when i push against a wall with 50 kg the wall pushes back with 50 kg ????

  - A wall is lifeless and can't pusch back (reaction) ??
  - something opposite is equal ??

doesn't sound that right does it, when i push against a wall and the wall does not move, it's not pushing back but RESISTING my action from 50 kg and it feels to me as if the wall would be pusching.

so resistance is a very importent part of newtons third law

let's look at a example with a football :

  1. i kick a football made of concreet that can not move with 50 kg, to me it would feel as if the football would hit my foot with 50 kg so Fr = -Fa x 1 (1 is the factor of resistance = max)

  2. this time it is a normal football, it won't feel to me as if the football hits my foot with 50 kg but maybe only 25kg so Fr = -Fa x 0.5

  3. and when i kick and miss the football (resistance = zero / vacuum) i dont feel any force on my foot so Fr = - Fa x 0


you can also do the same experiment with a wall,
When it is fixed on the ground you can't move it, put it on some wheels then you can move it and you will experience a smaller force
And ofcourse when you try this on ice (very low resistance) nothing will move because you can't push without the necessary resistance that stops your feet from slipping

Then why do they teach newton's third law as beeing Fr=-Fa and not Fr=-Fa x r (resistance coefficient)
Well if they don't hide the fact that resistance is needed they can't keep the space myth alive

ACCOMPANYING VIDEO :
ROCKETS CAN'T FLY IN A VACUUM - 2 :


Rocket uses long lasting controlled explosion to get pushed by its blast.

~~~~~~~~~~

When the gasses in the combustion chamber burn they gain temperature, which means their molecules gain kinetic energy.
It increases pressure and the gasses are trying to expand.
Combustion chamber is closed on all sides except where the nozzle is.
All walls get pressed by the expanding gasses (kicked by the molecules) except the apperture.
That's where the gasses are expanding through.

As you can see, the pressure (the distribution of forces) is asymmetrical making the chamber (and the rocket with it) move to the opposite from the opening.

Additionally, the more force is gained by further expansion of the gasses in the nozzle, where the pressure forces are also asymmetrically distributed.

~~~~~~~~~~

The Red force does not get balanced by Light Blue force, because Light Blue force doesn't press the opposite wall of the combustion chamber (the gasses "just" get out):
(http://i63.tinypic.com/ac4zlj.png)

~~~~~~~~~~

Further violent expansion of gasses inside the nozzle pushes the rocket additionally:
(http://i68.tinypic.com/pp3c4.png)


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

About the video you linked, you were right.
Any space agency, not just NASA, would use properly calculated nozzle instead of anything similar to the one those two guys used.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: JackBlack on July 20, 2019, 03:27:49 PM
First up, rockets can fly in a vacuum.

Secondly, NASA didn't have the technology to fake the moon landings.

feel free to watch the best documentary ever uploaded on youtube about APOLLO - HOAX OF THE CENTURY
Being the best documentary on a lie doesn't magically make it true.
How about instead of providing a documentary filled with nonsense you try making a rational argument, even if it is just presenting one from the documentary?


Moon landing propaganda is like software code being installed on people's brains. And it's purpose is to utterly warp a person's perception of their reality and their senses, to the point that they are likely to believe all manner of nonsense because once you accept that men have gone to the moon, a feat which I'm not even convinced will ever be within the realms of possibility seeing as there isn't even any evidence the moon is actually this rock in space that humans can fly to and land on, but once you accept this garbage you are much more likely to accept other totally unproven "facts" from these deceivers.
So what you really mean is when people start to accept one part of reality and see that a religion is wrong, they are more likely to accept more points that show that religion is wrong, instead of blindly following religious indoctrination?

Simple OFFICIAL science debunks the moon landing.
No it doesn't, not in the slightest.
Instead it confirms it, such as by the subsequent space probes that went to the moon and photographed the landing sites, and the retroreflectors placed on the moon to bounce light off it.

It's called Van Allen Belt
A region of radiation that the Apollo craft went mainly around, rather than through.
If you wish to claim that the radiation would be lethal and fry the electronics you will need more than an assertion.

The materials used aluminum, nickel/iron, and titanium would have all melted due to the extreme radiation and temperatures.
The radiation would not cause it to melt. That is just pure nonsense.
What makes you think it would?
As for the extreme temperatures, the thermal mass of the minuscule amount of gas they passed through was minuscule and thus would be unable to melt them.
Just like you can stick your hand in an oven at 250 C and not get burnt, unless you leave it in there for quite some time.


Our measurments show that the maximum radiation level as of 1958 is equivalent to between 10 and 100 roentgens per hour, depending on the still-undetermined proportion of protons to electrons. Since a human being exposed for two days to even 10 roentgens would have only an even chance of survival, the radiation belts obviously present an obstacle to space flight. Unless some practical way can be found to shield space-travelers against the effects of the radiation, manned space rockets can best take off through the radiation-free zone over the poles. A "space station" must orbit below 400 miles or beyond 30 000 miles from the earth. We are now planning a satellite flight that will test the efficacy of various methods of shielding. The hazard of space-travelers may not even end even when they have passed the terrestrial radiation belts... James Van Allen
You really need a better citation for that. Not just "Van Allen".
Where did he say this?

The roentgen was an exposure for x-rays and gamma rays, not for protons and electrons.
The actual dose given to a person will vary depending on the radiation (including its energy).

So there is no basis to conclude it was lethal.
Also note that they didn't just send people straight through the belt and instead followed a trajectory which avoided the majority of the radiation.

If you want to assert that the belts would be a problem you need more than an old quote.

Do tell where all the O2 was kept for them to breathe, for a scuba divers tank will only last for about an hour without complicated rebreather technology.
Do you know why? As there are many factors.
Firstly, the scuba divers don't just sit around at the surface. Instead they dive deep into water, often going 10s or 100s of m down.
Do you know what happens then? The pressure increases.
In order for lungs to work, the air pressure inside them needs to be the same as the outside pressure.
This means instead of drawing in a volume of air at 1 atm, they will draw it in at multiples of atm.
This is a very large waste of air. For example, if a tank held 80 cubic feet of air at 1 atm, breathing it in at 10 atm would only provide 8 cubic feet.
So if instead of just wasting all that air due to the greater pressure, how long do you think it would last at 1 atm, or a lower pressure?

Then there is the difficulty of the rebreather.
It is complex because of where it is.
You need to capture the users exhaled breath, without providing too much resistance to making breathing hard, and then give them back the oxygen.
On a spacecraft it is much easier. They just need a CO2 scrubber and make up gas.

Also note that rebreathers are much older than you think. People were already starting to make them in the 1800s.

A SCUBA divers tank which holds 80 cubit feet of air would calculate to 13,440 cubic feet of air needed for roughly 7 days just for two people.
Based upon the assumption that they need 80 cubic feet of air per 2 hours.
Where did you pull this number from?
Just your earlier claims based upon scuba divers at high pressure wasting a lot of oxygen?

A quick search indicates humans use roughly 500 l of oxygen each day. This works out to be ~ 7000 l of oxygen or 250 cubic feet.
If that is compressed to 200 bar then you only need 35 l of compressed oxygen, or just over a cubic foot.

So there was plenty of space for that air.


Your quote from some random just rejecting the idea of moon landing doesn't support your case either.
He provides no justification for why he called BS.

Blazing Saddles, Boyz in the Hood, Star Wars, and Back to the Future are just a few of the hundreds of films collected in the Library of Congress. But we’re to believe NASA can’t preserve the telemetry data from the moon missions. Hahahahahah!!!
They have preserved the telemetry, just not on the original media.
Do you understand the difference?
But even if they did lose all the data, that proves nothing.
It doesn't magically mean the moon landings are fake.

See unlike movies, there was only one take as it was the real deal. That can make it much harder to preserve.
Movies have countless takes which is then all stitched together to produce the final product which is mass produced and distributed.

ROCKETS CAN'T FLY IN A VACUUM :
Unless you want to discard how pressure works and conservation of momentum, they do work in a vacuum.

If you would like to provide an argument as to why they can't, feel free. But I will skip your youtube spam.

If you do decide to make an argument, please explain what happens to the gas generated inside the rocket, and as a hint, it can't go out in all directions as the rocket blocks the majority of those directions.

so feel free to acquaint yourself with their fake excuse by reading just a few excerpts from my "hate speech" video :
Youtube shutting down your channel is irreverent to the moon landings.
Posting a few snippets from a video which was taken down for hate speech doesn't show that there was no hate speech in the video. You would need to provide the entire video.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: magellanclavichord on July 20, 2019, 03:39:32 PM
Happy Moon Day everyone! Today is the 50th anniversary of the day that NASA sent Stanley Kubrick to the moon to fake Neil Armstrong's moon walk on location.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: JackBlack on July 20, 2019, 03:49:22 PM
The only way to prove either side is to get an infinite vacuum and a rocket inside of it (Good luck getting the funding!!).
You mean like taking a rocket into space and having it still work?

We did that, but your side dismisses it as fake because you baselessly assert that rockets can't work in a vacuum.

And no, you don't need to do that.
Simple physics shows that rockets MUST work in a vacuum.
There is no doubt about it.

so when i push against a wall with 50 kg the wall pushes back with 50 kg ????
  - A wall is lifeless and can't pusch back (reaction) ??
  - something opposite is equal ??
doesn't sound that right does it, when i push against a wall and the wall does not move, it's not pushing back but RESISTING my action from 50 kg and it feels to me as if the wall would be pusching.
You not liking it means squat.

Equal and opposite is really equal in magnitude but opposite in direction.
i.e. if you push right with 50 N, the wall pushes left with 50 N.

Firstly, you don't push with 50 kg. kg is a unit of mass, not force.
Lets change it to 50 N.
Also, lets add a box in the middle, you will see why this is important.
So now you apply 50 N to the box towards the right. This will accelerate the box off to the right.
But the wall is in the way. This means the 50 N would be applied to the wall. But just doing that still leaves 50 N being applied to the box.
This means the box has to accelerate.
The only way to prevent the box accelerating is if the wall pushes to the left with 50 N.
This then means the total force on the box is 0 N.

See how the wall has to push back to have reality make sense?
This "resistance" you want to pretend is just resistance is actually the equal and opposite reaction force.

So no, Newton's third law still holds true.
Applying that to a rocket, that means the gasses accelerating out of the rocket push the rocket, without any need for any air around the rocket.

  2. this time it is a normal football, it won't feel to me as if the football hits my foot with 50 kg but maybe only 25kg so Fr = -Fa x 0.5
Pure nonsense.
What are you using to determine what force it feels like?
Especially as you don't magically just kick with 50 N.

What is actually varying is the compressability of the ball and its inertia.
With a solid ball which is very heavy, your 50 N force will be unable to move it any significant amount and your foot will be stopped quite quickly.
This means the force experienced will actually be much higher as it stops your foot over a very short period of time.
With a soft, compressible ball, the ball initially deforms, requiring much less force, because it is no longer needing to stop your foot quite quickly.
In both cases, the action and reaction force are equal.

  3. and when i kick and miss the football (resistance = zero / vacuum) i dont feel any force on my foot so
So your foot is not applying a force. Wow, 0=0, who would have thought.

you can also do the same experiment with a wall
And while different you will get similar results.
If the wall is fixed, then you are pushing against it and you can apply a very large force and feel it all pushing back.
Put on some wheels then if you apply enough force you will move the wall and find it harder to apply the same force to it as before.
Go on ice so your feet slip, you no longer have the capability of pushing on the wall because to do so and remain fixed in place the ground is also pushing you to hold you in place. With the much lower friction between you and the ground, you can no longer apply a significant lateral force to the ground and thus it can't apply one back to you, so you can't push the wall to the side.

Again, in all cases, Fa=Fr.

Then why do they teach newton's third law as beeing Fr=-Fa and not Fr=-Fa x r (resistance coefficient)
Because that is a load of nonsense, not backed up by reality at all.
Changing the resistance will change how much force you can apply. This means it changes both Fa and Fr. Also note that the inertia of the object will also change the resistance.
An example of this is try pushing a very light object on wheels, then a very heavy one.
A car, even on wheels, is much harder to get moving than a skateboard.

If you wish to object to Newton's third law, deal with the box example.
What holds the box there if the wall doesn't push back?

Then you can start dealing with pressure.

A rocket produces pressurised gas.
This gas wants to expand in all direction, pushing outwards as it does so.
In the vast majority of these directions, it runs into the rocket and pushes on the rocket. If it was entirely enclosed, this would be balanced in all directions resulting in no net force.
But it isn't. One portion of the rocket has an opening which allows the gas to escape. This means the force on the rocket will not be balanced and you get a net force pushing the rocket forwards. The reactionary force pushes the gas out of the rocket.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: rabinoz on July 20, 2019, 04:06:02 PM
You are useless.
He probably hit a nerve somewhere !!

Is he treathening your sacred ‘munlundings’ ?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: rabinoz on July 20, 2019, 04:16:22 PM
Then why do they teach newton's third law as beeing Fr=-Fa and not Fr=-Fa x r (resistance coefficient)
For the simple reason that Fr = -Fa and "resistance coefficient" is quite a meaningless concept here!

Quote from: cikljamas
Well if they don't hide the fact that resistance is needed they can't keep the space myth alive

ACCOMPANYING VIDEO :
ROCKETS CAN'T FLY IN A VACUUM - 2 :

I hope you realise that most of the thrust of a rocket comes from the (mass flow rate) x (exhaust velocity) and tacking diffusers etc on the end kills most of that!
So run away with you crappy "conclusive proofs".
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: dutchy on July 21, 2019, 03:02:19 AM


This one i really like... how many nails does one have to stick in the coffin of Apollo ?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: rabinoz on July 21, 2019, 03:20:26 AM


This one i really like... how many nails does one have to stick in the coffin of Apollo ?
I'm not going to waste time transcribing the relevant parts of a 22 min 59 sec video to find a rusty nail or two.

So, you go through it and list the salient point and list them along with their times in the video.

Much obliged!

PS By the way the maker of that video is odiupicku who posts fake photos to "prove ::)" NASA's photos fake ;D!
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: dutchy on July 21, 2019, 03:28:45 AM


This one i really like... how many nails does one have to stick in the coffin of Apollo ?
I'm not going to waste time transcribing the relevant parts of a 22 min 59 sec video to find a rusty nail or two.

So, you go through it and list the salient point and list them along with their times in the video.

Much obliged!

PS By the way the maker of that video is odiupicku who posts fake photos to "prove ::)" NASA's photos fake ;D!
Yes that happens at times.
We cannot keep a record of all updated versions of reality from NASA and what currently is considered fake.

It all started with the Michael Collins Gemini spacewalk... that happened to be a reversed shot from a testing facility on earth.
But then it was claimed by the repair team that NASA had nothing to do with it. It were the evil actions of a small publisher who did it with a couple of cissors  ;D

Jay Windley & co have lifted the NASA repair team to the next level.

Ps i did watch your entire Buzz video.... and i liked it !
I thank you for that because Buzz claims they could not simulate 1/6 gravity on earth ...never heard that one before from Buzz.
I think you should watch the video, .... i always watch yours ! ;)

Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: wise on July 21, 2019, 04:08:17 AM
I'm not going to waste time transcribing the relevant parts of a 22 min 59 sec video to find a rusty nail or two.

So, you go through it and list the salient point and list them along with their times in the video.

Much obliged!

PS By the way the maker of that video is odiupicku who posts fake photos to "prove ::)" NASA's photos fake ;D!

Do you have an explanation how the operation continued while the survival operation temperature limit was 60 degrees celcius but 107 degrees exist on the moon? Your tears can not cool down the temperature.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: rabinoz on July 21, 2019, 05:05:33 AM
I'm not going to waste time transcribing the relevant parts of a 22 min 59 sec video to find a rusty nail or two.

So, you go through it and list the salient point and list them along with their times in the video.

Much obliged!

PS By the way the maker of that video is odiupicku who posts fake photos to "prove ::)" NASA's photos fake ;D!

Do you have an explanation how the operation continued while the survival operation temperature limit was 60 degrees celcius but 107 degrees exist on the moon? Your tears can not cool down the temperature.
How do you know the temperature on the moon when the astronauts were there? Were YOU there to measure it?

But, yes I have some idea of the temperature control used in the Landing Module and the Command Module..
First you must remember that in the direct sunlight the surface temperature might reach 260C but on the shade side radiate heat away and can get as cold as -100C.
So the temperature can be controlled be balancing the heat in on one side with the heat out on the other.
NASA had carefully planned all this long before.

Read more detail in: How did the air conditioning work on Apollo 11 lunar landing module? (https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-air-conditioning-work-on-Apollo-11-lunar-landing-module)
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 21, 2019, 05:41:20 AM
The laws of physics asserts that humans and every other living, walking, running, jumping, crawling, flying or swimming creature and all man-made machines that move on wheels, tracks and legs, fly or hover with propellers, rotors, jets or rockets must have the inherent ability to thrust against a separate external resistant force in order to be able to physically move in a chosen direction.

Consider this:

Since space is, as we currently understand it, a vacuum with zero air pressure, the only way to make a rocket appear to be able to work in space would be to somehow demonstrate that, (unlike everything else on Earth), a rocket does not require the separate external resistant force of air pressure to thrust against.

Naturally, this premise could only be possible if there was a scientific method of rocket propulsion that looked authentic. A method that seemed so credible it would make people believe a rocket could work, not only in the dense atmosphere of Earth, but also in the airless void of space. A method that was plausible enough to brainwash the entire world into believing a rocket could really work in a vacuum.

And the only way to do that would be to completely disregard the laws of physics, utilise a skewed version of Newton’s third law and then advance the fanciful premise that a rockets thrust could push away from its own rocket and the rocket body could push away from its own thrust, thereby achieving upward motion by becoming self-perpetuating.

To demonstrate this ‘self-perpetuating’ premise, NASA created their ‘bowling ball’ model.
 
This model asserts that, if you stand on a skateboard with a bowling ball and you throw the ball away from you, the action will cause you and the skateboard to move in the opposite direction to the bowling ball. (Naturally, you would get exactly the same effect standing on a skateboard and pushing against a solid wall).

But does it really prove a rocket can work in a vacuum?

There is no denying that If you stand on a skate board and throw the bowling ball away, you and the skateboard will indeed move in the opposite direction to the bowling ball. This is because, by throwing the bowling ball away, you have basically pushed against a resistant object that is separate from you, (like a solid wall).

So, INERTIA (of the bowling ball) is the magic word (an explanation) that you are looking for (which is behind this fraudulent NASA's "scientific" method.

Do i have to remind you to one other equally fraudulent NASA's "scientific" method that should have looked authentic (dropping a ball in a moving train/airplane)???

I destroyed (for good) this other (dropping a ball within enclosed moving object) NASA's fraudulent method by offering my own irrefutable counter-argument ("CONCORDE" thought experiment).

HERE IT IS : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78814.msg2128697#msg2128697

Now, back on the track :

Pay attention to this very important (exposing) aspect of NASA's fraudulent method (bowling ball) :
In which exact moment does our guy (on the skateboard) starts to move back (in the video posted by sokarul)???

(https://j.gifs.com/7L4J9Q.gif)

BOWLING BALL SLOW MOTION REVEALS NASA'S SCAM :


Long before he extends his arms to the full extent and even much long before he throws the ball (before the ball is fully detached from his hands).
It means that in our "balloon exhausting" kind of experiments we should expect the same result : our toy cars should start being propelled (pushed back) even before the air is exhausted out of the nozzle (drinking straw) into the surrounding environment!!!
That is to say, if we could make the ball to disappear (to vanish into thin air) in the exact same moment when our skateboard guy extends his hands to the full extent (few milliseconds before he throws the ball), he would be still pushed back to the same degree as it is shown in sokarul's video.
Now, all you have to do is to apply this same logic to our "balloon exhausting" experiments and explain to us, why this fraudulent NASA's method doesn't work the same way in both cases???

ACCOMPANYING VIDEO :
ROCKETS CAN'T FLY IN A VACUUM - 3 :


Newton's Third Law - Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs

A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!

"When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body."

I can give you a hint...”when a BODY exerts force on a SECOND  BODY........”   
.......let me ask you, what is the second body being acted upon, IN A VACUUM ??!! (near, perfect, partial, pure,  or whatever kind of “vacuum” you can IMAGINE UP!!!)

If you figure that out, you”ll understand your mistake...   hopefully

No, the “second body” isnt the gases...     maybe thats why you’re confused..
...  in a rocket launch...the rocket (engine) is the “first body”  applying force (expelled gases)  to a second body (ground, then atmosphere).. which “pushes back”  with equal and opposite force.. on the first body (rocket)   forcing it to go up..
what happens in a REAL and INFINITE vacuum, whare there is no “second body” to act upon???

IN ADDITION :

COMBUSTION IS IMPOSSIBLE IN A VACUUM :

Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: rabinoz on July 21, 2019, 06:06:15 AM
The laws of physics asserts that humans and every other living, walking, running, jumping, crawling, flying or swimming creature and all man-made machines that move on wheels, tracks and legs, fly or hover with propellers, rotors, jets or rockets must have the inherent ability to thrust against a separate external resistant force in order to be able to physically move in a chosen direction.
Please quote these laws of physics that demand "the inherent ability to thrust against a separate external resistant force in order to be able to physically move in a chosen direction"!

What happens when a bomb explodes? The pieces that were once part of the bomb fly in all directions. No "separate external resistant force" was needed.
So stop making up your own pretend "Laws od Physics"!

In a rocket the thrust is mainly due to the tonnes of exhaust gas, that was once in the rocket and becomes external, pushed out of the nozzle at hypersonic velocities - get used to it!

And this thrust = (mass flow rate) x (exhaust velocity) and that was kown long before you  orI were born!

By the way, are you still pushing fake photos as "proof ::)" of NASA "fakery ::)"? Yes or No!
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 21, 2019, 06:24:25 AM
The laws of physics asserts that humans and every other living, walking, running, jumping, crawling, flying or swimming creature and all man-made machines that move on wheels, tracks and legs, fly or hover with propellers, rotors, jets or rockets must have the inherent ability to thrust against a separate external resistant force in order to be able to physically move in a chosen direction.
Please quote these laws of physics that demand "the inherent ability to thrust against a separate external resistant force in order to be able to physically move in a chosen direction"!

What happens when a bomb explodes? The pieces that were once part of the bomb fly in all directions. No "separate external resistant force" was needed.
So stop making up your own pretend "Laws od Physics"!

In a rocket the thrust is mainly due to the tonnes of exhaust gas, that was once in the rocket and becomes external, pushed out of the nozzle at hypersonic velocities - get used to it!

Your stupidity reminded me to one other similar conversation :

AN IDIOT SAYS THIS : Visualize instead what a rocket really is. It's just a bomb that explodes over time pushing itself forward with the force of exploded gas behind it propelling it forward. the nozzle at the end is just a big sail that catches one side of the explosion. A better simulation would be to sit on a skateboard with a trash can lid strapped to your back and toss grenades behind you and see if it the explosion propels you forward. a little dangerous maybe but much closer to how a rocket works haha

THE CLEVER GUY RESPONDED : Everything you said in every reply is summarized in that passage. Your 'philosophy' is rubbish, and needs to be discarded. There is no half of an explosion etc that you postulate, complete and utter NONSENSE! when an explosion occurs in the nozzle the whole rocket explodes. You need to understand what CONTROLLED COMBUSTION means, it is directional and has a flame front, it does not explode out in all directions and half does one thing and the other half another. Even in car engines the same principle applies.

Straight from my "rocket school for dummies" notes: BOWLING BALL VS AIR: rockets like jets push off air, one uses compressed air the other expanding gases, take away the air or interfere with full penetration of the air by the exhaust thrust column as you saw in the video above, and as we see at lift off by the flame trench and the rocket goes nowhere or in the later case the flame trench retards the accent by acting as a throttle, thus, we falsify what you just said, because we are not using bowling balls but air, and we falsify the claim that all work is done before the gas exits, any questions??
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Sunset on July 21, 2019, 06:32:34 AM
Ckljamas, there's a whole other thread devoted to rocket propulsion, perhaps you could add to that thread?

Dutchy, in the video, the two men are lying.

The backdrop is not identical in the two photos. The mountain shape on right bulges up slightly compared to on the left, and the shadowing is different. When superimposing, the mountains are similar, but not identical. The terrain in the foreground is also different between photos.

Have a closer look.

Their whole argument rests on the backgrounds being identical and they aren't. The photo on right is taken in front of lunar landing module, and closer to the mountain than in photo on the left, which explains all the differences.

As such, there is no end of set and no front projection involved in the photos. That's an assumption based on their bias.

Look closer and you will also see tracks behind the lunar rover. Remember, the tyres were made of aluminium mesh, wire, and titanium blocks, not rubber. Thus, the tracks left, are finer than tracks left by vehicles here on earth in sand.

The lunar rovers had cooling radiators for the batteries, and built to withstand moon temperature fluctuations of -328 degrees Fahrenheit to 392 degrees Fahrenheit. The batteries were kept within operating temperatures.

The photo left on the moon surface is fine. Regolith doesn't conduct heat well, and there is no indication air is inside the bag with the photo. The oven comparison is a joke.

The footprint in the photo is held together due to kinetic energy of the regolith, with no moisture necessary, and what makes anyone think the photo couldn't be cropped or be one of several photos?

Back to the starry moon sky argument again. Armstrong and Collins both say they didn't see stars on the Apollo 11 moon landing. Collins saw stars during the Gemini 7 spacewalk, so why are these pair of fools even comparing what they say about seeing stars?



Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Unconvinced on July 21, 2019, 06:40:09 AM
The laws of physics asserts that humans and every other living, walking, running, jumping, crawling, flying or swimming creature and all man-made machines that move on wheels, tracks and legs, fly or hover with propellers, rotors, jets or rockets must have the inherent ability to thrust against a separate external resistant force in order to be able to physically move in a chosen direction.

Citation needed.  What law says this?

Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: JerkFace on July 21, 2019, 06:59:13 AM
The laws of physics asserts that humans and every other living, walking, running, jumping, crawling, flying or swimming creature and all man-made machines that move on wheels, tracks and legs, fly or hover with propellers, rotors, jets or rockets must have the inherent ability to thrust against a separate external resistant force in order to be able to physically move in a chosen direction.

Citation needed.  What law says this?

I think it was the famous troll Papa Legba,  who first expounded the theory, before he went on to his seminal work on using vinegar to disperse chemtrails.

He was at one time a popular (?) troll on these forums, and influenced a few of the more gifted and less reality bound members of the FES to his views on rocketry. 

Markjo probably has fond memories.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: sokarul on July 21, 2019, 08:19:25 AM
The laws of physics asserts that humans and every other living, walking, running, jumping, crawling, flying or swimming creature and all man-made machines that move on wheels, tracks and legs, fly or hover with propellers, rotors, jets or rockets must have the inherent ability to thrust against a separate external resistant force in order to be able to physically move in a chosen direction.

Consider this:

Since space is, as we currently understand it, a vacuum with zero air pressure, the only way to make a rocket appear to be able to work in space would be to somehow demonstrate that, (unlike everything else on Earth), a rocket does not require the separate external resistant force of air pressure to thrust against.

Naturally, this premise could only be possible if there was a scientific method of rocket propulsion that looked authentic. A method that seemed so credible it would make people believe a rocket could work, not only in the dense atmosphere of Earth, but also in the airless void of space. A method that was plausible enough to brainwash the entire world into believing a rocket could really work in a vacuum.

And the only way to do that would be to completely disregard the laws of physics, utilise a skewed version of Newton’s third law and then advance the fanciful premise that a rockets thrust could push away from its own rocket and the rocket body could push away from its own thrust, thereby achieving upward motion by becoming self-perpetuating.

To demonstrate this ‘self-perpetuating’ premise, NASA created their ‘bowling ball’ model.
 
This model asserts that, if you stand on a skateboard with a bowling ball and you throw the ball away from you, the action will cause you and the skateboard to move in the opposite direction to the bowling ball. (Naturally, you would get exactly the same effect standing on a skateboard and pushing against a solid wall).

But does it really prove a rocket can work in a vacuum?

There is no denying that If you stand on a skate board and throw the bowling ball away, you and the skateboard will indeed move in the opposite direction to the bowling ball. This is because, by throwing the bowling ball away, you have basically pushed against a resistant object that is separate from you, (like a solid wall).

So, INERTIA (of the bowling ball) is the magic word (an explanation) that you are looking for (which is behind this fraudulent NASA's "scientific" method.

Do i have to remind you to one other equally fraudulent NASA's "scientific" method that should have looked authentic (dropping a ball in a moving train/airplane)???

I destroyed (for good) this other (dropping a ball within enclosed moving object) NASA's fraudulent method by offering my own irrefutable counter-argument ("CONCORDE" thought experiment).

HERE IT IS : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78814.msg2128697#msg2128697

Now, back on the track :

Pay attention to this very important (exposing) aspect of NASA's fraudulent method (bowling ball) :
In which exact moment does our guy (on the skateboard) starts to move back (in the video posted by sokarul)???

(https://j.gifs.com/7L4J9Q.gif)

BOWLING BALL SLOW MOTION REVEALS NASA'S SCAM :


Long before he extends his arms to the full extent and even much long before he throws the ball (before the ball is fully detached from his hands).
It means that in our "balloon exhausting" kind of experiments we should expect the same result : our toy cars should start being propelled (pushed back) even before the air is exhausted out of the nozzle (drinking straw) into the surrounding environment!!!
That is to say, if we could make the ball to disappear (to vanish into thin air) in the exact same moment when our skateboard guy extends his hands to the full extent (few milliseconds before he throws the ball), he would be still pushed back to the same degree as it is shown in sokarul's video.
Now, all you have to do is to apply this same logic to our "balloon exhausting" experiments and explain to us, why this fraudulent NASA's method doesn't work the same way in both cases???

ACCOMPANYING VIDEO :
ROCKETS CAN'T FLY IN A VACUUM - 3 :


Newton's Third Law - Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs

A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!

"When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body."

I can give you a hint...”when a BODY exerts force on a SECOND  BODY........”   
.......let me ask you, what is the second body being acted upon, IN A VACUUM ??!! (near, perfect, partial, pure,  or whatever kind of “vacuum” you can IMAGINE UP!!!)

If you figure that out, you”ll understand your mistake...   hopefully

No, the “second body” isnt the gases...     maybe thats why you’re confused..
...  in a rocket launch...the rocket (engine) is the “first body”  applying force (expelled gases)  to a second body (ground, then atmosphere).. which “pushes back”  with equal and opposite force.. on the first body (rocket)   forcing it to go up..
what happens in a REAL and INFINITE vacuum, whare there is no “second body” to act upon???

IN ADDITION :

COMBUSTION IS IMPOSSIBLE IN A VACUUM :



You are incorrect and you purposely ignored the rest of the posts on the first page because you have no rebuttal.

Here is the video. Learn what a medicine ball is.

Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: magellanclavichord on July 21, 2019, 08:57:06 AM
The laws of physics asserts that humans and every other living, walking, running, jumping, crawling, flying or swimming creature and all man-made machines that move on wheels, tracks and legs, fly or hover with propellers, rotors, jets or rockets must have the inherent ability to thrust against a separate external resistant force in order to be able to physically move in a chosen direction.

No, actually, the laws of physics do not state this. They state that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. They do not state that there must be "a separate external resistant force in order to be able to physically move in a chosen direction."

How does a flat Earth digress into rockets supposedly not being able to work in space, anyway? Rockets clearly do work in space, and that has no bearing whatsoever on the shape of the Earth. It's a completely separate matter.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: dutchy on July 21, 2019, 12:16:27 PM
Ckljamas, there's a whole other thread devoted to rocket propulsion, perhaps you could add to that thread?

Dutchy, in the video, the two men are lying.

The backdrop is not identical in the two photos. The mountain shape on right bulges up slightly compared to on the left, and the shadowing is different. When superimposing, the mountains are similar, but not identical. The terrain in the foreground is also different between photos.
Their whole argument rests on the backgrounds being identical and they aren't. The photo on right is taken in front of lunar landing module, and closer to the mountain than in photo on the left, which explains all the differences.
As such, there is no end of set and no front projection involved in the photos. That's an assumption based on their bias.

Have a closer look.
It only adds to the confusion. The picture on the left has a mountain top with a slight downward ''arc'' from left to right, while in the picture on the right the opposite is true.
Furthermore the horizon is at a measly 2.43 km. The mountain seems to grow in the right picture.
I think they slightly changed the black sky line..that only makes sense as to why the top of the mountain is shape shifting all of a sudden.
Other than that it's identical.
Quote
Look closer and you will also see tracks behind the lunar rover. Remember, the tyres were made of aluminium mesh, wire, and titanium blocks, not rubber. Thus, the tracks left, are finer than tracks left by vehicles here on earth in sand.

The lunar rovers had cooling radiators for the batteries, and built to withstand moon temperature fluctuations of -328 degrees Fahrenheit to 392 degrees Fahrenheit. The batteries were kept within operating temperatures.
Silver oxide batteries have good performance characteristics at temperature extremes. They can be used up to 55°C(131°F)
Again the special ''moon condition'' despite abnormal temperatures well outside the operating window are the only explanation why the two silver-oxide batteries of the lunar rover kept working.
You don't have to repeat the official explaination.
But ain't that handy that despite extreme temperatures the ''moon conditions'' and ''no air molecules'' were such that the lunar rover could be easily powered by two silver-oxide batteries.
I guess the moon was really looking forward to our visit  ::)
Quote
Back to the starry moon sky argument again. Armstrong and Collins both say they didn't see stars on the Apollo 11 moon landing. Collins saw stars during the Gemini 7 spacewalk, so why are these pair of fools even comparing what they say about seeing stars?
Neil Armstrong EXCLUDED that he (or generally speaking anyone) saw (or could see) stars from the lunar surface, because quote : ''the sky is pitch black and other than the sun the earth is the ONLY visble object''.
Liars sometimes forget the exact propaganda about what they should see but didn't see when asked for...don't you understand ?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Stash on July 21, 2019, 12:46:52 PM
...thus, we falsify what you just said, because we are not using bowling balls but air, and we falsify the claim that all work is done before the gas exits, any questions??

Yes, lots. First off, why so down on bowling balls? Have you ever seen this non-bowling ball experiment?



Or check this out at about the 3:10 mark. Watch these non-NASA maniacs experiment with Newton's 3rd (why does the cannon roll back?):

Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: JackBlack on July 21, 2019, 02:24:54 PM
Do you have an explanation how the operation continued while the survival operation temperature limit was 60 degrees celcius but 107 degrees exist on the moon? Your tears can not cool down the temperature.
Citation needed.
What makes you claim the survival operation temperature limit was 60 C?
How do you know the temperature where they were (not the moon in general, but there particular location) was 107 C or did you actually mean 107 F?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: JackBlack on July 21, 2019, 02:51:40 PM
The laws of physics asserts that humans and every other living, walking, running, jumping, crawling, flying or swimming creature and all man-made machines that move on wheels, tracks and legs, fly or hover with propellers, rotors, jets or rockets must have the inherent ability to thrust against a separate external resistant force in order to be able to physically move in a chosen direction.
That highly depends upon what you mean by "separate external resistant force".
All you need is an object that is not you which you can exert a force on and have it apply a force back to you.
For a rocket, that is provided by the gas it generates, which ceases to be a part of it as it is expelled out the back of the rocket.

So no problem there.

Since space is, as we currently understand it, a vacuum with zero air pressure, the only way to make a rocket appear to be able to work in space would be to somehow demonstrate that, (unlike everything else on Earth), a rocket does not require the separate external resistant force of air pressure to thrust against.
You mean like sending a rocket into space and still having it work, like they have done plenty of times?
Glad we got that covered.

And again, it isn't unlike everything else.
The only pressure it needs to thrust against is the pressure of the gas inside the rocket.
Why do you repeatedly ignore that?


And the only way to do that would be to completely disregard the laws of physics, utilise a skewed version of Newton’s third law
You mean use the actual version of Newton's third law and accept that the gas expelled from the rocket is having a force applied to it by the rocket and thus it in turn provides a force to the rocket?

What you are saying is like saying the example provided where someone throws away a ball violates the laws of motion.
It is pure nonsense which doesn't describe physics at all.

There is no denying that If you stand on a skate board and throw the bowling ball away, you and the skateboard will indeed move in the opposite direction to the bowling ball. This is because, by throwing the bowling ball away, you have basically pushed against a resistant object that is separate from you, (like a solid wall).
Yes, just a like a rocket throwing away the exhaust.
There is no rationally denying that.

I destroyed (for good) this other (dropping a ball within enclosed moving object) NASA's fraudulent method by offering my own irrefutable counter-argument ("CONCORDE" thought experiment).
You mean you were repeatedly refuted by providing a pure nonsense thought experiment which doesn't match reality at all and which you didn't even carry out properly.

Long before he extends his arms to the full extent and even much long before he throws the ball (before the ball is fully detached from his hands).
Yes, exactly as expected by mainstream physics.
He is applying a force to the ball to accelerate it, for the entire duration he is accelerating it.
While it does so it will apply the same force back to him.

It means that in our "balloon exhausting" kind of experiments we should expect the same result : our toy cars should start being propelled (pushed back) even before the air is exhausted out of the nozzle (drinking straw) into the surrounding environment!!!
Yes, as it is repeatedly observed in any valid experiments, i.e. ones designed to allow the air to escape and act like a rocket rather than the dishonest garbage some people provide to pretend they can't work.

Even with your guy applying the vacuum cleaner, which is causing the air to push the car backwards, forwards movement was still observed.

.......let me ask you, what is the second body being acted upon, IN A VACUUM ??!!
The first body is the rocket. The second body is the exhaust gas.
(Or if you like, the individual particles that make it up).

If you figure that out, you”ll understand your mistake...   hopefully
No, we understand your  mistake.

You want to pretend the gas, which is completely separate from the rocket, is somehow magically still a part of the rocket and thus not a second body.
What you are saying is like claiming that in baseball the pitcher (engine) is the “first body”  applying force (expelled ball)  to a second body (batter) which “pushes back” with equal and opposite force on the first body (pitcher) forcing it to go backwards; such that if the batter misses, the pitcher wont feel anything, and be like he was just standing there, but if the batter hits it, the pitcher will feel like a bat just smashed into their hand.
It is pure fictional nonsense which does not match reality at all.
In reality, the pitcher applies the force to the ball, which applies a force back. The batter is irrelevant.
The only way the batter causes any force to be felt by the pitcher is if they hit the ball such that it then flies back into the pitcher.
The same applies to the rocket, where the pitcher is the rocket, and the ball is the gas.

The first body is the rocket. The second body is the gas.
No need for anything else.

COMBUSTION IS IMPOSSIBLE IN A VACUUM :
No, it is still quite possible, but some forms are very difficult or impossible.

THE CLEVER GUY RESPONDED : Everything you said in every reply is summarized in that passage. Your 'philosophy' is rubbish, and needs to be discarded. There is no half of an explosion etc that you postulate, complete and utter NONSENSE! when an explosion occurs in the nozzle the whole rocket explodes. You need to understand what CONTROLLED COMBUSTION means, it is directional and has a flame front, it does not explode out in all directions and half does one thing and the other half another. Even in car engines the same principle applies.
You mean the idiot then says pure garbage?
No one appealed to half an explosion. That is just your strawman to pretend there is a problem.
Sure, the analogy isn't perfect, but it works fairly well.
An explosion is a very quickly expanding region of gas.
That matches what happens with the rocket quite well.
An explosion will not necessarily cause the rocket to explode. Instead it just pushes outwards, meaning the rocket will be pushed in one direction by the gas.

The only thing giving controlled combustion direction is containment, e.g. the rocket. If it was not contained it would go in all directions.

BOWLING BALL VS AIR: rockets like jets push off air
For Jets, that is the air they suck in and then expel. For rockets that is the "air" that they generate from combustion.
What happens to the air after it leaves the engine/nozzle is irrelevant.
That still means rockets work in a vacuum.

All your nonsense can easily be refuted just by looking at the simple laws of physics.
You have the rocket in a vacuum.
It then starts expelling gas out of one orifice.
This demands a force acts on the gas to expel it out of that orifice, or else it would simply remain there. Note that gas can act upon itself (or more technically gas particles can act on other gas particles) but that would simply result in the gas expanding outwards in all directions, so that wont help.
The only object that can provide the force to this gas is the rocket.
The laws of motion thus demands that the gas provides a force acting on the rocket to move it as well.

Otherwise, you need to provide another source for this directional force felt by the gas.
And no, a vacuum does not provide force.

Yet you never seem to bother addressing what anyone says, and instead you just repeat the same refuted nonsense again and again. Why is that? Is it because you know you have no case?

Now how about you try to answer that very simple question:
What force acts on the gas to make it move in a particular direction when exiting the rocket and what body is providing this force?
Again, the only rational answer is that the rocket is providing a force to the gas to move it backwards due to the way it is partially contained.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: JackBlack on July 21, 2019, 03:01:16 PM
It only adds to the confusion.
No, it doesn't add to the confusion at all.
The only source of confusion is people not understanding how perspective works and how the same object will appear different from different angles.
An extreme example of that is this "optical illusion" type setup:
(https://www.sciencealert.com/images/articles/processed/crazy-illusion_1024.jpg)
You cannot determine the shape of an object just from one view.

Your argument is based upon assuming a particular shape and then being upset that the view from a different direction doesn't match what you assumed.

Silver oxide batteries have good performance characteristics at temperature extremes. They can be used up to 55°C(131°F)
This applies to the temperature of the batteries, not the outside temperature.
Another similar example is the use of superconducting magnets which need operating temperatures in the liquid nitrogen or liquid helium range.
Yet these work in devices which are sitting in a normal air conditioned room.
They operate because they have cooling in the device to keep the temperature in the required range.

were such that the lunar rover could be easily powered by two silver-oxide batteries.
What is the problem with that?
Why do you think it couldn't be?

Neil Armstrong EXCLUDED that he (or generally speaking anyone) saw (or could see) stars from the lunar surface
So what?
Trying seeing tiny spots of light when you have a massively bright light shining in your face.
Your eyes will adjust for the brightness of the lunar surface/the sun/the bright Earth. That will make the much dimmer stars much harder to see.

An easy way to experience this is be out in bright daylight during the middle of the day and then go inside a poorly lit room (very poorly lit).
Initially you wont be able to see anything because of how dark the room is. But given time to adjust your eyes will adjust and you will be able to see inside the room just fine. It doesn't mean the objects in the room weren't there. It simply means that you couldn't see them.

Another good example is a phone screen in bright daylight. A dim screen can be quite difficult to see anything on, simply because it isn't bright enough. But take it into a dark room and give your eyes time to adjust and you can easily see it.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Platonius21 on July 21, 2019, 06:15:01 PM
Pay attention to this very important (exposing) aspect of NASA's fraudulent method (bowling ball) :
In which exact moment does our guy (on the skateboard) starts to move back (in the video posted by sokarul)???
(https://j.gifs.com/7L4J9Q.gif)
There is nothing wrong with the skateboard starting to move before the ball has left his hand. That is simply conservation of momentum -- the ball is starting to have some momentum to the left, meaning the boy/skateboard has to have equal momentum to the right. If the boy held onto the ball once his arms were fully extended, both the ball and the skateboard would stop. If the boy then pulled the ball back like he pushed it away, the ball and skateboard would return to their original position (approximately because of friction loss).

NASA is not the fraud here, it is your understanding of high school physics that is the problem.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: wise on July 21, 2019, 11:43:59 PM
Do you have an explanation how the operation continued while the survival operation temperature limit was 60 degrees celcius but 107 degrees exist on the moon? Your tears can not cool down the temperature.
Citation needed.
What makes you claim the survival operation temperature limit was 60 C?

It is in the video 3. Video number 3 says it is so.  I guess they have investigated. If you have a different claim so I am ready to listen you too. Please, do not use magic. :)
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Stash on July 22, 2019, 12:15:31 AM
Do you have an explanation how the operation continued while the survival operation temperature limit was 60 degrees celcius but 107 degrees exist on the moon? Your tears can not cool down the temperature.
Citation needed.
What makes you claim the survival operation temperature limit was 60 C?

It is in the video 3. Video number 3 says it is so.  I guess they have investigated. If you have a different claim so I am ready to listen you too. Please, do not use magic. :)

I'm not sure what the upper and lower 'survival' operation limits were (are), but a lot of thought, science and engineering went into creating gear to handle the extreme temperatures of the moon. I thought this was a pretty complete assessment (no magic):

"The first thing to know is that all trips on to the Moon’s surface were carefully planned for lunar dawn, to ensure the surface hadn’t had time to heat up fully to its daytime temperature. It is also important to think about how heat can be transferred to astronauts on the lunar surface.

There are three ways heat can transfer and only two are possible on the Moon. The first is radiation, both directly from the Sun and from the Sun’s reflection on the surface. The astronauts’ spacesuits were designed to reflect almost 90% of the light that reaches it, so very little heat would have transferred to the astronauts.

The second is by conduction from the direct contact their feet had with the surface. This is also an ineffective process as regolith on the lunar surface doesn’t conduct heat well and the astronauts’ boots were insulated, slowing down conduction even further. This shows that even though huge temperature variations occur on the Moon, lunar astronauts were never actually exposed to them."
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: dutchy on July 22, 2019, 12:43:29 AM
No, it doesn't add to the confusion at all.
The only source of confusion is people not understanding how perspective works and how the same object will appear different from different angles.
Please.... in highschool in 1982 i was allowed to do arts as a major school subject.
I am very aware how the different types of perspective work and able to perfectly execute it on a canvas.
This one has nothing to do with a different angle.
Don’t you see the top of the mountains ??
Quote
You cannot determine the shape of an object just from one view.
It totally depends on the object....
If that were true the first ‘blue marble’ a single shot from earth was not enough for you to accept the earth to be a sphere  ;D ;D ;D
Quote
Your argument is based upon assuming a particular shape and then being upset that the view from a different direction doesn't match what you assumed.
I am not upset, i am actually very much aware how perspective works
And you did not comment on the ‘growing mountain on the right’
But i presume you will throw in some fancy camera related nonsense ?
Quote
This applies to the temperature of the batteries, not the outside temperature.
Another similar example is the use of superconducting magnets which need operating temperatures in the liquid nitrogen or liquid helium range.
Yet these work in devices which are sitting in a normal air conditioned room.
They operate because they have cooling in the device to keep the temperature in the required range.
Yes of course it does, but the car should have been coocking and all batteries with it within a relative short timeframe.

And i don’t believe how they handled the cooling properly, using change-of-phase wax thermal capacitor packages and reflective, upward-facing radiating surfaces.
It always sounds so plausible..... untill you understand that even when they went to most outlandish ‘worlds’ that it’s pretty easy to think of a ‘plausible’ way as to why their equipment did work in whatever place they want it to work.
That’s the power of scientific jargon..... that’s why startrek was such a success . You wondered from time to time why our rockets hadn’t integrated warp speed  ;D
Quote
So what?
Trying seeing tiny spots of light when you have a massively bright light shining in your face.
Your eyes will adjust for the brightness of the lunar surface/the sun/the bright Earth. That will make the much dimmer stars much harder to see
You could not possibly know.
Fact is you would never get the facts wrong about your own special experiences in a way Armstrong does.
Somehow you are continiously avoiding the obvious.
Arnstrong claimed he could only see the earth and moon and this was presented as a general fact ‘the sky is pitchblack and other than the sun the earth is the only visible object’
It EXCLUDES the tiniest of faint stars, otherwise Armstrong SHOULD have included those.
It’s not about how hard something is to see, but about IF you could see them.
And during the Patrick Moore interview Armstrong simply forgets the full detailed NASA reality about standing on the lunar surface and gazing upwards and being able to see faint stars from time to time.
Quote
An easy way to experience this is be out in bright daylight during the middle of the day and then go inside a poorly lit room (very poorly lit).
Initially you wont be able to see anything because of how dark the room is. But given time to adjust your eyes will adjust and you will be able to see inside the room just fine. It doesn't mean the objects in the room weren't there. It simply means that you couldn't see them.

Another good example is a phone screen in bright daylight. A dim screen can be quite difficult to see anything on, simply because it isn't bright enough. But take it into a dark room and give your eyes time to adjust and you can easily see it.
But if you did this experiment and you did see some faint objects in the total black room you would remember for ever and ever  ;D ;D
And when i would interview you, you would especcially refer to the faint objects, because that would be the exception in the room of total darkness.
Armstrong ? He doesn’t refer to the exception other than the bright objects earth and sun.
The rest is just dark.... really dark.
If he or generally speaking ‘other astronauts’ would have seen tiny faint stars , those would be the exception and really special in a pitch black surrounding.
First thing on Armstrong’s mind after mentioning the earth and sun.

Don’t you get it ?
It’s not a matter of intensity of starlight it’s about wether they are there as the exception in an otherwise pitch black lunar sky.
The extremely faint stars should be strongly engraved in the memory BECAUSE they were hard to see !!!! The sun and earth are irrelevant because they are the rule when standing on the lunar surface.
 Researching this whole Apollo hoax thing made me very aware of the smallest details, because totally unimportant and irrelevant matters at first are actually extremely telling.
This is one of them if you dare to give it some real second thoughts.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: wise on July 22, 2019, 12:58:01 AM
Do you have an explanation how the operation continued while the survival operation temperature limit was 60 degrees celcius but 107 degrees exist on the moon? Your tears can not cool down the temperature.
Citation needed.
What makes you claim the survival operation temperature limit was 60 C?

It is in the video 3. Video number 3 says it is so.  I guess they have investigated. If you have a different claim so I am ready to listen you too. Please, do not use magic. :)

I'm not sure what the upper and lower 'survival' operation limits were (are), but a lot of thought, science and engineering went into creating gear to handle the extreme temperatures of the moon. I thought this was a pretty complete assessment (no magic):

"The first thing to know is that all trips on to the Moon’s surface were carefully planned for lunar dawn, to ensure the surface hadn’t had time to heat up fully to its daytime temperature. It is also important to think about how heat can be transferred to astronauts on the lunar surface.

There are three ways heat can transfer and only two are possible on the Moon. The first is radiation, both directly from the Sun and from the Sun’s reflection on the surface. The astronauts’ spacesuits were designed to reflect almost 90% of the light that reaches it, so very little heat would have transferred to the astronauts.

The second is by conduction from the direct contact their feet had with the surface. This is also an ineffective process as regolith on the lunar surface doesn’t conduct heat well and the astronauts’ boots were insulated, slowing down conduction even further. This shows that even though huge temperature variations occur on the Moon, lunar astronauts were never actually exposed to them."

It is just an excuse you try to hide the truth. The lack of heat conduction also meant that there was no combustion, and as a result this would prevent the operation of the rover and other vehicles. how did the rover vehicle magically find oxygen to work in an airless environment? on the other hand, the stars are boiling without air contact. The sun has a temperature of millions of degrees and transmits it to us. but the moon can't do that, can't transmit the heat into the spacecraft, can it? Because you need an excuse.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Stash on July 22, 2019, 01:25:34 AM
Do you have an explanation how the operation continued while the survival operation temperature limit was 60 degrees celcius but 107 degrees exist on the moon? Your tears can not cool down the temperature.
Citation needed.
What makes you claim the survival operation temperature limit was 60 C?

It is in the video 3. Video number 3 says it is so.  I guess they have investigated. If you have a different claim so I am ready to listen you too. Please, do not use magic. :)

I'm not sure what the upper and lower 'survival' operation limits were (are), but a lot of thought, science and engineering went into creating gear to handle the extreme temperatures of the moon. I thought this was a pretty complete assessment (no magic):

"The first thing to know is that all trips on to the Moon’s surface were carefully planned for lunar dawn, to ensure the surface hadn’t had time to heat up fully to its daytime temperature. It is also important to think about how heat can be transferred to astronauts on the lunar surface.

There are three ways heat can transfer and only two are possible on the Moon. The first is radiation, both directly from the Sun and from the Sun’s reflection on the surface. The astronauts’ spacesuits were designed to reflect almost 90% of the light that reaches it, so very little heat would have transferred to the astronauts.

The second is by conduction from the direct contact their feet had with the surface. This is also an ineffective process as regolith on the lunar surface doesn’t conduct heat well and the astronauts’ boots were insulated, slowing down conduction even further. This shows that even though huge temperature variations occur on the Moon, lunar astronauts were never actually exposed to them."

It is just an excuse you try to hide the truth. The lack of heat conduction also meant that there was no combustion, and as a result this would prevent the operation of the rover and other vehicles. how did the rover vehicle magically find oxygen to work in an airless environment? on the other hand, the stars are boiling without air contact. The sun has a temperature of millions of degrees and transmits it to us. but the moon can't do that, can't transmit the heat into the spacecraft, can it? Because you need an excuse.

No combustion, no oxygen required. Battery powered, like a Prius, only slower.

The moon is not the sun. It absorbs and reflects heat from the sun, much like earth.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: JackBlack on July 22, 2019, 02:12:06 AM
It is in the video 3. Video number 3 says it is so.
So your citation is a conspiracy nut that is happy to lie or blatantly misrepresent reality to pretend there is a problem.

Do you have a credible citation?

The lack of heat conduction also meant that there was no combustion, and as a result this would prevent the operation of the rover and other vehicles.
No, the 2 are fundamentally different.
The lack of atmosphere meant no normal combustion (but it is still possible if you have your own oxidiser).
The rover was electric and didn't need combustion to work.

The sun has a temperature of millions of degrees and transmits it to us.
Good job showing very little understanding again.
The sun has a core temperature in the millions of degrees. By the time you get to the surface it is only a few thousand. By the time the radiation makes its way to Earth and has  Earth in equilibrium, you only have a few hundred K.
Notice the massive loss in each step?
Yes, the moon will radiate heat, but it will not be enough to significantly heat up the space suits, which are also radiating heat.

Because you need an excuse.
You are the one looking for excuses here.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: wise on July 22, 2019, 02:44:31 AM
So your citation is a conspiracy nut that is happy to lie or blatantly misrepresent reality to pretend there is a problem.
Writing a source does not magically be a lie or mispresent anything, without a supportive argument proved by you. Otherwise, we have to accept all your writings are lie and mispresenting.
Do you have a credible citation?
Yes. You have been cooked like a chicken at 100 degrees.
No, the 2 are fundamentally different.
Yes. It is your mistake of fundamentals. Your mental problems does not magically make anything wrong, but makes yourself so.
The lack of atmosphere meant no normal combustion (but it is still possible if you have your own oxidiser).
Even for scuba diving, oxygen is enough for 1 hour. it is certain that the combustion environment required to move a spacecraft will require much more than that. even today we do not have this technology. but your fundamental perspective may make it possible. Please keep your lack fundamentalism to yourself.
The rover was electric and didn't need combustion to work.
Even electrik needs oxygen for work.
Good job showing very little understanding again.
You have even not show it.
The sun has a core temperature in the millions of degrees. By the time you get to the surface it is only a few thousand. By the time the radiation makes its way to Earth and has  Earth in equilibrium, you only have a few hundred K.
I can write it too. It does not magically become an argument.
Notice the massive loss in each step?
Nope. And you? You are talking like you have measured it, but I don't think you did it. You are reading from somewhere and writing here. You have not your own observations and your own thoughts.
Yes, the moon will radiate heat, but it will not be enough to significantly heat up the space suits, which are also radiating heat.
a spacecraft, such as chicken in the oven wrapped with aluminum foil to protect 100 degrees from the heat, no one but the mind of nasa. this is just, obviously, childish.
You I and other NASA workers are looking for excuses here.
Corrected for you.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Crutchwater on July 22, 2019, 03:46:09 AM
Electric motors do not need oxygen to work.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: JackBlack on July 22, 2019, 03:52:22 AM
Yes. You have been cooked like a chicken at 100 degrees.
So that's a no. No source indicating the temperature of the moon would be a problem.

Yes. It is your mistake of fundamentals.
Are you just going to continue this childish crap?
Why do you feel the need to attack basically everything, even things which FE would have no problem with?
Do you also claim that grass isn't green and that water is poison?

Conduction and oxygen are vastly different.

it is certain that the combustion environment required to move a spacecraft will require much more than that.
Which will be stored in the rocket. So no problem there.

Even electrik needs oxygen for work.
Pure garbage.
Batters rely upon electrochemical reactions, with many batteries not being compatible with air.
Take a charged lithium ion battery and break it open in the air and guess what happens? It bursts into flames.
They are often hermetically sealed to exclude the air.
They do not need oxygen at all.
The wires just transmit the electrical power, and again, have no reliance upon the air.
The motors rely upon electromagnetic induction and again have no reliance upon the air.

If you are going to assert that electrical vehicles need air to operate you will need vastly more than your baseless assertions.

Corrected for you.
Dishonestly changing what I said so it does not resemble the truth at all is not correcting. Grow up.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: wise on July 22, 2019, 04:01:08 AM
Electric motors do not need oxygen to work.
Prove.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: wise on July 22, 2019, 04:20:54 AM
So that's a no. No source indicating the temperature of the moon would be a problem.
This is not an argument. Your saying No source indicating the temperature of the moon would be a problem does not magically convert problems to a none problem. Your astro'nots are still cooked at 100 degrees.
Are you just going to continue this childish crap?
"childish crap" is reported. You have not a right to insult me because you can not find enough argument. Obviously insulting isn't an argument. Stop to insult me by using support of your moderator slaves. This behave, ie your being has to insult proves that why the earth is flat. Because you angry globularists has not a chance but insulting after a while when you have cornered. I can't reply you with your language, because if I do it they ban me; but both we know that they can not ban you because of you are their patron, right? Be fair, grow up and stop to childish behaves or agree earth's being flat.
Why do you feel the need to attack basically everything, even things which FE would have no problem with?
Why do you feel yourself need to personnel attack by using our own moderation team support? I am not you. I have just tell my thoughts depend on evidences.
Do you also claim that grass isn't green and that water is poison?
I don't remember such a claim. Please remind me. I guess you need reset to your factory settings.
Conduction and oxygen are vastly different.
I guess we are talking on different things.
Which will be stored in the rocket. So no problem there.
Prove how much oxygen has been stored in what kind of containers. And prove that technology was really existed other than your magical dreamings.
Pure garbage.
Again, stop to insult me by using your moderation supporter slaves. Normally you do get warn for this type of talkings. But you are free to insult. Is it fair? I don't think so. Where is justice here? Your claiming something pure garbage does not magically them garbage but your own talkings. meanwhile it proves the earth is flat because you have cornered and started to insult.
Batters rely upon electrochemical reactions, with many batteries not being compatible with air.
again, oxygen is required to occur in the combustion event. if you used superior electromagnetic technology in your rockets, you should explain it instead of insulting.
Take a charged lithium ion battery and break it open in the air and guess what happens? It bursts into flames.
which explains the need for oxygen to turn into flames.
The motors rely upon electromagnetic induction and again have no reliance upon the air.
like I said before, I'm talking about rover. I don't think your moon rover is electrical. electric vehicles have just been discovered.
If you are going to assert that electrical vehicles need air to operate you will need vastly more than your baseless assertions.
Draw your moon rover's technical details worked in moon at 1969 other than magically your dreamings.
Dishonestly changing what I said so it does not resemble the truth at all is not correcting. Grow up.
You who have to grow up. Grow up and give up to write from GSM. Open your computer and use one account. It lets you draw shapes and proves you are not doing any dishonesty. Then it gives you a right to call me acting fair.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Romp on July 22, 2019, 04:49:31 AM
You are useless.

Can rockets fly in a vacuum? Be useful (at least once in your whole useless life) and prove that they can... ot?

Don't have to. The generally held consensus is that they do, due the overwhelming evidence available.


If you are holding a dubious minority theory that they don't, it's up to you to prove it.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: wise on July 22, 2019, 04:54:03 AM
You are useless.

Can rockets fly in a vacuum? Be useful (at least once in your whole useless life) and prove that they can... ot?
Don't have to. The generally held consensus is that they do, due the overwhelming evidence available.
If you are holding a dubious minority theory that they don't, it's up to you to prove it.

Your repying him is a proof that the earth is flat, and then globularists cornered and have no chance but use accounts like you to support their weak arguments. Was not it better you introduce yourself in more convenient place of forum; instead of jumping in at the deep end of the issue. Somebody has to prove rockets can work in vacuum before wants to opposite arguments. Because we can not prove something is not exist.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Romp on July 22, 2019, 05:22:09 AM
You are useless.

Can rockets fly in a vacuum? Be useful (at least once in your whole useless life) and prove that they can... ot?


Don't have to. The generally held consensus is that they do, due the overwhelming evidence available.
If you are holding a dubious minority theory that they don't, it's up to you to prove it.

Your repying him is a proof that the earth is flat, and then globularists cornered and have no chance but use accounts like you to support their weak arguments. Was not it better you introduce yourself in more convenient place of forum; instead of jumping in at the deep end of the issue. Somebody has to prove rockets can work in vacuum before wants to opposite arguments. Because we can not prove something is not exist.

Hello. My user name here is RomP. I don't believe in a flat earth since it is counter to a) the generally held consensus and evidence that it's a sphere, b) the apparent real world practical issues if the earth wasn't a sphere, and c) the consistency in the all the evidence and experience in the earth being a sphere.

First, and with due respect, I really can not see how you think my response is proof that the earth is flat. All you've done is arrived at an erroneous logical conclusion.

Second, and to reiterate, rockets work in a vacuum. They do so every time. Your response to this seems to be the typical, we say "XXXX, you prove it wrong whilst we sit on our hands doing nothing practical back up our claim".

As you've pointed out, I'm new to the forum. But having lurked for a number of moths, some of my observations on the style of debate seems to be:

- FE claim made.
- Non FEer counters with generally accepted theories and evidence.
- FEer counters by a mixture of a) answering but by avoiding actually providing and answer, b) provides youtube or blog 'evidence' of dubious merit, c) requests evidence which has impractical and impossible thresholds and criteria, d) when evidence is presented waves it away due to wanting the 'next level criteria' to be met or stating it's false.
- And wash, rinse, repeat.

I tip my hat to those with patience for this.

Given that commercial enterprises and other nations are ramping up their space programmes, with the possible consequence that space travel could eventually become cheap enough for many to travel on a rocket, I should think the 'rockets don't work in a vacuum' theory will die down.

There'll still be the diehards though who won't accept this, much like those FErs who still don't accept the evidence of the distances and routes travelled by commercial airlines and ships as well as the charts etc., for the southern hemisphere.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Romp on July 22, 2019, 05:52:38 AM
You are useless.

Can rockets fly in a vacuum? Be useful (at least once in your whole useless life) and prove that they can... ot?


Don't have to. The generally held consensus is that they do, due the overwhelming evidence available.
If you are holding a dubious minority theory that they don't, it's up to you to prove it.

Your repying him is a proof that the earth is flat, and then globularists cornered and have no chance but use accounts like you to support their weak arguments. Was not it better you introduce yourself in more convenient place of forum; instead of jumping in at the deep end of the issue. Somebody has to prove rockets can work in vacuum before wants to opposite arguments. Because we can not prove something is not exist.

Hello. My user name here is RomP. I don't believe in a flat earth since it is counter to a) the generally held consensus and evidence that it's a sphere, b) the apparent real world practical issues if the earth wasn't a sphere, and c) the consistency in the all the evidence and experience in the earth being a sphere.

First, and with due respect, I really can not see how you think my response is proof that the earth is flat. All you've done is arrived at an erroneous logical conclusion.

Second, and to reiterate, rockets work in a vacuum. They do so every time. Your response to this seems to be the typical, we say "XXXX, you prove it wrong whilst we sit on our hands doing nothing practical back up our claim".

As you've pointed out, I'm new to the forum. But having lurked for a number of moths, some of my observations on the style of debate seems to be:

- FE claim made.
- Non FEer counters with generally accepted theories and evidence.
- FEer counters by a mixture of a) answering but by avoiding actually providing and answer, b) provides youtube or blog 'evidence' of dubious merit, c) requests evidence which has impractical and impossible thresholds and criteria, d) when evidence is presented waves it away due to wanting the 'next level criteria' to be met or stating it's false.
- And wash, rinse, repeat.

I tip my hat to those with patience for this.

Given that commercial enterprises and other nations are ramping up their space programmes, with the possible consequence that space travel could eventually become cheap enough for many to travel on a rocket, I should think the 'rockets don't work in a vacuum' theory will die down.

There'll still be the diehards though who won't accept this, much like those FErs who still don't accept the evidence of the distances and routes travelled by commercial airlines and ships as well as the charts etc., for the southern hemisphere.

E2A: As some of you may know already, the Indians have launched a moon mission: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-49032603

And of course, their mission relies on rockets working in a vacuum.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Unconvinced on July 22, 2019, 05:54:56 AM
Ckljamas, there's a whole other thread devoted to rocket propulsion, perhaps you could add to that thread?

Dutchy, in the video, the two men are lying.

The backdrop is not identical in the two photos. The mountain shape on right bulges up slightly compared to on the left, and the shadowing is different. When superimposing, the mountains are similar, but not identical. The terrain in the foreground is also different between photos.
Their whole argument rests on the backgrounds being identical and they aren't. The photo on right is taken in front of lunar landing module, and closer to the mountain than in photo on the left, which explains all the differences.
As such, there is no end of set and no front projection involved in the photos. That's an assumption based on their bias.

Have a closer look.
It only adds to the confusion. The picture on the left has a mountain top with a slight downward ''arc'' from left to right, while in the picture on the right the opposite is true.
Furthermore the horizon is at a measly 2.43 km. The mountain seems to grow in the right picture.
I think they slightly changed the black sky line..that only makes sense as to why the top of the mountain is shape shifting all of a sudden.
Other than that it's identical.

Haha!  Who’s making excuses now?

The claim intbe vidro was that the background was “absolutely identical”.  Now you say that they repainted the background to account for it being shot from a slightly different location.  Or maybe, it was just shot from a slightly different location?

They also say it looks like a front projection.  I’d be fascinated to see a demonstration of how to project a pitch black sky onto a reflective background in a room full of studio lights.  There’s a reason cinemas turn the lights off.


Quote
Quote
Look closer and you will also see tracks behind the lunar rover. Remember, the tyres were made of aluminium mesh, wire, and titanium blocks, not rubber. Thus, the tracks left, are finer than tracks left by vehicles here on earth in sand.

The lunar rovers had cooling radiators for the batteries, and built to withstand moon temperature fluctuations of -328 degrees Fahrenheit to 392 degrees Fahrenheit. The batteries were kept within operating temperatures.
Silver oxide batteries have good performance characteristics at temperature extremes. They can be used up to 55°C(131°F)
Again the special ''moon condition'' despite abnormal temperatures well outside the operating window are the only explanation why the two silver-oxide batteries of the lunar rover kept working.
You don't have to repeat the official explaination.
But ain't that handy that despite extreme temperatures the ''moon conditions'' and ''no air molecules'' were such that the lunar rover could be easily powered by two silver-oxide batteries.
I guess the moon was really looking forward to our visit  ::)

The battery wasn’t on the lunar surface, it was on the rover.  Do you know how difficult thermal management is to deal with a piddling 120 deg C conducted through the wheels, axis, chassis and whatever mounting the battery had?  Not even remotely. 

As an added bonus, the video even questions how they fit the rover in the Command module, LOL.

This video is an absolute joke.  Complete failure on technical parts, not even bothering to check where the rover was supposed to be stored before making ridiculous claims, and apparently being too blind to see the difference between two pictures.  All presented as “smoking guns”.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: wise on July 22, 2019, 05:57:47 AM
You are useless.

Can rockets fly in a vacuum? Be useful (at least once in your whole useless life) and prove that they can... ot?


Don't have to. The generally held consensus is that they do, due the overwhelming evidence available.
If you are holding a dubious minority theory that they don't, it's up to you to prove it.

Your repying him is a proof that the earth is flat, and then globularists cornered and have no chance but use accounts like you to support their weak arguments. Was not it better you introduce yourself in more convenient place of forum; instead of jumping in at the deep end of the issue. Somebody has to prove rockets can work in vacuum before wants to opposite arguments. Because we can not prove something is not exist.

Hello. My user name here is RomP. I don't believe in a flat earth since it is counter to a) the generally held consensus and evidence that it's a sphere, b) the apparent real world practical issues if the earth wasn't a sphere, and c) the consistency in the all the evidence and experience in the earth being a sphere.

First, and with due respect, I really can not see how you think my response is proof that the earth is flat. All you've done is arrived at an erroneous logical conclusion.

Second, and to reiterate, rockets work in a vacuum. They do so every time. Your response to this seems to be the typical, we say "XXXX, you prove it wrong whilst we sit on our hands doing nothing practical back up our claim".

As you've pointed out, I'm new to the forum. But having lurked for a number of moths, some of my observations on the style of debate seems to be:

- FE claim made.
- Non FEer counters with generally accepted theories and evidence.
- FEer counters by a mixture of a) answering but by avoiding actually providing and answer, b) provides youtube or blog 'evidence' of dubious merit, c) requests evidence which has impractical and impossible thresholds and criteria, d) when evidence is presented waves it away due to wanting the 'next level criteria' to be met or stating it's false.
- And wash, rinse, repeat.

I tip my hat to those with patience for this.

Given that commercial enterprises and other nations are ramping up their space programmes, with the possible consequence that space travel could eventually become cheap enough for many to travel on a rocket, I should think the 'rockets don't work in a vacuum' theory will die down.

There'll still be the diehards though who won't accept this, much like those FErs who still don't accept the evidence of the distances and routes travelled by commercial airlines and ships as well as the charts etc., for the southern hemisphere.

Hello mister new globularist.

Rockets can not work in a vacuum. Not only rockets, nothing work in a vacuum. in fact, what we call vacuum is a kind of black hole. it pulls everything around it and breaks it apart. it would only take a few seconds if space had actually been reached. claiming that the rocket works in space proves that you are completely ignorant of physics.

the rest of your claims are just as unfounded as the others, so it's not worth it for now. I recommend that you review the Q&A and believers section before you enter into discussions during your stay here. reading destroys ignorance, but we can't teach you to think.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Unconvinced on July 22, 2019, 06:12:54 AM


Hello mister new globularist.

Rockets can not work in a vacuum. Not only rockets, nothing work in a vacuum. in fact, what we call vacuum is a kind of black hole. it pulls everything around it and breaks it apart. it would only take a few seconds if space had actually been reached. claiming that the rocket works in space proves that you are completely ignorant of physics.

the rest of your claims are just as unfounded as the others, so it's not worth it for now. I recommend that you review the Q&A and believers section before you enter into discussions during your stay here. reading destroys ignorance, but we can't teach you to think.

Of course, the best way to learn physics is to read the flat earth society believers section. 

Not a physics textbook or anything.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: frenat on July 22, 2019, 06:16:46 AM
Rockets can not work in a vacuum. Not only rockets, nothing work in a vacuum. in fact, what we call vacuum is a kind of black hole. it pulls everything around it and breaks it apart. it would only take a few seconds if space had actually been reached. claiming that the rocket works in space proves that you are completely ignorant of physics.

This is some funny shit right here. What kind of misunderstanding of physics do you have to have to think a vacuum, which is nothing by definition, can create any force at all to pull on anything?Thanks for the humor!
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: radioflat on July 22, 2019, 06:34:53 AM

IN ADDITION :

COMBUSTION IS IMPOSSIBLE IN A VACUUM :



Oh, ok - so gunpowder does not ignite in a vacuum - so if I shot a gun in a vacuum the bullets would not work? Let's see you try that!!??

Ha, ha you fool ... That is why they take their OxYgEn with them (to combine with Hydrogen or Kerosene) - 'to BuRn' and the cause an equal and opposite reaction, which is the thrust that propels the rocket! ...
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 22, 2019, 06:53:05 AM
0a. COMBUSTION IS IMPOSSIBLE IN A VACUUM :

0b. The air locks between the lunar rover and the outside, none. NONE!!! Fantasy the lot.

0c. Batteries are very heavy.. can you imagine the weight of a battery in 1965, big enough to run an air system for a week???????

0d. Lunar Rover problems : While watching this video pay attention to these problems as well :

A) When you look at footage from these lunar rovers, is that the dust behaves as if there is an atmosphere. It forms waves and is resisted by air and it falls back to the ground at the same speed. The dust from the wheelspin should propel 300 feet away.

B) It's a remote control small scale toy  car. 
   The driver NEVER STEERS the wheel.

C) Listen it : 29min 49sec in the video : I seriously doubt that spoiled little douchebag (Edgar Mitchell's son) was joking about having him whacked - anyone know if this dude still alive?


1. CGI are possible, however, they never presented them, since Neil Armstrong and especially Michael Collins have pointed out many times that they hadn't been able to see ANY stars from the moon, or from the lunar orbit.

However, Michael Collins wrote on page 221 of "Carrying the Fire" : "My God, the stars are everywhere: above me on all sides, even below me somewhat, down there next to that obscure horizon. The stars are bright and they are steady. Of course I know that a star's twinkle is created by the atmosphere, and I have seen twinkle-less stars before in a planetarium, but this is different, this is no simulation, this is the best view of the universe that a human ever had."?

See the last part of this video : APOLLO - HOAX OF THE CENTURY - part 3 : It's about Michael Collins contradicting himself : During famous Apollo 11 conference he claimed that he wasn't able to see *ANY* star from the lunar orbit...However in his book he claims that he was very able to observe countless stars from earth' orbit...How about that??? You see, this is an example where the same person asserts two totally contradictory claims (in two different occasions)...There is more to it (concerning Michael Collins) :

Michael Collins was designated the navigator for Apollo 11. In his book he lists the 37 navigation stars they were to use, plus their corresponding octal numbers which identified them to the computers. Here's how Michael explains that navigation package:

"The astronaut, peering out through either his telescope or his sextant finds one of the chosen few, superimposes a + on it, and pushes a button at the instant of perfect alignment. He then tells the computer which star it was, by numbers. Repeating this process on a second star allows the computer and the platform to determine which way the spacecraft is pointing. So we now know which way is up? Well, not exactly, because "up" is a rather fragile concept meaning away from the center of the earth, a direction opposite the gravity vector used to clutch us tightly by. But suppose we cannot even see the earth in our window, suppose we are floating free of earth's gravity. What now, M.I.T.? Back to our friendly stars. We simply define a new up-down and left-right, using the stars in place of earth. All will be well as long as we all play the game by the same rules, as long as the ground controllers send us instructions using the same stellar frame of reference. Now we are free of all terrestrial conventions and can correct our course to and from the Moon by pointing in the proper direction relative to the stars."

Someone could say that there is the difference : Michael Collins was able to see the stars by naked eyes from earth's orbit (Gemini), but he wasn't able to see *ANY* star from the lunar orbit...And if someone attempted to claim such a ridiculous claim, then he would have to be able to explain to us this : what would disable Michael Collins to see the stars from the lunar orbit? If there was anything that could obscure the stars while he was in lunar orbit, that very same reason (an obstacle) would disable him to see the stars TO EVEN A GREATER EXTENT while he was in earth's orbit since according to NeilDeGrass Tyson the only reason why we can't see the stars from the earth (during the day) is the presence of earth's atmosphere which is a glow with scattered light from the sun!!! If you take away the atmosphere, the sun will still be there but the sky goes dark! That is what folks get when they get to the edge of the atmosphere, the atmosphere is no longer between you and the rest of the universe and the stars would reveal themselves just as they would at night! Plain and simple!!!

2. YOU ONLY NEED TO PROVE ONE OF THEM TO BE THE SAME PERSON TO PROVE THE THEORY : LUNACY - PART 2 :

3. When the first crew who landed on the moon did a world tour ,they presented the Dutch premier with a piece of moon rock ,,,when he died a few years ago the university of Utrecht in Holland did some experiments on what they thought was moon rock ,,and it was found to be worthless petrified wood ,,?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html

4. No tyre tracks from rover : Even guys who believe that we landed on the moon admit that there is huge amount of altered (photoshopped) "apollo" images.--- MOON FAKERY - 3 : http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2010/192/moon-fakery-3.htm

5. Set of excerpts of "docking" : You must be a genuine idiot so to be unable to recognize obvious fakery in this cheap animation : once again : 100% proof moon landing Hoax in a 1 minute clip :

6. In 60 years of all of NASA or any other organizations outer space video footage... there does not exist a single video clip of someone panning the camera 360 degrees!!! HOW COME???

7. Why Are There No Real Photos of The Complete Earth? = NASA has never been into space far enough from the Earth to get the whole planet in the frame.

8. How could they survive the radiation and high temperature, WITH THAT SUITE. i think that a bunch of fan could never handle that, cause that (include all things on back pack) will broken and become unusable on such a hot temperatures...Just how... is it calculated to know the temperature on the moon? Being the moon is some 1/4 million miles away? The temps calculated for the earth are not always accurate, let-alone to tell us the temps on the moons surface are such. Are they shooting a beam to the moon such as one checking the temp of his steak on the grill? A 1/4 million miles away. Forgive—a thermometer was stuck in the soil upon arrival.

Now let's see why we should take with a grain of salt official (NASA) "data" regarding the temperature of/on the surface of the moon :

In the "Lancet" (Medical Journal), for March 14th, 1856, particulars are given of several experiments which proved that the moon's rays when concentrated, actually reduced the temperature upon a thermometer more than eight degrees.

"The light of the moon, though concentrated by the most powerful burning-glass, is incapable of raising the temperature of the most delicate thermometer. M. De la Hire collected the rays of the full moon when on the meridian, by means of a burning-glass 35 inches in diameter, and made them fall on the bulb of a delicate air-thermometer. No effect was produced though the lunar rays by this glass were concentrated 300 times.

Professor Forbes concentrated the moon's light by a lens 30 inches in diameter, its focal distance being about 41 inches, and having a power of concentration exceeding 6000 times. The image of the moon, which was only 18 hours past full, and less than two hours from the meridian, was brilliantly thrown by this lens on the extremity of a commodious thermopile. Although the observations were made in the most unexceptional manner, and (supposing that half the rays were reflected, dispersed and absorbed), though the light of the moon was concentrated 3000 times, not the slightest thermo effect was produced."

9. All NASA missions were and are faked. A total fraud. NASA has extorted trillions of dollars since their formation. What a sham!

10. NASA : "The simulator provided 5/6-g thrust (83 % of the propulsion) to simulate the amount of thrust that the rocket engine would need to lift the craft while flying down to the surface of the moon."

This would be using 83 % of earth's propulsion requirements to adjust for an environment with only 17 % of the earth's gravity???????????????? Explanations such as this certainly drive home the point that no matter how convoluted they will always have rationalization (no matter how stupid) for everything!!!<<<

So, since the gravitational force is 6 times stronger on the earth than on the moon, shouldn't then simulator provide 600 % of the propulsion (instead of 83 %) to simulate the amount of thrust that the rocket engine would need to lift the craft while flying down to the surface of the moon???

A BAD ATTEMPT AT RESPONDING TO THIS PROBLEM :

No. The LLRV (flown on Earth) cut the load of the craft to 1/6th (simulating lunar gravity) by lifting 5/6th of the load with a jet engine, leaving 1/6th of the load to be carried by the rocket engine.?

WHY IS THIS A BAD RESPOND :

By cutting the load of the craft to 1/6th you don't cut 1/6th of the whole weight of the craft, you would still have to increase the amount of thrust instead of decreasing it...

11. They can't find any of the footage or telemetry info regarding one of humankind's greatest ever achievements, if not it's greatest, and they don't even know where to look? FFS. Game up. Proof positive.

12. Very interesting comment left by one of my viewers :

You know, as a retired advanced sport scuba diver, myself nor any of my diving buddies ever sacrificed our equipment underwater at any depth in any which way in regards to safety in a possible serious risk of damaging our life support system!  Now what kind of and IDIOTIC FOOL would be taking chances in an environment like ( coff coffff ) so-called space where you risk an INSTANT VIOLENT DEATH if your life support system failed in a compromising manner?  Huh?  You'd think these drunkin' freemansonic clowns are actors-on-a-stage!   I call this:  ( ( (  FIRST CLASS BS  ) ) )

14. *The money the money the money.*  Project Apollo was the source of money for the cost of the Vietnam War and CIA black ops all over the world.  The cost of the SR71, F15,F16,F14 the XB70 Valkyrie project the B1B project, the Corona spy satellites that were replaced by newer spy satellites,  replacing the fleet of WWII Essex class aircraft carriers with the Nimitz class nuclear super carriers,  the entire fleet of nuclear submarines, replace the M48 and M60 tanks with the M1A1 battle tank, the Bradley fighting vehicle project to replace the M113 APC. But the old M113 in an upgraded from is still in service, a all services rifle the M16, replaced the BAR with the M60 light machine gun, that was replaced by the M249 SAW anti missile missile systems. The space program was always a military project first and a large number of space missions were a cover for covert spy missions and Apollo was no exception the Pentagon budget just became so large with the short list of projects I have given along with the space shuttle another military project we were stuck in low earth orbit. As we tried to move to man missions to Mars we have had 3 more wars more high tech  weapons systems,  Reagan's star wars projects.  We pay as much on military budgets as the next 10 countries and Trump and Congress wants to spend a lot more on the military. If we cut the Pentagon budget by 15-20% we would still be out spending every other country in the world.

The last paragraph explains the main reason for faking other moon missions (China's, India's, Russian's)!!!
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Crutchwater on July 22, 2019, 06:55:57 AM
Electric motors do not need oxygen to work.
Prove.

Do magnets require oxygen to "work"?

Is there oxygen available in insulated wire conductors?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: radioflat on July 22, 2019, 07:02:45 AM

7. Why Are There No Real Photos of The Complete Earth? = NASA has never been into space far enough from the Earth to get the whole planet in the frame.


Oh dear, lay off the koolaid. What then are THESE photos?

https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1249.html
http://100photos.time.com/photos/nasa-earthrise-apollo-8

https://www.livescience.com/15706-earth-photo-snapped-45-years.html
https://www.businessinsider.com/best-photos-earth-moon-from-deep-space-2017-3?r=US&IR=T#the-moons-kinship-with-us-is-uncanny-it-formed-after-a-mars-size-planet-smacked-into-a-proto-earth-some-45-billion-years-ago-9

Wibble Dribble goo-goo ...
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: magellanclavichord on July 22, 2019, 07:03:07 AM
@wise: I just wanted to comment on one of your statements upthread: You said that electric vehicles did not exist in 1969 and have "just been discovered." In case you were not aware, the very first automobiles were electric. Before efficient combustion engines were invented. Once gasoline engines became cheap enough and efficient enough, the early car makers stopped making electric cars because gasoline was very cheap and the batteries for electric cars were not very good. But electric cars did exist. Also, golf carts existed and many, if not most, of them were electric. Golfers were using electric golf carts long before Apollo. I even owned a toy electric train set before Apollo, and an electric car or rover is just a much bigger version of that, with batteries.

Also, we've had electric motors for many decades. Fans and water pumps and many other things run on electric motors. All the technology to build an electric rover existed in the 1960's. Batteries were not as good as the ones we have in today's electric cars, but they were good enough for the purpose. And they don't need oxygen.

I'll tell you what had not been invented yet in 1969: Technology good enough to fake the live TV transmission! It could be faked pretty well today, and science fiction shows do that kind of thing all the time. But not way back then.

I don't understand why some flat-Earthers think we couldn't have gone to the moon. Going to the moon does not disprove the flatness of the Earth.

As for the question of heat, here's a thought experiment: Imagine putting your hand in water that's 100 C. You would be burned horribly. But you can sit for five or ten minutes in a dry sauna that's 100 C. This is because water is more dense and therefore holds more heat than air at the same temperature. So heat passes from water to your hand very rapidly, but passes into your body from air at the same temperature very slowly. On the moon there is no atmosphere, so the heat passes to the astronauts' space suites even more slowly, and those suites are insulated, slowing the heat even more. Just like a firefighter who can walk into the intense heat of a burning building wearing insulated firefighting gear and an oxygen tank, the astronauts can walk out into the high temperature but zero density of the moon wearing their space suits and oxygen tank.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Sunset on July 22, 2019, 07:12:33 AM
Ckljamas, there's a whole other thread devoted to rocket propulsion, perhaps you could add to that thread?

Dutchy, in the video, the two men are lying.

The backdrop is not identical in the two photos. The mountain shape on right bulges up slightly compared to on the left, and the shadowing is different. When superimposing, the mountains are similar, but not identical. The terrain in the foreground is also different between photos.
Their whole argument rests on the backgrounds being identical and they aren't. The photo on right is taken in front of lunar landing module, and closer to the mountain than in photo on the left, which explains all the differences.
As such, there is no end of set and no front projection involved in the photos. That's an assumption based on their bias.

Have a closer look.
It only adds to the confusion. The picture on the left has a mountain top with a slight downward ''arc'' from left to right, while in the picture on the right the opposite is true.
Furthermore the horizon is at a measly 2.43 km. The mountain seems to grow in the right picture.
I think they slightly changed the black sky line..that only makes sense as to why the top of the mountain is shape shifting all of a sudden.
Other than that it's identical.
Quote
Look closer and you will also see tracks behind the lunar rover. Remember, the tyres were made of aluminium mesh, wire, and titanium blocks, not rubber. Thus, the tracks left, are finer than tracks left by vehicles here on earth in sand.

The lunar rovers had cooling radiators for the batteries, and built to withstand moon temperature fluctuations of -328 degrees Fahrenheit to 392 degrees Fahrenheit. The batteries were kept within operating temperatures.
Silver oxide batteries have good performance characteristics at temperature extremes. They can be used up to 55°C(131°F)
Again the special ''moon condition'' despite abnormal temperatures well outside the operating window are the only explanation why the two silver-oxide batteries of the lunar rover kept working.
You don't have to repeat the official explaination.
But ain't that handy that despite extreme temperatures the ''moon conditions'' and ''no air molecules'' were such that the lunar rover could be easily powered by two silver-oxide batteries.
I guess the moon was really looking forward to our visit  ::)
Quote
Back to the starry moon sky argument again. Armstrong and Collins both say they didn't see stars on the Apollo 11 moon landing. Collins saw stars during the Gemini 7 spacewalk, so why are these pair of fools even comparing what they say about seeing stars?
Neil Armstrong EXCLUDED that he (or generally speaking anyone) saw (or could see) stars from the lunar surface, because quote : ''the sky is pitch black and other than the sun the earth is the ONLY visble object''.
Liars sometimes forget the exact propaganda about what they should see but didn't see when asked for...don't you understand ?

Dutchy, dutchy, dutchy. The two men in the video are a pair of hucksters. The background mountain in the two photos are not identical, which means it's not a backdrop, which means it's likely an actual mountain photographed from two different locations. Fancy that, just like the astronauts said.  Location 1 with the lunar lander in front, and location 2 in front of the lunar lander, making the mountain appear to grow higher because you're closer to it. It's not that difficult to understand.

The temperature around the batteries was regulated by cooling.

The stars being seen by the astronauts is such a big concern to you. Any chance the stars weren't seen in the same way we can't see stars here on earth in the daytime, due to the sunlight from the sun? The only reason we see a blue sky during the day here on earth, is because of our atmosphere. Plus, the regolith on the moon, reflected a lot of sunlight. Collins when he did his spacewalk, wasn't standing on the moon surrounded by reflected sunlight, was he?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Unconvinced on July 22, 2019, 08:36:42 AM

14. *The money the money the money.*  Project Apollo was the source of money for the cost of the Vietnam War and CIA black ops all over the world.  The cost of the SR71, F15,F16,F14 the XB70 Valkyrie project the B1B project, the Corona spy satellites that were replaced by newer spy satellites,  replacing the fleet of WWII Essex class aircraft carriers with the Nimitz class nuclear super carriers,  the entire fleet of nuclear submarines, replace the M48 and M60 tanks with the M1A1 battle tank, the Bradley fighting vehicle project to replace the M113 APC. But the old M113 in an upgraded from is still in service, a all services rifle the M16, replaced the BAR with the M60 light machine gun, that was replaced by the M249 SAW anti missile missile systems. The space program was always a military project first and a large number of space missions were a cover for covert spy missions and Apollo was no exception the Pentagon budget just became so large with the short list of projects I have given along with the space shuttle another military project we were stuck in low earth orbit. As we tried to move to man missions to Mars we have had 3 more wars more high tech  weapons systems,  Reagan's star wars projects.  We pay as much on military budgets as the next 10 countries and Trump and Congress wants to spend a lot more on the military. If we cut the Pentagon budget by 15-20% we would still be out spending every other country in the world.

The last paragraph explains the main reason for faking other moon missions (China's, India's, Russian's)!!!

Do you realise how much you are contradicting yourself?

On the one hand, rockets can’t work in a vacuum, on the other you accept that spy satellites eventually replaced spy planes?

You’re absolutely right that the Apollo program was largely about developing technology that had military applications.  I don’t think Apollo was involved in actual spying, but developing the technology to launch spy satellites was certainly a big part of the agenda, along with communication, navigation and launch detection satellites. And of course improving rocket and guidance technology for ICBMs.

Far from being a reason to think the moon landings were fake, I regard this as a strong argument for why the US government poured money into it.  They would never have been happy with just telling the public this technology existed, they wanted it for real.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 22, 2019, 08:38:45 AM
Few more very interesting comments left by my viewers below various APOLLO HOAX videos :

One lie leads to another lie and another until you finally forget what you originally said , hearing these assholenauts is exactly what is happening!

None of these heathens can get the story straight. The problem with telling a lie is that you have to remember the lie to keep it going.

And those footprints are fake as fuck. Footprints like that ONLY occur in WET sand, like on the wet beach line. Also these footprints are so huge and deep. Moon's gravity is 1/6 of earths gravity, they weigh only 20 kg on the moon, and not 200 kg like in the pictures.

Not to mentioned the kinetic energy are the same as on earth. While the gravity pull is different. That is how You will see the scam.
That means You should jump higher than You were just 1/6 as heavy?

I think the real question is why did they even "go" to the moon?  You would think that they would make a full documentary and record every moment while they were up there on the surface showing them doing some actual research or exploration but they only have videos of them driving in circles for no reason.  People make documentaries here on earth exploring jungles and what not all the time you would think that they would record everything as they ventured to a place no one has ever been to. We send men to another body in our solar system for the first time and what do they concentrate their camera on? the spaceship they flew in from earth. Doesn't that strike you as odd? It would be like sending the Rover to Mars with a camera that just points backwards at the Rover.

In an atmosphere that can KILL you, these guys sure did a LOT of shit that could damage their suits. Could have flipped that rover, got hurt, put a hole in the suit, Wtf ? If I am on the moon, no help to be found I would NOT be joy riding and falling in the ground with rocks all over the place, FAKE

If I fell over on the moon on those small rocks I'd shit myself and check my suit. not NASA, let's practice bouncing on our hands and knees more!

When a team wins the stupid super bowl they parade the players every day for a week and every news outlet asking all of them how does it feel and shit like that and yet these people went to the moon and played golf on it and drove 4wheel dune buggy and yet no hard questioning by random news guy of these people as how was it on the moon ,that alone always bugged me the reclusiveness of the astraunots as though they turned into some kind of a freak like Fantastic four characters.

The internet blew nasas bullshit out of the water. In 1969 they had not planned that. Todays excuses are we lost everything.

Both my parents have worked at NASA for 20+ years. I grew up in kemah, TX. They always stirred away when I asked them about things like this. My Dad always said " quit being a conspiracy theorist " my mom always looked at me like she felt bad for lying to me. They provided me with a great life, great opportunities. But at what expense?

'It's okay if you know it'' you heard it folks,this astronut tells you right on video, he didn't go and he doesn't care that you know it, because he will lie and lie to everyone and its because the liberal mind has no empathy or morals, none at all,just like actors,same exact thing..and when confronted about the lies, they get violent, that is always the last resort..

I crack  up sometimes while watching these evaluations as I suddenly realize how the "brains" behind the moon fake could never have anticipated the way we can scrutinize and study these clips. Further, it must be painful for any living astronauts to see their lies repeated in endless loops on youtube. Their fakery shall live in infamy. lol and God help me, but Buzz is just sooo campy. I never tire of his shenanigans, esp the latest while Trump was speaking. Do you think Trump was trolling Buzz? I like to think so!

The specific thing that lead me to entertain that it's all a hoax is that when I would watch atronots being interviewed on tv; what immediately struck me;was that they didn't look or sound intelligent. But as my mind would be telling me something doesn't add up;it's as if another message immediately started playing about how asteonots are the "creme of the crop", highly educated, intelligent, carefully selected" So my initial instinct would be over ridden by that brainwashed thought, and I would continue watching the interviews.

What is funny to me is that grown 40 year old men and women look back at the movies they watch in the movies when they were little and laugh now of how fake they look now as much as they looked so real when they were little. But those same people look at footage of a film that was made 15 or 20 years before they were even conceived and swear on their children that it is a real event and indeed took place on the surface of the moon.

If some robot like Jesus would walk on the Moon in sandals, wrapped in bed shit and NASA would say that was Jesus,  I am sure millions would believe it.

I'm loving this series of videos! I too can't figure out how the thousands and thousands of experts in the fields involved wouldn't have caught on to the many oddities that they were seeing. As someone with a liberal arts degree and who knows absolutely nothing about any type of science or math, I can understand why I was fooled. Add ten years of tv programming to that and you've got a sucker. I wasn't the only one in this situation by a long shot. What really gets me though, are the millions of people who now have proof right before their eyes that the moon landings and everything else that comes out of NASA is pure baloney. They are absolutely determined to believe it all and to defend NASA until their last breath. This is one of the very rare occasions in which I can thank heavens for YouTube. Many thanks for the great videos!!!?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Unconvinced on July 22, 2019, 08:48:15 AM

I don't understand why some flat-Earthers think we couldn't have gone to the moon. Going to the moon does not disprove the flatness of the Earth.

It does if you want to use regular orbital mechanics in the explanation.  Or the photos of a clearly spherical earth that were released.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Stash on July 22, 2019, 08:51:30 AM
Electric motors do not need oxygen to work.
Prove.

(https://i.imgur.com/2XqCaxh.gif)
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: markjo on July 22, 2019, 09:08:26 AM
Do you have a credible citation?
Yes. You have been cooked like a chicken at 100 degrees.
Have you ever heard of oven mitts?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: markjo on July 22, 2019, 09:14:46 AM
0c. Batteries are very heavy.. can you imagine the weight of a battery in 1965, big enough to run an air system for a week???????
NASA didn't use batteries to run the air system for a week.  They used hydrogen-oxygen fuel cells to generate electricity.
https://www.hydrogenics.com/technology-resources/hydrogen-technology/fuel-cells/
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Themightykabool on July 22, 2019, 12:27:28 PM
@wise: I just wanted to comment on one of your statements upthread: You said that electric vehicles did not exist in 1969 and have "just been discovered." In case you were not aware, the very first automobiles were electric. Before efficient combustion engines were invented. Once gasoline engines became cheap enough and efficient enough, the early car makers stopped making electric cars because gasoline was very cheap and the batteries for electric cars were not very good. But electric cars did exist. Also, golf carts existed and many, if not most, of them were electric. Golfers were using electric golf carts long before Apollo. I even owned a toy electric train set before Apollo, and an electric car or rover is just a much bigger version of that, with batteries.

Also, we've had electric motors for many decades. Fans and water pumps and many other things run on electric motors. All the technology to build an electric rover existed in the 1960's. Batteries were not as good as the ones we have in today's electric cars, but they were good enough for the purpose. And they don't need oxygen.

I'll tell you what had not been invented yet in 1969: Technology good enough to fake the live TV transmission! It could be faked pretty well today, and science fiction shows do that kind of thing all the time. But not way back then.

I don't understand why some flat-Earthers think we couldn't have gone to the moon. Going to the moon does not disprove the flatness of the Earth.

As for the question of heat, here's a thought experiment: Imagine putting your hand in water that's 100 C. You would be burned horribly. But you can sit for five or ten minutes in a dry sauna that's 100 C. This is because water is more dense and therefore holds more heat than air at the same temperature. So heat passes from water to your hand very rapidly, but passes into your body from air at the same temperature very slowly. On the moon there is no atmosphere, so the heat passes to the astronauts' space suites even more slowly, and those suites are insulated, slowing the heat even more. Just like a firefighter who can walk into the intense heat of a burning building wearing insulated firefighting gear and an oxygen tank, the astronauts can walk out into the high temperature but zero density of the moon wearing their space suits and oxygen tank.

What would prove the flatness of the earth?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: dutchy on July 22, 2019, 12:55:43 PM

I don't understand why some flat-Earthers think we couldn't have gone to the moon. Going to the moon does not disprove the flatness of the Earth.

It does if you want to use regular orbital mechanics in the explanation.  Or the photos of a clearly spherical earth that were released.
Uh a poster named ‘unconvinced’ at page 2 claimed quote: ‘You cannot determine the shape of an object just from one view.’

I guess when it comes to the moonlandings we bend everything in favour of our fantasies.

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: dutchy on July 22, 2019, 01:03:01 PM
Few more very interesting comments left by my viewers below various APOLLO HOAX videos :

One lie leads to another lie and another until you finally forget what you originally said , hearing these assholenauts is exactly what is happening!

None of these heathens can get the story straight. The problem with telling a lie is that you have to remember the lie to keep it going.

And those footprints are fake as fuck. Footprints like that ONLY occur in WET sand, like on the wet beach line. Also these footprints are so huge and deep. Moon's gravity is 1/6 of earths gravity, they weigh only 20 kg on the moon, and not 200 kg like in the pictures.

Not to mentioned the kinetic energy are the same as on earth. While the gravity pull is different. That is how You will see the scam.
That means You should jump higher than You were just 1/6 as heavy?

I think the real question is why did they even "go" to the moon?  You would think that they would make a full documentary and record every moment while they were up there on the surface showing them doing some actual research or exploration but they only have videos of them driving in circles for no reason.  People make documentaries here on earth exploring jungles and what not all the time you would think that they would record everything as they ventured to a place no one has ever been to. We send men to another body in our solar system for the first time and what do they concentrate their camera on? the spaceship they flew in from earth. Doesn't that strike you as odd? It would be like sending the Rover to Mars with a camera that just points backwards at the Rover.

In an atmosphere that can KILL you, these guys sure did a LOT of shit that could damage their suits. Could have flipped that rover, got hurt, put a hole in the suit, Wtf ? If I am on the moon, no help to be found I would NOT be joy riding and falling in the ground with rocks all over the place, FAKE

If I fell over on the moon on those small rocks I'd shit myself and check my suit. not NASA, let's practice bouncing on our hands and knees more!

When a team wins the stupid super bowl they parade the players every day for a week and every news outlet asking all of them how does it feel and shit like that and yet these people went to the moon and played golf on it and drove 4wheel dune buggy and yet no hard questioning by random news guy of these people as how was it on the moon ,that alone always bugged me the reclusiveness of the astraunots as though they turned into some kind of a freak like Fantastic four characters.

The internet blew nasas bullshit out of the water. In 1969 they had not planned that. Todays excuses are we lost everything.

Both my parents have worked at NASA for 20+ years. I grew up in kemah, TX. They always stirred away when I asked them about things like this. My Dad always said " quit being a conspiracy theorist " my mom always looked at me like she felt bad for lying to me. They provided me with a great life, great opportunities. But at what expense?

'It's okay if you know it'' you heard it folks,this astronut tells you right on video, he didn't go and he doesn't care that you know it, because he will lie and lie to everyone and its because the liberal mind has no empathy or morals, none at all,just like actors,same exact thing..and when confronted about the lies, they get violent, that is always the last resort..

I crack  up sometimes while watching these evaluations as I suddenly realize how the "brains" behind the moon fake could never have anticipated the way we can scrutinize and study these clips. Further, it must be painful for any living astronauts to see their lies repeated in endless loops on youtube. Their fakery shall live in infamy. lol and God help me, but Buzz is just sooo campy. I never tire of his shenanigans, esp the latest while Trump was speaking. Do you think Trump was trolling Buzz? I like to think so!

The specific thing that lead me to entertain that it's all a hoax is that when I would watch atronots being interviewed on tv; what immediately struck me;was that they didn't look or sound intelligent. But as my mind would be telling me something doesn't add up;it's as if another message immediately started playing about how asteonots are the "creme of the crop", highly educated, intelligent, carefully selected" So my initial instinct would be over ridden by that brainwashed thought, and I would continue watching the interviews.

What is funny to me is that grown 40 year old men and women look back at the movies they watch in the movies when they were little and laugh now of how fake they look now as much as they looked so real when they were little. But those same people look at footage of a film that was made 15 or 20 years before they were even conceived and swear on their children that it is a real event and indeed took place on the surface of the moon.

If some robot like Jesus would walk on the Moon in sandals, wrapped in bed shit and NASA would say that was Jesus,  I am sure millions would believe it.

I'm loving this series of videos! I too can't figure out how the thousands and thousands of experts in the fields involved wouldn't have caught on to the many oddities that they were seeing. As someone with a liberal arts degree and who knows absolutely nothing about any type of science or math, I can understand why I was fooled. Add ten years of tv programming to that and you've got a sucker. I wasn't the only one in this situation by a long shot. What really gets me though, are the millions of people who now have proof right before their eyes that the moon landings and everything else that comes out of NASA is pure baloney. They are absolutely determined to believe it all and to defend NASA until their last breath. This is one of the very rare occasions in which I can thank heavens for YouTube. Many thanks for the great videos!!!?
Excelent post, please continue about the footprints etc. the more obvious the fakery the more outlandish the ‘moonish’ conditions.
And no one claiming those magic conditions came closer than 340.000 km of the moon.

I think the most obvious of the whole fakery is those moon conditions.
Extreme and all, but our weak batteries, limited air conditioning, delicate film, even more delicate human tissue could successfully cope with the most extreme conditions ever by a huge margin.
Like i said ‘the moon was really looking forward to our visit and paved the way’.
And those defending the whole saga do so from 340.000 km away as if they were there in 1969.
 ;D ;D ;D
Continue ... you are doing a great job and it’s  a pleasure to read !!
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: dutchy on July 22, 2019, 01:20:49 PM
Dutchy, dutchy, dutchy. The two men in the video are a pair of hucksters. The background mountain in the two photos are not identical, which means it's not a backdrop, which means it's likely an actual mountain photographed from two different locations. Fancy that, just like the astronauts said.  Location 1 with the lunar lander in front, and location 2 in front of the lunar lander, making the mountain appear to grow higher because you're closer to it. It's not that difficult to understand.
It's the opposite....magic moon conditions again ? Or camera specialties when moon conditions don't cut it ? ;D ;D
(https://www.aulis.com/jackimages/17tallshortmountain.jpg)

(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-147-22517HR.jpg)
(https://s.yimg.com/aah/mcmahanphoto/apollo-17-astronaut-shadow-lm-on-moon-photo-print-18.jpg)
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Unconvinced on July 22, 2019, 02:07:09 PM

I don't understand why some flat-Earthers think we couldn't have gone to the moon. Going to the moon does not disprove the flatness of the Earth.

It does if you want to use regular orbital mechanics in the explanation.  Or the photos of a clearly spherical earth that were released.
Uh a poster named ‘unconvinced’ at page 2 claimed quote: ‘You cannot determine the shape of an object just from one view.’

I guess when it comes to the moonlandings we bend everything in favour of our fantasies.

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Nope.  That was JackBlack.

I know it’s confusing to tell who actually said what.  I trust this doesn’t affect your unnerving ability to find the hidden meaning in everything?

;)
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: JackBlack on July 22, 2019, 02:10:56 PM
Rockets can not work in a vacuum. Not only rockets, nothing work in a vacuum. in fact, what we call vacuum is a kind of black hole. it pulls everything around it and breaks it apart. it would only take a few seconds if space had actually been reached. claiming that the rocket works in space proves that you are completely ignorant of physics.
Yes, that is your baseless claim that you are yet to back up in any way.
Repeating the same assertion wont make it true.

Where is your evidence?

Meanwhile conventional physics easily shows that rockets will work in a vacuum and in order to have them not work would require violation of physical laws.

but we can't teach you to think.
Yes, you would have to be able to think yourself to do that.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: JackBlack on July 22, 2019, 02:28:20 PM
jamas, I notice you still don't respond to a very simple question which clearly shows that rockets do work in a vacuum.
Why is this?
Can't think of a way to troll your way out of it?

0a. COMBUSTION IS IMPOSSIBLE IN A VACUUM
Citation needed.
Providing a single example of a single type of combustion not working does not show no combustion can.
Try it with a rocket.

A) When you look at footage from these lunar rovers, is that the dust behaves as if there is an atmosphere. It forms waves and is resisted by air and it falls back to the ground at the same speed. The dust from the wheelspin should propel 300 feet away.
No, it shows you don't understand dust, or are dishonestly presenting it.
The dust is being thrown up by the wheels. There is no indication of any interaction with an atmosphere, which would make the dust linger for quite a while.

Care to back up your claim that the dust from wheelspin should propel 300 feet away?
Or is that just your usual pull a number from thin air BS?

The driver NEVER STEERS the wheel.
You mean you don't understand how control systems work and think all vehicles need to be steered with wheels.
How about you try to learn how it was actually controlled.
Then provide a video which focuses on them turning around. I notice you seem to cut that bit out.

CGI are possible
Not to the level required at that time.

Michael Collins have pointed out many times that they hadn't been able to see ANY stars from the moon, or from the lunar orbit.
Where?

2. YOU ONLY NEED TO PROVE ONE OF THEM TO BE THE SAME PERSON TO PROVE THE THEORY
And it seems you have gone off into your spam land again. So I will skip the rest.

Now care to answer the very simple question yet?

What force acts on the gas to make it move in a particular direction when exiting the rocket and what body is providing this force?
Again, the only rational answer is that the rocket is providing a force to the gas to move it backwards due to the way it is partially contained.
That means rockets would work in a vacuum.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: JackBlack on July 22, 2019, 03:00:44 PM
Going to the moon does not disprove the flatness of the Earth.
It destroys the common FE model.
They have the moon being a tiny rock, something like 50 km wide. Nothing like what was transmitted back to Earth from Apollo.
Perhaps more importantly, they need to reject all of NASA as fake, as if they accept NASA can go to space and so on, then they have to explain how satellites orbit a FE, which makes no sense and instead indicates Earth is round, and all the footage provided off a RE, either live footage, videos or pictures.

Uh a poster named ‘unconvinced’ at page 2 claimed quote: ‘You cannot determine the shape of an object just from one view.’
No, I did. But I don't see how that is relevant in any way.
It isn't like we only have a single picture of Earth from space instead of the countless photos from many different directions, all of which show Earth to be roughly circular.
That does provide enough information to determine the shape of an object.
Do you know what shape appears as a circle from any direction? A sphere.

And no one claiming those magic conditions came closer than 340.000 km of the moon.
And those defending the whole saga do so from 340.000 km away as if they were there in 1969.
Well there goes FE with its mere 5000 km away moon.

I am very aware how the different types of perspective work and able to perfectly execute it on a canvas.
But can you work backwards?
Some people really struggle with that.

If you would like to, please draw a side on, orthographic projection of the examples I provided Earlier, without just cheating.
Can you work out what shape they have to be?

It totally depends on the object....
If that were true the first ‘blue marble’ a single shot from earth was not enough for you to accept the earth to be a sphere
No, it doesn't depend on the object at all.
A single view of an unknown object will not allow you to determine its shape.

The first blue marble shot of Earth was not enough to determine the shape of Earth, but there was already mountains of evidence to show Earth was and is a roughly spherical object. Since then plenty more images have been taking from a multitude of different angles.

So your strawmanning is quite out of place.

And you did not comment on the ‘growing mountain on the right’
What growing mountain?

You seem to be comparing it to the size of the LM and completely ignoring how perspective works.
Also, just to make sure, you are aware they are parts of an assembled panorama, not a single image?

Yes of course it does, but the car should have been coocking and all batteries with it within a relative short timeframe.
Why?

And i don’t believe how they handled the cooling properly, using change-of-phase wax thermal capacitor packages and reflective, upward-facing radiating surfaces.
Then demonstrate that it doesn't work.
So far all we have is your claim that it shouldn't work.
I take it you also reject cooling using heat pipes like used on laptops and some CPU cooling assemblies?

That’s the power of scientific jargon..... that’s why startrek was such a success.
No, the "scientific jargon" used in startrek is complete crap.

You could not possibly know.
No, I could know quite easily, because I actually understand how our eyes will adjust to the environment, changing how bright an object needs to be in order for us to see it.
This is obvious.

If you were standing on the illuminated surface of the moon with all that light shining in your face, you would not see the stars.

Somehow you are continiously avoiding the obvious.
No, the obvious is what I stated above. You would not see the stars.
It is only if you managed to exclude the light from the sun and moon and gave your eyes time to adjust that you would be able to see the stars.

The extremely faint stars should be strongly engraved in the memory BECAUSE they were hard to see
No, they wouldn't be, as they would be used to seeing the stars on Earth at night.
The pitch black sky would be what is strongly engraved in the memory because of just how unusual that is.
On Earth we typically see one of 2 skies (ignoring the clouds and sunrise/sunset)
A bright blue sky, with an even brighter sun, or a dark sky illuminated with many points of light in the form of stars.
Seeing a black sky without stars is what would be memorable.
However that would be less so today with all the light pollution.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Stash on July 22, 2019, 03:08:25 PM
Dutchy, dutchy, dutchy. The two men in the video are a pair of hucksters. The background mountain in the two photos are not identical, which means it's not a backdrop, which means it's likely an actual mountain photographed from two different locations. Fancy that, just like the astronauts said.  Location 1 with the lunar lander in front, and location 2 in front of the lunar lander, making the mountain appear to grow higher because you're closer to it. It's not that difficult to understand.
It's the opposite....magic moon conditions again ? Or camera specialties when moon conditions don't cut it ? ;D ;D
(https://www.aulis.com/jackimages/17tallshortmountain.jpg)

Going by the NASA reference numbers on the images I did some searching. The first image referenced in the meme, A17pan120264, has been close cropped. Here is the actual image with a super wide angle lens:

(https://i.imgur.com/I4wfmLC.png?1)

The image in the meme:

(https://i.imgur.com/UcyTJkS.png?1)

Strangely, when I put any combination of the number tagged to this photo (A17 14722492 pan) from the meme into search, nothing comes up:

(https://i.imgur.com/hC6cwVz.png?1)

I think you’ve been played.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: rabinoz on July 22, 2019, 03:10:56 PM
0a. COMBUSTION IS IMPOSSIBLE IN A VACUUM:

Quote from: cikljamas
0b. The airlocks between the lunar rover and the outside, none. NONE!!! Fantasy the lot.
Why should there be any "airlocks between the lunar rover and the outside"?
The lunar rover is only driven by astronauts wearing spacesuits (Extravehicular Mobility Units) so why would airlocks be needed?

You possibly mean the Lunar Module (LM) and not the Lunar Rover. If this if the case there were no airlocks simply to save weight.
When entering the LM from the CM the airlock is part of the CM (one hatch on the CM and one on the LM).
On the surface, the LM was depressurised before exit and repressurised after re-entry.
The LM atmosphere was pure oxygen atmosphere at only 5 psi, about one-third the pressure of the air.

So you, cikljamas, might not be able to understand these simple issues but that in no way proves it is "Fantasy the lot" it just proves that you are too lazy to investigate and understand it!
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: JackBlack on July 22, 2019, 03:38:21 PM
Strangely, when I put any combination of the number tagged to this photo (A17 14722492 pan) from the meme into search, nothing comes up:
I actually found it easier to find that one.
Here is the fully assembled panorama:
(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17pan1174743.jpg)

The main images used all start with AS17-147-, and then there is 22493 through to 22495 and 22517 through to 22520.
For the other they all start with AS17-134- and then go 22437 through to 22446.

The strange part is the 2 are labelled in significantly different ways.
The close shot is labelled based upon magazine number and the number of the first picture.
The far one is labelled based upon the time.
Why?

Perhaps the best comparison would be comparing AS17-134-20441 with AS17-147-22518.
This shows they are quite similar, but definitely a 3D object taken from different angles.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: magellanclavichord on July 22, 2019, 03:41:56 PM
0a. COMBUSTION IS IMPOSSIBLE IN A VACUUM ...

But the inside of the combustion chamber of a rocket engine is not a vacuum. By definition, there will be no combustion in a vacuum because in a vacuum there's nothing to burn. But squirt some fuel and oxidizer into the chamber and voila! it's no longer a vacuum.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: magellanclavichord on July 22, 2019, 03:55:29 PM
Going to the moon does not disprove the flatness of the Earth.
It destroys the common FE model.

Yes. The common model is flawed. We need an uncommon model. I admit to being disappointed in those FEers who are so inflexible in their model that they are forced to invent silly conspiracy theories to back up their flawed model, rather than revising the model to be more in line with reality.

Notably, the duration of a conspiracy is inversely related to the number of people involved. A conspiracy of five people, if they are careful and lucky, can be maintained for a few years. A conspiracy of a hundred people might last a few weeks or a month. A conspiracy of a thousand people will fall apart within a day. And a conspiracy of ten thousand people won't last for five minutes. There's no way that all the world's governments and space agencies, or even just NASA, could maintain a conspiracy overnight.

I'm not going to get into the old fruitless argument, but a correct model of FE must be one that does not stand upon a belief in a massive conspiracy. The common model fails this test. An uncommon model is needed.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Stash on July 22, 2019, 03:59:59 PM
Strangely, when I put any combination of the number tagged to this photo (A17 14722492 pan) from the meme into search, nothing comes up:
I actually found it easier to find that one.
Here is the fully assembled panorama:
(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17pan1174743.jpg)

The main images used all start with AS17-147-, and then there is 22493 through to 22495 and 22517 through to 22520.
For the other they all start with AS17-134- and then go 22437 through to 22446.

The strange part is the 2 are labelled in significantly different ways.
The close shot is labelled based upon magazine number and the number of the first picture.
The far one is labelled based upon the time.
Why?

Perhaps the best comparison would be comparing AS17-134-20441 with AS17-147-22518.
This shows they are quite similar, but definitely a 3D object taken from different angles.

Incredible. The crazy part is the disingenuous desperation: Take images, slated for panoramas and such, blow them up, place them side by side, create a meme, all saying "How can this be?!?" Completely out of context and out of the reality. All to forward a notion that fakery is involved. Maybe if one is a conspiracy theorist it's ok to fudge evidence because you think it serves the greater good of what you're sure of, exposing conspiracy?

That's just not how this is supposed to work. One shouldn't have to manufacture 'evidence'.

Dutchy, I'm not blaming you, but you've fallen into a trap.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: JackBlack on July 22, 2019, 04:07:51 PM
Yes. The common model is flawed. We need an uncommon model. I admit to being disappointed in those FEers who are so inflexible in their model that they are forced to invent silly conspiracy theories to back up their flawed model, rather than revising the model to be more in line with reality.
The problem is that the only way to make it consistent with reality is to make Earth round, or to manipulate reality to such an extent that reality is pretending Earth is round. (But then Gaussian curvature gets in the way and Says Earth is round anyway).
All the FE models have some massive issues. Other FE models can address them while introducing their own issues.

The moon is one simple example of such a massive issue.

It is well know that the moon, just like the sun, is observed at different times in different locations. It also appears in a different apparent direction.
This one aspect (other than the exact direction being wrong) works with the common FE model, and has the moon being tiny, preventing people landing on it.
However it is also observed that it remains basically the same size and the same view is presented (ignoring the phases). That goes directly against the common FE model.
In order to have this aspect match you need to have the moon very far away such that its motion over the course of a day doesn't significantly change the distance and the movement across Earth doesn't change the direction you are looking at it. This then allows a nice distant moon and allows it to be roughly the same apparent size and the same side. But that introduces the problem of it not being in the same direction and it appearing at different times in different locations.
The sane way to solve both is to keep the moon far away and large, and then have the different directions and times be a result of Earth being round such that different side of Earth faces the moon.
That solves the problem of the moon, without introducing more.

So we don't need an uncommon FE model. We need a RE model.

You shouldn't be trying to get a correct FE model, as that starts with the assumption that Earth is flat. What you should be trying to get is a correct Earth model, which would allow Earth to be any shape.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: JackBlack on July 22, 2019, 04:11:33 PM
Incredible. The crazy part is the disingenuous desperation: Take images, slated for panoramas and such, blow them up, place them side by side, create a meme, all saying "How can this be?!?" Completely out of context and out of the reality. All to forward a notion that fakery is involved. Maybe if one is a conspiracy theorist it's ok to fudge evidence because you think it serves the greater good of what you're sure of, exposing conspiracy?
The issue is do those making it actually believe?
I have always held that the majority of people making this "evidence" don't believe at all and know what they are saying is built upon lies. They aren't doing it to promote the truth but to try to have people rebel and overthrow the government, or to simply line their pockets. They are like snake oil salesmen.

One I found particularly stupid was someone claiming the ISS had to be fake because an astronaut dissolves as they leave the room, where the footage was a loop of this repeatedly playing, with a dissolve effect added to complete the loop.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Themightykabool on July 22, 2019, 04:51:31 PM
Going to the moon does not disprove the flatness of the Earth.
It destroys the common FE model.

Yes. The common model is flawed. We need an uncommon model. I admit to being disappointed in those FEers who are so inflexible in their model that they are forced to invent silly conspiracy theories to back up their flawed model, rather than revising the model to be more in line with reality.

Notably, the duration of a conspiracy is inversely related to the number of people involved. A conspiracy of five people, if they are careful and lucky, can be maintained for a few years. A conspiracy of a hundred people might last a few weeks or a month. A conspiracy of a thousand people will fall apart within a day. And a conspiracy of ten thousand people won't last for five minutes. There's no way that all the world's governments and space agencies, or even just NASA, could maintain a conspiracy overnight.

I'm not going to get into the old fruitless argument, but a correct model of FE must be one that does not stand upon a belief in a massive conspiracy. The common model fails this test. An uncommon model is needed.

Correct
All roads lead to conspiracy.
Where does yours lead?
What would an uncommom model consist of when taking scientists at their word, except to the limit the world is a ball?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Stash on July 22, 2019, 05:05:53 PM
Incredible. The crazy part is the disingenuous desperation: Take images, slated for panoramas and such, blow them up, place them side by side, create a meme, all saying "How can this be?!?" Completely out of context and out of the reality. All to forward a notion that fakery is involved. Maybe if one is a conspiracy theorist it's ok to fudge evidence because you think it serves the greater good of what you're sure of, exposing conspiracy?
The issue is do those making it actually believe?
I have always held that the majority of people making this "evidence" don't believe at all and know what they are saying is built upon lies. They aren't doing it to promote the truth but to try to have people rebel and overthrow the government, or to simply line their pockets. They are like snake oil salesmen.

One I found particularly stupid was someone claiming the ISS had to be fake because an astronaut dissolves as they leave the room, where the footage was a loop of this repeatedly playing, with a dissolve effect added to complete the loop.

Yeah, I know, it's quite the conundrum for me. I kind of think there are two camps: Those making the evidence and those feeding on and spreading the evidence. Within which are probably many camps. Not to say that all contrary viewpoints, investigations, deep divings, etc, are not warranted. In fact welcomed. But it's just when I see stuff like this where it's manufactured to bait. (I actually sound like a skepti diatribe, but in reverse - So let me reverse that and clarify)

In this particular case, I see a lot manipulation, omission, heavy editing, and this instance being a prime example: Absolute disregard for factual documentation/photographic evidence and a meme making juggernaut to sate a rabid conspiratorial appetite. And the likes of our good friend and foe, Dutchy, getting rope-a-doped into it when he may actually have some salient points to make. All of which takes the oxygen out of what points he may have.
We are all privy and subject to our own biases. But we really need to separate the wheat from the chaff. And in this instance, it's all chaff.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: JerkFace on July 22, 2019, 06:37:11 PM

Both my parents have worked at NASA for 20+ years. I grew up in kemah, TX. They always stirred away when I asked them about things like this. My Dad always said " quit being a conspiracy theorist " my mom always looked at me like she felt bad for lying to me. They provided me with a great life, great opportunities. But at what expense?


Right next to Johnson Space Center.   What sort of work did your parents do at NASA?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: dutchy on July 22, 2019, 07:29:42 PM
(https://www.aulis.com/jackimages/17tallshortmountain.jpg)

(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-147-22517HR.jpg)
(https://s.yimg.com/aah/mcmahanphoto/apollo-17-astronaut-shadow-lm-on-moon-photo-print-18.jpg)

So what is the trickery supposedly ?

Even when you claim the angle of the LEM is different than another problem occurs. The mountain top is different !
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Stash on July 22, 2019, 07:39:47 PM
(https://www.aulis.com/jackimages/17tallshortmountain.jpg)

(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-147-22517HR.jpg)
(https://s.yimg.com/aah/mcmahanphoto/apollo-17-astronaut-shadow-lm-on-moon-photo-print-18.jpg)

So what is the trickery supposedly ?

You've been taken in by a meme of three altered images baked inside a loss of objectivity cake that tastes good going down without being able to see the breadth and depth of all the images from all the angles.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: dutchy on July 22, 2019, 07:42:54 PM
(https://www.aulis.com/jackimages/17tallshortmountain.jpg)

(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-147-22517HR.jpg)
(https://s.yimg.com/aah/mcmahanphoto/apollo-17-astronaut-shadow-lm-on-moon-photo-print-18.jpg)

So what is the trickery supposedly ?

You've been taken in by a meme of three altered images baked inside a loss of objectivity cake that tastes good going down without being able to see the breadth and depth of all the images from all the angles.
Then the mountain top will shapeshift on the offical NASA pictures.
If you claim another angle which i agree the mountaintop on the far right changes dramatically in shape.

Don’t start the namecalling to quick Stash.....
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Stash on July 22, 2019, 07:49:22 PM
(https://www.aulis.com/jackimages/17tallshortmountain.jpg)

(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-147-22517HR.jpg)
(https://s.yimg.com/aah/mcmahanphoto/apollo-17-astronaut-shadow-lm-on-moon-photo-print-18.jpg)

So what is the trickery supposedly ?

You've been taken in by a meme of three altered images baked inside a loss of objectivity cake that tastes good going down without being able to see the breadth and depth of all the images from all the angles.
Then the mountain top will shapeshift on the offical NASA pictures.
If you claim another angle which i agree the mountaintopn changes dramatically.

I've been looking a bunch of A17 images trying to see what matches what and what doesn't match what. The angles are all over the place so it's hard to cohesively string things together. So I get why people would be like, "Hey, that doesn't really match..." etc. But I'm trying to do the work to see how it all fits together. Personally, I loathe the slapdash meme thing where it seems, in this case, images are manipulated to "make a case". I much prefer the naked truth.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: dutchy on July 22, 2019, 07:55:49 PM
(https://www.aulis.com/jackimages/17tallshortmountain.jpg)

(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-147-22517HR.jpg)
(https://s.yimg.com/aah/mcmahanphoto/apollo-17-astronaut-shadow-lm-on-moon-photo-print-18.jpg)

So what is the trickery supposedly ?

You've been taken in by a meme of three altered images baked inside a loss of objectivity cake that tastes good going down without being able to see the breadth and depth of all the images from all the angles.
Then the mountain top will shapeshift on the offical NASA pictures.
If you claim another angle which i agree the mountaintopn changes dramatically.

I've been looking a bunch of A17 images trying to see what matches what and what doesn't match what. The angles are all over the place so it's hard to cohesively string things together. So I get why people would be like, "Hey, that doesn't really match..." etc. But I'm trying to do the work to see how it all fits together. Personally, I loathe the slapdash meme thing where it seems, in this case, images are manipulated to "make a case". I much prefer the naked truth.
Envision a proper rotated  LEM from one picture to the other.   How many degrees would that be ?
No way the background could possible match.
We still see the same parts of the LEM in both pictures so our rotation has a certain limitation.. just need to rotate the hypthetical background to match the view.

With any amount of creativity the changing background is utterly impossible.

If so please enlighten me .
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Sunset on July 22, 2019, 08:02:56 PM
Dutchy, the short answer is you've been had by clever conmen.

Their whole argument with the photos rests with the background in both photos being identical, and they clearly are not. They knew it, we know it, and you know it. Stop trying to make a square peg fit in a circle hole.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Googleotomy on July 22, 2019, 08:10:27 PM
From my admittedly amateur experiences in photography IMO those differences are just due to camera lens settings.
If you use a wide angle lens you get a completely different picture from one taken with a telephoto lens.
Possibly those pictures were taken with a camera with a " zoom lens ".
You can "zoom in " with the telephoto setting for a close up of a distant mountain or hill for example.
Then you could " zoom out " for a wide angle setting to get a picture of a wider view of the surroundings.
I have taken a lot of pictures at Grand Canyon and have " zoomed in and out" of them when taking pictures from the same location.

If the question is in reference to differences in  the photos I don't see any thing suspicious about them.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: magellanclavichord on July 22, 2019, 08:12:58 PM
All the FE models have some massive issues.

Which is why I don't have a model. People invent a model, or hitch a ride on someone else's model, and when that model doesn't work they either have to admit they're wrong, or paint themselves into a corner trying to defend it. It's really much easier not to have a model. That way there's nothing that needs defending.

This whole moon thing is a great example of this: If your FE model says the moon is, say, one mile across and 20 miles up, then you have to argue the moon landings never happened, when you'd have to have a screw loose to believe that. But there's no reason why a FE would demand the moon to be one mile across and 20 miles high. Or that other thread where some FEers are claiming rockets can't work in space. There's no reason why a FE would mean that rockets couldn't work in space. But they've hitched themselves to a FE model that doesn't work if we sent men to the moon, so they have to claim we didn't, and denying that rockets work in space is just one more rickety leg they've built under their model.

No, it's better not to have a model.

I call on all my fellow flat-Earthers to discard all models. None of them work and none of them is necessary. We can have a flat Earth just because we say so. We're in the minority now, but politics has seen some dramatic reversals and we could be in the majority one day. But all these defective models hurt our cause, because ordinary people can see the flaws in them. It's only by discarding all models that we can unify our movement and spread our message.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Stash on July 22, 2019, 08:14:29 PM
(https://www.aulis.com/jackimages/17tallshortmountain.jpg)

(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-147-22517HR.jpg)
(https://s.yimg.com/aah/mcmahanphoto/apollo-17-astronaut-shadow-lm-on-moon-photo-print-18.jpg)

So what is the trickery supposedly ?

You've been taken in by a meme of three altered images baked inside a loss of objectivity cake that tastes good going down without being able to see the breadth and depth of all the images from all the angles.
Then the mountain top will shapeshift on the offical NASA pictures.
If you claim another angle which i agree the mountaintopn changes dramatically.

I've been looking a bunch of A17 images trying to see what matches what and what doesn't match what. The angles are all over the place so it's hard to cohesively string things together. So I get why people would be like, "Hey, that doesn't really match..." etc. But I'm trying to do the work to see how it all fits together. Personally, I loathe the slapdash meme thing where it seems, in this case, images are manipulated to "make a case". I much prefer the naked truth.
Envision a proper rotated  LEM from one picture to the other.   How many degrees would that be ?
No way the background could possible match.
We still see the same parts of the LEM in both pictures so our rotation has a certain limitation.. just need to rotate the hypthetical background to match the view.

With any amount of creativity the changing background is utterly impossible.

If so please enlighten me .

I get it, there's just lots to consider and I'm not willing to pass judgement on 5 photos, let alone 3 of which that came from a deliberately altered meme. So I'm doing the work. There are lenses to consider for one. I'm a shooter in the biz, production and post, as it were, still and video. No expert on moon imaging, but there is a thing called lens compression that can really alter the foreground v background perspective. I'm not saying this is the case, but worth examining before passing judgement one way or the other. Here's a famous version of the effect:

(https://i.imgur.com/m4liUmQ.gif)

So let me do the due diligence, objectively, as I have never seen this particular 'discrepancy' before and it's worth a look.

Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: JerkFace on July 22, 2019, 08:19:50 PM
All the FE models have some massive issues.

Which is why I don't have a model. People invent a model, or hitch a ride on someone else's model, and when that model doesn't work they either have to admit they're wrong, or paint themselves into a corner trying to defend it. It's really much easier not to have a model. That way there's nothing that needs defending.

This whole moon thing is a great example of this: If your FE model says the moon is, say, one mile across and 20 miles up, then you have to argue the moon landings never happened, when you'd have to have a screw loose to believe that. But there's no reason why a FE would demand the moon to be one mile across and 20 miles high. Or that other thread where some FEers are claiming rockets can't work in space. There's no reason why a FE would mean that rockets couldn't work in space. But they've hitched themselves to a FE model that doesn't work if we sent men to the moon, so they have to claim we didn't, and denying that rockets work in space is just one more rickety leg they've built under their model.

No, it's better not to have a model.

I call on all my fellow flat-Earthers to discard all models. None of them work and none of them is necessary. We can have a flat Earth just because we say so. We're in the minority now, but politics has seen some dramatic reversals and we could be in the majority one day. But all these defective models hurt our cause, because ordinary people can see the flaws in them. It's only by discarding all models that we can unify our movement and spread our message.

I agree,  let's discard objective reality,  then we can make the world into whatever we like.   LOL.    I wonder if there is any downside?


Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Unconvinced on July 22, 2019, 11:25:39 PM
(https://www.aulis.com/jackimages/17tallshortmountain.jpg)

(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-147-22517HR.jpg)
(https://s.yimg.com/aah/mcmahanphoto/apollo-17-astronaut-shadow-lm-on-moon-photo-print-18.jpg)

So what is the trickery supposedly ?

You've been taken in by a meme of three altered images baked inside a loss of objectivity cake that tastes good going down without being able to see the breadth and depth of all the images from all the angles.
Then the mountain top will shapeshift on the offical NASA pictures.
If you claim another angle which i agree the mountaintopn changes dramatically.

I've been looking a bunch of A17 images trying to see what matches what and what doesn't match what. The angles are all over the place so it's hard to cohesively string things together. So I get why people would be like, "Hey, that doesn't really match..." etc. But I'm trying to do the work to see how it all fits together. Personally, I loathe the slapdash meme thing where it seems, in this case, images are manipulated to "make a case". I much prefer the naked truth.
Envision a proper rotated  LEM from one picture to the other.   How many degrees would that be ?
No way the background could possible match.
We still see the same parts of the LEM in both pictures so our rotation has a certain limitation.. just need to rotate the hypthetical background to match the view.

With any amount of creativity the changing background is utterly impossible.

If so please enlighten me .

First image is taken from higher elevation than second, pointing slightly down at the LM.

The LM is in a bit of dip.  As is position of second photo.

Bottom of mountain is cut off on second image by the terrain, the line of which you can see on the high res photo (no, it’s not where the painting/projection starts).

The angle has changed obviously, putting the LM to left of mountain in second shot, accounting for its apparent rotation, and slight change in view of top of mountain.

At a guess, I’d place second picture taken from about halfway down white line on right hand side of first picture.

Come on guys, we talk about things being obscured by the horizon all the damn time.  How has no one thought of this yet?

Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Sunset on July 23, 2019, 12:13:33 AM
Unconvinced, you've nailed it.

I was also going to propose the 2nd photo was taken from a higher elevation, LM possibly being in a dip, different angle, accounting for differences with LM positioning in photo, etc.

It's common sense.

Magellanclavicord, I say the world is made of chocolate, and so it is so! Presto! Everywhere I go, I break off pieces of delicious chocolate and eat it, drink it, sniff it, wash myself in it, and inject it. That's the thing though, the chocolate isn't brown, but it's still chocolate. Maybe I should start the chocolate earth society, ey magellanclavicord? You can bring your rainbows and lollipops.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: JackBlack on July 23, 2019, 01:44:00 AM
So what is the trickery supposedly ?
That is quite simple:
You are claiming the mountain is magically shrinking, and using a photo with a different scale to pretend it has shrunk.

You have no actual basis for your claim that the closer shot has a smaller mountain.

Previously you claimed they were exactly the same, that it was just a backdrop, but that was shown to be wrong as well as they are similar, but not identical.

Even when you claim the angle of the LEM is different than another problem occurs. The mountain top is different !
That isn't a problem.
As it is viewed from a different angle you would expect the mountain to appear different.

Envision a proper rotated  LEM from one picture to the other.   How many degrees would that be ?
Quite a few.
I would estimate just below 90 degrees.
But that is the LM not the mountain. For the mountain it will be much less.

No way the background could possible match.
Good thing they don't match.
They are close, but not a match.
There is nothing impossible about this. If you think there is please enlighten us all as to just what this problem is.
Don't be vague, be very specific.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: JackBlack on July 23, 2019, 01:57:15 AM
Which is why I don't have a model.
Yes, I know. You don't want to have a model because people can then use that to show your model is wrong.
You hope that without a model you can pretend Earth is flat.
But again, I don't need you to have a model to show it is wrong.
The moon alone is proof (enough to convince any sane person) that Earth is round.

It's really much easier not to have a model. That way there's nothing that needs defending.
Not having a model is not enough.
If you make a claim, like claiming Earth is flat, then that needs defending.
Even without having a model, it needs defending.
While not having a model allows some obfuscation as a form of defence, in general it makes the defence harder as you are claiming something with literally nothing to back it up.

If you don't want have anything to defend the solution is quite simple: Don't make any claims, don't even have opinions. State you have no idea on what the shape of Earth is.
Then you have nothing to defend as you aren't presenting an opinion.

But there's no reason why a FE would demand the moon to be one mile across and 20 miles high.
While the exact numbers are wrong there is a reason.
While the moon is above the equator, if you view it from 45 degrees north (i.e. 5000 km) of where it is directly above, it appears at an angle of 45 degrees.
This allows you to determine that the moon is at a height of 5000 km above the equator.
When observing it from the equator it is observed to be roughly 0.5 degrees across, which for the distance of 5000 km results in a width of roughly 50 km.
The key part of this which necessitates that the moon is close and small is that different locations on the FE see the moon in different directions.
If Earth is flat, this only makes sense with a small close moon.
But this has the problem of the moon should look different from different locations, and change size.
The fact that it looks the same regardless of where you are on Earth and remains roughly the same size demands a distant large moon.

Assuming a FE has lead to a direct contradiction without assuming any particular model.

The only sane option which can explain it is having a distant, large moon to produce the same view regardless of where you are, with the change in apparent direction being due to the surface of Earth being at a different angle, i.e. Earth not being flat.

So even without a model, you still have massive problems you need to defend against if you want to claim Earth is flat.

We can have a flat Earth just because we say so.
You mean you can recognise that FE does not match reality but reject reality anyway.

This is not politics. The shape of Earth is not decided by popular vote.
Even if you were in the majority Earth would still be round.

If you want to discard the flaws then discard the idea of Earth being flat as it simply doesn't match reality and needs plenty of magic/massive conspiracies to prop it up.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: kopfverderber on July 23, 2019, 02:25:13 AM
If I say I believe the earth is flat because that's what the bible says according to my interpretation,  that would be a valid worldview as any other, but then I can't say that I believe in science. That would be like saying that the earth is flat and round at the same time. It's a contradiction.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 23, 2019, 03:02:34 AM
"Not everyone around the world is prepared to take the word of the United States on faith."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien in a speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, February 13, 2003

This is an image of a Reaction Control System thruster firing on the space shuttle, taken from Joseph P. Allen's book Entering Space :
(https://i.postimg.cc/VNK4dzS5/SPACE-SHUTTLE-THRUST.jpg)

Another image from Allen's book also shows flame and visible exhaust from the Orbital Maneuvering Subsystem :
(http://ocii.com/%7Edpwozney/oms3d100.jpg)

Orange-coloured exhaust, from a single 26400 N (6000 lb) OMS firing, is caused by the oxidizer, nitrogen tetroxide :
(https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/images/pao/STS51I/10062237.jpg)

However, images and video of the lunar ascent and descent modules (LM), allegedly taken from the surface of the moon and from the Apollo Command/Service Module (C/SM), do not show flame or exhaust.

For the Apollo lunar ascent and descent module single main engine and sixteen attitude control thrusters, the fuel and oxidizer were, respectively, hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide.  The space shuttle orbiter also uses hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide in its Orbital Maneuvering Subsystem and Reaction Control System.

In Entering Space, Allen describes the shuttle thrusters: "The forward primary thrusters sound like exploding cannons at thrust onset; and during their firing, jets of flame shoot out from the orbiter's nose. ...The orbiter reacts to the primaries' shove by shaking slightly and moving very noticeably. For the crew on board, a series of attitude changes using primaries resembles a World War I sea battle, with cannons and mortars firing, flashes of flame shooting in all directions, and the ship's shuddering and shaking in reaction to the salvos."

Images from a surface camera pan the lunar ascent module as it lifts off the surface. The background is a pitch black sky.

In this image (https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/images/pao/AS17/10075983.jpg) showing the Apollo 17 lunar ascent module "Challenger" supposedly lifting off from the Taurus-Littrow landing site there is no flame, exhaust, or even engine exhaust shroud visible from the bottom of the lunar ascent module.

The lunar ascent module engine had a 15000 N (3500 lb) thrust.  The attitude control thrusters for the Apollo C/SM and LM (which had four sets of quadruple thrusters) had 490 N (110 lb) of thrust each. In comparison, the 38 thrusters for shuttle orbit control each have a nominal thrust of 3870 N (880 lb), with a range from 3114 N to 5338 N.  Why is the exhaust visible from the 3870 N shuttle thruster but not from the 15000 N lunar ascent module engine?

It's impossible to find any images or video footage of any visible flame or exhaust coming from any of the four quadruple clusters used for attitude control of the lunar module, or from the main engines of the ascent and descent modules.  However, official NASA artists' drawings do show a considerable amount of flame and exhaust emanating from the main engine :

(https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/images/pao/AS11/10075184.jpg)
(https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/images/pao/AS11/10075186.jpg)

In the films To The Edge And Back covering Apollo 13 and Apollo 13, animation shows the LM main engine emitting a bright flame for the various burns between the earth and the moon.  In Apollo 13, animation shows visible flame from the LM thrusters during SM separation from the CM and LM.

In the 30-minute documentary Houston, We've Got A Problem covering Apollo 13, an image of the service module shows the panel blown off :
(https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/images/pao/AS13/10075514.jpg)

The SM is bright and takes up a good portion of the screen. On the remainder of the screen stars appear to be indistiguishable from debris. Photographs taken from the surface of the moon do not show stars in the sky.

In For All Mankind by the National Geographic Society, astronauts are shown suiting up. In their launch suits, the astronauts do arm exercises and wave to the crowd.  From these scenes the Apollo suits do not appear to have bearings at the joints like the space shuttle extra vehicular suits, which do have bearings at the elbow, shoulder, wrist, hip, knee, and ankle joints.  How were the Apollo astronauts able to bend their joints, especially their finger joints, on the moon if their suits were pressurized?

(https://i.postimg.cc/kXpDfZkz/APOLLO-PRESSURIZED-SUITS.jpg)

Pressurized suits give a rigid balloon-like appearance which the moon astronauts did not appear to have

The For All Mankind video shows the ground when the lunar module is landing.  As dust is being kicked up from the main engine, a dark shadow of the module appears.  The ground in the lunar module shadow does not show any reflection or brightness from any main engine exhaust flame.

Why were there were no emergencies or problems from the temperature extremes of -100 to -150 degrees Fahrenheit to +215F?  A study paper for a proposed moonbase uses a noon-time worst case of 375 K (102 C, or 215 F) for a lunar surface temperature.

In For All Mankind, ground control announced that the temperature in the shade was -100 to -150 degrees Fahrenheit.  Were the batteries of the lunar rover in the shade, and if so, how were they protected against these temperature extremes?

At temperatures less than -40F (-40C) a lot of materials start becoming very brittle. Electrical items do not work as well.  Batteries produce less current.  The extreme temperature variations from shadow to sunlight would cause significant material contraction and expansion and would make equipment breakdown and failure very likely.

Why did the one-sixth gravity cause the astronauts to alternate between hopping and walking?  We all saw many sequences where an astronauts looked like they were flexing their knees pretty good to jump but they did not travel any higher than 40 cm. Why? The astronauts were not hopping any farther than what the typical person could hop here on Earth.

There a number of times in Apollo footage when the astronauts were landing pretty hard on their knees.  Were they not running a huge risk of puncturing their pressurized suits? According to an article in the Dec. 1, 1969 issue of Aviation Week and Space Technology, Apollo mission planners were worried about suit puncture and cutting.

After an Apollo 14 astronaut sets up and lets go of the flag, the flag flutters, is still, and then flutters again.  This may be viewed on the Apollo Interactive CD-ROM by Simitar Entertainment.

How about the stability of the lunar module in flight. Only a single engine is provided, for both the ascent and descent phases, right in the centre with the potential for a rapidly shifting centre of gravity to be off considerably from the thrust vector due to the design.  Shifting centre of gravity due to fuel consumption and astronaut movement, and eccentric loading due to weight of rover or moon rocks, would result in an unstable and unbalanced craft.  The ascent and descent modules have a significantly different centre of gravity yet they both use the same four sets of quadruple thrusters, giving different flight characteristics and handling.  How can the quadruple thrusters fire quickly enough and sufficiently enough to counteract a quickly changing and significantly changing thrust vector?  How can the system remain stable and not loop uncontrollably?  The ascent stage engine was not gimballed, and the inherently off-center, large torquing thrust would have to have been constantly and very immediately counteracted by the small, low-thrust, quadruple thrusters.  The craft has good potential to fly like a balloon you let go of and let deflate.  I am currently attempting to obtain actual engineering drawings to perform detailed calculations.

Set of excerpts of "docking" : You must be a genuine idiot so to be unable to recognize obvious fakery in this cheap animation : once again : 100% proof moon landing Hoax in a 1 minute clip :
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 23, 2019, 03:22:10 AM
0b. The airlocks between the lunar rover and the outside, none. NONE!!! Fantasy the lot.
Why should there be any "airlocks between the lunar rover and the outside"?
The lunar rover is only driven by astronauts wearing spacesuits (Extravehicular Mobility Units) so why would airlocks be needed?

When entering the LM from the CM the airlock is part of the CM (one hatch on the CM and one on the LM).
On the surface, the LM was depressurised before exit and repressurised after re-entry.
The LM atmosphere was pure oxygen atmosphere at only 5 psi, about one-third the pressure of the air.

So you, cikljamas, might not be able to understand these simple issues but that in no way proves it is "Fantasy the lot" it just proves that you are too lazy to investigate and understand it!

Well, it is indeed Fantasy the lot :

According to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/ (http://Apollo Lunar Surface Journal https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/), for Apollo 12, values given for cabin pressure are 4.8 psi, and for normal operating suit pressure, 3.8 psi. This suggests a pure oxygen environment for the Lunar Module.

For Apollo 11, 12, & 14, during EVA preparation, the suit relative pressures were 4.6 to 5.2 psi when the LM cabin pressure was 3.5 psi, giving suit absolute pressures of 8.1 to 8.7 psi pure oxygen.  At earth's atmospheric pressure of 14.7 psi, this correlates to 55% to 60% oxygen content, which gives an oxygen partial pressure of 8.1 to 8.7 psi.

According to the Apollo 12 ALSJ, the suits were already difficult to bend at 3.8 psi relative pressure (when the LM cabin pressure was 3.5 psi).  When the suit pressures were at about 4.5 psi relative pressure, the suits were very stiff.

The following quotes are from a March 11, 1968 Aviation Week & Space Technology article headlined "Flammability Tests Spur Two-Gas Apollo".

"Washington - Decision to use a two-gas atmosphere (60% oxygen, 40% nitrogen) during manned Apollo on-the-pad preparations and in pre-orbital flight reflects a basic inability to make the spacecraft flameproof after 14 months of redesign that cost more than $100 million and added about 2,000 lb. to the system.

"The decision (AW&ST, Mar. 4, p. 21) was forced on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration after three series of flammability tests on an Apollo command module boilerplate failed to satisfy officials that changes would prevent the spread of fire under a pure-oxygen environment."

The article goes on to mention how a 95% oxygen system at 6.2 psi which would be orbital configuration developed problems in fire propagation tests.

Would not there have been serious flammability problems of such an environment in the lunar module? The article concludes:

"By switching to a two-gas system for pre-flight and immediate post-launch activities, NASA is willing to accept an added problem. Astronauts will be breathing pure oxygen during that phase and they will have to vent the spacecraft cabin during boost to orbit and repressurize to 6 psi with oxygen to permit them to remove their helmets and work in relative comfort.

"Possibility of the 40% of nitrogen causing bends if an emergency escape has to be made during the launch phase was considered by officials less hazardous than that of fire propagation in a one-gas system."

A Feb. 6, 1967 article in AW&ST indicates that when the Apollo program was being planned, the primary reason for choosing a 5-psi cabin oxygen system was weight considerations. Added weight (with a two-gas system) would come from a mixture control system to keep the proper gas ratio. Also, introduction of an oxygen-nitrogen or oxygen-helium environmental control system for Apollo would have meant the addition of an airlock.

Just how dangerous was a pure oxygen environment in the ascent and descent lunar module considered to be?

Here on earth, increasing the percentage of oxygen to slightly above 21% dramatically increases probability of fires. According to The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (p. 567) by Barrow and Tipler, "...the probability of a forest fire being started by a lightning-bolt increases 70% for every 1% rise in oxygen concentration above the present 21%. Above 25% very little of the vegetation on land would survive the fires...". "At the present fraction of 21%, fires will not start at more than 15% moisture content. Were the oxygen content to reach 25%, even damp twigs and the grass of a rain forest would ignite."(p. 568).

Ralph René, in his book NASA Mooned America, provides a list of government-sponsored testing that resulted in oxygen fires. René extracted this information from Appendix G in Mission To The Moon by Kennan & Harvey. Here are some tests on that list:

"September 9, 1962 - The first known fire occurred in the Space Cabin Simulator at Brooks Air Force Base in a chamber using 100% oxygen at 5 psi. It was explosive and involved the carbon dioxide scrubber. Both occupants collapsed from smoke inhalation before being rescued."

"November 17, 1962 - Another incident using 100% oxygen at 5 psi in a chamber at the Navy Laboratory (ACEL). There were four occupants in the chamber, but the simple replacing of a burned-out light bulb caused their clothes to catch on fire. They escaped in 40 seconds but all suffered burns. Two were seriously injured. In addition an asbestos 'safety' blanket caught fire and burned causing one man's hand to catch fire."

"April 28, 1966 - More Apollo equipment was destroyed as it was being tested under 100% oxygen and 5 psi at the Apollo Environmental Control System in Torrance, CA."

"January 1, 1967 - The last known test was over three weeks before Grissom, Chaffee & White suffered immolation. Two men were handling 16 rabbits in a chamber of 100% oxygen at 7.2 psi at Brooks Air Force Base and all living things died in the inferno. The cause may have been as simple as a static discharge from a rabbit's fur ... but we'll never know."

NASA subjected Grissom, White and Chaffee to over 90% pure oxygen at over 16 psi in a test with live electrical circuits and switches being thrown, and with a hatch that took more than three minutes to open, resulting in the fatal Apollo 1 fire.

Bill Kaysing, in his book We Never Went To The Moon, states, in Chapter 9 titled "Murder By Negligence On Pad 34", "If any two documents lend credibility to the contention that the Apollo flights were faked, they are most certainly the Baron Report and the Phillips Report. They were authored by two men of obvious integrity and dedication. Although from diverse backgrounds, both Tom Baron and Sam Phillips were in total agreement on one basic premise, i.e., that North American Aviation and its sponsor, NASA, were totally unequal to the task of assuring even one successful flight to the moon!"

Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 23, 2019, 03:49:41 AM

Now care to answer the very simple question yet?

What force acts on the gas to make it move in a particular direction when exiting the rocket and what body is providing this force?
Again, the only rational answer is that the rocket is providing a force to the gas to move it backwards due to the way it is partially contained.
That means rockets would work in a vacuum.

You still haven't watched this video :



No, the “second body” isnt the gases...in a rocket launch...the rocket (engine) is the “first body” applying force (expelled gases) to a second body (ground, then atmosphere).. which “pushes back” with equal and opposite force.. on the first body (rocket) forcing it to go up..
what happens in a REAL and INFINITE vacuum, where there is no “second body” to act upon???

THE ROCKET (ENGINE) = FIRST BODY
FORCE = EXPELLED GASSES
GROUND/ATMOSPHERE = SECOND BODY

In the context of a bowling ball experiment :

The guy on a skateboard = FIRST BODY
FORCE = Motion of his arms that pushes off a heavy ball
A MEDICINE BALL = SECOND BODY

Heaviness of a medicine ball (INERTIA) enables our guy to be pushed off of a heavy ball.
Heaviness of a medicine ball (INERTIA) imitates/simulates THE AIR
Lightness of some light object (which our guy could have used in his second hypothetical try) imitates/simulates A VACUUM

Get it???

Or do i have to copy/paste this portion of my previous post (again), as well :


There is no denying that If you stand on a skate board and throw the bowling ball away, you and the skateboard will indeed move in the opposite direction to the bowling ball. This is because, by throwing the bowling ball away, you have basically pushed against a resistant object that is separate from you, (like a solid wall).

So, INERTIA (of the bowling ball) is the magic word (an explanation) that you are looking for (which is behind this fraudulent NASA's "scientific" method.

Do i have to remind you to one other equally fraudulent NASA's "scientific" method that should have looked authentic (dropping a ball in a moving train/airplane)???

I destroyed (for good) this other (dropping a ball within enclosed moving object) NASA's fraudulent method by offering my own irrefutable counter-argument ("CONCORDE" thought experiment).

HERE IT IS : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78814.msg2128697#msg2128697

Now, back on the track :

Pay attention to this very important (exposing) aspect of NASA's fraudulent method (bowling ball) :
In which exact moment does our guy (on the skateboard) starts to move back (in the video posted by sokarul)???

(https://j.gifs.com/7L4J9Q.gif)

BOWLING BALL SLOW MOTION REVEALS NASA'S SCAM :


Long before he extends his arms to the full extent and even much long before he throws the ball (before the ball is fully detached from his hands).
It means that in our "balloon exhausting" kind of experiments we should expect the same result : our toy cars should start being propelled (pushed back) even before the air is exhausted out of the nozzle (drinking straw) into the surrounding environment!!!
That is to say, if we could make the ball to disappear (to vanish into thin air) in the exact same moment when our skateboard guy extends his hands to the full extent (few milliseconds before he throws the ball), he would be still pushed back to the same degree as it is shown in sokarul's video.
Now, all you have to do is to apply this same logic to our "balloon exhausting" experiments and explain to us, why this fraudulent NASA's method doesn't work the same way in both cases???

ACCOMPANYING VIDEO :
ROCKETS CAN'T FLY IN A VACUUM - 3 :
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: sokarul on July 23, 2019, 03:54:49 AM
So....what mechanism allows a force to be transferred to the rocket from an exhaust molecule hitting an air molecule?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 23, 2019, 04:01:45 AM
So....what mechanism allows a force to be transferred to the rocket from an exhaust molecule hitting an air molecule?
Resistance!
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: wise on July 23, 2019, 04:03:00 AM
If I say I believe the earth is flat because that's what the bible says according to my interpretation,  that would be a valid worldview as any other, but then I can't say that I believe in science. That would be like saying that the earth is flat and round at the same time. It's a contradiction.

I have guaranteed you that science definitely isn't telling the earth's being round. people who claim to represent science today do not represent science in any way, nor do they use scientific methodology. only flat earthers are doing it.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: JackBlack on July 23, 2019, 04:08:27 AM
However, images and video of the lunar ascent and descent modules (LM), allegedly taken from the surface of the moon and from the Apollo Command/Service Module (C/SM), do not show flame or exhaust.
I take it this means you now fully accept that rockets do in fact work in space and that your prior objects were nothing more than nonsense.

There are 3 main reasons I can think of.
One is a significantly different fuel/oxidiser.
While both use N2O4, from what I can find the Space shuttle uses monomethyl hydrazine, not hydrazine like you claim, while the assent module used a mix of dimethyl hyrazine and hydrazine, not just hydrazine like you say.

But then again, it isn't actually you saying this. It is just you copying and pasting crap from elsewhere.
Why not just link to it rather than spamming here?
http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo1.htm

It's also not a very good argument is it?
"NASA must have faked Apollo because these real shuttle things show it should have been different.""
And:
"NASA must have faked Apollo because these clearly fake cartoons show it differently".

Not a very good argument is it?

The other option is that the much brighter surface of the moon hid the flames as they weren't bright enough.

But the far more rational option is that you are just pulling the same dishonest crap as always.
You are being highly selective with what images you use.

If only there was a video that could be used instead.
Oh wait, there is:


Notice this wonderful part:
(https://i.imgur.com/oz7OIhg.png)
Wow, you can clearly see the orange flame at the base of the module.

Then the debris comes flying out:
(https://i.imgur.com/EQ4trd7.png)


Your next post seems to have a lot of quotes, but no actual arguments.

You still haven't watched this video :
Unless you are showing a rocket not working in space, the video is irrelevant.
From the thumbnail it looks like a prop driven craft, so completely irrelevant.

If you think there is a valid argument, provide it in text here.

No, the “second body” isnt the gases
Do the gasses remain with the rocket?
NO!
As such, they are a second body.
You not liking that wont change that fact.

Again, saying the gas is not a second body is like saying the baseball is not the second body and that the pitcher should feel it when the batter hits the ball.
It is pure nonsense.

Or do i have to copy/paste this portion of my previous post (again), as well :
Copying and pasting the same refuted garbage wont help you.

As much as you hate it, the gas is the second body.
The rocket forces the gas backwards and the gas forces the rocket forwards.

The inertia of the gas is the only "resistance" required for the rocket to move.

To claim otherwise you need to claim that the gas remains a part of the rocket, and thus remains with it, rather than leaving it.

That would require you to claim that if you have a gas in a pressurised container and have an opening in that container, the gas will magically remain inside.
It is pure nonsense.

Now how about you answer the question:
What force acts on the gas to make it move in a particular direction when exiting the rocket and what body is providing this force?
Again, the only rational answer is that the rocket is providing a force to the gas to move it backwards due to the way it is partially contained.
That means rockets would work in a vacuum.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: wise on July 23, 2019, 04:08:46 AM
You are claiming the mountain is magically shrinking, and using a photo with a different scale to pretend it has shrunk.
He isn't telling this. Stop to use your imagination as an example to represent thoughts of others. You are not a witch.
You have no actual basis for your claim that the closer shot has a smaller mountain.
There is. Your denying simple phsics does not magically events how you want they to be. You deny it because it contradicts to your predicted arguments have produced in a cave.
That isn't a problem.
It is a great problem. Your closing your eyes or digging your head to sand does not magically make it not exist.
As it is viewed from a different angle you would expect the mountain to appear different.
It seems same. Your thoughts for only object for honor of objection.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 23, 2019, 04:12:37 AM
If I say I believe the earth is flat because that's what the bible says according to my interpretation,  that would be a valid worldview as any other, but then I can't say that I believe in science. That would be like saying that the earth is flat and round at the same time. It's a contradiction.

I have guaranteed you that science definitely isn't telling the earth's being round. people who claim to represent science today do not represent science in any way, nor do they use scientific methodology. only flat earthers are doing it.

Read the pinned comment (pay attention to the passage FLAT EARTH HOAX - links listed from A to Z) below this video :
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: wise on July 23, 2019, 04:13:30 AM
You don't want to have a model because people can then use that to show your model is wrong.
Nope. The wrong model is globularist model and you have feel honored to use that wrong model while you know its being wrong. So your thesis is debunked.
The moon alone is proof (enough to convince any sane person) that Earth is round.
The moon and the earth are quite different things. Your example like comparison the table is rectangle so the earth has to be rectangle. Do everything has a hole has to be blackhole?
If you make a claim, like claiming Earth is flat, then that needs defending.
And we are defending it well. Your baseless claims do not change that fact.
Even without having a model, it needs defending.
There is a well known model, flat earth model. Your baselessly denying it does not magically make it disappear.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: wise on July 23, 2019, 04:35:28 AM
If I say I believe the earth is flat because that's what the bible says according to my interpretation,  that would be a valid worldview as any other, but then I can't say that I believe in science. That would be like saying that the earth is flat and round at the same time. It's a contradiction.

I have guaranteed you that science definitely isn't telling the earth's being round. people who claim to represent science today do not represent science in any way, nor do they use scientific methodology. only flat earthers are doing it.

Read the pinned comment (pay attention to the passage FLAT EARTH HOAX - links listed from A to Z) below this video :


Okay I have read now. I agree them. I am lucky you don't count me.  ;D
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: rabinoz on July 23, 2019, 04:51:29 AM
So....what mechanism allows a force to be transferred to the rocket from an exhaust molecule hitting an air molecule?
Resistance!
Ever heard of There's no mention if "Resistance" anywhere.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 23, 2019, 05:10:31 AM
So....what mechanism allows a force to be transferred to the rocket from an exhaust molecule hitting an air molecule?
Resistance!
Ever heard of
  • "A body at rest will remain at rest, and a body in motion will remain in motion unless it is acted upon by an external force."
  • force = mass x acceleration or the more general case where mass might vary force = rate of change of momentum and
  • "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
There's no mention if "Resistance" anywhere.
Newton's Third Law - Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs

A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!

"When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body."

”When a BODY exerts force on a SECOND  BODY” let me ask you, what is the second body being acted upon, IN A VACUUM ??!!


You still haven't watched this video :



No, the “second body” isnt the gases...in a rocket launch...the rocket (engine) is the “first body” applying force (expelled gases) to a second body (ground, then atmosphere).. which “pushes back” with equal and opposite force.. on the first body (rocket) forcing it to go up..
what happens in a REAL and INFINITE vacuum, where there is no “second body” to act upon???

THE ROCKET (ENGINE) = FIRST BODY
FORCE = EXPELLED GASSES
GROUND/ATMOSPHERE = SECOND BODY

In the context of a bowling ball experiment :

The guy on a skateboard = FIRST BODY
FORCE = Motion of his arms that pushes off a heavy ball
A MEDICINE BALL = SECOND BODY

Heaviness of a medicine ball (INERTIA) enables our guy to be pushed off of a heavy ball.
Heaviness of a medicine ball (INERTIA) imitates/simulates THE AIR
Lightness of some light object (which our guy could have used in his second hypothetical try) imitates/simulates A VACUUM

Get it???

Or do i have to copy/paste this portion of my previous post (again), as well :


There is no denying that If you stand on a skate board and throw the bowling ball away, you and the skateboard will indeed move in the opposite direction to the bowling ball. This is because, by throwing the bowling ball away, you have basically pushed against a resistant object that is separate from you, (like a solid wall).

So, INERTIA (of the bowling ball) is the magic word (an explanation) that you are looking for (which is behind this fraudulent NASA's "scientific" method.

Do i have to remind you to one other equally fraudulent NASA's "scientific" method that should have looked authentic (dropping a ball in a moving train/airplane)???

I destroyed (for good) this other (dropping a ball within enclosed moving object) NASA's fraudulent method by offering my own irrefutable counter-argument ("CONCORDE" thought experiment).

HERE IT IS : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78814.msg2128697#msg2128697

Now, back on the track :

Pay attention to this very important (exposing) aspect of NASA's fraudulent method (bowling ball) :
In which exact moment does our guy (on the skateboard) starts to move back (in the video posted by sokarul)???

(https://j.gifs.com/7L4J9Q.gif)

BOWLING BALL SLOW MOTION REVEALS NASA'S SCAM :


Long before he extends his arms to the full extent and even much long before he throws the ball (before the ball is fully detached from his hands).
It means that in our "balloon exhausting" kind of experiments we should expect the same result : our toy cars should start being propelled (pushed back) even before the air is exhausted out of the nozzle (drinking straw) into the surrounding environment!!!
That is to say, if we could make the ball to disappear (to vanish into thin air) in the exact same moment when our skateboard guy extends his hands to the full extent (few milliseconds before he throws the ball), he would be still pushed back to the same degree as it is shown in sokarul's video.
Now, all you have to do is to apply this same logic to our "balloon exhausting" experiments and explain to us, why this fraudulent NASA's method doesn't work the same way in both cases???

ACCOMPANYING VIDEO :
ROCKETS CAN'T FLY IN A VACUUM - 3 :
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: radioflat on July 23, 2019, 05:21:04 AM

THE ROCKET (ENGINE) = FIRST BODY
FORCE = EXPELLED GASSES
GROUND/ATMOSPHERE = SECOND BODY


No, wrong-o!
Rocket = first body
Expelled gasses = second body.

Expelled gasses exit rocket nozzle at high velocity (with little mass), rocket moves in opposite direction at a lower velocity as it has higher mass.
An equal and opposite force is exerted by the rocket on the gasses, and by the gasses on the rocket.
NOTHING else is necessary - no atmosphere 'to push on', so rockets work fine in a vacuum (or in air) ...
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: radioflat on July 23, 2019, 05:33:52 AM




Well, this video is utter gibberish, and (as usual with this uneducated nonsense) conflates a number of unrelated effects in a confusing manner. It's like a magic trick with a sleight-of-hand. The presenter is mixing up several unrelated ideas (which taken spearately are actually correct) and applying them in an incorrect manner. The drone flying is nothing to do with a rocket, for example, but to the untrained and non-critical thinker, this appears to make sense (whereas of course, it is total gibberish). Third law relates to mass/inertia. Throw a heavy ball in one direction - you are pushed with an equal and opposite force in the opposite direction. No other external body/atmosphere/wall is necessary ...
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Unconvinced on July 23, 2019, 05:52:58 AM

No, the “second body” isnt the gases...in a rocket launch...the rocket (engine) is the “first body” applying force (expelled gases) to a second body (ground, then atmosphere).. which “pushes back” with equal and opposite force.. on the first body (rocket) forcing it to go up..
what happens in a REAL and INFINITE vacuum, where there is no “second body” to act upon???

THE ROCKET (ENGINE) = FIRST BODY
FORCE = EXPELLED GASSES
GROUND/ATMOSPHERE = SECOND BODY

Gas is gas.  It has properties of matter- mass, density, temperature, state, momentum.

It’s not a force, but can be used to apply a force.  Through pressure or momentum.

You seem to be happy for gas (atmosphere) to be the second body in the case of aircraft propellers, and even rockets in atmosphere. 

So why do you think gas is somehow a completely different thing when expelled from a rocket?  It’s still gas, no?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 23, 2019, 05:55:59 AM
@ Radioflat When you learn how to think out of the box, then (and only then) you will enable yourself to figure out what kind of dystopia you are living in.

Eyes wide shut - part 0a :


Eyes wide shut - part 0b :


Eyes wide shut - part 0c :


Eyes wide shut - part 1 :


Eyes wide shut - part 2 :


Eyes wide shut - part 3 :


Eyes wide shut - part 4 :
Have you Ever seen Anything as Fake as This??? - part 2 (second attempt) :
Where are the stars?
Why cloud morphing is so drastically different in the case of Himawari 8 satellite (geosynchronous satellite) animation comparing it to earth's rotation animation allegedly created of photos allegedly taken by Galileo "spacecraft" (close pass of the earth on December 1990)?
How about two totally different rotational speeds of the earth (pay attention to the second part of the video)?
2A CGI STARS, CGI EARTH, CGI EVERYTHING :
---How about live streaming of the earth by using camera mounted on a
geostationary satellite?

Neil De Grass Tyson explains that at the edge of an atmosphere you can see stars even with the sun in the sky, doesn't it mean that when the sun is not in the sky then the view of the stars is much more spectacular (the stars are much brighter) then here on the earth. Following this logic i suppose that in space you wouldn't even have to use long exposure in order to catch the stars while taking the photo of the night sky. ACCOMPANYING VIDEO :

Some people even claim that at the edge of the atmosphere you can't see stars at all, not only that, they claim that at the edge of the atmosphere you can't even see the sun, all that you can see (according to them) is the moon and the earth. ACCOMPANYING VIDEO :

On the other hand, according to Neil De Grass Tyson when you get at the edge of the atmosphere all of a sudden the view becomes totally spectacular. So, as i already pointed out : following his (Neil De Grass Tyson) logic stars wouldn't be just a little brighter, they would be much brighter. How much brighter? It's hard to tell, but i would say : at least so much brighter as the stars are brighter when we watch them from some high mountain free of light pollution (during the clearest night) in comparison to the view of the stars as seen from some hazy hill in the vicinity of Los Angeles.

The reality is that when looking through the atmosphere you can see the stars from some hazy hill above Los Angeles, you can even catch them with your camera without applying any zoom, whatsoever (let alone, what happens when you zoom in (just a little bit)) :

https://i.postimg.cc/59qRspt1/STARS-NO-LONG-EXPOSURE-2.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/MZPyZjPV/STARS-NO-LONG-EXPOSURE-4.jpg
ACCOMPANYING VIDEO :

https://i.postimg.cc/2S4bWqwH/STAR-1-X.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/kMzcCpgW/STAR-1-X-1.jpg
ACCOMPANYING VIDEO :



On top of that :
How to Manually Focus Your Camera at Night to Shoot Stars :


The relevance here is that this guy managed to take the following photo without using long exposure technique :

(https://i.postimg.cc/sxYdmRNR/STARS-NO-LONG-EXPOSURE.jpg)

So, i ask again, why we can't see any star in this video :

Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: rabinoz on July 23, 2019, 05:59:50 AM
So....what mechanism allows a force to be transferred to the rocket from an exhaust molecule hitting an air molecule?
Resistance!
Ever heard of
  • "A body at rest will remain at rest, and a body in motion will remain in motion unless it is acted upon by an external force."
  • force = mass x acceleration or the more general case where mass might vary force = rate of change of momentum and
  • "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
There's no mention if "Resistance" anywhere.
Newton's Third Law - Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs

A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!

"When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body."

”When a BODY exerts force on a SECOND  BODY” let me ask you, what is the second body being acted upon, IN A VACUUM ??!!

The second body is the tonnes of exhaust gas expelled at hypersonic velocity by the rocket.

I see nothing in "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" to exclude that!

When a bomb explodes what was originally all part of one object separates and the parts fly in all directions - surely you don't claim that a bomb won't explode on a vacuum?

Stop making up your own "laws of physics".
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: JerkFace on July 23, 2019, 06:26:33 AM
I asked this question earlier, perhaps you missed it.


Both my parents have worked at NASA for 20+ years. I grew up in kemah, TX. They always stirred away when I asked them about things like this. My Dad always said " quit being a conspiracy theorist " my mom always looked at me like she felt bad for lying to me. They provided me with a great life, great opportunities. But at what expense?


Right next to Johnson Space Center.   What sort of work did your parents do at NASA?

Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 23, 2019, 06:32:09 AM

No, the “second body” isnt the gases...in a rocket launch...the rocket (engine) is the “first body” applying force (expelled gases) to a second body (ground, then atmosphere).. which “pushes back” with equal and opposite force.. on the first body (rocket) forcing it to go up..
what happens in a REAL and INFINITE vacuum, where there is no “second body” to act upon???

THE ROCKET (ENGINE) = FIRST BODY
FORCE = EXPELLED GASSES
GROUND/ATMOSPHERE = SECOND BODY

Gas is gas.  It has properties of matter- mass, density, temperature, state, momentum.

It’s not a force, but can be used to apply a force.  Through pressure or momentum.

You seem to be happy for gas (atmosphere) to be the second body in the case of aircraft propellers, and even rockets in atmosphere. 

So why do you think gas is somehow a completely different thing when expelled from a rocket?  It’s still gas, no?

Very good question!

It's still gas (flame), of course, however rocket's gas (flame) does it's work when expelled from a rocket, not before. Now you have to ask yourself : Why it does it's work as soon as it is expelled from a rocket, and not before (while still in rocket chamber)?

Is it because when expelled from a rocket, gas (flame) is no longer part of a rocket or is it because it exerts it's force on the second body (the air)?

Is there a spatial/physical gap between a flame expelled and a rocket?

No, there isn't, that is to say, once an expelled flame is dissipated (wasted/consumed) then (and only then) rocket gas (flame) "becomes" "spatially/physically separated" from the body of a rocket.
But what is the true meaning of this phrase (in this particular case) : being physically separated from the body of a rocket???
In this particular case it means that at this point in time there is no longer any rocket gas (flame) to which we could refer, since it's already completely gone (vanished into thin air) out of existence.
So, we figuratively say that body of a rocket becomes separated from an expelled flame, we don't mean it, literally, because an expelled flame ceased to exist at this point of time.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: radioflat on July 23, 2019, 06:37:51 AM

When a bomb explodes what was originally all part of one object separates and the parts fly in all directions - surely you don't claim that a bomb won't explode on a vacuum?


Hi Rab, I saw a post a while back 'showing' that gunpowder in a vacuum could not be ignited by a laser firing through a glass jar - so I asked would a gun not fire in a vacuum ... I didn't get a reply!
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: markjo on July 23, 2019, 07:01:26 AM
So....what mechanism allows a force to be transferred to the rocket from an exhaust molecule hitting an air molecule?
Resistance!
Ever heard of
  • "A body at rest will remain at rest, and a body in motion will remain in motion unless it is acted upon by an external force."
  • force = mass x acceleration or the more general case where mass might vary force = rate of change of momentum and
  • "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
There's no mention if "Resistance" anywhere.
To be fair, resistance (friction) is a force.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: sokarul on July 23, 2019, 07:29:15 AM
So....what mechanism allows a force to be transferred to the rocket from an exhaust molecule hitting an air molecule?
Resistance!
If I throw a baseball at a wall, it doesn’t propel me.

So again, there has to be a link between two molecules colliding and a rocket. What is it?

And to add an ancient question, ho much air does a 100kg rocket need to push off of?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: magellanclavichord on July 23, 2019, 07:59:22 AM
Magellanclavicord, I say the world is made of chocolate, and so it is so! Presto! Everywhere I go, I break off pieces of delicious chocolate and eat it, drink it, sniff it, wash myself in it, and inject it. That's the thing though, the chocolate isn't brown, but it's still chocolate. Maybe I should start the chocolate earth society, ey magellanclavicord? You can bring your rainbows and lollipops.

YES! You've got it! However, I'd caution you against injecting chocolate. It can coagulate in your veins and act like a blood clot. Also, washing yourself in it might be seen as a bit kinky, so keep that in mind if you let kink-phobic people know you do that.  ;)

Which is why I don't have a model.
Yes, I know. You don't want to have a model because people can then use that to show your model is wrong.

Close, but not quite: It is premature to assert a model before you know what model really withstands the tests. For example, I do not know all the intricate details of how a car engine works. I know that it has cylinders and pistons and spark plugs, but if I tried to describe all the fine details I would certainly be wrong. So I don't pretend to have a model of a car engine. I just know the names of some of its parts, and I know that it works. Mostly. Sometimes an engine doesn't work, but mostly it does. I don't have a model of the FE because, as with the car engine, I don't know the details so if I adopted a model, or invented one of my own, it would be wrong, just as my model of a car engine would be wrong.

That's the mistake so many FEers make: They adopt a model without knowing, and try to defend that model, but they cannot because their models are wrong. I don't have a model because I don't know what model is right.

If I say I believe the earth is flat because that's what the bible says according to my interpretation,  that would be a valid worldview as any other, but then I can't say that I believe in science. That would be like saying that the earth is flat and round at the same time. It's a contradiction.

People engage in contradictions all the time. We all do it. If you were honest with yourself you'd probably find some contradictions of your own. Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God. Jesus said "Love your enemies." But Christians fly airplanes over their enemies and drop bombs on them. People who break traffic laws, endangering the lives of others, get mad at people who cheat on their taxes, and people who cheat on their taxes get mad at people who violate border regulations. A person who brings goods into the country without declaring them to Customs gets mad at a person who enters the country without documentation. Human beings are just a bundle of contradictions. It's a mistake to say "You cannot say both X and Y" because pretty much everything anybody ever says contradicts something else they've said.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: dutchy on July 23, 2019, 11:03:59 AM
Good thing they don't match.
They are close, but not a match.
There is nothing impossible about this. If you think there is please enlighten us all as to just what this problem is.
Don't be vague, be very specific.
(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-147-22517HR.jpg)
(https://s.yimg.com/aah/mcmahanphoto/apollo-17-astronaut-shadow-lm-on-moon-photo-print-18.jpg)
(http://www.clavius.org/img/bigmt-med.jpg)

The mountain backdrop top plateau in photo 2 and 4 is further to the left.
Even when you shrink the LEM in photo 3 from it's centre focal point inwards the LEM is further to the left and the mountain plateau to the right in picture 3 by a considerable margin.

What mountains are behind photo 1 ?

Furthermore NASA claims that because there is no atmosphere the distance is playing tricks with you. More detail at greater distances is available on the moon.
And the mountains are higher than they appear to be.

After going through each and every Apollo 17 photograph this night (i barely slept) it finally made sense.
They are indeed using a small area with a relative small mountain backdrop.
The backdrop mountains change their position dramatically in relation to the LEM whenever a picture was taken from a slightly different angle. Whereas in real life ,really big mountains in the far distance move much more smoothly relative to an object.

If you ever visit The Hague you should visit the panorama Mesdag and it's really small, but still giving a believeable dept illusion.
Let alone an area from a couple of hunderd yards with a backdrop.
(https://www.panorama-mesdag.nl/wp-content/uploads/slider-website-2019.jpg)

Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: sokarul on July 23, 2019, 11:39:53 AM
You are having trouble visualizing a 3d system presented in 2d photos.

This might help some.Keep in mind I drew a 2d line on a 3d system.  You should be able to see how the top of the lander can line up with the mountain.

(https://i.imgur.com/eFC1CDu.jpg)
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: kopfverderber on July 23, 2019, 11:48:39 AM
If all space missions are fake, I wonder why the Soviets never landed on the moon, after all all they had to do is a few fake pictures
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: dutchy on July 23, 2019, 12:07:11 PM
You are having trouble visualizing a 3d system presented in 2d photos.

This might help some.Keep in mind I drew a 2d line on a 3d system.  You should be able to see how the top of the lander can line up with the mountain.

(https://i.imgur.com/eFC1CDu.jpg)
Only from a different angle towards the LEM....but both LEMS are viewed from approximately the same angle.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Unconvinced on July 23, 2019, 12:14:53 PM

No, the “second body” isnt the gases...in a rocket launch...the rocket (engine) is the “first body” applying force (expelled gases) to a second body (ground, then atmosphere).. which “pushes back” with equal and opposite force.. on the first body (rocket) forcing it to go up..
what happens in a REAL and INFINITE vacuum, where there is no “second body” to act upon???

THE ROCKET (ENGINE) = FIRST BODY
FORCE = EXPELLED GASSES
GROUND/ATMOSPHERE = SECOND BODY

Gas is gas.  It has properties of matter- mass, density, temperature, state, momentum.

It’s not a force, but can be used to apply a force.  Through pressure or momentum.

You seem to be happy for gas (atmosphere) to be the second body in the case of aircraft propellers, and even rockets in atmosphere. 

So why do you think gas is somehow a completely different thing when expelled from a rocket?  It’s still gas, no?

Very good question!

It's still gas (flame), of course, however rocket's gas (flame) does it's work when expelled from a rocket, not before. Now you have to ask yourself : Why it does it's work as soon as it is expelled from a rocket, and not before (while still in rocket chamber)?

Is it because when expelled from a rocket, gas (flame) is no longer part of a rocket or is it because it exerts it's force on the second body (the air)?

Is there a spatial/physical gap between a flame expelled and a rocket?

No, there isn't, that is to say, once an expelled flame is dissipated (wasted/consumed) then (and only then) rocket gas (flame) "becomes" "spatially/physically separated" from the body of a rocket.
But what is the true meaning of this phrase (in this particular case) : being physically separated from the body of a rocket???
In this particular case it means that at this point in time there is no longer any rocket gas (flame) to which we could refer, since it's already completely gone (vanished into thin air) out of existence.
So, we figuratively say that body of a rocket becomes separated from an expelled flame, we don't mean it, literally, because an expelled flame ceased to exist at this point of time.

Sorry, I don’t get the point about gaps.

The force should be applied to whatever part of engine is accelerating the gas.  In the gas of a rocket, that’s the injector plate of the combustion engine and the bell end, sorry, rocket bell ;)

Although it’s not really even necessary to know this to look at the overall system.  You can just draw a control volume around the whole rocket, calculate the momentum of gas coming out the back, and due to conservation of momentum, that means you have to have a forward momentum on the rocket.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: dutchy on July 23, 2019, 12:18:21 PM
If all space missions are fake, I wonder why the Soviets never landed on the moon, after all all they had to do is a few fake pictures
The Chinese ''men in outerspace'' was fake as fuck.
The Americans are head and shoulders above the Chinese still when it comes to implementing believable film trickery.
The Russians were hardly capable of making a half decent movie in 1969 let alone a believable moon mission and movieset.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Unconvinced on July 23, 2019, 12:19:01 PM

They are indeed using a small area with a relative small mountain backdrop.
The backdrop mountains change their position dramatically in relation to the LEM whenever a picture was taken from a slightly different angle. Whereas in real life ,really big mountains in the far distance move much more smoothly relative to an object.

Hang on.  Just to clarify, what are you proposing this “backdrop” actually is?

Are we talking paintings, projections, or a real physical body?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: dutchy on July 23, 2019, 12:25:51 PM

They are indeed using a small area with a relative small mountain backdrop.
The backdrop mountains change their position dramatically in relation to the LEM whenever a picture was taken from a slightly different angle. Whereas in real life ,really big mountains in the far distance move much more smoothly relative to an object.

Hang on.  Just to clarify, what are you proposing this “backdrop” actually is?

Are we talking paintings, projections, or a real physical body?
You should ask NASA..how should i know which combi's they used when and where ?
It looks beyond fake and rediculous compared to any photograph on earth...
But like i said the beautifull NASA ''moon conditions'' do their magic again.
Details on the moon do not fade out like on earth in the distance, because the lack of an atmosphere prevents details from washing out like on earth.
And allthaugh the mountains appear near and small , that's because it appears that way on the moon without an atmosphere.
How conveniant again.... ::)

Didn't you read the rest of my posts ?.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Unconvinced on July 23, 2019, 12:47:41 PM

They are indeed using a small area with a relative small mountain backdrop.
The backdrop mountains change their position dramatically in relation to the LEM whenever a picture was taken from a slightly different angle. Whereas in real life ,really big mountains in the far distance move much more smoothly relative to an object.

Hang on.  Just to clarify, what are you proposing this “backdrop” actually is?

Are we talking paintings, projections, or a real physical body?
You should ask NASA..how should i know which combi's they used when and where ?

Because I thought you were well versed on “top photographers” explaining how it was all shot in a studio.

Are you saying they didn’t even go into any details on how it was shot?

Remarkable.


Quote
It looks beyond fake and rediculous compared to any photograph on earth...
But like i said the beautifull NASA ''moon conditions'' do their magic again.
Details on the moon do not fade out like on earth in the distance, because the lack of an atmosphere prevents details from washing out like on earth.
And allthaugh the mountains appear near and small , that's because it appears that way on the moon without an atmosphere.
How conveniant again.... ::)

Didn't you read the rest of my posts ?.

Yeah, dutchy.  No atmosphere on the moon.  That’s just a fact.

I’m sorry if you find it too “convenient” for us.  Is reality in on the hoax too?  Maybe God conspired with NASA?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: magellanclavichord on July 23, 2019, 12:52:13 PM
If all space missions are fake, I wonder why the Soviets never landed on the moon, after all all they had to do is a few fake pictures

Because NASA sent Stanley Kubrick to the moon to fake the landings in the most realistic way possible. The Russians wanted to do the same thing, and Kubrick was willing, if the pay was right, but the Russians couldn't convince NASA to send Kubrick back to the moon so he could fake some moon landings for them.

Lichtenstein faked some moon landings but they released their videos on January 25, 1971, the same day Idi Amin took over the government of Uganda and the Lichtenstein fake moon landing videos never made it into the mainstream media.

Willard Gavrilovitch Finklebloggen of Pizpot, Arkensas faked some videos of himself landing on the moon but nobody took him seriously because he appeared in the videos to have used a hot air balloon to get there.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: dutchy on July 23, 2019, 01:24:58 PM
Yeah, dutchy.  No atmosphere on the moon.  That’s just a fact.

I’m sorry if you find it too “convenient” for us.  Is reality in on the hoax too?  Maybe God conspired with NASA?
Evil conspired with NASA.
What evil would give nazi rocket scientists a ''new'' life with all the ''goodies'' ?
Like a college athlete caught with murder, but let off the hook because the college team validates his sporting talents so much.

Your morals in daily life are hopefully much higher than what the USA did with their rehabilitation program.
Poor Simon Wiesenthal dedicated his life trying to catch the nazi's.

https://ips-dc.org/the_cias_worst-kept_secret_newly_declassified_files_confirm_united_states_collaboration_with_nazis/

The CIA’s Worst-Kept Secret: Newly Declassified Files Confirm United States Collaboration with Nazis
Pried loose by Congress, which passed the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act three years ago, a long-hidden trove of once-classified CIA documents confirms one of the worst-kept secrets of the cold war--the CIA's use of an extensive Nazi spy network to wage a
May 1, 2001 | Martin A. Lee

“Honest and idealist … enjoys good food and wine … unprejudiced mind …”

That’s how a 1952 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) assessment described Nazi ideologue Emil Augsburg, an officer at the infamous Wannsee Institute, the SS think tank involved in planning the Final Solution. Augsburg’s SS unit performed “special duties,” a euphemism for exterminating Jews and other “undesirables” during the Second World War.

Although he was wanted in Poland for war crimes, Augsburg managed to ingratiate himself with the U.S. CIA, which employed him in the late 1940s as an expert on Soviet affairs. Recently released CIA records indicate that Augsburg was among a rogue’s gallery of Nazi war criminals recruited by U.S. intelligence agencies shortly after Germany surrendered to the Allies.

Pried loose by Congress, which passed the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act three years ago, a long-hidden trove of once-classified CIA documents confirms one of the worst-kept secrets of the cold war–the CIA’s use of an extensive Nazi spy network to wage a clandestine campaign against the Soviet Union.

The CIA reports show that U.S. officials knew they were subsidizing numerous Third Reich veterans who had committed horrible crimes against humanity, but these atrocities were overlooked as the anti-Communist crusade acquired its own momentum. For Nazis who would otherwise have been charged with war crimes, signing on with American intelligence enabled them to avoid a prison term.

“The real winners of the cold war were Nazi war criminals, many of whom were able to escape justice because the East and West became so rapidly focused after the war on challenging each other,” says Eli Rosenbaum, director of the Justice Department’s Office of Special Investigations and America’s chief Nazi hunter. Rosenbaum serves on a Clinton-appointed Interagency Working Group (IWG) committee of U.S. scholars, public officials, and former intelligence officers who helped prepare the CIA records for declassification.

Many Nazi criminals “received light punishment, no punishment at all, or received compensation because Western spy agencies considered them useful assets in the cold war,” the IWG team stated after releasing 18,000 pages of redacted CIA material. (More installments are pending.)

These are “not just dry historical documents,” insists former congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, a member of the panel examining the CIA files. As far as Holtzman is concerned, the CIA papers raise critical questions about American foreign policy and the origins of the cold war.

The decision to recruit Nazi operatives had a negative impact on U.S.-Soviet relations and set the stage for Washington’s tolerance of human rights abuses and other criminal acts in the name of anti-Communism. With that fateful sub-rosa embrace, the die was cast for a litany of antidemocratic CIA interventions around the world.

The Gehlen Org
The key figure on the German side of the CIA-Nazi tryst was General Reinhard Gehlen, who had served as Adolf Hitler’s top anti-Soviet spy. During World War II, Gehlen oversaw all German military-intelligence operations in Eastern Europe and the USSR.

As the war drew to a close, Gehlen surmised that the U.S.-Soviet alliance would soon break down. Realizing that the United States did not have a viable cloak-and-dagger apparatus in Eastern Europe, Gehlen surrendered to the Americans and pitched himself as someone who could make a vital contribution to the forthcoming struggle against the Communists. In addition to sharing his vast espionage archive on the USSR, Gehlen promised that he could resurrect an underground network of battle-hardened, anti-Communist assets who were well placed to wreak havoc throughout the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.

Although the Yalta Treaty stipulated that the United States must give the Soviets all captured German officers who had been involved in “eastern area activities,” Gehlen was quickly spirited off to Fort Hunt in Virginia. The image he projected during 10 months of negotiations at Fort Hunt was, to use a bit of espionage parlance, a “legend”–one that hinged on Gehlen’s false claim that he was never really a Nazi, but was dedicated, above all, to fighting Communism. Those who bit the bait included future CIA director Allen Dulles, who became Gehlen’s biggest supporter among American policy wonks.

Gehlen returned to West Germany in the summer of 1946 with a mandate to rebuild his espionage organization and resume spying on the East at the behest of American intelligence. The date is significant as it preceded the onset of the cold war, which, according to standard U.S. historical accounts, did not begin until a year later. The early courtship of Gehlen by American intelligence suggests that Washington was in a cold war mode sooner than most people realize. The Gehlen gambit also belies the prevalent Western notion that aggressive Soviet policies were primarily to blame for triggering the cold war.

Based near Munich, Gehlen proceeded to enlist thousands of Gestapo, Wehrmacht, and SS veterans. Even the vilest of the vile–the senior bureaucrats who ran the central administrative apparatus of the Holocaust–were welcome in the “Gehlen Org,” as it was called–including Alois Brunner, Adolf Eichmann’s chief deputy. SS major Emil Augsburg and gestapo captain Klaus Barbie, otherwise known as the “Butcher of Lyon,” were among those who did double duty for Gehlen and U.S. intelligence. “It seems that in the Gehlen headquarters, one SS man paved the way for the next and Himmler’s elite were having happy reunion ceremonies,” the Frankfurter Rundschau reported in the early 1950s.

Bolted lock, stock, and barrel into the CIA, Gehlen’s Nazi-infested spy apparatus functioned as America’s secret eyes and ears in central Europe. The Org would go on to play a major role within NATO, supplying two-thirds of raw intelligence on the Warsaw Pact countries. Under CIA auspices, and later as head of the West German secret service until he retired in 1968, Gehlen exerted considerable influence on U.S. policy toward the Soviet bloc. When U.S. spy chiefs desired an off-the-shelf style of nation tampering, they turned to the readily available Org, which served as a subcontracting syndicate for a series of ill-fated guerrilla air drops behind the Iron Curtain and other harebrained CIA rollback schemes.

Sitting Ducks for Disinformation
It’s long been known that top German scientists were eagerly scooped up by several countries, including the United States, which rushed to claim these high-profile experts as spoils of World War II. Yet all the while the CIA was mum about recruiting Nazi spies. The U.S. government never officially acknowledged its role in launching the Gehlen organization until more than half a century after the fact.

Handling Nazi spies, however, was not the same as employing rocket technicians. One could always tell whether Werner von Braun and his bunch were accomplishing their assignments for NASA and other U.S. agencies. If the rockets didn’t fire properly, then the scientists would be judged accordingly. But how does one determine if a Nazi spy with a dubious past is doing a reliable job?

Third Reich veterans often proved adept at peddling data–much of it false–in return for cash and safety, the IWG panel concluded. Many Nazis played a double game, feeding scuttlebutt to both sides of the East-West conflict and preying upon the mutual suspicions that emerged from the rubble of Hitler’s Germany.

General Gehlen frequently exaggerated the Soviet threat in order to exacerbate tensions between the superpowers. At one point he succeeded in convincing General Lucius Clay, military governor of the U.S. zone of occupation in Germany, that a major Soviet war mobilization had begun in Eastern Europe. This prompted Clay to dash off a frantic, top-secret telegram to Washington in March 1948, warning that war “may come with dramatic suddenness.”

Gehlen’s disinformation strategy was based on a simple premise: the colder the cold war got, the more political space for Hitler’s heirs to maneuver. The Org could only flourish under cold war conditions; as an institution it was therefore committed to perpetuating the Soviet-American conflict.

“The agency loved Gehlen because he fed us what we wanted to hear. We used his stuff constantly, and we fed it to everyone else–the Pentagon, the White House, the newspapers. They loved it, too. But it was hyped-up Russian bogeyman junk, and it did a lot of damage to this country,” a retired CIA official told author Christopher Simpson, who also serves on the IGW review panel and was author of Blowback: America’s Recruitment of Nazis and Its Effects on the Cold War.

Unexpected Consequences
Members of the Gehlen Org were instrumental in helping thousands of fascist fugitives escape via “ratlines” to safe havens abroad–often with a wink and a nod from U.S. intelligence officers. Third Reich expatriates and fascist collaborators subsequently emerged as “security advisors” in several Middle Eastern and Latin American countries, where ultra-right-wing death squads persist as their enduring legacy. Klaus Barbie, for example, assisted a succession of military regimes in Bolivia, where he taught soldiers torture techniques and helped protect the flourishing cocaine trade in the late 1970s and early ’80s.

CIA officials eventually learned that the Nazi old boy network nesting inside the Gehlen Org had an unexpected twist to it. By bankrolling Gehlen, the CIA unknowingly laid itself open to manipulation by a foreign intelligence service that was riddled with Soviet spies. Gehlen’s habit of employing compromised ex-Nazis–and the CIA’s willingness to sanction this practice–enabled the USSR to penetrate West Germany’s secret service by blackmailing numerous agents.

Ironically, some of the men employed by Gehlen would go on to play leading roles in European neofascist organizations that despise the United States. One of the consequences of the CIA’s ghoulish alliance with the Org is evident today in a resurgent fascist movement in Europe that can trace its ideological lineage back to Hitler’s Reich, through Gehlen operatives, who collaborated with U.S. intelligence.

Slow to recognize that their Nazi hired guns would feign an allegiance to the Western alliance as long as they deemed it tactically advantageous, CIA officials invested far too much in Gehlen’s spooky Nazi outfit. “It was a horrendous mistake, morally, politically, and also in very pragmatic intelligence terms,” says American University professor Richard Breitman, chairman of the IWG review panel.

More than just a bungled spy caper, the Gehlen debacle should serve as a cautionary tale at a time when post-cold war triumphalism and arrogant unilateralism are rampant among U.S. officials. If nothing else, it underscores the need for the United States to confront some of its own demons now that unreconstructed cold warriors are again riding top saddle in Washington.


NASA was one of the safe havens for evildoers and you are simply accepting it, because all of the wonderfull ''dopamine'' NASA gave you with all their spacy adventures.
Of course NASA was full of crooks knowing what propaganda was able to pull off.

But no....a snake pit full of evil doers do not fake the moonlandings, have never ever faked as much as one single Apollo picture.
They do not cheat the taxpayers, everything was well spend.
They were simply hardworking rocket engineers able to give it their very noble best for the whole world.
Werner Von Braun DID not visit Antartica to collect moonrocks just in case....
Even Nixon the crook wouldn't dare to cheat with the sacred Apollo program
All astronauts are giving their very best testimonies during interviews about their unique trip to the moon.
All moon machines worked because of meticulously testing and supreme knowledge from the NASA engineers and constructors.
All moon hazards were dealt with, meaning that batteries, air conditioning and radiation protection was spot on.
Nothing was lost or destroyed, because NASA took care of their entire legacy including petrified woodrocks.

Don't ever claim you had no clue......you choose your own reality validating all facts !!



Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Romp on July 23, 2019, 01:52:23 PM
(https://www.aulis.com/jackimages/17tallshortmountain.jpg)

(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-147-22517HR.jpg)
(https://s.yimg.com/aah/mcmahanphoto/apollo-17-astronaut-shadow-lm-on-moon-photo-print-18.jpg)

So what is the trickery supposedly ?

Even when you claim the angle of the LEM is different than another problem occurs. The mountain top is different !

Not sure why you would be questioning these photos. They all look like what they are. Photos taken during the moonwalk and I can’t see any inconsistencies.

If they were to fake them, wouldn't They be making them look like what you’d expect them to look like?

One of the theories doing the rounds is that Stanley Kubrick was in on it and filmed fake moon scenes for NASA.

But compare the photos above with scenes from the film and you can see obvious differences as well as them being obviously studio scenes.





Including the obvious what we would expect of slow motion walking in the 2nd clip.

Compare the 2001 scenes with the Apollo film taken on the moon and the differences are obvious, especially as 2001 was released only a year before the landings.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: sokarul on July 23, 2019, 01:54:13 PM
You are having trouble visualizing a 3d system presented in 2d photos.

This might help some.Keep in mind I drew a 2d line on a 3d system.  You should be able to see how the top of the lander can line up with the mountain.

(https://i.imgur.com/eFC1CDu.jpg)
Only from a different angle towards the LEM....but both LEMS are viewed from approximately the same angle.
So we are at an agreement. Nothing is wrong with the photos.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Unconvinced on July 23, 2019, 01:56:12 PM
Yeah, dutchy.  No atmosphere on the moon.  That’s just a fact.

I’m sorry if you find it too “convenient” for us.  Is reality in on the hoax too?  Maybe God conspired with NASA?
Evil conspired with NASA.
What evil would give nazi rocket scientists a ''new'' life with all the ''goodies'' ?

So the NAZIs are responsible for there being no atmosphere on the moon?

Otherwise what is the relevance to the conversation?

My country was a bunch of imperialist dicks when they built the first railways, but it would be moronic to suggest that railways don’t exist because they were imperialist dicks.

So are you going to explain this alleged studio setup or what?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Crutchwater on July 23, 2019, 02:41:38 PM
Evil notwithstanding, Nazi scientists were a very valuable commodity. They were the "spoils of war".

They were used like the tools they were.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: JackBlack on July 23, 2019, 02:45:34 PM
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
Yes, like the interaction between a rocket and the gas it creates.

”When a BODY exerts force on a SECOND  BODY” let me ask you, what is the second body being acted upon, IN A VACUUM ??!!
You sure seem to love asking questions that have already been answered.
The first body is the rocket.
The second body is the gas/exhaust.

This has already been explained to you.
Why ask a question that has already been answered as if it is a problem?

In the context of a bowling ball experiment :

The guy on a skateboard = FIRST BODY
FORCE = Motion of his arms that pushes off a heavy ball
A MEDICINE BALL = SECOND BODY
Only with reality.
Which also works for the rocket:
Rocket = FIRST BODY.
FORCE = PRESSURE OF THE GAS.
GAS = SECOND BODY.

Heaviness of a gas (INERTIA) enables our rocket to be pushed off of a gas.

see, no problem there.

Get it?

But in your delusional fantasy world the medicine ball becomes this:
The guy on a skateboard = FIRST BODY
FORCE = EXPELLED MEDICINE BALL
GROUND/ATMOSPHERE = SECOND BODY

See how stupid that sounds?
But that is what you are claiming with rockets.

Get it?

You are claiming that all that mass which is being ejected is somehow just transmitting force rather than being the second body.

Why?

Or will you claim the pure insanity of gas being massless and not having inertia?
In which case, how would it push off the atmosphere, as that has no inertia as that is a gas?
You can't appeal to the ground either, because the rockets can push sideways as well.
So then you have to explain how the rocket would work in an atmosphere where it has nothing to push off?

See, ignoring the gas doesn't help you at all. It just further destroys your credibility.

It's still gas (flame), of course, however rocket's gas (flame) does it's work when expelled from a rocket, not before. Now you have to ask yourself :
Is it because when expelled from a rocket, gas (flame) is no longer part of a rocket or is it because it exerts it's force on the second body (the air)?
So what you are saying is the gas inside the rocket is still part of the rocket, and it is only when it leaves the rocket that it becomes a second body.
Well that is pure garbage as the velocity is massively different before it leaves.
But even ignoring that, that still works:
First body - Rocket.
Second body - Gas leaving rocket.

No problems.

Is there a spatial/physical gap between a flame expelled and a rocket?
Is there a spatial/physical gap between a medicine ball and the hands?

You have already shown with your claims of NASA being a hoax that the person on the skateboard accelerates before the medicine ball is separated from him.
So that clearly isn't an issue.

Now again, why not address my very simple question that you seem to need to avoid like the plague, almost as if this single question completely destroys your argument:
What force acts on the gas to make it move in a particular direction when exiting the rocket and what body is providing this force?


If this one question is enough to bring you to your knees it shows you have no case and you know you are spouting BS.
So how about you address it?
What force causes the gas to accelerate and leave the rocket and what is the first and second body involved?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: JackBlack on July 23, 2019, 02:52:12 PM
It can coagulate in your veins and act like a blood clot
That is just your model of how chocolate works.
If he wants to reject that model it should be fine right? Even though all the evidence would be against him?
Just like it is against you and FE?

Close, but not quite: It is premature to assert a model before you know what model really withstands the tests.
Not in the slightest.
It is the rational next step, at least if you care about the truth and having beliefs which match reality.
You use the available data to make a model, you then compare this model with reality to see if it works.
But as you start with the assumption that Earth is flat, that clearly doesn't apply to you.

I don't have a model of the FE because, as with the car engine, I don't know the details so if I adopted a model, or invented one of my own, it would be wrong, just as my model of a car engine would be wrong.
Your position is more comparable to claiming a car engines works using pixies. Even without a model, you are still wrong.
Even without a model, you still make a claim that still needs defending.

Also, I highly doubt that those 2 positions are in anyway alike.
You aren't coming from a position of extreme ignorance.
You are coming from a position where you know of plenty of flaws of the FE.
It is a case of you not adopting a model, because you know you can't make one that works.

That's the mistake so many FEers make
There is a much bigger mistake before that, assuming Earth is flat.
That is a mistake all FEers make.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: markjo on July 23, 2019, 02:54:58 PM
Yeah, dutchy.  No atmosphere on the moon.  That’s just a fact.

I’m sorry if you find it too “convenient” for us.  Is reality in on the hoax too?  Maybe God conspired with NASA?
Evil conspired with NASA.
What evil would give nazi rocket scientists a ''new'' life with all the ''goodies'' ?
Like a college athlete caught with murder, but let off the hook because the college team validates his sporting talents so much.
Not quite.  The Nazi rocket scientists designed and built the rockets.  They didn't launch the rockets or pick the targets.  Would you call Eugene Stoner evil for designing and building the AR-15/M-16 (which has probably killed far more people than the V2)?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: JackBlack on July 23, 2019, 03:05:05 PM
The mountain backdrop top plateau in photo 2 and 4 is further to the left.
You mean taking photos from different angles can make background objects appear to move relative to foreground objects?
Damn, here I was thinking that by walking around a table the entire room moved as well.

Are you sure you took those basic art classes, cause that is extremely simple perspective/parallax.
Even lame games have that with your motion making the background move far less than the foreground.

These photos are taken from different angles.
As such, you will end up with parallax issues where the background does not line up.

Here is a very simplified top down view to demonstrate that.
In no way is it intended to be accurate.
(https://i.imgur.com/2jJwu9w.png)
Notice how taking the photo from a different position results in the mountain appearing in a different location relative to the LM?

So again just what do you think the issue is?
Only from a different angle towards the LEM....but both LEMS are viewed from approximately the same angle.
No they aren't.
They are viewed from a range of roughly 90 degrees.
Take a look at your photos again.
See the section on the left of photo 1?
I will call that the back.
The section facing towards you in photo 1 I will call the side.

In the first photo the back is facing to the left, quite significantly, almost 90 degrees from you.
But in the second photo, it isn't. Instead the back is facing directly towards you, with the side going off to the right.
Then in the 3rd photo it is in between, with both the back and the side pointing to some location beside you.
That facing off to the left.

So no, they were not viewing the LM from the same angle. The angles are vastly different.

Do I need to make a picture of the 2 side by side for you to see this?


It looks beyond fake and rediculous compared to any photograph on earth...
So far all we have for that is your baseless assertion.
You are yet to provide anything to indicate it is fake or ridiculous.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: magellanclavichord on July 23, 2019, 04:20:23 PM
Evil conspired with NASA.
What evil would give nazi rocket scientists a ''new'' life with all the ''goodies'' ?
<...snip...>

The United States taking in Nazi war criminals, letting them get off without punishment for their crimes, and giving them good jobs to boot, is a shameful and long-known page in United States history.

But NASA did not exist at the time. So NASA had nothing to do with that. And our shameful deals with the Nazis has no bearing on whether or not men walked on the moon.

Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Sunset on July 23, 2019, 04:30:13 PM
Duchy, you're absolutely correct about no atmosphere on the moon explaining why distant landmarks or mountains may appear closer than they are.

This same lack of atmosphere will come in handy one day when the flat moon society kicks off, and someone points out when something is over the curve, it is over the curve. No refraction index is necessary.

If you still believe the distant mountains in the photos are a backdrop, then a backdrop of what? I sense your hatred towards NASA is a small part of your overall hatred of the American government and part of a whole list of other conspiracies you also buy into.

Make no mistake, the depths mankind have stooped to in the past are shameful  , but the moon landings represent the heights mankind can ascend to (excuse the pun).
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: rabinoz on July 23, 2019, 08:01:47 PM
Evil conspired with NASA.
What evil would give nazi rocket scientists a ''new'' life with all the ''goodies'' ?
<...snip...>
The United States taking in Nazi war criminals, letting them get off without punishment for their crimes, and giving them good jobs to boot, is a shameful and long-known page in United States history.
Were they "war criminals"? Who tried and convicted them - dutchy?

Quote from: magellanclavichord
But NASA did not exist at the time. So NASA had nothing to do with that. And our shameful deals with the Nazis has no bearing on whether or not men walked on the moon.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Romp on July 23, 2019, 09:44:37 PM
Don”t think this has been posted before, but if it has then apologies. Basically it’s a filmmaker explaining that they couldn’t have faked the film sequences, because they didn’t have the technology to do so.

Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: rabinoz on July 23, 2019, 10:28:03 PM
Don”t think this has been posted before, but if it has then apologies. Basically it’s a filmmaker explaining that they couldn’t have faked the film sequences, because they didn’t have the technology to do so.


Of  course dutchy thinks himself far more knowledgeable than S G Collins on film production (and everything else) :P.
If you want to read some for/against have a look at
            International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories Camera work of Apollo 17, page 3 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=314678&page=3).
The rest might be worth reading: International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories Camera work of Apollo 17, page 1 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=314678&page=1).
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Romp on July 23, 2019, 11:08:10 PM
Don”t think this has been posted before, but if it has then apologies. Basically it’s a filmmaker explaining that they couldn’t have faked the film sequences, because they didn’t have the technology to do so.


Of  course dutchy thinks himself far more knowledgeable than S G Collins on film production (and everything else) :P.
If you want to read some for/against have a look at
            International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories Camera work of Apollo 17, page 3 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=314678&page=3).
The rest might be worth reading: International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories Camera work of Apollo 17, page 1 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=314678&page=1).

Thanks for that. I dip into the international skeptics forum quite often, but usually the current events etc., threads. The links you gave will give me some reading for this evening.

I understand you’re in Australia. One of the best reasons for the moon landings not able to have been faked, as told me by a colleague, was that the Australians would have spilled the beans on it since if the ‘dish’ they had didn’t pick up the signals from the moon, they just wouldn’t have kept quiet. Probably due to their irreverent nature, apparently, so i’m told.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: rabinoz on July 24, 2019, 12:12:31 AM
Don”t think this has been posted before, but if it has then apologies. Basically it’s a filmmaker explaining that they couldn’t have faked the film sequences, because they didn’t have the technology to do so.


Of  course dutchy thinks himself far more knowledgeable than S G Collins on film production (and everything else) :P.
If you want to read some for/against have a look at
            International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories Camera work of Apollo 17, page 3 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=314678&page=3).
The rest might be worth reading: International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories Camera work of Apollo 17, page 1 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=314678&page=1).

Thanks for that. I dip into the international skeptics forum quite often, but usually the current events etc., threads. The links you gave will give me some reading for this evening.

I understand you’re in Australia. One of the best reasons for the moon landings not able to have been faked, as told me by a colleague, was that the Australians would have spilled the beans on it since if the ‘dish’ they had didn’t pick up the signals from the moon, they just wouldn’t have kept quiet. Probably due to their irreverent nature, apparently, so i’m told.
And living in Australia I know for certain that the Ice-Wall map is total crap when it comes to east-west distances.

How's that for irreverence?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Romp on July 24, 2019, 12:35:50 AM
Don”t think this has been posted before, but if it has then apologies. Basically it’s a filmmaker explaining that they couldn’t have faked the film sequences, because they didn’t have the technology to do so.



Of  course dutchy thinks himself far more knowledgeable than S G Collins on film production (and everything else) :P.
If you want to read some for/against have a look at
            International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories Camera work of Apollo 17, page 3 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=314678&page=3).
The rest might be worth reading: International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories Camera work of Apollo 17, page 1 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=314678&page=1).

Thanks for that. I dip into the international skeptics forum quite often, but usually the current events etc., threads. The links you gave will give me some reading for this evening.

I understand you’re in Australia. One of the best reasons for the moon landings not able to have been faked, as told me by a colleague, was that the Australians would have spilled the beans on it since if the ‘dish’ they had didn’t pick up the signals from the moon, they just wouldn’t have kept quiet. Probably due to their irreverent nature, apparently, so i’m told.
And living in Australia I know for certain that the Ice-Wall map is total crap when it comes to east-west distances.

How's that for irreverence?

Sounds quite reasonable. Beat me why FEers can't check this simple fact for themselves.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: dutchy on July 24, 2019, 02:32:58 AM
Isn’t it sad that the only pro Apollo expert on film and photography is SG Collins who we all know as mister ‘lightguy’ because he vastly overplayed his hand when addressing Apollo and the means of fakery in 1969 ?
And we have , what i call, lots of amatures defending, explaining and adding to the Apollo footage as why they look so fake.
The leader of the pro Apollo bandwagen surely is Jay Windley from Clavius who freely dedicated his life  ::) for more than a decade to defend Apollo.
Then you have Astrobrant (2), Phill Plait, onebigmonkey ( used to post here) and a handfull of names responsible for the pro Apollo commentary on the www other than NASA and mainstream media articles.
But never a decorated photographer or Hollywood filmmaker of name burns his hands on openly claiming he went through all the Apollo imagery and came to the conclusion it was as ’moonish’ as it gets.

While Massimo Mazzucco let Toni Thorimbert, Aldo Fallai, Oliviero Toscani and Peter Lindbergh do some real PROFESSIONAL talking on the Apollo imagery.
Not only that, the most intelligent, most skilled pro Apollo person Jay Windley has been giving lots of airtime in the ‘American moon’ docu from Massimo Mazzucci.
Steadily (after the anniversary avalange is over) people will come to grips with this moon nonsense.

Rabinoz knows he his loosing his grip therefor his arguments gets worse by the day and often aimed at me as a personal dig.....

Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: dutchy on July 24, 2019, 02:54:32 AM
The mountain backdrop top plateau in photo 2 and 4 is further to the left.
These photos are taken from different angles.
As such, you will end up with parallax issues where the background does not line up.
I skipped over the insults if you don’t mind but you are wrong.....some pictures are taken from approxemately the same angle only a slightly varying height and different lens settings.
Still the background moves. Not that i imply that they moved the LEM, but their extremely close backdrop is in error and moves way to fast when viewing items in front of the backdrop instead of far away huge mountains......
That’s the panorama Mesdag effect what we are wittnessing.
 
Quote
Here is a very simplified top down view to demonstrate that.
In no way is it intended to be accurate.
(https://i.imgur.com/2jJwu9w.png)
Notice how taking the photo from a different position results in the mountain appearing in a different location relative to the LM?
Yeah indeed ‘ no way it is accurate’ because it shows exagerated angles.
Quote

So no, they were not viewing the LM from the same angle. The angles are vastly different.

Do I need to make a picture of the 2 side by side for you to see this?
Yeah please do !!!
From picture 1 and.... 2 and 3( same angle pictures) and what mountains are supposedly behind picture 1 please elaborate where and what the mountains are compared to the other photographs in photo 1.




Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 24, 2019, 03:18:38 AM
Tremendous amount of twisted logic, ludicrous claims and utter stupidity... 

Gas pressure requires molecules to be in contact with each other, bouncing off each other, causing millions of collisions per second, etc… If you release gas into the vacuum of space, the first molecule that pops out will shoot off into the distance at a constant speed, so will the one behind that, never catching up with the first one. The third, fourth, etc… all fly off into the distance trying to fill the vacuum by finding their empty corner. So no matter how much gas you produce none of it will ever change the pressure under a space ship. None it if will ever push a spaceship. To push a spaceship there must be some locally high pressure under it, which is impossible since the pressure in space is 0 everywhere.

Back the the Nozzle and the Massflow equation F=MA on earth
Think about a fire hose shooting water. A force comes directly back against the column of water shooting out. Why? Because the first drop of water has to pas through air, which is dense, causing many collisions, slowing down the drop of water. The second drop, directly behind the first, will not be slowed down by the air so it will collide with the first drop, the third drop hits the second drop and so on, the fast water coming through the hose pushing through the slower water outside causes Newton’s 3rd Law to push back on the column of water. This is why you need people holding the hose to add an unbalanced force otherwise the hose would not be able to push water through that column anymore, the water column would be diverted and the hose would flop around. It is obvious that one drop of water does not push back on the hose, you need a fast moving column.

The nozzle and the Massflow equation in space
Since the molecules leaving the combustion chamber and entering the vacuum never slow down, never collide with any outside objects, nor with each other, their force is always moving forward, away from the ship. There is no way for that force to be returned to the ship. There is no way for the force of the moving molecules to be extracted and used for propulsion. Their force is carried off into the far corners of space. This is also known as Joule Expansion. Remember that as soon as the nozzle is opened, the combustion chamber becomes part of the vacuum of space as is subject to its laws. A closed chamber is under pressure but not an open one.

NASA is lying at the molecular level
But that’s OK because most people don’t usually look there. The awesome, spectacular and heroic nature of space exploration is enough to cloud the most logical minds. Most respectable engineering schools won’t touch space flight and those who do have tiny departments. If it was really a multi-billion dollar government funded operation, every school in America would have their hands out for government grants like they do with Engineering, Computer Science and Biology. But why train thousands of the best minds of a generation in a field that doesn’t exist?

So, once again, just for you Jack :

Newton's Third Law - Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs

A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!

"When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body."

”When a BODY exerts force on a SECOND  BODY” let me ask you, what is the second body being acted upon, IN A VACUUM ??!!


You still haven't watched this video :



No, the “second body” isnt the gases...in a rocket launch...the rocket (engine) is the “first body” applying force (expelled gases) to a second body (ground, then atmosphere).. which “pushes back” with equal and opposite force.. on the first body (rocket) forcing it to go up..
what happens in a REAL and INFINITE vacuum, where there is no “second body” to act upon???

THE ROCKET (ENGINE) = FIRST BODY
FORCE = EXPELLED GASSES
GROUND/ATMOSPHERE = SECOND BODY

In the context of a bowling ball experiment :

The guy on a skateboard = FIRST BODY
FORCE = Motion of his arms that pushes off a heavy ball
A MEDICINE BALL = SECOND BODY

Heaviness of a medicine ball (INERTIA) enables our guy to be pushed off of a heavy ball.
Heaviness of a medicine ball (INERTIA) imitates/simulates THE AIR
Lightness of some light object (which our guy could have used in his second hypothetical try) imitates/simulates A VACUUM

Get it???

Or do i have to copy/paste this portion of my previous post (again), as well :

There is no denying that If you stand on a skate board and throw the bowling ball away, you and the skateboard will indeed move in the opposite direction to the bowling ball. This is because, by throwing the bowling ball away, you have basically pushed against a resistant object that is separate from you, (like a solid wall).

So, INERTIA (of the bowling ball) is the magic word (an explanation) that you are looking for (which is behind this fraudulent NASA's "scientific" method.

Do i have to remind you to one other equally fraudulent NASA's "scientific" method that should have looked authentic (dropping a ball in a moving train/airplane)???

I destroyed (for good) this other (dropping a ball within enclosed moving object) NASA's fraudulent method by offering my own irrefutable counter-argument ("CONCORDE" thought experiment).

HERE IT IS : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78814.msg2128697#msg2128697

Now, back on the track :

Pay attention to this very important (exposing) aspect of NASA's fraudulent method (bowling ball) :
In which exact moment does our guy (on the skateboard) starts to move back (in the video posted by sokarul)???

(https://j.gifs.com/7L4J9Q.gif)

BOWLING BALL SLOW MOTION REVEALS NASA'S SCAM :


Long before he extends his arms to the full extent and even much long before he throws the ball (before the ball is fully detached from his hands).
It means that in our "balloon exhausting" kind of experiments we should expect the same result : our toy cars should start being propelled (pushed back) even before the air is exhausted out of the nozzle (drinking straw) into the surrounding environment!!!
That is to say, if we could make the ball to disappear (to vanish into thin air) in the exact same moment when our skateboard guy extends his hands to the full extent (few milliseconds before he throws the ball), he would be still pushed back to the same degree as it is shown in sokarul's video.
Now, all you have to do is to apply this same logic to our "balloon exhausting" experiments and explain to us, why this fraudulent NASA's method doesn't work the same way in both cases???

ACCOMPANYING VIDEO :
ROCKETS CAN'T FLY IN A VACUUM - 3 :
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Stash on July 24, 2019, 03:24:04 AM
The mountain backdrop top plateau in photo 2 and 4 is further to the left.
These photos are taken from different angles.
As such, you will end up with parallax issues where the background does not line up.
I skipped over the insults if you don’t mind but you are wrong.....some pictures are taken from approxemately the same angle only a slightly varying height and different lens settings.
Still the background moves. Not that i imply that they moved the LEM, but their extremely close backdrop is in error and moves way to fast when viewing items in front of the backdrop instead of far away huge mountains......
That’s the panorama Mesdag effect what we are wittnessing.
 
Quote
Here is a very simplified top down view to demonstrate that.
In no way is it intended to be accurate.
(https://i.imgur.com/2jJwu9w.png)
Notice how taking the photo from a different position results in the mountain appearing in a different location relative to the LM?
Yeah indeed ‘ no way it is accurate’ because it shows exagerated angles.
Quote

So no, they were not viewing the LM from the same angle. The angles are vastly different.

Do I need to make a picture of the 2 side by side for you to see this?
Yeah please do !!!
From picture 1 and.... 2 and 3( same angle pictures) and what mountains are supposedly behind picture 1 please elaborate where and what the mountains are compared to the other photographs in photo 1.

Can you post the picture reference numbers you have questions about. I've been pouring through them manually, but there are so many.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: radioflat on July 24, 2019, 03:46:17 AM
Tremendous amount of twisted logic, ludicrous claims and utter stupidity... 


In the context of a bowling ball experiment :

The guy on a skateboard = FIRST BODY
FORCE = Motion of his arms that pushes off a heavy ball
A MEDICINE BALL = SECOND BODY

Heaviness of a medicine ball (INERTIA) enables our guy to be pushed off of a heavy ball.
Heaviness of a medicine ball (INERTIA) imitates/simulates THE AIR
Lightness of some light object (which our guy could have used in his second hypothetical try) imitates/simulates A VACUUM


No, you are doing it again... Above you note that the medicene ball is the second body, because it's HEAVY.
But you forget that the expelled gasses also have mass and thus constitute the second body.
Your problem is that you think that gas is light so it's can't have mass - but of course it does.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 24, 2019, 03:46:21 AM
Thanks for that. I dip into the international skeptics forum quite often, but usually the current events etc., threads. The links you gave will give me some reading for this evening.

I understand you’re in Australia. One of the best reasons for the moon landings not able to have been faked, as told me by a colleague, was that the Australians would have spilled the beans on it since if the ‘dish’ they had didn’t pick up the signals from the moon, they just wouldn’t have kept quiet. Probably due to their irreverent nature, apparently, so i’m told.

Mike# Boy 2 years ago
@ odiupicku this is mind bending for me, hey went and check with my own eyes to see this honeysuckle nasa tracking dish it's a 22 metre dish, Apollo rd, near Canberra there nothing there just a concrete slab and it is ridiculous sign boards saying they went to the moon? What about parks its a 64 metre radio telescope dish i kid you not apparently parks dish received lunar and modular transmission. What going on???Apparently honeysuckle was commissioned 1967 and decommissioned 1981 hey just saying these magnetic tapes that went missing 700 so boxes. I do not get it, honeysuckle dish was a massive step for mankind, so they dismantle it. WTF?

Mike# Boy 2 years ago
@ odiupicku, bro we are on the same page, just a  guess i suspect you are smarter then me, but it is not important just saying, anyway Apollo program brought me here i hate NASA they lied and deceive me just saying. My dad who has pass many years ago 18 to be precise, he was in the australian air force, radar and communication. He said to me 1969 the transmission where impossible there is not enough wattage. He new, but i did not, i told him that's silly it's on tv and it's live from outer space. Odiupicku you are right it's just a show to fool the world and it worked like a treat. I am ashamed i did believe my father and yes i am educated. What awoke me 18 months ago, when a buddy talk about bill clinton autobiography book " the old carpenter, he must have been ahead of his time" I was blown. I am not a big fan of Mr Clinton he should have been impeached for lying to the American people. Hey i know you are busy and its time consuming to make theses vids i commend you, it's passion......Cheers bro.
P.s my dad did teach me this pseudo maths..
I will try to post or write the impossible transmission with links or the maths, wish me luck i also have passion.
I am calling the Apollo program as total B... S....dad got something right do not use profanities

So, i am told...
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 24, 2019, 03:52:22 AM
Tremendous amount of twisted logic, ludicrous claims and utter stupidity... 


In the context of a bowling ball experiment :

The guy on a skateboard = FIRST BODY
FORCE = Motion of his arms that pushes off a heavy ball
A MEDICINE BALL = SECOND BODY

Heaviness of a medicine ball (INERTIA) enables our guy to be pushed off of a heavy ball.
Heaviness of a medicine ball (INERTIA) imitates/simulates THE AIR
Lightness of some light object (which our guy could have used in his second hypothetical try) imitates/simulates A VACUUM


No, you are doing it again... Above you note that the medicene ball is the second body, because it's HEAVY.
But you forget that the expelled gasses also have mass and thus constitute the second body.
Your problem is that you think that gas is light so it's can't have mass - but of course it does.

Some more food for thought :

the reason why thrust cant work is simple
thrust equals = weight in order to have weight we need gravity.
see its like this in space everything weighs nothing so i would say a rocket weighs 0
or put like this rocket =0
                       thrust=0 because without gravity there is no weight behind the thrust
to cause a reaction so no movement would take place.
on earth if you sit in a chair that has wheels on it and throw a heavy ball you would
move back, and guess why of course because of gravity; see gravity makes the ball weigh something but if you did the same thing in space you wouldnt move because you and the ball weigh nothing at all.

Oh yes as long as we are within the earths atmosphere the rocket engine  which is chucking out thrust, weight, pounds more than it weighs to get up there is acting with two important things Gravity is needed to give the thrust weight, imagine seeing a flame out the back of a rocket with no weight no substance behind it just like a blow torch a flame without any force behind it that's not going to move much is it .then we come to the next important thing its called air or atmospheric gasses. the thrust of a rocket engine has to have something to push against it cant push against its self. That would be like bolting an engine with a prop on it to a boat and pointing it at the sail do you think the boat would move? Of course it wouldn't we have created a sealed circuit where no reaction can take place. so in orbit the elements needed for trust to produce momentum still exist, but in true space or outside higher orbit there is a vacuum no air no gasses no gravity not much of anything for thrust to push against and, so a rocket can't push against its self using Newton’s third law.

Get it?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: radioflat on July 24, 2019, 03:56:02 AM
Tremendous amount of twisted logic, ludicrous claims and utter stupidity... 


In the context of a bowling ball experiment :

The guy on a skateboard = FIRST BODY
FORCE = Motion of his arms that pushes off a heavy ball
A MEDICINE BALL = SECOND BODY

Heaviness of a medicine ball (INERTIA) enables our guy to be pushed off of a heavy ball.
Heaviness of a medicine ball (INERTIA) imitates/simulates THE AIR
Lightness of some light object (which our guy could have used in his second hypothetical try) imitates/simulates A VACUUM


on earth if you sit in a chair that has wheels on it and throw a heavy ball you would
move back, and guess why of course because of gravity; see gravity makes the ball weigh something but if you did the same thing in space you wouldnt move because you and the ball weigh nothing at all.


No, you move because the ball has MASS and in space of course you would move... Look at pucks on a air-table...

Mass and weight are totally distinct and separate entities! Is your example above, gravity is directed downwards to the centre of mass of the earth.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: sokarul on July 24, 2019, 03:58:56 AM
Tremendous amount of twisted logic, ludicrous claims and utter stupidity... 


In the context of a bowling ball experiment :

The guy on a skateboard = FIRST BODY
FORCE = Motion of his arms that pushes off a heavy ball
A MEDICINE BALL = SECOND BODY

Heaviness of a medicine ball (INERTIA) enables our guy to be pushed off of a heavy ball.
Heaviness of a medicine ball (INERTIA) imitates/simulates THE AIR
Lightness of some light object (which our guy could have used in his second hypothetical try) imitates/simulates A VACUUM


No, you are doing it again... Above you note that the medicene ball is the second body, because it's HEAVY.
But you forget that the expelled gasses also have mass and thus constitute the second body.
Your problem is that you think that gas is light so it's can't have mass - but of course it does.

Some more food for thought :

the reason why thrust cant work is simple
thrust equals = weight in order to have weight we need gravity.
see its like this in space everything weighs nothing so i would say a rocket weighs 0
or put like this rocket =0
                       thrust=0 because without gravity there is no weight behind the thrust
to cause a reaction so no movement would take place.
on earth if you sit in a chair that has wheels on it and throw a heavy ball you would
move back, and guess why of course because of gravity; see gravity makes the ball weigh something but if you did the same thing in space you wouldnt move because you and the ball weigh nothing at all.

Oh yes as long as we are within the earths atmosphere the rocket engine  which is chucking out thrust, weight, pounds more than it weighs to get up there is acting with two important things Gravity is needed to give the thrust weight, imagine seeing a flame out the back of a rocket with no weight no substance behind it just like a blow torch a flame without any force behind it that's not going to move much is it .then we come to the next important thing its called air or atmospheric gasses. the thrust of a rocket engine has to have something to push against it cant push against its self. That would be like bolting an engine with a prop on it to a boat and pointing it at the sail do you think the boat would move? Of course it wouldn't we have created a sealed circuit where no reaction can take place. so in orbit the elements needed for trust to produce momentum still exist, but in true space or outside higher orbit there is a vacuum no air no gasses no gravity not much of anything for thrust to push against and, so a rocket can't push against its self using Newton’s third law.

Get it?

Mass is the word you are looking for. There is mass in space.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: JerkFace on July 24, 2019, 03:59:04 AM
cikljamas ..  I asked you this question earlier, perhaps you missed it.


Both my parents have worked at NASA for 20+ years. I grew up in kemah, TX. They always stirred away when I asked them about things like this. My Dad always said " quit being a conspiracy theorist " my mom always looked at me like she felt bad for lying to me. They provided me with a great life, great opportunities. But at what expense?


So you grew up right next to Johnson Space Center (Houston).   I'm interested in what sort of work did your parents do at NASA?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: JerkFace on July 24, 2019, 04:05:37 AM
Thanks for that. I dip into the international skeptics forum quite often, but usually the current events etc., threads. The links you gave will give me some reading for this evening.

I understand you’re in Australia. One of the best reasons for the moon landings not able to have been faked, as told me by a colleague, was that the Australians would have spilled the beans on it since if the ‘dish’ they had didn’t pick up the signals from the moon, they just wouldn’t have kept quiet. Probably due to their irreverent nature, apparently, so i’m told.

Mike# Boy 2 years ago
@ odiupicku this is mind bending for me, hey went and check with my own eyes to see this honeysuckle nasa tracking dish it's a 22 metre dish, Apollo rd, near Canberra there nothing there just a concrete slab and it is ridiculous sign boards saying they went to the moon? What about parks its a 64 metre radio telescope dish i kid you not apparently parks dish received lunar and modular transmission. What going on???Apparently honeysuckle was commissioned 1967 and decommissioned 1981 hey just saying these magnetic tapes that went missing 700 so boxes. I do not get it, honeysuckle dish was a massive step for mankind, so they dismantle it. WTF?

Mike# Boy 2 years ago
@ odiupicku, bro we are on the same page, just a  guess i suspect you are smarter then me, but it is not important just saying, anyway Apollo program brought me here i hate NASA they lied and deceive me just saying. My dad who has pass many years ago 18 to be precise, he was in the australian air force, radar and communication. He said to me 1969 the transmission where impossible there is not enough wattage. He new, but i did not, i told him that's silly it's on tv and it's live from outer space. Odiupicku you are right it's just a show to fool the world and it worked like a treat. I am ashamed i did believe my father and yes i am educated. What awoke me 18 months ago, when a buddy talk about bill clinton autobiography book " the old carpenter, he must have been ahead of his time" I was blown. I am not a big fan of Mr Clinton he should have been impeached for lying to the American people. Hey i know you are busy and its time consuming to make theses vids i commend you, it's passion......Cheers bro.
P.s my dad did teach me this pseudo maths..
I will try to post or write the impossible transmission with links or the maths, wish me luck i also have passion.
I am calling the Apollo program as total B... S....dad got something right do not use profanities

So, i am told...

The Honeysuckle creek dish was dismantled and relocated to the deep space network site near Canberra,   Parkes has no transmit capability so you can't use Parkes to communicate to the spacecraft,  also Parkes bigger dish has a much slower slew rate and can't move fast enough to track low earth orbit spacecraft.  Wheras Honeysuckle creek's smaller dish can be slewed fast enough to track LEO.  Parkes however is pretty good for receiving signals from the moon. 

Honeysuckle creek had a 22KW transmitter,  it used Unified S band. 

Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: JackBlack on July 24, 2019, 04:32:49 AM
explaining and adding to the Apollo footage as why they look so fake.
Really? Where?
So far I have seen plenty of people assert they think it is fake, plenty even give nonsense to try and back it up. But I am yet to find any that can actually explain why it is fake with an argument which withstands scrutiny.

But never a decorated photographer or Hollywood filmmaker of name burns his hands on openly claiming he went through all the Apollo imagery and came to the conclusion it was as ’moonish’ as it gets.
Maybe that is because they realise there is no point. Those who reject the moon landings wont listen. Anyone that would listen to them would likely already accept the landings are real.

I skipped over the insults if you don’t mind
No insults, just pointing out how ridiculous your argument was and how completely inconsistent it is with someone who has done arts as a major school subject.

some pictures are taken from approxemately the same angle only a slightly varying height and different lens settings.
Still the background moves.
Says you.
Care to provide an example that shows a problem? I am yet to find one.
So far the examples you have provided have been from vastly different angles.

but their extremely close backdrop is in error and moves way to fast when viewing items in front of the backdrop instead of far away huge mountains......
And you are basing this on what?
How far away was the mountain from the LM?
How far apart were the pictures taken?

Yeah indeed ‘ no way it is accurate’ because it shows exagerated angles.
No it doesn't.
It shows the angles someone with knowledge of how 3D space works with how objects appear different from angles would conclude are there.
Yes, the approximate, but they aren't being exaggerated.

Yeah please do !!!
From picture 1 and.... 2 and 3( same angle pictures)
Here you go:
(https://i.imgur.com/fkdXrez.gif)
Going to accept it is being viewed from different angles, not the same angle like you claim?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: rabinoz on July 24, 2019, 04:39:28 AM
Tremendous amount of twisted logic, ludicrous claims and utter stupidity... 

Gas pressure requires molecules to be in contact with each other, bouncing off each other, causing millions of collisions per second, etc… If you release gas into the vacuum of space, the first molecule that pops out will shoot off into the distance at a constant speed, so will the one behind that, never catching up with the first one. The third, fourth, etc… all fly off into the distance trying to fill the vacuum by finding their empty corner. So no matter how much gas you produce none of it will ever change the pressure under a space ship. None it if will ever push a spaceship. To push a spaceship there must be some locally high pressure under it, which is impossible since the pressure in space is 0 everywhere.
Incorrect! That is total crap!
Sure the gas molecules "fly off" but not at an infinite velocity. You obviously don't know the first thing about gas flow especially at hypersonic velocities.

There is no need for any local high pressure under the rocket to push it though a small amount of thrust can come from the finite difference between the pressure at the exit of the nozzle and the external pressure.

Most of the thrust from a rocket engine comes from the huge mass flow of exhaust gas exiting the rocket nozzle at a hypersonic velocity.
Each Rocketdye F-1 engine of the Saturn V had a mass flow rate of 2,578 kg/sec and an effective exit velocity of 2.58 km/sec.
This would work out at a thrust from this rate of change of momentum of about 6.7 MNewtons or 678,000 kilograms.

There is a little extra thrust from the pressure difference between that of the exhaust gasses and the pressure outside so the total thrust of a rocket engine is given by:
Thrust = (mass flow rate) × (exhaust velocity) + ((exhaust pressure) - (external pressure)) × (area of exhaust)
And you might note that a rocket works better in a vacuum than at sea-level!

For the F-1 engine the specific thrust Isp is 263 sec at sea-level but 304 sec in a vacuum.
The thrust I gave above was at sea-level and is proportionately higher in a vacuum.

But a rocket "pushes on nothing" except the enormous mass of exhaust gas ejected at a hypersonic velocity.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 24, 2019, 04:46:01 AM
James Donaghy 2 years ago
@odiupicku Good job. Here's the thing though,  there is a much more obvious problem with apollo- the heat.
It's such an obvious problem that it is amazing that it has been overlooked for so long. We all know the story of Icarus, but does everyone know the story of Leonov? He is the original spacewalker. He said, "It was so hot I thought I was frightened i was going to die."
Leonov is one of the bravest creatures on this planet which is partly why he was picked for this work.
So how does NASA explain his account of the incredible heat of the sun? They say he entered an awning feet first instead of head first and became so flustered that his monitors registered a dangerously high body temperature because he was such a woss. 
And there's more; if you get a black belt in astrophysics you can explain effortlessly how the sun isn't hot because of the low air pressure in space. In our advanced institutes there are paussies of top notch professors climbing over each other to take credit for reasons why Icarus would have had no feather problems if only he'd managed to get higher and with some breathing apparatus because the sun isn't hot once you reach space. Of course his wings wouldn't work either, but that's not the point.
For 50 years we have been told by those who know more than we, that the sun is cold in space, sorry, I just had to repeat that.
For more see my 5 minute presentation here:


Now put James Donaghy's words into broader ( perspective :


Well, it is indeed Fantasy the lot :

According to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/ (http://Apollo Lunar Surface Journal https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/), for Apollo 12, values given for cabin pressure are 4.8 psi, and for normal operating suit pressure, 3.8 psi. This suggests a pure oxygen environment for the Lunar Module.

For Apollo 11, 12, & 14, during EVA preparation, the suit relative pressures were 4.6 to 5.2 psi when the LM cabin pressure was 3.5 psi, giving suit absolute pressures of 8.1 to 8.7 psi pure oxygen.  At earth's atmospheric pressure of 14.7 psi, this correlates to 55% to 60% oxygen content, which gives an oxygen partial pressure of 8.1 to 8.7 psi.

According to the Apollo 12 ALSJ, the suits were already difficult to bend at 3.8 psi relative pressure (when the LM cabin pressure was 3.5 psi).  When the suit pressures were at about 4.5 psi relative pressure, the suits were very stiff.

The following quotes are from a March 11, 1968 Aviation Week & Space Technology article headlined "Flammability Tests Spur Two-Gas Apollo".

"Washington - Decision to use a two-gas atmosphere (60% oxygen, 40% nitrogen) during manned Apollo on-the-pad preparations and in pre-orbital flight reflects a basic inability to make the spacecraft flameproof after 14 months of redesign that cost more than $100 million and added about 2,000 lb. to the system.

"The decision (AW&ST, Mar. 4, p. 21) was forced on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration after three series of flammability tests on an Apollo command module boilerplate failed to satisfy officials that changes would prevent the spread of fire under a pure-oxygen environment."

The article goes on to mention how a 95% oxygen system at 6.2 psi which would be orbital configuration developed problems in fire propagation tests.

Would not there have been serious flammability problems of such an environment in the lunar module? The article concludes:

"By switching to a two-gas system for pre-flight and immediate post-launch activities, NASA is willing to accept an added problem. Astronauts will be breathing pure oxygen during that phase and they will have to vent the spacecraft cabin during boost to orbit and repressurize to 6 psi with oxygen to permit them to remove their helmets and work in relative comfort.

"Possibility of the 40% of nitrogen causing bends if an emergency escape has to be made during the launch phase was considered by officials less hazardous than that of fire propagation in a one-gas system."

A Feb. 6, 1967 article in AW&ST indicates that when the Apollo program was being planned, the primary reason for choosing a 5-psi cabin oxygen system was weight considerations. Added weight (with a two-gas system) would come from a mixture control system to keep the proper gas ratio. Also, introduction of an oxygen-nitrogen or oxygen-helium environmental control system for Apollo would have meant the addition of an airlock.

Just how dangerous was a pure oxygen environment in the ascent and descent lunar module considered to be?

Here on earth, increasing the percentage of oxygen to slightly above 21% dramatically increases probability of fires. According to The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (p. 567) by Barrow and Tipler, "...the probability of a forest fire being started by a lightning-bolt increases 70% for every 1% rise in oxygen concentration above the present 21%. Above 25% very little of the vegetation on land would survive the fires...". "At the present fraction of 21%, fires will not start at more than 15% moisture content. Were the oxygen content to reach 25%, even damp twigs and the grass of a rain forest would ignite."(p. 568).

Ralph René, in his book NASA Mooned America, provides a list of government-sponsored testing that resulted in oxygen fires. René extracted this information from Appendix G in Mission To The Moon by Kennan & Harvey. Here are some tests on that list:

"September 9, 1962 - The first known fire occurred in the Space Cabin Simulator at Brooks Air Force Base in a chamber using 100% oxygen at 5 psi. It was explosive and involved the carbon dioxide scrubber. Both occupants collapsed from smoke inhalation before being rescued."

"November 17, 1962 - Another incident using 100% oxygen at 5 psi in a chamber at the Navy Laboratory (ACEL). There were four occupants in the chamber, but the simple replacing of a burned-out light bulb caused their clothes to catch on fire. They escaped in 40 seconds but all suffered burns. Two were seriously injured. In addition an asbestos 'safety' blanket caught fire and burned causing one man's hand to catch fire."

"April 28, 1966 - More Apollo equipment was destroyed as it was being tested under 100% oxygen and 5 psi at the Apollo Environmental Control System in Torrance, CA."

"January 1, 1967 - The last known test was over three weeks before Grissom, Chaffee & White suffered immolation. Two men were handling 16 rabbits in a chamber of 100% oxygen at 7.2 psi at Brooks Air Force Base and all living things died in the inferno. The cause may have been as simple as a static discharge from a rabbit's fur ... but we'll never know."

NASA subjected Grissom, White and Chaffee to over 90% pure oxygen at over 16 psi in a test with live electrical circuits and switches being thrown, and with a hatch that took more than three minutes to open, resulting in the fatal Apollo 1 fire.

Bill Kaysing, in his book We Never Went To The Moon, states, in Chapter 9 titled "Murder By Negligence On Pad 34", "If any two documents lend credibility to the contention that the Apollo flights were faked, they are most certainly the Baron Report and the Phillips Report. They were authored by two men of obvious integrity and dedication. Although from diverse backgrounds, both Tom Baron and Sam Phillips were in total agreement on one basic premise, i.e., that North American Aviation and its sponsor, NASA, were totally unequal to the task of assuring even one successful flight to the moon!"

Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: JackBlack on July 24, 2019, 04:55:24 AM
Tremendous amount of twisted logic, ludicrous claims and utter stupidity... 
Great job showing you have no rational counter to what I said.

So perhaps I should just ignore everything you said and just ask the same question again:
What is causing the gas to leave the rocket? What body is applying a force to it?
Can you tell me?
Or do you know the only possible answer would be the rocket applies the force to the gas to have it leave the rocket and thus the gas must apply a force back to the rocket, and thus they work in space?

Gas pressure requires molecules to be in contact with each other, bouncing off each other, causing millions of collisions per second, etc… If you release gas into the vacuum of space, the first molecule that pops out will shoot off into the distance at a constant speed
This requires you to "release" them in a highly specific direction with a specific velocity (which requires forcing them to go in that particular direction).
If you don't do that and instead just release them and let them go in random directions then they don't just all fly out the opening.
That is because some wont be going to the opening.
Instead some will be heading away from it.
They then collide with the rocket, interacting with it such that the rocket is force in one direction and the gas is forced in the other.
They can also collide with other gas molecules, and cause a similar issue.
The continues with the gas molecules bouncing around in the rocket until they are forced out in a particular direction by these collisions, and as a result of Newton's third law, they have to push something else the other way.

It is only if you release gas in a perfect vacuum with absolutely nothing around it that it will do as you say as then there is no obstacle in any direction.

If you have an obstacle to one side, it will push that obstacle away as it tries to expand past it.

To push a spaceship there must be some locally high pressure under it, which is impossible since the pressure in space is 0 everywhere.
No, the pressure is 0 no where. It is quite low in most locations, but in the rocket engine and in the exhaust near the rocket, it is quite high.
If it wasn't, the gas would just sit there doing nothing.

Think about a fire hose shooting water. A force comes directly back against the column of water shooting out. Why?
Because water, like gas, has inertia and thus the hose needs to apply a force to direct the water.
If you put an obstacle some distance away from the hose, there will no change in the force applied to the hose, because the water is the second body for the action and reaction, not just a magical force transmitter like you want to pretend.

Since the molecules leaving the combustion chamber
Don't start there. Start with the molecules in the combustion chamber. If you start with them already out they have already force the rocket away and the rocket has forced them away.

This is also known as Joule Expansion.
That requires expansion in all directions, not going out of the nozzle in a particular direction.

So, once again, just for you Jack :
Repeating the same lie wont help you.
The rocket is the first body. The gas is the second body.
If you wish to claim otherwise you need to explain how the gas leaves the rocket in a particular direction, which requires it to be forced away from the rocket by some body, which according to you is not the rocket.

thrust equals = weight in order to have weight we need gravity.
No it doesn't.
That isn't food for thought. It is food to avoid thought.
Thrust=force=mass*acceleration.
You don't need weight, you need mass.

Many people confuse weight and mass, but the 2 are very different.

You can try your experiment in free fall, still within the atmosphere, but where objects are weightless.
Guess what? They still have mass and thus still have inertia (which is basically just a fancy word for mass) and thus still require a force to move and thus still exert a force back on the first object.

Also note if you wanted to go down your rabbithole of mass not existing in a 0 g environment then what it would mean is F=0*a
i.e. for any acceleration, you need no force.
That means a rocket can easily work as no force is required to move it.

Now going to answer the question, or will you continue to avoid it?
What body is acting on the gas to force it in a particular direction?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Romp on July 24, 2019, 04:56:39 AM
Isn’t it sad that the only pro Apollo expert on film and photography is SG Collins who we all know as mister ‘lightguy’ because he vastly overplayed his hand when addressing Apollo and the means of fakery in 1969 ?
And we have , what i call, lots of amatures defending, explaining and adding to the Apollo footage as why they look so fake.
The leader of the pro Apollo bandwagen surely is Jay Windley from Clavius who freely dedicated his life  ::) for more than a decade to defend Apollo.
Then you have Astrobrant (2), Phill Plait, onebigmonkey ( used to post here) and a handfull of names responsible for the pro Apollo commentary on the www other than NASA and mainstream media articles.
But never a decorated photographer or Hollywood filmmaker of name burns his hands on openly claiming he went through all the Apollo imagery and came to the conclusion it was as ’moonish’ as it gets.

While Massimo Mazzucco let Toni Thorimbert, Aldo Fallai, Oliviero Toscani and Peter Lindbergh do some real PROFESSIONAL talking on the Apollo imagery.
Not only that, the most intelligent, most skilled pro Apollo person Jay Windley has been giving lots of airtime in the ‘American moon’ docu from Massimo Mazzucci.
Steadily (after the anniversary avalange is over) people will come to grips with this moon nonsense.

Rabinoz knows he his loosing his grip therefor his arguments gets worse by the day and often aimed at me as a personal dig.....

As inevitable as it is, these always descend into 'he said she said' ping pong:

http://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/2014/07/532-how-come-famous-photographers-claim.html


Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: JerkFace on July 24, 2019, 05:06:03 AM
Attempt number 4.. 

cikljamas ..  I asked you this question earlier, perhaps you missed it.


Both my parents have worked at NASA for 20+ years. I grew up in kemah, TX. They always stirred away when I asked them about things like this. My Dad always said " quit being a conspiracy theorist " my mom always looked at me like she felt bad for lying to me. They provided me with a great life, great opportunities. But at what expense?


So you grew up right next to Johnson Space Center (Houston).   I'm interested in what sort of work did your parents do at NASA?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: rabinoz on July 24, 2019, 05:06:44 AM
Thanks for that. I dip into the international skeptics forum quite often, but usually the current events etc., threads. The links you gave will give me some reading for this evening.

I understand you’re in Australia. One of the best reasons for the moon landings not able to have been faked, as told me by a colleague, was that the Australians would have spilled the beans on it since if the ‘dish’ they had didn’t pick up the signals from the moon, they just wouldn’t have kept quiet. Probably due to their irreverent nature, apparently, so i’m told.

Mike# Boy 2 years ago
@ odiupicku this is mind bending for me, hey went and check with my own eyes to see this honeysuckle nasa tracking dish it's a 22 metre dish, Apollo rd, near Canberra there nothing there just a concrete slab and it is ridiculous sign boards saying they went to the moon? What about parks its a 64 metre radio telescope dish i kid you not apparently parks dish received lunar and modular transmission. What going on???Apparently honeysuckle was commissioned 1967 and decommissioned 1981. I do not get it, honeysuckle dish was a massive step for mankind, so they dismantle it. WTF?
I'm from Australia!
Honeysuckle Creek had a 26m dish and was used for most telemetry.
Parkes is a radio-telescope and made an better receiver than Honeysuckle Creek so was used for the Apollo 11 first moon walk.
It had no transmitter, however, so could not transmit to the Apollo craft.

Honeysuckle Creek was decommissioned 1981 after Apollo, Skylab, Viking and Voyager because a better communications centre was already at Tidbinbilla near Canberra.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/CSIRO_ScienceImage_11042_Aerial_view_of_the_Canberra_Deep_Space_Communication_Complex.jpg/2560px-CSIRO_ScienceImage_11042_Aerial_view_of_the_Canberra_Deep_Space_Communication_Complex.jpg)
The Canberra Deep Space Communication Complex in 2010

You can chase up the details of which was used for what mission etc.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: rabinoz on July 24, 2019, 05:25:54 AM
<< Ignored until you sort out your rocket in a vacuum rubbish! >>
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 24, 2019, 05:27:58 AM
The nail in the coffin of all NASA crapola is the idea of sending a video image 200K miles away...LOL....With analog equipment and no repeater stations...I installed communications systems in the USAF...The most powerful and far reaching communications we had was HF radio...Which uses the Ionosphere like Ham Radio, Only our transmitters were 5000 watts...You would need a billion watts and repeater amplifier stations between the earth and moon...Entropy of signal physics.

Alan Bean says his mission had no problem with Van Allen Belt (radiation) because it hadn't been discovered yet (at the time)....lol...lol...lol...lol...lol...

So all you have to do is close your eyes while going thru the Van Allen belt and you're protected from radiation WOW!!!!!! Amazing

So, the Van Allen Belt didn't cause them problems because they hadn't discovered it yet? Who knew life really was like a Wily Coyote cartoon and you could do things like walk straight off of cliffs without falling as long as you didn't realize you were in danger??!! Well, I'm going to change my parenting style based off of this knowledge. I won't teach my baby about bad strangers, accidental burns, or anything else dangerous, because what she doesn't know can't hurt her. I won't have to waste money on medicine, child car seats, babysitters, etc., because as long as I keep her ignorant of danger she can't get hurt. why teach her not to rub with scissors when I could just keep her safe my keeping her ignorant of the possible dangers associated with it?

We leave you much that is undone. There are great ideas undiscovered, breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth’s protective layers. There are places to go beyond belief.?
*NEIL ARMSTRONG*

Interviewer: " You said: "How long must it take before I cease to be known as a spaceman" ....Why did you make that comment" ?

Armstrong: "..I guess we all want to be recognized not for one piece of fireworks"

Interviewer: "You seem uncomfortable with your celebrity.. that you'd rather not have all this attention"

Armstrong: "No, I just don't deserve it"?

Few more interesting comments from my viewers :

Heine ken thomsen 1 year ago
Notice how the falcon "feather" jump up from the rock when it hits the rock (about 5cm), just like a fork would do, when you drop it on a rock, a real feather would not do that, was the feather made of metal?

Tony Hind 1 year ago
I know someone who spoke to person who was directly involved with medical care for the astronauts on one of the Apollo missions. I had only a few weeks ago said to my friend about the moon landings being fake.  So they asked this person out of the blue "So did they really go to the moon" ? This person just stopped and became flustered embarrassed and immediately changed the subject. My friend who was not a believer in fake moon lands after seeing that reaction now feels that they are indeed fake.

Michael Freed 1 year ago
NebTheWeb, the video time delay: it's seconds from when the bag drops to their reaction. They moved only steps away. That isn't altered video. That distance is all they moved. So it HAS to be unaltered. He only moves back that distance, the one covered in that amount of time! So it WAS an instant reaction. There is NO WAY the image of the fallen back reached Earth and was reacted to in that time!?

Ashley Law 1 year ago
odiupicku you got them worried...the sound delay would be much more than 2.5 seconds...the power needed to transmit and receive would be huge would need big power unit very big. Bigger than a radio station broadcasting accross even a state as small as New York.

Robbie Fekete 1 year ago
I think the real question is why did they even "go" to the moon? You would think that they would make a full documentary and record every moment while they were up there on the surface showing them doing some actual research or exploration but they only have videos of them driving in circles for no reason. People make documentaries here on earth exploring jungles and what not all the time you would think that they would record everything as they ventured to a place no one has ever been to. Just my thoughts on the whole "moon" mission.

Tommy Sullivan 1 year ago
The question is this : *What heck are they doing up there?* Or to put it another way : Even if you knew nothing about Apollo Space Program Hoax, wouldn't you expect different kinds of alarm turning on in the head of any intelligent person when pondering on the possible purpose of silly apollo-moon games : playing golf on the moon, driving buggy like children in the playground, running (jumping) around like drunk lunatics, drilling holes, performing fraudulent scientific experiments (simultaneously dropping the hammer and feather (made out of metal) etc..)???

Kalee Berry 1 year ago
1:28 I looked into why they haven't gone back. Excuses such as "we don't have the technology anymore and safety reasons" but they biggest excuse ... "It's really expensive and NASA doesn't have enough funding". Sooo, I researched how much money has been budgeted for NASA.. from 1958-2018 round $601 billion! In 2017,the budget given is $19.653 billion which $628 million above the original request for the agency in the Obama administration. I have also read their expenditures were only 1/5 or around $101 billion. So why again is money an issue?
 And who in the f loses or "erases" one of the biggest advances in history due to a shortage of film. I have read it was like 700 boxes of the original moon landing . Really??

Drew Bravo 1 year ago
People that insist NASA put man on the moon, have NO PROBLEM with NASA not going back for over 40 years. And also losing ALL 14,000 reels of moon footage. And saying they don't have the technology to go to the moon. And that Buzz Aldrin refused  the rest of his life, to give a simple interview about him going to the moon And moon rocks given to other countries multiple times by NASA.....analyzed as being completely FAKE, and being from Earth. And the Apollo astronauts giving that "post-moon landing" press conference looking like they're all on trial for murder. And them all giving completely different descriptions of even the most basic shit like, what can you see ?? And a video camera, recording the astronauts leaving the moon, following the capsule perfectly the whole time when there wasn't anybody there on the moon to control the filming. (don't even think about answering that one with it was remotely controlled) I swear to God, or even on my deceased father's grave....in my whole 46 years of living, I have never seen so much bullshit & basic deceitfulness being thrown out to the public, like I do with NASA. TRILLIONS of dollars of our money given to this agency, and that can't even produce a video of their operation. I am ashamed to be part of a human race, with so many simpletons that say NASA put men on the moon have no problem with them throwing away ALL the tapes of the missions as well as the technology to do it again!! Just that little nugget right there should be the biggest red flag. Please, somebody, please explain this to me? How can so many people trust that 6 times with NO MISHAPS, we went to the moon, when there's over 25 hard facts that clearly state it was all a farce!!! I would be willing to bet that over half of our books about basic space, are all completely fabricated!!! If not more.

Simon Crutch 1 year ago
Holy fuck, the thing that is doing it for me is this at 4.55  when they jump and salute, why would his salute be slow motion? You might jump higher and come down slower but why are the movements of their arms and legs slower?  can somebody explain? Like an astronaut in zero gravity still moves their limbs normally, they don't become slow motion right?

austinr09 1 year ago
Why would nasa go to the moon and put men in very delicate suits. To do a bunch of athletic shit? That makes no sense.

Pete Mitchell 1 year ago
You notice when the guy said I got you, the other guy started laughing, don't you people wonder why he found that funny??

Joe Ceonnia 1 year ago
When you do not tell the truth and then years go by it's hard to remember which was the lie and which was the truth..

daro20961 year ago
I am sure that anyone who has been in 'space' has signed the official secrets act or whatever it is called in America, Russia and China. And once you have signed it you have signed it for life.

Devin Norsworthy 1 year ago
Yes thats totally correct about the dust thing, and weighing 60 pounds boy, im jumping over a car straight up easily here on earth, let alone on the moon.

Bridge Beautys 1 year ago
Nicely put together. NASAs credibility is going down the toilet. It’s becoming more and more apparent we’ve been lied to by quite a lot, more than we know


Michael DeSilvio 1 year ago
U know how I know it's fake.. Hold your fist out arms length. Your face represents the earth. the fist represents the moon. If from your face the moon is the size of ur fist , thus the earth should be the size of the face from the fist. Fuck you liar ass fucks . NASA

Just for laugs comment :
Look you can all argue the case did we or didn't we go to the moon, the government is lying to us, it is a conspiracy, zero gravity, not zero gravity, why no acrobatics etc. The point is clear as day and you are all missing the one crucial question that has not been answered by anyone on either side of the argument in over 50 years! Are you still with me? Good so here it is, plain and simple. If cows are vegetarian why do they wear leather jackets?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: JerkFace on July 24, 2019, 05:44:13 AM
Attempt number 5 ..  I'm beginning to think cikljamas can't actually read.. 

cikljamas ..  I asked you this question earlier, perhaps you missed it.


Both my parents have worked at NASA for 20+ years. I grew up in kemah, TX. They always stirred away when I asked them about things like this. My Dad always said " quit being a conspiracy theorist " my mom always looked at me like she felt bad for lying to me. They provided me with a great life, great opportunities. But at what expense?


So you grew up right next to Johnson Space Center (Houston).   I'm interested in what sort of work did your parents do at NASA?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 24, 2019, 05:48:13 AM
Attempt number 5 ..  I'm beginning to think cikljamas can't actually read.. 

cikljamas ..  I asked you this question earlier, perhaps you missed it.


Both my parents have worked at NASA for 20+ years. I grew up in kemah, TX. They always stirred away when I asked them about things like this. My Dad always said " quit being a conspiracy theorist " my mom always looked at me like she felt bad for lying to me. They provided me with a great life, great opportunities. But at what expense?


So you grew up right next to Johnson Space Center (Houston).   I'm interested in what sort of work did your parents do at NASA?

They produced coke bottles :

Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: JerkFace on July 24, 2019, 05:56:11 AM
Attempt number 5 ..  I'm beginning to think cikljamas can't actually read.. 

cikljamas ..  I asked you this question earlier, perhaps you missed it.


Both my parents have worked at NASA for 20+ years. I grew up in kemah, TX. They always stirred away when I asked them about things like this. My Dad always said " quit being a conspiracy theorist " my mom always looked at me like she felt bad for lying to me. They provided me with a great life, great opportunities. But at what expense?


So you grew up right next to Johnson Space Center (Houston).   I'm interested in what sort of work did your parents do at NASA?

They produced coke bottles :



Ok.  No more questions.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 24, 2019, 05:56:25 AM
That isn't food for thought. It is food to avoid thought.
Thrust=force=mass*acceleration.
You don't need weight, you need mass.

Many people confuse weight and mass, but the 2 are very different.
O.K., for the sake of truth i will agree with you on that one (and only on that one) issue!!!

As for the core of the issue, i am 100 % right, and you know that, so i am going to repeat this just once more for everyone who will ever read this thread :

Gas pressure requires molecules to be in contact with each other, bouncing off each other, causing millions of collisions per second, etc… If you release gas into the vacuum of space, the first molecule that pops out will shoot off into the distance at a constant speed, so will the one behind that, never catching up with the first one. The third, fourth, etc… all fly off into the distance trying to fill the vacuum by finding their empty corner. So no matter how much gas you produce none of it will ever change the pressure under a space ship. None it if will ever push a spaceship. To push a spaceship there must be some locally high pressure under it, which is impossible since the pressure in space is 0 everywhere.

Back the the Nozzle and the Massflow equation F=MA on earth
Think about a fire hose shooting water. A force comes directly back against the column of water shooting out. Why? Because the first drop of water has to pas through air, which is dense, causing many collisions, slowing down the drop of water. The second drop, directly behind the first, will not be slowed down by the air so it will collide with the first drop, the third drop hits the second drop and so on, the fast water coming through the hose pushing through the slower water outside causes Newton’s 3rd Law to push back on the column of water. This is why you need people holding the hose to add an unbalanced force otherwise the hose would not be able to push water through that column anymore, the water column would be diverted and the hose would flop around. It is obvious that one drop of water does not push back on the hose, you need a fast moving column.

The nozzle and the Massflow equation in space
Since the molecules leaving the combustion chamber and entering the vacuum never slow down, never collide with any outside objects, nor with each other, their force is always moving forward, away from the ship. There is no way for that force to be returned to the ship. There is no way for the force of the moving molecules to be extracted and used for propulsion. Their force is carried off into the far corners of space. This is also known as Joule Expansion. Remember that as soon as the nozzle is opened, the combustion chamber becomes part of the vacuum of space as is subject to its laws. A closed chamber is under pressure but not an open one.

NASA is lying at the molecular level
But that’s OK because most people don’t usually look there. The awesome, spectacular and heroic nature of space exploration is enough to cloud the most logical minds. Most respectable engineering schools won’t touch space flight and those who do have tiny departments. If it was really a multi-billion dollar government funded operation, every school in America would have their hands out for government grants like the do with Engineering, Computer Science and Biology. But why train thousands of the best minds of a generation in a field that doesn’t exist?

So, once again, just for you Jack :

Newton's Third Law - Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs

A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!

"When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body."

”When a BODY exerts force on a SECOND  BODY” let me ask you, what is the second body being acted upon, IN A VACUUM ??!!


You still haven't watched this video :



No, the “second body” isnt the gases...in a rocket launch...the rocket (engine) is the “first body” applying force (expelled gases) to a second body (ground, then atmosphere).. which “pushes back” with equal and opposite force.. on the first body (rocket) forcing it to go up..
what happens in a REAL and INFINITE vacuum, where there is no “second body” to act upon???

THE ROCKET (ENGINE) = FIRST BODY
FORCE = EXPELLED GASSES
GROUND/ATMOSPHERE = SECOND BODY

In the context of a bowling ball experiment :

The guy on a skateboard = FIRST BODY
FORCE = Motion of his arms that pushes off a heavy ball
A MEDICINE BALL = SECOND BODY

Heaviness of a medicine ball (INERTIA) enables our guy to be pushed off of a heavy ball.
Heaviness of a medicine ball (INERTIA) imitates/simulates THE AIR
Lightness of some light object (which our guy could have used in his second hypothetical try) imitates/simulates A VACUUM

Get it???

Or do i have to copy/paste this portion of my previous post (again), as well :

There is no denying that If you stand on a skate board and throw the bowling ball away, you and the skateboard will indeed move in the opposite direction to the bowling ball. This is because, by throwing the bowling ball away, you have basically pushed against a resistant object that is separate from you, (like a solid wall).

So, INERTIA (of the bowling ball) is the magic word (an explanation) that you are looking for (which is behind this fraudulent NASA's "scientific" method.

Do i have to remind you to one other equally fraudulent NASA's "scientific" method that should have looked authentic (dropping a ball in a moving train/airplane)???

I destroyed (for good) this other (dropping a ball within enclosed moving object) NASA's fraudulent method by offering my own irrefutable counter-argument ("CONCORDE" thought experiment).

HERE IT IS : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78814.msg2128697#msg2128697

Now, back on the track :

Pay attention to this very important (exposing) aspect of NASA's fraudulent method (bowling ball) :
In which exact moment does our guy (on the skateboard) starts to move back (in the video posted by sokarul)???

(https://j.gifs.com/7L4J9Q.gif)

BOWLING BALL SLOW MOTION REVEALS NASA'S SCAM :


Long before he extends his arms to the full extent and even much long before he throws the ball (before the ball is fully detached from his hands).
It means that in our "balloon exhausting" kind of experiments we should expect the same result : our toy cars should start being propelled (pushed back) even before the air is exhausted out of the nozzle (drinking straw) into the surrounding environment!!!
That is to say, if we could make the ball to disappear (to vanish into thin air) in the exact same moment when our skateboard guy extends his hands to the full extent (few milliseconds before he throws the ball), he would be still pushed back to the same degree as it is shown in sokarul's video.
Now, all you have to do is to apply this same logic to our "balloon exhausting" experiments and explain to us, why this fraudulent NASA's method doesn't work the same way in both cases???

ACCOMPANYING VIDEO :
ROCKETS CAN'T FLY IN A VACUUM - 3 :


Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: rabinoz on July 24, 2019, 05:59:06 AM
The nail in the coffin of all NASA crapola is the idea of sending a video image 200K miles away...LOL....With analog equipment and no repeater stations...I installed communications systems in the USAF...The most powerful and far reaching communications we had was HF radio...Which uses the Ionosphere like Ham Radio, Only our transmitters were 5000 watts...You would need a billion watts and repeater amplifier stations between the earth and moon...Entropy of signal physics.
That's total crap by someone who has no idea about radio communication!

The S-band used by NASA does not get reflected by the ionosphere as HF radio does and uses antennae with enormous gains like this one!
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/Parkes_Radio_Telescope_09.jpg/1775px-Parkes_Radio_Telescope_09.jpg)

Or this:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Goldstone_DSN_antenna.jpg)

So tell your mate he knows nothing about space radio transmission!
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: rabinoz on July 24, 2019, 06:02:34 AM
That isn't food for thought. It is food to avoid thought.
Thrust=force=mass*acceleration.
You don't need weight, you need mass.

Many people confuse weight and mass, but the 2 are very different.
<< Repeated crap deleted  >>
Now some sensible answers on thrust = (mass flow rate) × (exhaust velocity) please!
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: JackBlack on July 24, 2019, 06:04:33 AM
The nail in the coffin
Is that you are running away to yet another topic after failing to defend your prior claims.

You still refuse to answer a very simple question.

As for the core of the issue, i am 100 % right, and you know that, so i am going to repeat this just once more for everyone who will ever read this thread :
No, I know you are wrong. I am fairly certain you know that as well.
Repeating the same lie again and again wont help you.

If you release pressurised gas it will attempt to expand in ALL DIRECTIONS!
Not just one preferential direction.
What this means for the rocket is that the gas created in the rocket will be expanding in all directions, including towards the rocket.
This gas will hit the rocket (or hit more gas which in turn hits the rocket and so on) and thus apply a pressure and force to the rocket.
This force will allow the rocket to move.
In turn the rocket will force the gas backwards, causing it to escape from the inside of the rocket by going out the nozzle.

Once again:
Rocket - First body.
Gas - Second body.

Get it?

Now how about you answer the question. It is a very simple one:
What body is acting on the gas which leaves the rocket in a preferential direction meaning it needs to have been forced into that direction?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Unconvinced on July 24, 2019, 06:12:33 AM
Isn’t it sad that the only pro Apollo expert on film and photography is SG Collins who we all know as mister ‘lightguy’ because he vastly overplayed his hand when addressing Apollo and the means of fakery in 1969 ?
And we have , what i call, lots of amatures defending, explaining and adding to the Apollo footage as why they look so fake.
The leader of the pro Apollo bandwagen surely is Jay Windley from Clavius who freely dedicated his life  ::) for more than a decade to defend Apollo.
Then you have Astrobrant (2), Phill Plait, onebigmonkey ( used to post here) and a handfull of names responsible for the pro Apollo commentary on the www other than NASA and mainstream media articles.
But never a decorated photographer or Hollywood filmmaker of name burns his hands on openly claiming he went through all the Apollo imagery and came to the conclusion it was as ’moonish’ as it gets.

While Massimo Mazzucco let Toni Thorimbert, Aldo Fallai, Oliviero Toscani and Peter Lindbergh do some real PROFESSIONAL talking on the Apollo imagery.
Not only that, the most intelligent, most skilled pro Apollo person Jay Windley has been giving lots of airtime in the ‘American moon’ docu from Massimo Mazzucci.
Steadily (after the anniversary avalange is over) people will come to grips with this moon nonsense.

Rabinoz knows he his loosing his grip therefor his arguments gets worse by the day and often aimed at me as a personal dig.....

What’s sad is that your hero Mazzucco says things like this:

Quote from: Massimo Mazzucci
The sun being far away, it cannot go diagonally.  The shadows must be parallel at such a distance.



When reality begs to differ:

(https://comps.canstockphoto.com/sunset-road-stock-photo_csp16256027.jpg)

It’s sad that several other fashion photographers said the same thing, while reality begs to differ.

It’s sad that I presented this to you before and you refused to address my criticisms, except to call me an amateur.

It’s sad you still bang on about about your “top photography experts” as if they hadn’t made total fools of themselves by being just plain wrong in one of the most obvious ways possible.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 24, 2019, 06:22:28 AM
That isn't food for thought. It is food to avoid thought.
Thrust=force=mass*acceleration.
You don't need weight, you need mass.

Many people confuse weight and mass, but the 2 are very different.
<< Repeated crap deleted  >>
Now some sensible answers on thrust = (mass flow rate) × (exhaust velocity) please!
I have demonstrated my honesty by admitting (every single time) that i was wrong whenever i noticed a mistake that i had made. However, this simple concept (of admitting your obvious mistakes) is totally strange and incomprehensible to you and to Jack Black. Whenever it comes to my mind to tell you "shame on you", the next thought comes to my mind in a nanosecond : They have no idea what the word "shame" designates, and they have no idea what "a shame" is, because they haven't got a clue what the word "honesty" means.

Here’s a simple explanation as to why rockets won’t work in space:

What pushes a rocket upwards through the air? Expanding gasses in the combustion chamber shooting out the back.

But if they’re shooting out the back towards the ground how can they be pushing the rocket upwards?

Oh, some of the gas is still in the chamber and that gas is pushing up against the rocket (what the people at Physics Today claim)

OK, but what happens in space, which is a vacuum? The gas in the combustion chamber exits at a a speed of 1 km/s (google The expansion of a Gas-Cloud into a vacuum). So if you open the nozzle all the gas goes shooting out into space within a fraction of a second.

The gas cannot push the ship with the nozzle closed because gas trapped in the combustion chamber does no work but if you open the nozzle all the gas exits immediately before it can push against the ship. Therefore you cannot use gas in the vacuum to power a rocket ship.

This force pushing a rocket cannot be pushing on the inside of the rocket any more than you can push with your feet upwards against the inside of a cardboard box you are within to stop it from falling from a height. It sounds absurd but that is what NASA claims happens in a rocket.

So how do rockets fly?

An object sitting on the ground can only move upwards if it is pushed from underneath or lifted from the side/top. Since we know rockets are not lifted , they must be pushed. Therefore the gasses underneath the rocket must be pushing it up and off the launchpad.

An object moving straight up into the air will eventually be pulled back down by gravity unless it is continuously pushed from underneath or pulled from the top/side by a force greater than gravity.

Since I have shown the rocket cannot push against itself and is not pulled from above, the area under the rocket must be higher pressure than the area below. While I have several theories as to what causes the pressure I have not followed through on them and I do not need to. I only need to show that the rocket is rising due to higher pressure underneath it (as opposed to pushing itself, being lifted from the top/sides) because in the vacuum of space there can be no higher pressure underneath the rocket. In the vacuum of space the pressure will be equal and 0 on all sides ofthe rocket, hence it would not move under its own power and immediately fall back to earth.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 24, 2019, 07:02:39 AM
This video begs the question :


This article casts some light on it :
https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/universe/at-what-altitude-does-earth-end-and-space-start.html
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Romp on July 24, 2019, 07:08:36 AM
Isn’t it sad that the only pro Apollo expert on film and photography is SG Collins who we all know as mister ‘lightguy’ because he vastly overplayed his hand when addressing Apollo and the means of fakery in 1969 ?
And we have , what i call, lots of amatures defending, explaining and adding to the Apollo footage as why they look so fake.
The leader of the pro Apollo bandwagen surely is Jay Windley from Clavius who freely dedicated his life  ::) for more than a decade to defend Apollo.
Then you have Astrobrant (2), Phill Plait, onebigmonkey ( used to post here) and a handfull of names responsible for the pro Apollo commentary on the www other than NASA and mainstream media articles.
But never a decorated photographer or Hollywood filmmaker of name burns his hands on openly claiming he went through all the Apollo imagery and came to the conclusion it was as ’moonish’ as it gets.

While Massimo Mazzucco let Toni Thorimbert, Aldo Fallai, Oliviero Toscani and Peter Lindbergh do some real PROFESSIONAL talking on the Apollo imagery.
Not only that, the most intelligent, most skilled pro Apollo person Jay Windley has been giving lots of airtime in the ‘American moon’ docu from Massimo Mazzucci.
Steadily (after the anniversary avalange is over) people will come to grips with this moon nonsense.

Rabinoz knows he his loosing his grip therefor his arguments gets worse by the day and often aimed at me as a personal dig.....

What’s sad is that your hero Mazzucco says things like this:

Quote from: Massimo Mazzucci
The sun being far away, it cannot go diagonally.  The shadows must be parallel at such a distance.



When reality begs to differ:

(https://comps.canstockphoto.com/sunset-road-stock-photo_csp16256027.jpg)

It’s sad that several other fashion photographers said the same thing, while reality begs to differ.

It’s sad that I presented this to you before and you refused to address my criticisms, except to call me an amateur.

It’s sad you still bang on about about your “top photography experts” as if they hadn’t made total fools of themselves by being just plain wrong in one of the most obvious ways possible.

Indeed:

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&id=91427133DF5A42C2FE865AC4F7A9AAE8F15F9119&thid=OIP.5my3DPqmQ_WhqE-3t7AsKgHaE8&mediaurl=https%3A%2F%2Ffarm1.staticflickr.com%2F437%2F19506333526_093bb44759_b_d.jpg&exph=683&expw=1024&q=image+parallel+sun+shadows+on+clouds&selectedindex=3&ajaxhist=0&vt=0&eim=1,2,6&ccid=5my3DPqm&simid=608042534866781170

E2A: Apologies, I messed up the cut and paste.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Unconvinced on July 24, 2019, 07:13:34 AM

You still haven't watched this video :



I did.  It’s a total mess I’m afraid:

1.  Demonstration of punching the air compared to punching a wall  trying to show there’s no equal and opposite reaction.  No, there is slight air resistance, but his hand stops because he pulled his punches.  His own muscles reverse the forward motion of his hand. 

Hit the air as hard as possible without pulling your punch, and you will sure as hell feel it in your shoulder socket.  Although you’ll have to overcome your own instincts screaming at you not to.

2.  This also makes no sense, because he claims rockets do work in atmosphere, so why is pretending that punching atmosphere is like punching nothing?

3. Pushing a bowling ball or car is exactly the same as pushing a balloon or ping pong ball.  They’re just heavier.  What is the point of this comparison?

4.  Drone rotors work by pulling air from above and accelerating downwards, causing upward force on them.  Putting a piece of card under the drone, alters the airflow, by increasing pressure a little as it flows through.  That is not how rockets work, rockets carry the fuel they need for propulsion.  Although the presence or not of an atmosphere will after the flow from the rocket.

5.  None of the examples shown disprove rockets in the slightest.  They are all pointless.

6.  You won’t find his explanation in any fluid dynamics textbooks.  It’s just fundamentally wrong.  If you find a more credible source, I’ll eat my hat.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Unconvinced on July 24, 2019, 07:24:30 AM

This force pushing a rocket cannot be pushing on the inside of the rocket any more than you can push with your feet upwards against the inside of a cardboard box you are within to stop it from falling from a height. It sounds absurd but that is what NASA claims happens in a rocket.


I can if the box is open on one side and my foot goes from being inside the box to outside the box.

Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: markjo on July 24, 2019, 07:32:51 AM
Back the the Nozzle and the Massflow equation F=MA on earth
Think about a fire hose shooting water. A force comes directly back against the column of water shooting out. Why? Because the first drop of water has to pas through air, which is dense, causing many collisions, slowing down the drop of water.
No.  Air is about 784 times less dense than water (https://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/216/).  As far as the water is concerned, the air might just as well not even be there.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: JerkFace on July 24, 2019, 07:46:01 AM
I have demonstrated my honesty by admitting (every single time) that i was wrong whenever i noticed a mistake that i had made.

You were wrong about Honeysuckle creek,  and wrong about the signal strength,  can you point to where you admitted your mistake.

Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Macarios on July 24, 2019, 08:04:31 AM
The nail in the coffin of all NASA crapola is the idea of sending a video image 200K miles away...LOL....With analog equipment and no repeater stations...I installed communications systems in the USAF...The most powerful and far reaching communications we had was HF radio...Which uses the Ionosphere like Ham Radio, Only our transmitters were 5000 watts...You would need a billion watts and repeater amplifier stations between the earth and moon...Entropy of signal physics.

I was born in 1960.
In late 70s I was member of YU1AFX radio club.
When we used radio waves to measure distance to the Moon, I was a teenager.
If I remember correctly, our 432MHz (70 cm) transceiver was 350 Watts, or something like that.
Not the "billions" (or even thousands).
We didn't have Kenwood, older members made the transceiver themselves.
(When I joined the club it was already there.)

You occasionally send short beep and hope to receive it.
(You have to point and adjust the antenna set, ofcourse.)
When you finally do, you put your mic close to the receiving speaker, beep again, adjust the volume and make it resend.
When you set everything well, your initial beep will make series of beeps with about 2.5 sec difference.
Then you measure time for, say, 12 of them.
(They were more and more distorted in noise but still distinguished as pulses.)
If the time was 31 sec, you know the one beep time was 2.58333 sec.
That way the signal trip length would be (31 / 12) s x 300 000 km/s = 775 000 km there and back.
So, the distance to the Moon was 387 500 km.

~~~~~

Not only power affects the wave propagation.
Frequency does too.
Your 5000 Watts using Ionosphere was meant to establish reliable communication and at different frequencies.
To reach "around a corner", not directly the Moon in the line of sight.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: JerkFace on July 24, 2019, 08:22:13 AM
The nail in the coffin of all NASA crapola is the idea of sending a video image 200K miles away...LOL....With analog equipment and no repeater stations...I installed communications systems in the USAF...The most powerful and far reaching communications we had was HF radio...Which uses the Ionosphere like Ham Radio, Only our transmitters were 5000 watts...You would need a billion watts and repeater amplifier stations between the earth and moon...Entropy of signal physics.

The amateur radio record for 10 Ghz EME was recently broken,  some guys bounced a 10Ghz signal off the moon and established 2 way contact between New Zealand and England.   That was with 10 watts,  and a 1 meter diameter dish.

For comparison the Honeysuckle Creek ground station had 22,000 watts on 2 Ghz,  and a 26 meter diameter dish.   

Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: dutchy on July 24, 2019, 09:06:49 AM
Isn’t it sad that the only pro Apollo expert on film and photography is SG Collins who we all know as mister ‘lightguy’ because he vastly overplayed his hand when addressing Apollo and the means of fakery in 1969 ?
And we have , what i call, lots of amatures defending, explaining and adding to the Apollo footage as why they look so fake.
The leader of the pro Apollo bandwagen surely is Jay Windley from Clavius who freely dedicated his life  ::) for more than a decade to defend Apollo.
Then you have Astrobrant (2), Phill Plait, onebigmonkey ( used to post here) and a handfull of names responsible for the pro Apollo commentary on the www other than NASA and mainstream media articles.
But never a decorated photographer or Hollywood filmmaker of name burns his hands on openly claiming he went through all the Apollo imagery and came to the conclusion it was as ’moonish’ as it gets.

While Massimo Mazzucco let Toni Thorimbert, Aldo Fallai, Oliviero Toscani and Peter Lindbergh do some real PROFESSIONAL talking on the Apollo imagery.
Not only that, the most intelligent, most skilled pro Apollo person Jay Windley has been giving lots of airtime in the ‘American moon’ docu from Massimo Mazzucci.
Steadily (after the anniversary avalange is over) people will come to grips with this moon nonsense.

Rabinoz knows he his loosing his grip therefor his arguments gets worse by the day and often aimed at me as a personal dig.....

What’s sad is that your hero Mazzucco says things like this:

Quote from: Massimo Mazzucci
The sun being far away, it cannot go diagonally.  The shadows must be parallel at such a distance.



When reality begs to differ:

(https://comps.canstockphoto.com/sunset-road-stock-photo_csp16256027.jpg)

It’s sad that several other fashion photographers said the same thing, while reality begs to differ.

It’s sad that I presented this to you before and you refused to address my criticisms, except to call me an amateur.

It’s sad you still bang on about about your “top photography experts” as if they hadn’t made total fools of themselves by being just plain wrong in one of the most obvious ways possible.
I think your example could be done in photoshop when you are setting the drop shadow effect on an layer, uncheck the "Use Global Light" checkbox. Uncheck the "Use Global Light" checkbox in the Drop Shadow dialog.
I special wideangle objective can create the same illusion ?

The top photographers in the docu understand the same camera's of the Apollo era and have worked with them.
Photoshop wasn't around like now in 1969.

But when you go to a dessert or flat bright area with your car and other items and try to replicate the multiple shadows cast in different directions as shown in the Apollo footage you are a very capable man..... using an old fashioned camera.
Not in a million years you'll succeed.

Ps the Apollo specialists out there are allready commenting in blogs and reviews about 'American Moon'
Not one of them has your silly shadow argument.
To the contrary, they praise their indisputable expertise on earth.
Their only argument us that those top photographers are not familiar with the moon conditions of a bright sun, reflective rigolet and earth.

Your argument about them being stupid photographers who simply don't understand the basics of how shadows behave says a lot more about you..

Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Unconvinced on July 24, 2019, 09:44:43 AM
Isn’t it sad that the only pro Apollo expert on film and photography is SG Collins who we all know as mister ‘lightguy’ because he vastly overplayed his hand when addressing Apollo and the means of fakery in 1969 ?
And we have , what i call, lots of amatures defending, explaining and adding to the Apollo footage as why they look so fake.
The leader of the pro Apollo bandwagen surely is Jay Windley from Clavius who freely dedicated his life  ::) for more than a decade to defend Apollo.
Then you have Astrobrant (2), Phill Plait, onebigmonkey ( used to post here) and a handfull of names responsible for the pro Apollo commentary on the www other than NASA and mainstream media articles.
But never a decorated photographer or Hollywood filmmaker of name burns his hands on openly claiming he went through all the Apollo imagery and came to the conclusion it was as ’moonish’ as it gets.

While Massimo Mazzucco let Toni Thorimbert, Aldo Fallai, Oliviero Toscani and Peter Lindbergh do some real PROFESSIONAL talking on the Apollo imagery.
Not only that, the most intelligent, most skilled pro Apollo person Jay Windley has been giving lots of airtime in the ‘American moon’ docu from Massimo Mazzucci.
Steadily (after the anniversary avalange is over) people will come to grips with this moon nonsense.

Rabinoz knows he his loosing his grip therefor his arguments gets worse by the day and often aimed at me as a personal dig.....

What’s sad is that your hero Mazzucco says things like this:

Quote from: Massimo Mazzucci
The sun being far away, it cannot go diagonally.  The shadows must be parallel at such a distance.



When reality begs to differ:

(https://comps.canstockphoto.com/sunset-road-stock-photo_csp16256027.jpg)

It’s sad that several other fashion photographers said the same thing, while reality begs to differ.

It’s sad that I presented this to you before and you refused to address my criticisms, except to call me an amateur.

It’s sad you still bang on about about your “top photography experts” as if they hadn’t made total fools of themselves by being just plain wrong in one of the most obvious ways possible.
I think your example could be done in photoshop when you are setting the drop shadow effect on an layer, uncheck the "Use Global Light" checkbox. Uncheck the "Use Global Light" checkbox in the Drop Shadow dialog.
I special wideangle objective can create the same illusion ?

The top photographers in the docu understand the same camera's of the Apollo era and have worked with them.
Photoshop wasn't around like now in 1969.

But when you go to a dessert or flat bright area with your car and other items and try to replicate the multiple shadows cast in different directions as shown in the Apollo footage you are a very capable man..... using an old fashioned camera.
Not in a million years you'll succeed.

Ps the Apollo specialists out there are allready commenting in blogs and reviews about 'American Moon'
Not one of them has your silly shadow argument.
To the contrary, they praise their indisputable expertise on earth.
Their only argument us that those top photographers are not familiar with the moon conditions of a bright sun, reflective rigolet and earth.

Your argument about them being stupid photographers who simply don't understand the basics of how shadows behave says a lot more about you..

My example is just a stock photo of trees.  Why would anyone photoshop fake shadows on it?

The camera used is irrelevant, it’s just a matter of perspective.  Shadows on the ground only appear parallel if you are perpendicular to them.  They converge to vanishing points just like everything else.

Looks like it’s nice and sunny in the Netherlands right now, so don’t take my word for it.  Go outside, and see for yourself.

Just taken a photo of a beer glass, lighter and battery pack to demonstrate this.  Any way to post my own photos without joining an image hosting site?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Unconvinced on July 24, 2019, 10:49:20 AM
Ah, here we go.  No lugging of equipment to the desert necessary.  Just a pub beer garden.

(https://imgur.com/TWzpwtl.jpg)
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Tommyocean on July 24, 2019, 12:54:15 PM
Electric motors do not need oxygen to work.
Prove.
You honestly believe that electric motors need air to operate?   Why?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: radioflat on July 24, 2019, 02:50:04 PM
The nail in the coffin of all NASA crapola is the idea of sending a video image 200K miles away...LOL....With analog equipment and no repeater stations...I installed communications systems in the USAF...The most powerful and far reaching communications we had was HF radio...Which uses the Ionosphere like Ham Radio, Only our transmitters were 5000 watts...You would need a billion watts and repeater amplifier stations between the earth and moon...Entropy of signal physics.

The amateur radio record for 10 Ghz EME was recently broken,  some guys bounced a 10Ghz signal off the moon and established 2 way contact between New Zealand and England.   That was with 10 watts,  and a 1 meter diameter dish.

For comparison the Honeysuckle Creek ground station had 22,000 watts on 2 Ghz,  and a 26 meter diameter dish.
I am chuiffed that people are using the EME example, about which I started a thread recently ...
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: JackBlack on July 24, 2019, 02:57:49 PM
I have demonstrated my honesty by admitting (every single time) that i was wrong whenever i noticed a mistake that i had made.
No you haven't.
You have done a few times when you felt it wasn't crucial to your argument or that you admitting that mistake could further your argument.
There have plenty of times where you have been completely wrong, it has been clearly explained that you were completely wrong, yet you continue to assert the same nonsense.

This very simple case is yet another example of that.

I have admitted my mistakes when I have made them.


Here’s a simple explanation as to why rockets won’t work in space:
What pushes a rocket upwards through the air? Expanding gasses in the combustion chamber shooting out the back.
But if they’re shooting out the back towards the ground how can they be pushing the rocket upwards?
Oh, some of the gas is still in the chamber and that gas is pushing up against the rocket (what the people at Physics Today claim)
It is the gas in the chamber that is important.
Causing this gas to shoot out the back is what forces the rocket.
The gas is one body which is forced out the back of the rocket. The other body is the rocket, being forced forwards by the ground.

You repeatedly ignoring that will not help you.

Stop just saying the gas is coming out the back, you need to explain why it does so in the first place.

Again, the simple explanation is that the rocket is pushing it backwards.
The more complex explanation is that the particles of gas inside the combustion chamber repeatedly bounce around, interacting and transferring momentum as they do so, until they exit the nozzle. As they are now heading backwards, that means the last interaction they had would result in them being forced backwards and whatever they hit being forced forwards.
This will carry through to the rocket, forcing the rocket forwards and the gas backwards.

If the gas was just expanding, like it does if you just release it in a vacuum, then it would expand outwards in all directions, not just out the back of the rocket.
That means a large portion will collide with the rocket (either directly, or indirectly by colliding with something that collides with the rocket) and only a small portion will escape.

Since I have shown
You have only shown that all you can do is appeal to pure magic.
You are yet to explain how the gas magically leaves the rocket in one higher preferred direction, requiring a significant force to have it do so, without the rocket being the body to provide this force.

So I will ask again, what is forcing the gas out the back of the rocket?
Start with it just after the combustion.
You have the fuel and oxidiser. It is injected into the combustion chamber and burns creating a lot of gas.
This gas (when considered as a whole) initially just has the momentum of the fuel and oxidiser, which is negligible due to the low speed and mass.
Now how does this go from basically no momentum, to a very large amount from shooting out the back of the rocket at a very high velocity?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: JackBlack on July 24, 2019, 03:04:33 PM
Dutchy, I noticed you didn't reply to my post.
Did you just miss it, or couldn't you think of how to justify your claim that the photos were taken from the same angle?

Also, I realised something I missed before.
You claim the mountains move way too fast for something allegedly so far away, but we aren't seeing the mountains move. What we see is relative motion between the LM and the mountains.
So what we are actually seeing more of is the closer LM appear to move significantly compared to the distant mountain.

But when you go to a dessert or flat bright area with your car and other items and try to replicate the multiple shadows cast in different directions as shown in the Apollo footage you are a very capable man..... using an old fashioned camera.
Not in a million years you'll succeed.
Are you referring to the slight variations caused by perspective?
If so, you can easily reproduce them on any flat surface.

Or are you referring to the more significant variations due to the uneven surface of the moon, in which case you wouldn't try to replicate them on a flat surface.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: rabinoz on July 24, 2019, 04:15:24 PM
That isn't food for thought. It is food to avoid thought.
Thrust=force=mass*acceleration.
You don't need weight, you need mass.

Many people confuse weight and mass, but the 2 are very different.
<< Repeated crap deleted  >>
Now some sensible answers on thrust = (mass flow rate) × (exhaust velocity) please!
I have demonstrated my honesty by admitting (every single time) that i was wrong whenever i noticed a mistake that i had made. However, this simple concept (of admitting your obvious mistakes) is totally strange and incomprehensible to you and to Jack Black. Whenever it comes to my mind to tell you "shame on you", the next thought comes to my mind in a nanosecond : They have no idea what the word "shame" designates, and they have no idea what "a shame" is, because they haven't got a clue what the word "honesty" means.
I refuse to debate anyone that makes accusations like that, thank you, Mr Cikljamas.

What I have been posting is correct as far as I know it and YOU have never refuted it!

I decided my reply might be better posted in: The hypocrisy of cikljamas/odiupicku. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82489.0)



Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: magellanclavichord on July 24, 2019, 07:08:57 PM
The amateur radio record for 10 Ghz EME was recently broken,  some guys bounced a 10Ghz signal off the moon and established 2 way contact between New Zealand and England.   That was with 10 watts,  and a 1 meter diameter dish.

That's very impressive! What mode were they using? CW? I once worked Perth from the middle of the U.S. on 10 Mhz CW with a dipole and 80 watts input. This would have been some time around the early 1980's. EME with 10 watts, even on 10 Ghz, is really impressive.

I just can't get over how some folks can't understand that the thrust of a rocket comes from the hot gas pushing against the rocket engine, not from it pushing on air after it has left the engine and can no longer have any effect on the rocket.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: rabinoz on July 24, 2019, 07:47:29 PM
The amateur radio record for 10 Ghz EME was recently broken,  some guys bounced a 10Ghz signal off the moon and established 2 way contact between New Zealand and England.   That was with 10 watts,  and a 1 meter diameter dish.

That's very impressive!
It is very impressive but is helped by there being very little atmospheric path loss - far less that between distant points on earth.

Quote from: magellanclavichord
What mode were they using? CW? I once worked Perth from the middle of the U.S. on 10 Mhz CW with a dipole and 80 watts input. This would have been some time around the early 1980's. EME with 10 watts, even on 10 Ghz, is really impressive.
You used a dipole with a gain of no more than 2 dB but the EME link could use 2 or 3 m dishes with gains in the 45 to 48 dB region.

Quote from: magellanclavichord
I just can't get over how some folks can't understand that the thrust of a rocket comes from the hot gas pushing against the rocket engine, not from it pushing on air after it has left the engine and can no longer have any effect on the rocket.
Neither can I.
One thing that makes the "rocket pushes in the air hypothesis" totally impossible is that for ICBMs and these large rockets the exhaust gas velocity is hypersonic - around Mach 6.

No effect can travel upstream in any supersonic flow so the rocket cannot push on the air behind it.
An exception might be if the exhaust gases could "bounce" off the launch pad but this is precluded by diverting the exhaust gases to the side.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Stash on July 24, 2019, 07:51:24 PM
You still haven't watched this video :


Your best evidence of why rockets can't propel in the vacuum of space is this guy, who claims to be a mechanical engineer, standing in a conference room with a poorly rendered depiction of a rocket on a whiteboard in front of maybe two people. One of which somehow has a balloon handy to aid in his demonstration. He punches the air a couple of times followed by more randomly strung together words then proceeds to the break-room and uses a quad copter to demo why rockets can't do what they do?

Seriously? This is the evidence/explanation you hang your hat on? Wow.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: rabinoz on July 24, 2019, 08:01:22 PM
Your argument about them being stupid photographers who simply don't understand the basics of how shadows behave says a lot more about you..
But they still seem to claim that a single distant light source must cast parallel shadows and this is a complete fallacy!

Perspective alone can make shadows appear to be at angle to each other.
(https://www.dave.co.nz/space/moon-hoax/images/converging-shadows-dave2.jpg)
And uneven terrain can cause the shadows to be far from parallel.
(https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2017/10/11/03/46/trees-2839835_960_720.jpg)
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: JerkFace on July 24, 2019, 08:27:25 PM
Your argument about them being stupid photographers who simply don't understand the basics of how shadows behave says a lot more about you..
But they still seem to claim that a single distant light source must cast parallel shadows and this is a complete fallacy!

Perspective alone can make shadows appear to be at angle to each other.
(https://www.dave.co.nz/space/moon-hoax/images/converging-shadows-dave2.jpg)
And uneven terrain can cause the shadows to be far from parallel.
(https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2017/10/11/03/46/trees-2839835_960_720.jpg)

I think dutchy is trolling you,  nobody could be that dumb.   ( I was going to write "geometrically challenged"  but then I remembered the ongoing confusion about spherical shapes and flat dishes. )

Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: rabinoz on July 24, 2019, 08:48:11 PM
You still haven't watched this video :


Your best evidence of why rockets can't propel in the vacuum of space is this guy, who claims to be a mechanical engineer, standing in a conference room with a poorly rendered depiction of a rocket on a whiteboard in front of maybe two people. One of which somehow has a balloon handy to aid in his demonstration. He punches the air a couple of times followed by more randomly strung together words then proceeds to the break-room and uses a quad copter to demo why rockets can't do what they do?

Seriously? This is the evidence/explanation you hang your hat on? Wow.
When asked about the boy and bowling he says that the bowling ball has "inertia".
Doesn't he think that the tonnes of exhaust gas ejected from an F-1 has inertia? I find it incomprehensible that a "scientist" can ignore that.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Stash on July 24, 2019, 09:37:38 PM
You still haven't watched this video :


Your best evidence of why rockets can't propel in the vacuum of space is this guy, who claims to be a mechanical engineer, standing in a conference room with a poorly rendered depiction of a rocket on a whiteboard in front of maybe two people. One of which somehow has a balloon handy to aid in his demonstration. He punches the air a couple of times followed by more randomly strung together words then proceeds to the break-room and uses a quad copter to demo why rockets can't do what they do?

Seriously? This is the evidence/explanation you hang your hat on? Wow.
When asked about the boy and bowling he says that the bowling ball has "inertia".
Doesn't he think that the tonnes of exhaust gas ejected from an F-1 has inertia? I find it incomprehensible that a "scientist" can ignore that.

Yeah, I hope this mechanical engineer never 'engineers' anything I'm in, on, or near.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 25, 2019, 02:43:53 AM
Here’s a simple explanation as to why rockets won’t work in space:
What pushes a rocket upwards through the air? Expanding gasses in the combustion chamber shooting out the back.
But if they’re shooting out the back towards the ground how can they be pushing the rocket upwards?
Oh, some of the gas is still in the chamber and that gas is pushing up against the rocket (what the people at Physics Today claim)
It is the gas in the chamber that is important.
Causing this gas to shoot out the back is what forces the rocket.
The gas is one body which is forced out the back of the rocket. The other body is the rocket, being forced forwards by the ground.

You repeatedly ignoring that will not help you.

Stop just saying the gas is coming out the back, you need to explain why it does so in the first place.

Well, maybe you want continue to discuss this issue with an author of the following OP :

[ADMIN: This topic was started due to our recent discussions — in multiple threads — about the subject of rocketry.

Specifically, there seems to be a growing skeptical understanding of the science of rocketry and just what is wrong with it, and why it doesn't work in the manner NASA says it does. (i.e.; bad physics used to back up their special effects publicity stunts like Apollo, "Mars missions", etc.)

In memory and honor of Bill Kaysing (or perhaps we'd better just say in honor of good sense) let's present the science here that shames the Wernher von Brauns of our world into coughing up the truth: their rocket programs are full of hot air. - hp]

After seeing the evidence of fakery in NASA pictures and videos in this forum I decided to investigate the theoretical basis of rockets in space. What I found on the Internet were mainly tricks, frauds and sleights of hand, name-calling and attacks used to confuse the issue and hide the facts. Bypassing all of that and doing original research I have come to the conclusion that rockets cannot function in space according the descriptions/formulas used by NASA and related parties.

With neither theory on its side nor reliable, verifiable, repeatable scientific experiments on its side the idea of rocket thrust in my estimation remains a fiction presented to the world as an achievement: a modern day Marco Polo story.

I will try to present my findings with a minimum of math and formulae as these are often used to drawn us into traps, causing us to argue the minutiae of red herrings or chase ghosts. These ruses remind me of the joke about on which side of the barn roof the rooster’s egg will fall. How often do people forget that rooster’s don’t lay eggs?

There are 4 major ideas on presented on the Internet, including NASA web sites, as to how rockets generate thrust in space
1. Newton’s 3rd Law : for every force there is an equal and opposite
2. Newtons’s 2nd Law : Force = Mass x Acceleration
3. Conservation of Momentum
4. The use of a specialized nozzle to accelerate the gas inside the ship, concentrate and aim the gas jet

I will address each of these issues showing why they are invalid. In addition I will review the results (and lack thereof) of the founders of space rocketry Hermann Oberth (who designed most of the rocket science for the Fritz Lang film Woman in the Moon), Goddard, who was the first to claim an experimental result proving vacuum thrust and Clarke, a champion of Newton’s 3rd law.

There’s obviously too much to cover in one post so I’ll start by addressing the most popular response to those who question how rockets operate in the vacuum of space: Newton’s 3rd Law, that is to say that a rocket when it exhausts propellant will be pushed in the opposite direction.

The problem with applying Newton’s 3rd is that the rocket’s propellant does not generate force in a vacuum according to the laws of physics and chemistry. If the force of the propellant is 0 then Newton’s 3rd states that
Force on Rocket=-Force of Gas.
If Force of Gas = 0 the rocket does not move.

Why doesn’t the propellant generate any force, it's expanding, right?
There is something known as “Free Expansion” or the “Joule-Thomson” effect, named after James Prescott Joule and J.J. Thompson two of the founders of the field of Physical Chemistry.
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html
Free Expansion states that when a pressurized gas is exposed to a vacuum the gas expanding into the vacuum without any work being done. The gas is not “pulled” or “sucked” into the vacuum nor is it “pushed” out of the high-pressure container. In other words no work is done, no heat or energy is lost.
This result has been experimentally verified numerous times since its discovery in the 1850’s.
[for example a paper in the Journal of Physical Chemistry from 1902: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002]

As if Free Expansion wasn’t enough to invalidate the theory of rockets producing a force in a vacuum there is also a result from thermodynamics:
Work = Pressure x Change_in_Volume
that is easily found searching for “W=PV”
http://lsc.ucdavis.edu/~ahart/Alicia2B/Thermo.pdf
If the pressure of a system is 0 then the work done by the expanding gas into that system is 0. Gas expanding in a vacuum doing no work agrees with Free Expansion. This can also be understood as the gas meets no resistance as it exits into the vacuum and thus transfers neither heat nor energy to its surroundings. If the gas loses neither heat nor energy then it has done no work.

At this point we have a rocket with high-pressure gas generated from liquid fuel that can release the gas into a vacuum but has no way to produce a force while doing so. As soon as the nozzle is opened the gasses escape without doing any work. Therefore the 3rd Law is rendered useless.

As it turns out NASA does not fall into the 3rd Law trap (nor does it go around correcting all the sites who do) instead claiming that thrust of a space rocket is generated using what I call The Wrong Formula, an egregious farce of Newton's 2nd law which I will address in a later next post.

To recap: Newton’s 3rd Law, the number one response on the Internet to how a rocket generates thrust in space, is invalid in this context. NASA itself avoids using Newton’s 3rd Law as the reason why their rockets work so well in space choosing to use Newton’s 2nd Law instead. I will show in a later post why NASA’s use the 2nd Law is equally invalid and in fact a hideous misrepresentation of the laws of physics that would give a freshman college student a failing grade yet earns NASA an "A" thanks to its pretty pictures, dramatic story lines, and gutsy champions, the astronauts.


A COMMON OBJECTION :

Quote
On Earth, shooting something causes friction with the thing being shot. Least of all, air all around us. The shooter will be effected by the action of shooting. However, in a vacuum, there being no friction with anything, shooting something just wastes that thing and sends it soaring uselessly into the void.

But if that's true, then you're saying a gun (by a magic gunman and gun that can exist and fire in a perfect vacuum) would not be pushed back by the bullet, it would just eject the bullet without an effect on the gun or the arm of the gunman? Simply because of a lack of air pressure and friction and so on?

So there is no jet propulsion that would work because any explosive reaction that could even occur in space would be wasted in it completely.

THE PROPER ANSWER TO OBJECTION ABOVE :

Short answer: Yes a gun recoils in space. No, the analogy does not apply to rockets.

Longer version: Shooting a gun in space would happen theoretically as follows: pressurized gas accelerates the bullet through the barrel until the bullet leaves the muzzle. At that point the gas that was pushing the bullet escapes without doing any more work i.e. via free expansion. The energy of the bullet (its momentum) travels with the bullet and the gun recoils by principle of conservation of momentum.

The gun analogy does not apply to a NASA-type space rocket as their pressurized gas escapes without doing any work at all. A NASA rocket is a gun without a bullet.

AN EXCERPT FROM ONE OTHER COMMENT POSTED WITHIN THE SAME THREAD :

Quote
I think I see what you mean. To try to put this in unnecessarily simple layman's terms: because the vacuum is just complete void, it can freely take on just about an infinite amount of anything, at any rate, without actually anything significant happening. Hence, we hold on to the idea that mass exiting a craft into a vacuum would actually cause any motion in the craft only because we are used to such behavior in a non-vacuum.

THE RESPOND TO THE COMMENT ABOVE :

You are correct, in addition to the gas leaving the ship for "free" (doing no work, exerting no force) the change in the mass of the rocket due to the escaped gas has nothing to do with rocket propulsion. In order for "lost mass" to exert force the ship MUST be accelerating. The formula is:

Force = Mass x Acceleration

If Acceleration is 0 then force is 0 no matter what the mass or how it is changes over time.

Put another way, if the force of the gas (force = 0) exiting the ship didn't cause the ship to move (the ship isn't accelerating) due to free expansion then looking at the problem from the perspective of the mass of the gas leaving the ship won't magically cause the ship to move all of a sudden.

NASA tries to pull this nonsense as well as some other ridiculous fake science stunts to make it seem like their rockets have a chance to function in a vacuum.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 25, 2019, 02:49:48 AM
The nail in the coffin of all NASA crapola is the idea of sending a video image 200K miles away...LOL....With analog equipment and no repeater stations...I installed communications systems in the USAF...The most powerful and far reaching communications we had was HF radio...Which uses the Ionosphere like Ham Radio, Only our transmitters were 5000 watts...You would need a billion watts and repeater amplifier stations between the earth and moon...Entropy of signal physics.

I was born in 1960.
In late 70s I was member of YU1AFX radio club.
When we used radio waves to measure distance to the Moon, I was a teenager.
If I remember correctly, our 432MHz (70 cm) transceiver was 350 Watts, or something like that.
Not the "billions" (or even thousands).
We didn't have Kenwood, older members made the transceiver themselves.
(When I joined the club it was already there.)

You occasionally send short beep and hope to receive it.
(You have to point and adjust the antenna set, ofcourse.)
When you finally do, you put your mic close to the receiving speaker, beep again, adjust the volume and make it resend.
When you set everything well, your initial beep will make series of beeps with about 2.5 sec difference.
Then you measure time for, say, 12 of them.
(They were more and more distorted in noise but still distinguished as pulses.)
If the time was 31 sec, you know the one beep time was 2.58333 sec.
That way the signal trip length would be (31 / 12) s x 300 000 km/s = 775 000 km there and back.
So, the distance to the Moon was 387 500 km.

~~~~~

Not only power affects the wave propagation.
Frequency does too.
Your 5000 Watts using Ionosphere was meant to establish reliable communication and at different frequencies.
To reach "around a corner", not directly the Moon in the line of sight.

1. What is your point?
2. You are an adult person and you still believe in moon-landing fairytale?
3. So, you openly admit the veracity of your notorious diagnose (the nature of your "illness") : NASA shill???
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: radioflat on July 25, 2019, 03:25:08 AM

THE PROPER ANSWER TO OBJECTION ABOVE :

Short answer: Yes a gun recoils in space. No, the analogy does not apply to rockets.

Longer version: Shooting a gun in space would happen theoretically as follows: pressurized gas accelerates the bullet through the barrel until the bullet leaves the muzzle. At that point the gas that was pushing the bullet escapes without doing any more work i.e. via free expansion. The energy of the bullet (its momentum) travels with the bullet and the gun recoils by principle of conservation of momentum.

The gun analogy does not apply to a NASA-type space rocket as their pressurized gas escapes without doing any work at all. A NASA rocket is a gun without a bullet.


Heavens above, you are pathetic... You accept a gun would recoil in a vacuum but a rocket would not - what is a rocket but a gun FIRING MANY MANY SMALL BULLETS!?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Macarios on July 25, 2019, 04:16:23 AM
The nail in the coffin of all NASA crapola is the idea of sending a video image 200K miles away...LOL....With analog equipment and no repeater stations...I installed communications systems in the USAF...The most powerful and far reaching communications we had was HF radio...Which uses the Ionosphere like Ham Radio, Only our transmitters were 5000 watts...You would need a billion watts and repeater amplifier stations between the earth and moon...Entropy of signal physics.

I was born in 1960.
In late 70s I was member of YU1AFX radio club.
When we used radio waves to measure distance to the Moon, I was a teenager.
If I remember correctly, our 432MHz (70 cm) transceiver was 350 Watts, or something like that.
Not the "billions" (or even thousands).
We didn't have Kenwood, older members made the transceiver themselves.
(When I joined the club it was already there.)

You occasionally send short beep and hope to receive it.
(You have to point and adjust the antenna set, ofcourse.)
When you finally do, you put your mic close to the receiving speaker, beep again, adjust the volume and make it resend.
When you set everything well, your initial beep will make series of beeps with about 2.5 sec difference.
Then you measure time for, say, 12 of them.
(They were more and more distorted in noise but still distinguished as pulses.)
If the time was 31 sec, you know the one beep time was 2.58333 sec.
That way the signal trip length would be (31 / 12) s x 300 000 km/s = 775 000 km there and back.
So, the distance to the Moon was 387 500 km.

~~~~~

Not only power affects the wave propagation.
Frequency does too.
Your 5000 Watts using Ionosphere was meant to establish reliable communication and at different frequencies.
To reach "around a corner", not directly the Moon in the line of sight.

1. What is your point?
2. You are an adult person and you still believe in moon-landing fairytale?
3. So, you openly admit the veracity of your notorious diagnose (the nature of your "illness") : NASA shill???

1. My point is that my personal experience saves me from being convinced into some incorrect "need of billions of Watts to reach Moon".

2. Astronauts who were at the Moon also were adult when they went there, mission control who sent them were also all adults.
    None of them see it as your "fairytale" either.
    Some astronauts also installed the retro-reflectors on the Moon that are still in use today.

3. Your attempt to declare it "illness" (or whatever you believe could "discredit it") is based on
    your bias / strong desire to delete the Moon landing reality from the history and the list of facts.

I can understand your frustration that caused your reaction like this, but changing the past is impossible.
Deal with it.

EDIT: Even if you could make people forget or discard the Moon landing,
it wouldn't make Moon any closer than it actually is:
more or less around 380 000 km from Earth.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: rabinoz on July 25, 2019, 05:10:07 AM
<< Read the following! >>
You dare post accusations like this:
I have demonstrated my honesty by admitting (every single time) that i was wrong whenever i noticed a mistake that i had made. However, this simple concept (of admitting your obvious mistakes) is totally strange and incomprehensible to you and to Jack Black. Whenever it comes to my mind to tell you "shame on you", the next thought comes to my mind in a nanosecond : They have no idea what the word "shame" designates, and they have no idea what "a shame" is, because they haven't got a clue what the word "honesty" means.
Now firstly please point out where either JackBlack or I made mistakes we should admit to.
I can't claim to always be correct but if you can prove I made mistakes please point them out.

But it would appear that you do not simply "make mistakes" you used at least two obviously "Photoshopped" images in one of the few of your videos I've bothered to watch, the EIFFEL TOWER PROOF:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
*4.* Feel free to explain away the conundrum pointed out in the last part of this video :
EIFFEL TOWER PROOF :

It starts with the question, "How would earth look from the moon?" And at 0:30 in that video we find this image:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/kj5aohud8gu7lrs/How%20would%20earth%20look%20from%20the%20moon.jpg?dl=1)
How would earth look from the moon by cikljamas
The inset in the lower right is obviously a composite of two NASA photos. This "photo":
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/j0v58fzlrmhqhtj/Earth%20from%20Moon%2C%20odiupicku%20%235.jpg?dl=1)
Photoshopped "Earth from Moon", by odiupicku

Then at 5:56 in that video I find the following image which I know is a composite of two NASA photos. This "photo":
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/gitimar1o14xf6s/How%20would%20earth%20look%20from%20the%20moon%20%28Faked%29.jpg?dl=1)
Of course the light comes from different directions! That is not a genuine NASA photo.

Now, Mr Cikljamas, either YOU show me the originals of those photos in the official NASA archives or admit to your deception.

If you are going to accuse NASA of lying that you should use genuine NASA photos and not ones "Photoshopped" to look obviously wrong!

Your response and apology would be greatly appreciated!
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 25, 2019, 05:25:51 AM
EDIT: Even if you could make people forget or discard the Moon landing,
it wouldn't make Moon any closer than it actually is:
more or less around 380 000 km from Earth.

Who says it would?

I can understand your frustration that caused your reaction like this, but changing the past is impossible.
Deal with it.

Reaction like this? What reaction? I am perfectly calm, cool and steady, and in this perfect stability of my mind i tell you : You are nothing else than infamous NASA shill. So, you are right : changing the past is impossible, that is to say NASA liars will always be remembered as one of the greatest rascals in the history of this insane world. Deal with it (with your infamous NASA-nutthead reputation).

2. Astronauts who were at the Moon also were adult when they went there, mission control who sent them were also all adults.
    None of them see it as your "fairytale" either.
    Some astronauts also installed the retro-reflectors on the Moon that are still in use today.
No retro-reflector mirrors are needed to have been placed on the Moon to reflect back signals to Earth.

National Geographic Vol. 130 No. 6 December 1966

'The Lasers Bright Magic' by Thomas Meloy

Page 876
"Four years ago (1962) a ruby laser considerably smaller than those now available, shot a series of pulses at the Moon, 240000 miles away. The beams illuminated a spot less than two miles in diameter, and were reflected back to Earth with enough strength to be measured by ultra sensitive electronic equipment."

1. My point is that my personal experience saves me from being convinced into some incorrect "need of billions of Watts to reach Moon".

At 5min in this video you will stumble upon the answer to your stupidity :


3. Your attempt to declare it "illness" (or whatever you believe could "discredit it") is based on
    your bias / strong desire to delete the Moon landing reality from the history and the list of facts.

The moon landing hoax has been deleted from the history of alleged facts long time ago.

This is one of the best illustrations how obvious and brazen liars you NASA shills really are :



Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: rabinoz on July 25, 2019, 05:32:56 AM
<< Some response thank you! >>
Why have you used "Photoshopped" images in your videos?
See HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum) « Reply #215 on: Today at 10:10:07 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2190550#msg2190550).

I thought you admitted you mistakes!
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 25, 2019, 05:34:38 AM
Rabinoz, feel free to scrutinize (with your analytic mind) this APOLLO conundrum :

James Donaghy 2 years ago
@odiupicku Good job. Here's the thing though,  there is a much more obvious problem with apollo- the heat.
It's such an obvious problem that it is amazing that it has been overlooked for so long. We all know the story of Icarus, but does everyone know the story of Leonov? He is the original spacewalker. He said, "It was so hot I thought I was frightened i was going to die."
Leonov is one of the bravest creatures on this planet which is partly why he was picked for this work.
So how does NASA explain his account of the incredible heat of the sun? They say he entered an awning feet first instead of head first and became so flustered that his monitors registered a dangerously high body temperature because he was such a woss. 
And there's more; if you get a black belt in astrophysics you can explain effortlessly how the sun isn't hot because of the low air pressure in space. In our advanced institutes there are paussies of top notch professors climbing over each other to take credit for reasons why Icarus would have had no feather problems if only he'd managed to get higher and with some breathing apparatus because the sun isn't hot once you reach space. Of course his wings wouldn't work either, but that's not the point.
For 50 years we have been told by those who know more than we, that the sun is cold in space, sorry, I just had to repeat that.
For more see my 5 minute presentation here:


Now put James Donaghy's words into broader ( perspective :


Well, it is indeed Fantasy the lot :

According to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/ (http://Apollo Lunar Surface Journal https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/), for Apollo 12, values given for cabin pressure are 4.8 psi, and for normal operating suit pressure, 3.8 psi. This suggests a pure oxygen environment for the Lunar Module.

For Apollo 11, 12, & 14, during EVA preparation, the suit relative pressures were 4.6 to 5.2 psi when the LM cabin pressure was 3.5 psi, giving suit absolute pressures of 8.1 to 8.7 psi pure oxygen.  At earth's atmospheric pressure of 14.7 psi, this correlates to 55% to 60% oxygen content, which gives an oxygen partial pressure of 8.1 to 8.7 psi.

According to the Apollo 12 ALSJ, the suits were already difficult to bend at 3.8 psi relative pressure (when the LM cabin pressure was 3.5 psi).  When the suit pressures were at about 4.5 psi relative pressure, the suits were very stiff.

The following quotes are from a March 11, 1968 Aviation Week & Space Technology article headlined "Flammability Tests Spur Two-Gas Apollo".

"Washington - Decision to use a two-gas atmosphere (60% oxygen, 40% nitrogen) during manned Apollo on-the-pad preparations and in pre-orbital flight reflects a basic inability to make the spacecraft flameproof after 14 months of redesign that cost more than $100 million and added about 2,000 lb. to the system.

"The decision (AW&ST, Mar. 4, p. 21) was forced on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration after three series of flammability tests on an Apollo command module boilerplate failed to satisfy officials that changes would prevent the spread of fire under a pure-oxygen environment."

The article goes on to mention how a 95% oxygen system at 6.2 psi which would be orbital configuration developed problems in fire propagation tests.

Would not there have been serious flammability problems of such an environment in the lunar module? The article concludes:

"By switching to a two-gas system for pre-flight and immediate post-launch activities, NASA is willing to accept an added problem. Astronauts will be breathing pure oxygen during that phase and they will have to vent the spacecraft cabin during boost to orbit and repressurize to 6 psi with oxygen to permit them to remove their helmets and work in relative comfort.

"Possibility of the 40% of nitrogen causing bends if an emergency escape has to be made during the launch phase was considered by officials less hazardous than that of fire propagation in a one-gas system."

A Feb. 6, 1967 article in AW&ST indicates that when the Apollo program was being planned, the primary reason for choosing a 5-psi cabin oxygen system was weight considerations. Added weight (with a two-gas system) would come from a mixture control system to keep the proper gas ratio. Also, introduction of an oxygen-nitrogen or oxygen-helium environmental control system for Apollo would have meant the addition of an airlock.

Just how dangerous was a pure oxygen environment in the ascent and descent lunar module considered to be?

Here on earth, increasing the percentage of oxygen to slightly above 21% dramatically increases probability of fires. According to The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (p. 567) by Barrow and Tipler, "...the probability of a forest fire being started by a lightning-bolt increases 70% for every 1% rise in oxygen concentration above the present 21%. Above 25% very little of the vegetation on land would survive the fires...". "At the present fraction of 21%, fires will not start at more than 15% moisture content. Were the oxygen content to reach 25%, even damp twigs and the grass of a rain forest would ignite."(p. 568).

Ralph René, in his book NASA Mooned America, provides a list of government-sponsored testing that resulted in oxygen fires. René extracted this information from Appendix G in Mission To The Moon by Kennan & Harvey. Here are some tests on that list:

"September 9, 1962 - The first known fire occurred in the Space Cabin Simulator at Brooks Air Force Base in a chamber using 100% oxygen at 5 psi. It was explosive and involved the carbon dioxide scrubber. Both occupants collapsed from smoke inhalation before being rescued."

"November 17, 1962 - Another incident using 100% oxygen at 5 psi in a chamber at the Navy Laboratory (ACEL). There were four occupants in the chamber, but the simple replacing of a burned-out light bulb caused their clothes to catch on fire. They escaped in 40 seconds but all suffered burns. Two were seriously injured. In addition an asbestos 'safety' blanket caught fire and burned causing one man's hand to catch fire."

"April 28, 1966 - More Apollo equipment was destroyed as it was being tested under 100% oxygen and 5 psi at the Apollo Environmental Control System in Torrance, CA."

"January 1, 1967 - The last known test was over three weeks before Grissom, Chaffee & White suffered immolation. Two men were handling 16 rabbits in a chamber of 100% oxygen at 7.2 psi at Brooks Air Force Base and all living things died in the inferno. The cause may have been as simple as a static discharge from a rabbit's fur ... but we'll never know."

NASA subjected Grissom, White and Chaffee to over 90% pure oxygen at over 16 psi in a test with live electrical circuits and switches being thrown, and with a hatch that took more than three minutes to open, resulting in the fatal Apollo 1 fire.

Bill Kaysing, in his book We Never Went To The Moon, states, in Chapter 9 titled "Murder By Negligence On Pad 34", "If any two documents lend credibility to the contention that the Apollo flights were faked, they are most certainly the Baron Report and the Phillips Report. They were authored by two men of obvious integrity and dedication. Although from diverse backgrounds, both Tom Baron and Sam Phillips were in total agreement on one basic premise, i.e., that North American Aviation and its sponsor, NASA, were totally unequal to the task of assuring even one successful flight to the moon!"
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Unconvinced on July 25, 2019, 05:36:29 AM

Well, maybe you want continue to discuss this issue with an author of the following OP :

[ADMIN: This topic was started due to our recent discussions — in multiple threads — about the subject of rocketry.

Specifically, there seems to be a growing skeptical understanding of the science of rocketry and just what is wrong with it, and why it doesn't work in the manner NASA says it does. (i.e.; bad physics used to back up their special effects publicity stunts like Apollo, "Mars missions", etc.)

In memory and honor of Bill Kaysing (or perhaps we'd better just say in honor of good sense) let's present the science here that shames the Wernher von Brauns of our world into coughing up the truth: their rocket programs are full of hot air. - hp]

After seeing the evidence of fakery in NASA pictures and videos in this forum I decided to investigate the theoretical basis of rockets in space. What I found on the Internet were mainly tricks, frauds and sleights of hand, name-calling and attacks used to confuse the issue and hide the facts. Bypassing all of that and doing original research I have come to the conclusion that rockets cannot function in space according the descriptions/formulas used by NASA and related parties.

Not a great start, opening with the alleged misdeeds of NASA, engineers and scientists, before claiming to do an objective analysis, but never mind.

Quote
With neither theory on its side nor reliable, verifiable, repeatable scientific experiments on its side the idea of rocket thrust in my estimation remains a fiction presented to the world as an achievement: a modern day Marco Polo story.

I will try to present my findings with a minimum of math and formulae as these are often used to drawn us into traps, causing us to argue the minutiae of red herrings or chase ghosts. These ruses remind me of the joke about on which side of the barn roof the rooster’s egg will fall. How often do people forget that rooster’s don’t lay eggs?

Maths is not a ruse or a red herring.  It’s fine to try to explain qualitatively without maths, but you can’t just dismiss the actual maths used by scientists and engineers as “a trap”.

Quote
There are 4 major ideas on presented on the Internet, including NASA web sites, as to how rockets generate thrust in space
1. Newton’s 3rd Law : for every force there is an equal and opposite
2. Newtons’s 2nd Law : Force = Mass x Acceleration
3. Conservation of Momentum
4. The use of a specialized nozzle to accelerate the gas inside the ship, concentrate and aim the gas jet

Really its just different ways of describing the same thing.  Conservation of Momentum is a way of expressing Newton’s laws, one that’s particularly handy for fluid studies.  It’s also the easiest way to think about it, IMO.

Quote
I will address each of these issues showing why they are invalid. In addition I will review the results (and lack thereof) of the founders of space rocketry Hermann Oberth (who designed most of the rocket science for the Fritz Lang film Woman in the Moon), Goddard, who was the first to claim an experimental result proving vacuum thrust and Clarke, a champion of Newton’s 3rd law.

There’s obviously too much to cover in one post so I’ll start by addressing the most popular response to those who question how rockets operate in the vacuum of space: Newton’s 3rd Law, that is to say that a rocket when it exhausts propellant will be pushed in the opposite direction.

The problem with applying Newton’s 3rd is that the rocket’s propellant does not generate force in a vacuum according to the laws of physics and chemistry. If the force of the propellant is 0 then Newton’s 3rd states that
Force on Rocket=-Force of Gas.
If Force of Gas = 0 the rocket does not move.

We’ve been through all this.  Whatever “laws of physics and chemistry” this guy thinks he has do not appear in any of my textbooks.

Quote
Why doesn’t the propellant generate any force, it's expanding, right?
There is something known as “Free Expansion” or the “Joule-Thomson” effect, named after James Prescott Joule and J.J. Thompson two of the founders of the field of Physical Chemistry.
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html

Free expansion is otherwise known as Joule expansion.  The Joule-Thompson effect follows on from that, describing uses in things like refrigeration systems.

Not a big deal, but the next part is.

Quote
Free Expansion states that when a pressurized gas is exposed to a vacuum the gas expanding into the vacuum without any work being done. The gas is not “pulled” or “sucked” into the vacuum nor is it “pushed” out of the high-pressure container. In other words no work is done, no heat or energy is lost.

This is a complete misappropriation of the principle of free expansion. 

Firstly, it’s all backwards.  We don’t use the principle of free expansion to prove that expanding gases never do work.  Instead we say that a particular system can be assumed to operate under free expansion (ideal gas law, adiabatic process) to simplify the problem.  As opposed to something like a gas turbine where gases expand and do work.

Secondly, the classic example  describes a closed system.  Gas is released from one chamber into a vacuum chamber however both chambers and the gas are considered the total system.  There is no work done by the system to its surroundings.

That is not how a rocket works.  A rocket has an open system with gases expelled out of it.

Quote
This result has been experimentally verified numerous times since its discovery in the 1850’s.
[for example a paper in the Journal of Physical Chemistry from 1902: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002]

Yeah, verified by people who understand how to apply it properly.

The rest is basically the same argument repeated.  Not very concise, is it?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 25, 2019, 05:38:34 AM
<< Some response thank you! >>
Why have you used "Photoshopped" images in your videos?
See HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum) « Reply #215 on: Today at 10:10:07 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2190550#msg2190550).

I thought you admitted you mistakes!

What mistakes? Even guys who believe that we landed on the moon admit that there is huge amount of altered (photoshopped) "apollo" images.--- MOON FAKERY - 3 : http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2010/192/moon-fakery-3.htm
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: markjo on July 25, 2019, 06:47:07 AM
The problem with applying Newton’s 3rd is that the rocket’s propellant does not generate force in a vacuum according to the laws of physics and chemistry. If the force of the propellant is 0 then Newton’s 3rd states that
Force on Rocket=-Force of Gas.
If Force of Gas = 0 the rocket does not move.
Have you ever seen the exhaust gasses coming out of a rocket engine?  Are you saying that those gasses are not being forced out of the engine?

Why doesn’t the propellant generate any force, it's expanding, right?
Actually, it's expanding in an enclosed space (the combustion chamber) that restricts the expansion and directs the flow of the combustion gasses.

There is something known as “Free Expansion” or the “Joule-Thomson” effect, named after James Prescott Joule and J.J. Thompson two of the founders of the field of Physical Chemistry.
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html
Free Expansion states that when a pressurized gas is exposed to a vacuum the gas expanding into the vacuum without any work being done. The gas is not “pulled” or “sucked” into the vacuum nor is it “pushed” out of the high-pressure container. In other words no work is done, no heat or energy is lost.
You will also notice that the free expansion only applies to closed systems (an insulated pressurized chamber connected to an insulated vacuum chamber).  A rocket engine in space is not a closed system, therefore free expansion does not apply.  Also, the simple act of burning the propellant is work, so please stop saying that no work is done.

Also note that, like the rifle example, all of the relevant reactions and force pairings occur within the rocket engine itself.  Once the the exhaust gasses leave the rocket engine, they are no longer of any concern.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 25, 2019, 07:29:15 AM
@ MarkJo

1. When a rocket's combustion chamber is filled with accelerated gas opening the nozzle to expel the gasses into the vacuum of space does not generate a force against the ship. This is due to the principle of free expansion.

2. No amount of combustion or pressure inside the space ship can move the ship until that combustive force or pressure is exchanged with some object, entity, or field outside of the ship (a space ship is a closed system).

3. Based on 1 and 2 there is no way to move the ship by releasing gas and no way to move the ship by keeping the gas inside. A space ship cannot generate force with a gas based propulsion system. Space rockets are the stuff of fantasies not science or physics.

4. It is my understanding that liquid can't exist inside a vacuum. Any liquid exposed to a vacuum is immediately converted to gas and any gas is immediately spread out into the void. So any combustion would have to take place in a sealed container and hence not in a vacuum in the strict sense.

Regarding the possibility of opening one side of a container, exposing it to the vacuum, while combusting gasses inside the container. In this case we have to consider that combustion can't occur anywhere near the opening because any liquids in that area are being instantly converted to gas by the vacuum and spread out into the void via free expansion. When combustion occurs at the far side of the container the force is going to push the remaining liquid out before it can be combusted. This seems like a terribly inefficient use of fuel as the combustion itself is forcing unspent fuel into space.

Another problem is that gas enters a vacuum at an average speed of about 2,000 meters a second. A 25 meter long Saturn 5 stage 2 fuel tank with over 1,000,000 liters of fuel would have it's contents drained in about 1/100 of a second if exposed to the vacuum of space.

Speaking of Saturn V rockets, after looking at some data provided by the Smithsonian I have some questions...

Times and distances traveled by a Saturn V

    Stage 1: 912 mph (38 miles in 2.5 minutes)
    Stage 2: 770 mph (77 miles in 6 minutes)
    Stage 3: 17,500 mph (achieved in 2.75 minutes) an acceleration of nearly 372,000 m/h^2


Questions:

A. Why does the rocket slow down between stages 1 and 2? I would expect it to pick up speed if it were powered by thrust because

    a. the thinner atmosphere reduces wind resistance
    b. it is now lighter, having discarded stage 1
    c. the pull of gravity against it's climb is reduced the higher it goes
    d. ...what is the point of stage 2 if does not increase the speed of the rocket?

B. How does stage 3 accelerate at such a tremendous rate without

    a. killing the astronauts?
    b. ripping apart the capsule?

5. Goddard's flawed test of the theory of rockets in a vacuum.

Physicist Robert Goddard (for whom the Goddard Space Center is named) was one of the first to claim that rockets would work in the vacuum of space.

The New York times mocked his ideas in a 1920 editorial.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times/Robert_Goddard

In response Goddard set up the following experiment to prove the NYT wrong:

Inside a vacuum tube he attached a .22 caliber revolver, loaded with a blank cartridge, to a rod that turns .
There is no film of the experiment but first hand reports claim that when he fired the gun it spun around four times. Thus Goddard declared his theory experimentally proven.
http://www.clarku.edu/research/archives/goddard/faq.cfm

I claim that his experiment was not a test of rocket thrust in a vacuum for the following reasons:

A. A blank cartridge expels a plug of paper called a wad. The wad is expelled with enough force to kill a person. If a gun propels an object conservation of momentum applies and the gun will recoil. Rockets in space do not shoot bullets, wads or any such solids. They only expel gas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blank_%28cartridge%29
https://io9.gizmodo.com/why-a-gun-loaded-with-blanks-can-still-kill-you-5972313

B. The gun was attached to a rod which was attached to the top (or side) of the vacuum tube. This is not state of a rocket in space which is totally insulated from any other object. Because the gun is attached to a rod it is not a closed system. The gun pushes against the rod (exchanges energy) when fired. In a proper setup the gun would be suspended in zero-gravity or some simulation thereof.

C. Even if he had arranged to fire a gun without expelling a wad, even if he had managed to simulate a gun in zero gravity and not used one attached to a rod, he still had the issue that gas fired from the gun was interacting with the sides of his vacuum tube. If gas fired from the gun pressed against the sides it would create turbulence which means that the gasses leaving to gun barrel wouldn't have a chance to experience free expansion. Space doesn't have "sides" that gas bounces off of. Every molecule goes flying off into the void without interacting with any other. Another way to think about this is that once the area in front of the gun muzzle is no longer a vacuum, free expansion stops.

(The loop at the bottom is so that it doesn't bounce off the bottom but what about preventing the gas from interacting with the sides?)

Goddard's experiment is critically flawed and cannot be used as evidence that a rocket will work in a vacuum yet it was used as the basis for continued funding, research and belief in space rockets.

Goddard's Vacuum Tube
Image
(source https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Goddard_with_Vacuum_Tube_Device_-_GPN-2000-001338.jpg)
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: markjo on July 25, 2019, 08:11:02 AM
@ MarkJo

1. When a rocket's combustion chamber is filled with accelerated gas opening the nozzle to expel the gasses into the vacuum of space does not generate a force against the ship. This is due to the principle of free expansion.
Does the gas have mass?  Can mass be accelerated without a force being applied to it?

2. No amount of combustion or pressure inside the space ship can move the ship until that combustive force or pressure is exchanged with some object, entity, or field outside of the ship (a space ship is a closed system).

This is a Joule-Thomson free expansion apparatus in a closed system:
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/5T61BKq9MHk/hqdefault.jpg)

This is a rocket engine in a vacuum:
(https://www.real-world-physics-problems.com/images/rocket_physics_15.png)

Do they look the same to you?

3. Based on 1 and 2 there is no way to move the ship by releasing gas and no way to move the ship by keeping the gas inside. A space ship cannot generate force with a gas based propulsion system. Space rockets are the stuff of fantasies not science or physics.
Since 1 and 2 are wrong, so is your conclusion.

4. It is my understanding that liquid can't exist inside a vacuum. Any liquid exposed to a vacuum is immediately converted to gas and any gas is immediately spread out into the void. So any combustion would have to take place in a sealed container and hence not in a vacuum in the strict sense.
Once the liquid propellant is converted to a gas, then the chamber is no longer a strict vacuum, is it?

Regarding the possibility of opening one side of a container, exposing it to the vacuum, while combusting gasses inside the container. In this case we have to consider that combustion can't occur anywhere near the opening because any liquids in that area are being instantly converted to gas by the vacuum and spread out into the void via free expansion. When combustion occurs at the far side of the container the force is going to push the remaining liquid out before it can be combusted. This seems like a terribly inefficient use of fuel as the combustion itself is forcing unspent fuel into space.
That's why the igniter is located near the fuel and oxidizer injectors at the back of the engine and the de Laval nozzle pinches to restrict the flow of the gasses and build chamber pressure.

Another problem is that gas enters a vacuum at an average speed of about 2,000 meters a second. A 25 meter long Saturn 5 stage 2 fuel tank with over 1,000,000 liters of fuel would have it's contents drained in about 1/100 of a second if exposed to the vacuum of space.
That's why the liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen are pumped to the rocket engines at a controlled rate.

Speaking of Saturn V rockets, after looking at some data provided by the Smithsonian I have some questions...

Times and distances traveled by a Saturn V

    Stage 1: 912 mph (38 miles in 2.5 minutes)
    Stage 2: 770 mph (77 miles in 6 minutes)
    Stage 3: 17,500 mph (achieved in 2.75 minutes) an acceleration of nearly 372,000 m/h^2


Questions:

A. Why does the rocket slow down between stages 1 and 2? I would expect it to pick up speed if it were powered by thrust because


    a. the thinner atmosphere reduces wind resistance
    b. it is now lighter, having discarded stage 1
    c. the pull of gravity against it's climb is reduced the higher it goes
    d. ...what is the point of stage 2 if does not increase the speed of the rocket?

B. How does stage 3 accelerate at such a tremendous rate without

    a. killing the astronauts?
    b. ripping apart the capsule?
The 38 and 77 miles that you cite are altitude, not downrange (horizontal) distances traveled.  If you ever watch a Saturn V (or just about any other orbital rocket) launch, then you should notice that the rocket begins to pitch over shortly after lift off.  This is because the 17,500 mph speed needed is horizontal speed, not vertical.

5. Goddard's flawed test of the theory of rockets in a vacuum.

Physicist Robert Goddard (for whom the Goddard Space Center is named) was one of the first to claim that rockets would work in the vacuum of space.

The New York times mocked his ideas in a 1920 editorial.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times/Robert_Goddard

In response Goddard set up the following experiment to prove the NYT wrong:

Inside a vacuum tube he attached a .22 caliber revolver, loaded with a blank cartridge, to a rod that turns .
There is no film of the experiment but first hand reports claim that when he fired the gun it spun around four times. Thus Goddard declared his theory experimentally proven.
http://www.clarku.edu/research/archives/goddard/faq.cfm

I claim that his experiment was not a test of rocket thrust in a vacuum for the following reasons:
As has been explained many times before, if the propellant can burn in a vacuum, then it can provide thrust in a vacuum.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Unconvinced on July 25, 2019, 08:42:05 AM
Is that stage 3 acceleration stat really meters per hour squared?

That’s the maddest unit I’ve ever seen, and I have to conclude was picked to make a really big number.

Can we have that in something sensible, like G or meters per second squared, please?

Edit:  Probably meant to be miles per hour squared.  Which is still very non standard.  One mile per hour squared means it takes a full hour to increase speed by one mile per hour.  So quoting this way yields enormous numbers. 
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Themightykabool on July 25, 2019, 08:47:20 AM
Well at least do we accept that vacuum of space exists?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Unconvinced on July 25, 2019, 11:10:56 AM
Rabinoz, feel free to scrutinize (with your analytic mind) this APOLLO conundrum :

James Donaghy 2 years ago
@odiupicku Good job. Here's the thing though,  there is a much more obvious problem with apollo- the heat.
It's such an obvious problem that it is amazing that it has been overlooked for so long. We all know the story of Icarus, but does everyone know the story of Leonov? He is the original spacewalker. He said, "It was so hot I thought I was frightened i was going to die."
Leonov is one of the bravest creatures on this planet which is partly why he was picked for this work.
So how does NASA explain his account of the incredible heat of the sun?

I see an obvious problem- how did  Leonov get into space?

Not by a rocket, I guess?

Or does your version of physics only apply to American rockets?

Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: magellanclavichord on July 25, 2019, 01:43:18 PM
The amateur radio record for 10 Ghz EME was recently broken,  some guys bounced a 10Ghz signal off the moon and established 2 way contact between New Zealand and England.   That was with 10 watts,  and a 1 meter diameter dish.

That's very impressive!
It is very impressive but is helped by there being very little atmospheric path loss - far less that between distant points on earth.

Quote from: magellanclavichord
What mode were they using? CW? I once worked Perth from the middle of the U.S. on 10 Mhz CW with a dipole and 80 watts input. This would have been some time around the early 1980's. EME with 10 watts, even on 10 Ghz, is really impressive.
You used a dipole with a gain of no more than 2 dB but the EME link could use 2 or 3 m dishes with gains in the 45 to 48 dB region.

So, what mode did they use? I quit actively doing ham radio about the time the first digital modes were just starting to appear on the amateur bands. So CW, with its very narrow bandwidth, seems like the obvious choice to me, but I don't know if one of the digital modes would work better.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Macarios on July 25, 2019, 01:49:52 PM
EDIT: Even if you could make people forget or discard the Moon landing,
it wouldn't make Moon any closer than it actually is:
more or less around 380 000 km from Earth.

Who says it would?

The one who tries to discredit proof that the Moon is as far as it is, as big as it is and as solid as it is.

I can understand your frustration that caused your reaction like this, but changing the past is impossible.
Deal with it.

Reaction like this? What reaction? I am perfectly calm, cool and steady, and in this perfect stability of my mind i tell you : You are nothing else than infamous NASA shill. So, you are right : changing the past is impossible, that is to say NASA liars will always be remembered as one of the greatest rascals in the history of this insane world. Deal with it (with your infamous NASA-nutthead reputation).

Your "calm, cool and steady" doesn't fit with reality of your harsh words, "liar" accusations and attempts to use "reputation" in lack of facts.
This is not about anyones reputations and "whom would you believe".
The reality speaks for itself.

2. Astronauts who were at the Moon also were adult when they went there, mission control who sent them were also all adults.
    None of them see it as your "fairytale" either.
    Some astronauts also installed the retro-reflectors on the Moon that are still in use today.
No retro-reflector mirrors are needed to have been placed on the Moon to reflect back signals to Earth.

National Geographic Vol. 130 No. 6 December 1966

'The Lasers Bright Magic' by Thomas Meloy

Page 876
"Four years ago (1962) a ruby laser considerably smaller than those now available, shot a series of pulses at the Moon, 240000 miles away. The beams illuminated a spot less than two miles in diameter, and were reflected back to Earth with enough strength to be measured by ultra sensitive electronic equipment."

You are using an article from 1966 for comparing lasers from 1962 with lasers from 50s.
Instead of that you should do some more research and compare them with lasers from 70s, after the reflectors were installed.

Diameter of "less than two miles" still has a lot of bumps and dents with variabile local altitudes, so timing of the reflection has too much noise.
That is why reflectors were installed, to use even weaker lasers and detect only the beam reflected from them.
Reflectors have much more defined distance from the center of the Moon than "less than two miles wide" piece of bumpy lunar land.

1. My point is that my personal experience saves me from being convinced into some incorrect "need of billions of Watts to reach Moon".

At 5min in this video you will stumble upon the answer to your stupidity :


LOL
Making a mixture and connecting different questions with different answers doesn't seem very honest.
And you are trying to make sane people trust the author of this video? :)

3. Your attempt to declare it "illness" (or whatever you believe could "discredit it") is based on
    your bias / strong desire to delete the Moon landing reality from the history and the list of facts.

The moon landing hoax has been deleted from the history of alleged facts long time ago.

This is one of the best illustrations how obvious and brazen liars you NASA shills really are :



If you want it completely deleted, go up there and sweep their footprints from the lunar dust.
Lack of atmosphere there won't make any winds to do it for you. :)

Neither will the final answer to the "who was behind the 9/11?".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When you are calling everyone "liars" and "NASA shills" you actually reveal yourself as military shill.
Army gets $600 billion per year ($718 billion for 2020), and NASA just $21.5 billion.
Yet, for you it is not enough, and you are trying to channel those $21 billion to the army too.

If you succeed, and people abandon Space exploration (in favor of what?), then who will survive when the next big asteroid hits the Earth?

Or when we use up all the limited resources and room that we have on this single planet?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: rabinoz on July 25, 2019, 01:57:03 PM
The amateur radio record for 10 Ghz EME was recently broken,  some guys bounced a 10Ghz signal off the moon and established 2 way contact between New Zealand and England.   That was with 10 watts,  and a 1 meter diameter dish.

That's very impressive!
It is very impressive but is helped by there being very little atmospheric path loss - far less that between distant points on earth.

Quote from: magellanclavichord
What mode were they using? CW? I once worked Perth from the middle of the U.S. on 10 Mhz CW with a dipole and 80 watts input. This would have been some time around the early 1980's. EME with 10 watts, even on 10 Ghz, is really impressive.
You used a dipole with a gain of no more than 2 dB but the EME link could use 2 or 3 m dishes with gains in the 45 to 48 dB region.

So, what mode did they use? I quit actively doing ham radio about the time the first digital modes were just starting to appear on the amateur bands. So CW, with its very narrow bandwidth, seems like the obvious choice to me, but I don't know if one of the digital modes would work better.
I had a lot of references on it but haven't tracked them down yet.

This possibly has most: Moonbounce on a Budget By Bob DeVarney W1ICW, Winter 2013. (http://www.hamclass.net/ranv/moonbounce.pdf)
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: radioflat on July 25, 2019, 02:40:01 PM

A. A blank cartridge expels a plug of paper called a wad. The wad is expelled with enough force to kill a person. If a gun propels an object conservation of momentum applies and the gun will recoil. Rockets in space do not shoot bullets, wads or any such solids. They only expel gas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blank_%28cartridge%29
https://io9.gizmodo.com/why-a-gun-loaded-with-blanks-can-still-kill-you-5972313

OK, but a gas still has mass and by conservation of momentum, the rocket expelling gas will recoil...
I don't see why you have such a problem realising there is no difference between a solid bullet and gas being ejected ...
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: JackBlack on July 25, 2019, 02:51:28 PM
Well, maybe you want continue to discuss this issue with an author of the following OP
If they want to come here and argue, then they can, otherwise I will continue with you, as you are the one in this thread claiming rockets can't work in a vacuum and you refusing to answer a very simple question.

If you think they have a valid argument which directly addresses this very simple question then feel free to provide it, rather than a massive wall of text as I see no point in reading through someone else's wall of text which you will happily disown.

To recap: Newton’s 3rd Law, the number one response on the Internet to how a rocket generates thrust in space, is invalid in this context.
Newton's 3rd law applies universally.
If you wish to claim it doesn't apply you need to explain why, providing a proper justification rather than just misquoting things.

So again, what force is accelerating the gas?
What body is applying this force?


Stop trying to hide from the refutations of your arguments by jumping between loads of different topics.

If you want to move on from the rockets, either explain what force is accelerating the gas out of the rocket, or admit that rockets can work in space.
Stop bringing up loads of different topics.

The fact that you need to repeatedly avoid this very simple question is very telling.

What mistakes? Even guys who believe that we landed on the moon admit that there is huge amount of altered (photoshopped) "apollo" images.
Yes, 3 main kinds:
1 - Where the brightness, contrast or colour has been altered. - No fakery here unless they are claiming that is how it was.
2 - stitching images together to make panoramas. - No fakery here unless they claim it was taken as a single image.
3 - Conspiracy nuts intentionally manipulating photos to pretend there is a problem. - Very significant fakery here, but not on the part on NASA, on the part of those lying and pretending NASA never went to the moon.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: rabinoz on July 25, 2019, 03:30:32 PM
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    Some astronauts also installed the retro-reflectors on the Moon that are still in use today.
No retro-reflector mirrors are needed to have been placed on the Moon to reflect back signals to Earth.
Sure, "No retro-reflector mirrors are needed to have been placed on the Moon to reflect back signals to Earth."
BUT retroreflectors were necessary to achieve the current precision in Earth-moon distance.

Quote from: cikljamas
National Geographic Vol. 130 No. 6 December 1966, 'The Lasers Bright Magic' by Thomas Meloy, Page 876
"Four years ago (1962) a ruby laser considerably smaller than those now available, shot a series of pulses at the Moon, 240000 miles away. The beams illuminated a spot less than two miles in diameter, and were reflected back to Earth with enough strength to be measured by ultra sensitive electronic equipment."
Have you looked at the precision of the measurements before and after retro-reflectors were installed on the moon?
Read: Lunar Laser Ranging by James E. Faller JILA, University of Colorado and NIST, and Institute for Gravitational Research, University of Glasgow (https://cddis.nasa.gov/lw19/docs/2014/Papers/3127_Faller_paper.pdf)!
Look at the precision before and after the retroreflectors were placed:
Quote
In the next two and a half centuries astronomers used measurements of optical parallax and simultaneous observations of stellar occultations to reduce the uncertainty in the Earth-Moon distance to about 2 miles.
Beginning in 1957, conventional radar techniques were used to determine the Moon’s distance from the Earth to within 0.7 mile.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
It was in May of 1962 that a group from MIT reported a weak photon echo from a pulsed laser that was fired at the Moon—which they published with the clever title: “Project Lunar See.”
Finally, three years later in 1965, a Russian group used a 104-inch (2.6-meter) telescope to transmit and detect pulses of 50-nanosecond duration produced by a Q-switched (short pulse) ruby laser. This experiment achieved enough accuracy to improve our knowledge of the Earth-Moon distance to about 180 m. At this accuracy, lunar topology was beginning to spread in time the reflected pulse.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
On August 3, the Goddard laser system was operated successfully for nearly two hours and achieved a range accuracy of 6 meters.
. . .
The Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment which began with the July 20th placing of the array of optical corner cubes on the surface of the Moon (Fig. 6) by the Apollo 11 astronauts has made possible a dramatic change in our ability to measure the distance between the Earth and its moon—initially, with an accuracy of some tens of centimeters; and today, four additional retroreflector packages and 40 years later, with an accuracy of millimeters!

Quote from: cikljamas
1. My point is that my personal experience saves me from being convinced into some incorrect "need of billions of Watts to reach Moon".
At 5min in this video you will stumble upon the answer to your stupidity :

There is nothing of any merit in that to demonstrate that "need of billions of Watts to reach Moon".
All it shows is the ignorance of your and your so called "expert"!
This might show what even radio amateurs can do: Moonbounce on a Budget By Bob DeVarney W1ICW, Winter 2013. (http://www.hamclass.net/ranv/moonbounce.pdf)

And you seem to have forgotten this!
Flat Earth General / Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum) « on: July 24, 2019, 10:59:06 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2190244#msg2190244)


Quote from: cikljamas
3. Your attempt to declare it "illness" (or whatever you believe could "discredit it") is based on
    your bias / strong desire to delete the Moon landing reality from the history and the list of facts.
The moon landing hoax has been deleted from the history of alleged facts long time ago.
Incorrect! Only in the minds of conspiritards like yourself!

Quote from: cikljamas
This is one of the best illustrations how obvious and brazen liars you NASA shills really are :

Really?What a total waste of time!
You claim that video is "one of the best illustrations how obvious and brazen liars you NASA shills really are" but I find absolutely nothing in that video relevant to NASA.

NASA happens to be the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and that's it! 
So please enlighten us how you link NASA into that video!
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Sunset on July 25, 2019, 04:21:16 PM
Cikljamas, in addressing the 2nd part of the topic, I'm going to employ the KISS principle in explaining how rockets can and do fly in a vacuum.

To begin, a rocket moves forward because burning gases are ejected at high speed behind it. If an engine supplies a constant force, the accelaration of the rocket will increase because the total mass of the rocket decreases as fuel and oxygen are burnt.

Have you noticed how much faster an inflated balloon goes at the end of it's journey than when you first let it go? What pushes the balloon around the room is the air you blew into it, escaping.

Many people think rockets only work if they have something to push against. Not true. They work in space as the momentum of the exhaust gases is equal in magnitude but opposite in direction to the gain in momentum of the rocket.

In short, rockets fly in space due to Isaac Newton's third law of motion: Every action produced an equal and opposite reaction.

Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: rabinoz on July 25, 2019, 05:10:03 PM
A little addition on Geocentrism and Robert Sungenis for those interested.

On the general topic: Geocentrism Debunked (https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/) and on  Robert Sungenis: Incompetent in Physics. (https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/robert-sungenis-incompetent-physics/)
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: magellanclavichord on July 25, 2019, 07:12:35 PM
The amateur radio record for 10 Ghz EME was recently broken,  some guys bounced a 10Ghz signal off the moon and established 2 way contact between New Zealand and England.   That was with 10 watts,  and a 1 meter diameter dish.

That's very impressive!
It is very impressive but is helped by there being very little atmospheric path loss - far less that between distant points on earth.

Quote from: magellanclavichord
What mode were they using? CW? I once worked Perth from the middle of the U.S. on 10 Mhz CW with a dipole and 80 watts input. This would have been some time around the early 1980's. EME with 10 watts, even on 10 Ghz, is really impressive.
You used a dipole with a gain of no more than 2 dB but the EME link could use 2 or 3 m dishes with gains in the 45 to 48 dB region.

So, what mode did they use? I quit actively doing ham radio about the time the first digital modes were just starting to appear on the amateur bands. So CW, with its very narrow bandwidth, seems like the obvious choice to me, but I don't know if one of the digital modes would work better.
I had a lot of references on it but haven't tracked them down yet.

This possibly has most: Moonbounce on a Budget By Bob DeVarney W1ICW, Winter 2013. (http://www.hamclass.net/ranv/moonbounce.pdf)

Thanks for that link. So hams were doing moonbounce more than a decade before I was a ham myself. I'm going to guess that back then CW would have been the mode used, just because it requires so much less power. But one page in that link talking about more recent times refers to digital modes.

The antennas in those pictures are humongous!!! I used to envy people who had a three-element yagi on a tower. Those things boggle the mind. I'm not surprised they could do moonbounce on 2,000 watts input with those antennas back in the day, on ten or fifteen meters.

I thought I heard of moonbounce back then, but until reading that article I thought I was misremembering. I remember when the ARRL put up the first (I think it was the first) amateur radio satellite. But I never had any interest in that myself. I talked to the locals on two-meter FM and I worked the HF bands on CW.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: JerkFace on July 25, 2019, 07:26:57 PM
The amateur radio record for 10 Ghz EME was recently broken,  some guys bounced a 10Ghz signal off the moon and established 2 way contact between New Zealand and England.   That was with 10 watts,  and a 1 meter diameter dish.

That's very impressive!
It is very impressive but is helped by there being very little atmospheric path loss - far less that between distant points on earth.

Quote from: magellanclavichord
What mode were they using? CW? I once worked Perth from the middle of the U.S. on 10 Mhz CW with a dipole and 80 watts input. This would have been some time around the early 1980's. EME with 10 watts, even on 10 Ghz, is really impressive.
You used a dipole with a gain of no more than 2 dB but the EME link could use 2 or 3 m dishes with gains in the 45 to 48 dB region.

So, what mode did they use? I quit actively doing ham radio about the time the first digital modes were just starting to appear on the amateur bands. So CW, with its very narrow bandwidth, seems like the obvious choice to me, but I don't know if one of the digital modes would work better.
I had a lot of references on it but haven't tracked them down yet.

This possibly has most: Moonbounce on a Budget By Bob DeVarney W1ICW, Winter 2013. (http://www.hamclass.net/ranv/moonbounce.pdf)

Thanks for that link. So hams were doing moonbounce more than a decade before I was a ham myself. I'm going to guess that back then CW would have been the mode used, just because it requires so much less power. But one page in that link talking about more recent times refers to digital modes.

The antennas in those pictures are humongous!!! I used to envy people who had a three-element yagi on a tower. Those things boggle the mind. I'm not surprised they could do moonbounce on 2,000 watts input with those antennas back in the day, on ten or fifteen meters.

I thought I heard of moonbounce back then, but until reading that article I thought I was misremembering. I remember when the ARRL put up the first (I think it was the first) amateur radio satellite. But I never had any interest in that myself. I talked to the locals on two-meter FM and I worked the HF bands on CW.

These days for EME it's mostly digital modes,  QRA64D JT4 and such  see https://www.physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/wsjtx.html  for more details if you are interested.

Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: rabinoz on July 25, 2019, 08:18:20 PM
@ MarkJo

1. When a rocket's combustion chamber is filled with accelerated gas opening the nozzle to expel the gasses into the vacuum of space does not generate a force against the ship. This is due to the principle of free expansion.
No, it is not "the principle of free expansion".
Joule expansion or free expansion has nothing to do worth forces and does not preclude forces due the the changed position of the centre-of-gravity of the gas.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Entropie.png)     

Upper: before expansion the CoG of the gas is in the centre of the left box.




Lower: after expansion the CoG of the gas is in the centre of the combined boxes.
Hence the whole system must move left because the CoG of an isolated system
cannot be changed by internal action.


Quote from: cikljamas
2. No amount of combustion or pressure inside the space ship can move the ship until that combustive force or pressure is exchanged with some object, entity, or field outside of the ship (a space ship is a closed system).
Totally untrue! The tonnes of burnt fuel become another system when they have felt the engine.

Quote from: cikljamas
3. Based on 1 and 2 there is no way to move the ship by releasing gas and no way to move the ship by keeping the gas inside. A space ship cannot generate force with a gas based propulsion system. Space rockets are the stuff of fantasies not science or physics.
Irrelevant because your 1. and 2. are not valid

Quote from: cikljamas
4. It is my understanding that liquid can't exist inside a vacuum. Any liquid exposed to a vacuum is immediately converted to gas and any gas is immediately spread out into the void. So any combustion would have to take place in a sealed container and hence not in a vacuum in the strict sense.
Your understanding is incorrect. A liquid will evaporate in a vacuum but for some liquids that might take a long time.

Quote from: cikljamas
Regarding the possibility of opening one side of a container, exposing it to the vacuum, while combusting gasses inside the container. In this case we have to consider that combustion can't occur anywhere near the opening because any liquids in that area are being instantly converted to gas by the vacuum and spread out into the void via free expansion.
Combustion in a rocket engine is in the combustion chamber and that is isolated from the vacuum by a choked converging-diverging (de Laval) nozzle.

So your claim is quite incorrect!

Quote from: cikljamas
When combustion occurs at the far side of the container the force is going to push the remaining liquid out before it can be combusted. This seems like a terribly inefficient use of fuel as the combustion itself is forcing unspent fuel into space.
What on earth are you talking about? The fuel and oxidiser are fed at controlled rates by massive turbine driven fuel pumps.

Quote from: cikljamas
Another problem is that gas enters a vacuum at an average speed of about 2,000 meters a second. A 25 meter long Saturn 5 stage 2 fuel tank with over 1,000,000 liters of fuel would have it's contents drained in about 1/100 of a second if exposed to the vacuum of space.
What sort of rubbish is that? The fuel pumps control the rate of fuel flow.

Quote from: cikljamas
Speaking of Saturn V rockets, after looking at some data provided by the Smithsonian I have some questions...

Times and distances traveled by a Saturn V
    Stage 1: 912 mph (38 miles in 2.5 minutes)
    Stage 2: 770 mph (77 miles in 6 minutes)
    Stage 3: 17,500 mph (achieved in 2.75 minutes) an acceleration of nearly 372,000 m/h^2
Try again! You miles are miles of altitude not distance travelled so so calculations are meaningless!
Maybe you should get your data right from  the "horse's mouth" and read "TITLE APOLLO / SATURN V POST FLIGHT TRAJECTORY - AS - 505".

Quote from: cikljamas
Questions:
A. Why does the rocket slow down between stages 1 and 2? I would expect it to pick up speed if it were powered by thrust because
It doesn't "slow down between stages 1 and 2"!
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/34ex61hy3bt40uk/Figure%203-5%20Velocity%20vs%20Range%20Time.jpg?dl=1)

Quote from: cikljamas
    a. the thinner atmosphere reduces wind resistance
    b. it is now lighter, having discarded stage 1
    c. the pull of gravity against it's climb is reduced the higher it goes
    d. ...what is the point of stage 2 if does not increase the speed of the rocket?


B. How does stage 3 accelerate at such a tremendous rate without
    a. killing the astronauts?
    b. ripping apart the capsule?
It doesn't "accelerate at such a tremendous rate"!
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ekh1pswhbl5u620/Figure%203-6%20Acceleration%20vs%20Range%20Time.jpg?dl=1)
Note that the acceleration never exceeds about 36 m/s2.

Quote from: cikljamas
5. Goddard's flawed test of the theory of rockets in a vacuum.

Physicist Robert Goddard (for whom the Goddard Space Center is named) was one of the first to claim that rockets would work in the vacuum of space.
And you certainly have not proved Robert Goddard wrong, have you? ;D

Quote from: cikljamas
]
The New York times mocked his ideas in a 1920 editorial.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times/Robert_Goddard

In response Goddard set up the following experiment to prove the NYT wrong:
<< I can't be bothered with more of your twaddle!  >>
I don't put much weight in the words of someone who puts "Photoshopped" images in his videos that try to prove that NASA lies!

You're not very knowledgeable about these rockets are you Mr Cikljamas?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: magellanclavichord on July 25, 2019, 09:39:56 PM
Here's another way to think of it:

A rifle fires a bullet in one direction and the stock of the rifle kicks your shoulder hard (i.e. it pushes you) in the other direction. A molecule of gas is like a teeny tiny bullet that the rocket engine fires out the back, getting a teeny tiny kick in the other direction (forward). A liter of rocket fuel has something like 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules. The Saturn V rocket burned about a million liters of fuel in the first few minutes of flight and every one of those liters was 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 teeny tiny little bullets fired out the back, each giving its teeny tiny rifle "kick."

Instead of thinking of it as a gas, think of it as a shitload of little bullets. Gas seems like "just air" but it's really a lot of hard, solid, chunks, each with some mass and momentum.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: magellanclavichord on July 25, 2019, 09:53:29 PM
The amateur radio record for 10 Ghz EME was recently broken,  some guys bounced a 10Ghz signal off the moon and established 2 way contact between New Zealand and England.   That was with 10 watts,  and a 1 meter diameter dish.

That's very impressive!
It is very impressive but is helped by there being very little atmospheric path loss - far less that between distant points on earth.

Quote from: magellanclavichord
What mode were they using? CW? I once worked Perth from the middle of the U.S. on 10 Mhz CW with a dipole and 80 watts input. This would have been some time around the early 1980's. EME with 10 watts, even on 10 Ghz, is really impressive.
You used a dipole with a gain of no more than 2 dB but the EME link could use 2 or 3 m dishes with gains in the 45 to 48 dB region.

So, what mode did they use? I quit actively doing ham radio about the time the first digital modes were just starting to appear on the amateur bands. So CW, with its very narrow bandwidth, seems like the obvious choice to me, but I don't know if one of the digital modes would work better.
I had a lot of references on it but haven't tracked them down yet.

This possibly has most: Moonbounce on a Budget By Bob DeVarney W1ICW, Winter 2013. (http://www.hamclass.net/ranv/moonbounce.pdf)

Thanks for that link. So hams were doing moonbounce more than a decade before I was a ham myself. I'm going to guess that back then CW would have been the mode used, just because it requires so much less power. But one page in that link talking about more recent times refers to digital modes.

The antennas in those pictures are humongous!!! I used to envy people who had a three-element yagi on a tower. Those things boggle the mind. I'm not surprised they could do moonbounce on 2,000 watts input with those antennas back in the day, on ten or fifteen meters.

I thought I heard of moonbounce back then, but until reading that article I thought I was misremembering. I remember when the ARRL put up the first (I think it was the first) amateur radio satellite. But I never had any interest in that myself. I talked to the locals on two-meter FM and I worked the HF bands on CW.

These days for EME it's mostly digital modes,  QRA64D JT4 and such  see https://www.physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/wsjtx.html  for more details if you are interested.

Like I said, the digital modes came along mostly after my time. It's amazing that they could and can do that, and those antennas are crazy. But the technical details would go right over my head. I was a CW man, and I kind of felt it was cheating when a few guys programmed their Radio Shack Color Computers to send code. Of course, the old landline telegraphers probably thought my iambic keyer was cheating. I had a bug, and I could use it, but only the landline men wanted to hear it. Once it was just typing on a keyboard and reading the reply on your screen it didn't even seem like ham radio to me.

Sorry for the digression. I haven't been on ham radio in 25 years. Still keep my license current. Not really sure why. Nostalgia for my callsign I guess, and not wanting to lose it and see it re-assigned to someone else.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: radioflat on July 26, 2019, 12:09:21 AM

A rifle fires a bullet in one direction and the stock of the rifle kicks your shoulder hard (i.e. it pushes you) in the other direction. A molecule of gas is like a teeny tiny bullet that the rocket engine fires out the back, getting a teeny tiny kick in the other direction (forward). A liter of rocket fuel has something like 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules. The Saturn V rocket burned about a million liters of fuel in the first few minutes of flight and every one of those liters was 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 teeny tiny little bullets fired out the back, each giving its teeny tiny rifle "kick."

Instead of thinking of it as a gas, think of it as a shitload of little bullets. Gas seems like "just air" but it's really a lot of hard, solid, chunks, each with some mass and momentum.

Hmm - that's just what I said in my post #213 above!
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: rabinoz on July 26, 2019, 12:59:42 AM

A rifle fires a bullet in one direction and the stock of the rifle kicks your shoulder hard (i.e. it pushes you) in the other direction. A molecule of gas is like a teeny tiny bullet that the rocket engine fires out the back, getting a teeny tiny kick in the other direction (forward). A liter of rocket fuel has something like 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules. The Saturn V rocket burned about a million liters of fuel in the first few minutes of flight and every one of those liters was 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 teeny tiny little bullets fired out the back, each giving its teeny tiny rifle "kick."

Instead of thinking of it as a gas, think of it as a shitload of little bullets. Gas seems like "just air" but it's really a lot of hard, solid, chunks, each with some mass and momentum.

Hmm - that's just what I said in my post #213 above!
And it's very like the second answer in:
Quote
Physics Stack Exchange: Rocket/Thrust/Gas/Free Expansion of Gas (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/91789/rocket-thrust-gas-free-expansion-of-gas)
When you're considering the properties of gases there are often two ways to look at the problem. The first is to use the continuum approximation leading to the usual laws like Boyle's law, Charles' law etc. The second is to treat the gas as many tiny particles (i.e. the gas atoms/molecules) and use Newtonian mechanics. In this case I think the second way is to understand what's going on.
And goes on with nice diagrams.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Romp on July 26, 2019, 05:01:49 AM
EDIT: Even if you could make people forget or discard the Moon landing,
it wouldn't make Moon any closer than it actually is:
more or less around 380 000 km from Earth.

Who says it would?

I can understand your frustration that caused your reaction like this, but changing the past is impossible.
Deal with it.

Reaction like this? What reaction? I am perfectly calm, cool and steady, and in this perfect stability of my mind i tell you : You are nothing else than infamous NASA shill. So, you are right : changing the past is impossible, that is to say NASA liars will always be remembered as one of the greatest rascals in the history of this insane world. Deal with it (with your infamous NASA-nutthead reputation).

2. Astronauts who were at the Moon also were adult when they went there, mission control who sent them were also all adults.
    None of them see it as your "fairytale" either.
    Some astronauts also installed the retro-reflectors on the Moon that are still in use today.
No retro-reflector mirrors are needed to have been placed on the Moon to reflect back signals to Earth.

National Geographic Vol. 130 No. 6 December 1966

'The Lasers Bright Magic' by Thomas Meloy

Page 876
"Four years ago (1962) a ruby laser considerably smaller than those now available, shot a series of pulses at the Moon, 240000 miles away. The beams illuminated a spot less than two miles in diameter, and were reflected back to Earth with enough strength to be measured by ultra sensitive electronic equipment."

1. My point is that my personal experience saves me from being convinced into some incorrect "need of billions of Watts to reach Moon".

At 5min in this video you will stumble upon the answer to your stupidity :


3. Your attempt to declare it "illness" (or whatever you believe could "discredit it") is based on
    your bias / strong desire to delete the Moon landing reality from the history and the list of facts.

The moon landing hoax has been deleted from the history of alleged facts long time ago.

This is one of the best illustrations how obvious and brazen liars you NASA shills really are :




So where's the actual evidence that the moon landings are a hoax?

What you are doing repeating and posting the usual conjecture based on ill informed opinion along the lines of 'doesn't look right, 'seems funny',
'they didn't have computers on board fallacy', 'flag waving in the breeze fallacy', 'could never replicate the Saturn V fallacy', 'I could never imagine that happening fallacy', etc., etc., All of which is based upon lack of knowledge and a misunderstanding of the science.

In the past, although I didn't doubt the moon landing, I myself thought some of the questioning seemed interesting so I looked in to them. And in each and every case, the answer was obvious. The supposed flag waving in the breeze for instance. Nah, it's from the initial movement by the astronauts.

Of course there are those who know it's not a hoax but cash in on it for profit from the gullible.

But where's the actual evidence of a hoax? In this age of Wikileaks, hacking, cybercrime, whistleblowers, etc., etc., you'd have thought there would be a mass of it by now.

Not for instance the usual misinterprations of film footage and research by Youtube.

Where are the memo's, agreements for signing off the whole hoax to be maintained over the 50 years, plans and scripts for the hoax, invoices for payments, studios were it was filmed, props, retakes of fluffed footage, etc., etc., etc.,

Given the numbers of people involved and the decades it's meant to have been maintained there would have been a mass of hard evidence. But there isn't.

Unless of course it's all in the secret base beneath a volcano somewhere guarded by goons, as in a James Bond film. Which we all know is unlikely.

All those involved wouldn't have been working for free and they wouldn't have been winging it after being told the plan verbally in some secret room deep in NASA HQ in the early 60's. There would have been project and task plans. But there's nothing. Nada, нічого, ничего, rien, 何もない ……….. you get the drift.

And as one pundit opined, those who believe in conspiracy theories of any size, have never run a project with more than a few people involved.

Posting yet more videos by those who think they know (and they just know it's a hoax because well, for instance, the grey isn't the right shade in the Appollo footage sort of evidence) or blogposts by those who have a mangled and misunderstood grasp of the science and technology involved isn't evidence.

Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 26, 2019, 07:58:18 AM
1. Here are my two cents about rocket propulsion - a line of reasoning using NASA's own data. As you will notice, I am not even mentioning the question of vacuum - only of ever-decreasing air pressure with increasing altitudes - something I trust we can all agree about.

(https://i.postimg.cc/7L112934/HOW-HIGH-CAN-ROCKET-FLY.jpg)

Source of graphics used for above diagram:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine

NOTE : interesting tidbits from that Wiki article:

"Rockets become progressively more underexpanded as they gain altitude."

and...

"The shape of the plume varies from the design altitude, at high altitude all rockets are grossly under-expanded, and a quite small percentage of exhaust gases actually end up expanding forwards".

2. THE MAGDEBURG HEMISPHERES experiment (1654)

Back in 1654, Otto Von Guericke, the inventor of the air pump (to simulate vacuum on Earth) performed a spectacular experiment. He had 16 horses trying to pull apart (in vain) two empty hemispheres held together only by the force of vacuum:

(https://i.postimg.cc/nVdLLmQP/EXPERIMENT.jpg)

QUOTE - from a scientific CERN article:

"By this experiment he demonstrated that it is impossible to pull the two halves apart against the air pressure, even by using 2 X 8 horses (the counter-pressure by air in the interior of the sphere is missing). During this time, it became clear that we are living on the bottom of a huge ocean of air and that the mass of the atmosphere corresponds to a pressure of about 1kg per cm² or 10 tons on an area of 1m². The reason why we don’t feel anything of this tremendous pressure is simply that there is the same pressure inside our body." http://www.cientificosaficionados.com/libros/CERN/vacio1-CERN.pdf

Indeed, folks: we are living on the bottom of a huge ocean of air - and that is something we all tend to forget. Imagine that: "10 tons on an area of 1m²". Pretty heavy stuff, huh? Draw a big breath of air and you'll feel it! Of course, this air surrounding us (our atmosphere) has a certain density. And so has, for instance, water. And so has vacuum. So let's take a look at this table, at present. I have highlighted in blue the densities which are of interest to us right now:

(https://i.postimg.cc/q795wjY5/DENSITY-TABLE.jpg)

As you can readily see, the two densities that NASA's rockets supposedly traverse as they rise up to the skies are hugely different.

(Just to put all this into perspective, on the other side of the spectrum we see that a "black hole" - considered by scientists as the highest imaginable pressure known to mankind - is 10 ^+27. In other words, one could say that the density gap/difference between VACUUM <vs> AIR is almost as large as the difference between WATER <vs> "BLACK HOLES". Food for thought, anyway.)

Now, remember: NASA tells us that their rockets perform below max efficiency at sea level, at optimal efficiency somewhat higher in the atmosphere (as the rocket pressure equalizes with the external air pressure) and then start losing efficiency again as they ascend into ever thinner air. Note: NASA says so - not me. http://www.septclues.com/SPACE_STATION/RocketExpansionDiagram1.jpg

But the BIG question is: just HOW MUCH power would a rocket lose as it enters into near-vacuum?

Well, consider this: no honest scientists will deny that, when opening a valve between two containers (one containing air at high pressure - and the other only vacuum) the pressures in the two containers will equalize in a fraction of a second, the vacuum container 'sucking' the air to itself with tremendous, almost explosive force. (see the above density figures to understand why.)

Imagine now the high pressure emitted by any rocket from its (always open) nozzle. As it enters the vacuum of outer space, the very same - almost explosively rapid - pressure equalization is bound to occur. The rocket will be emptied of all of its pressurized fuel in a flash - by the overwhelmingly superior power of the vacuum itself. No matter how powerful the rocket (propelled by any fuel known to man / and designed to perform in our 0,001 atmosphere) - the very laws of physics will not allow it to ascend any further into the void of space. It will haplessly tumble back to Earth.

This insurmountable 'little problem' may have been understood back in the heydays of early rocket research - thus paving the way for the ridiculous NASA circus and its clowns to take over and --explore- exploit outer space ... financially.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 26, 2019, 08:43:46 AM
VACUUM MEETS AIR :


Vacuum meets air. They tend to equalize very quickly.

Imagine if the air in that lab was pressurized like the fuel in a rocket tank.

I'm afraid I'll have to cite Newton's Third Law once again. Sorry, folks - I know... you've heard this one before!
"When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to that of the first body."

Perhaps Newton's third law should have specified (and highlighted the importance of) the relative masses of the two bodies involved. The bodies need to be of equal mass in order for the "equal in magnitude" part of this law to be true. Or perhaps Newton DID specify that - but NASA has simply decided to ignore this crucial part and are happy to use the above, less-than-accurate phrase in the hope of getting away with their stratospheric lies. But let's get on.

Now, NASA denies that their rockets' propulsion has anything to do with any sort of interaction between their rockets' exhaust-thrust and air/atmosphere. Instead, they appeal to Newton's third law, saying that the exhausts of their rockets push on their own fuel/tank itself - and THAT is where and how the action/reaction occurs. They often compare this with the recoil of a bullet being fired by a shotgun. Of course, this is nonsense. A bullet has very little mass in comparison to a rifle and the man holding the rifle. For example, a bullet fired from an M16 rifle has approx 1763 Joules of kinetic energy as it leaves the muzzle, but the recoil energy exerted on the gun is less than 7 Joules. We may intuitively - and without resorting to complex equations - imagine that "recoil power" alone would not allow a given mass of rocket exhaust to lift a 100.000kg vessel from the ground - let alone propel it at supersonic speeds.

To attain the so-called escape velocity of 8km/s with "recoil power" only, this is what NASA's rockets would have to do: they'd have to shoot out from behind their rockets, all at once (like a bullet from a gun) a mass equal to the mass of the vessel itself - at a velocity of 8km/s. This means that, if this were to be the case (that rockets move due to "recoil action/reaction")- more than half of any rocket's fuel mass would have to be ejected at that speed - as illustrated in this diagram:

(https://i.postimg.cc/j5QkT9Rn/NEWTON-NASA-1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/g04ZPqfk/NEWTON-NASA-2.jpg)

Of course, this is not the case - and would be quite impossible to do. Yet, this is basically how NASA 'explains' how their spacecrafts are propelled through air and vacuum. Please note that I have respectfully observed Newton's Third Law in my above diagram. I think our poor friend Isaac is rolling and howling in his grave - seeing how NASA is abusing / distorting his laws in order to fool the world. Sadly, most people seem to keep buying into their shameless skullduggery.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: radioflat on July 26, 2019, 08:51:30 AM
You deliberately obfuscate the issue... The energy comes from the combustion of the fuel and it's impulse ('push') that propels...
A small (ish) mass (gas) ejected wih GREAT energy has enough 'push' to propel the vehicle forward at high speed...

Duh!
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: magellanclavichord on July 26, 2019, 08:56:35 AM

A rifle fires a bullet in one direction and the stock of the rifle kicks your shoulder hard (i.e. it pushes you) in the other direction. A molecule of gas is like a teeny tiny bullet that the rocket engine fires out the back, getting a teeny tiny kick in the other direction (forward). A liter of rocket fuel has something like 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules. The Saturn V rocket burned about a million liters of fuel in the first few minutes of flight and every one of those liters was 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 teeny tiny little bullets fired out the back, each giving its teeny tiny rifle "kick."

Instead of thinking of it as a gas, think of it as a shitload of little bullets. Gas seems like "just air" but it's really a lot of hard, solid, chunks, each with some mass and momentum.

Hmm - that's just what I said in my post #213 above!

I just thought that maybe I could put it into words that would make the rifle/bullet analogy easier to understand. Some folks here have a hard time grasping the concept that a gas is made up of small pieces of "solid" stuff.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Tommyocean on July 26, 2019, 09:02:59 AM
1. Here are my two cents about rocket propulsion - a line of reasoning using NASA's own data. As you will notice, I am not even mentioning the question of vacuum - only of ever-decreasing air pressure with increasing altitudes - something I trust we can all agree about.

(https://i.postimg.cc/7L112934/HOW-HIGH-CAN-ROCKET-FLY.jpg)

Source of graphics used for above diagram:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine

NOTE : interesting tidbits from that Wiki article:

"Rockets become progressively more underexpanded as they gain altitude."

and...

"The shape of the plume varies from the design altitude, at high altitude all rockets are grossly under-expanded, and a quite small percentage of exhaust gases actually end up expanding forwards".

2. THE MAGDEBURG HEMISPHERES experiment (1654)

Back in 1654, Otto Von Guericke, the inventor of the air pump (to simulate vacuum on Earth) performed a spectacular experiment. He had 16 horses trying to pull apart (in vain) two empty hemispheres held together only by the force of vacuum:

(https://i.postimg.cc/nVdLLmQP/EXPERIMENT.jpg)

QUOTE - from a scientific CERN article:

"By this experiment he demonstrated that it is impossible to pull the two halves apart against the air pressure, even by using 2 X 8 horses (the counter-pressure by air in the interior of the sphere is missing). During this time, it became clear that we are living on the bottom of a huge ocean of air and that the mass of the atmosphere corresponds to a pressure of about 1kg per cm² or 10 tons on an area of 1m². The reason why we don’t feel anything of this tremendous pressure is simply that there is the same pressure inside our body." http://www.cientificosaficionados.com/libros/CERN/vacio1-CERN.pdf

Indeed, folks: we are living on the bottom of a huge ocean of air - and that is something we all tend to forget. Imagine that: "10 tons on an area of 1m²". Pretty heavy stuff, huh? Draw a big breath of air and you'll feel it! Of course, this air surrounding us (our atmosphere) has a certain density. And so has, for instance, water. And so has vacuum. So let's take a look at this table, at present. I have highlighted in blue the densities which are of interest to us right now:

(https://i.postimg.cc/q795wjY5/DENSITY-TABLE.jpg)

As you can readily see, the two densities that NASA's rockets supposedly traverse as they rise up to the skies are hugely different.

(Just to put all this into perspective, on the other side of the spectrum we see that a "black hole" - considered by scientists as the highest imaginable pressure known to mankind - is 10 ^+27. In other words, one could say that the density gap/difference between VACUUM <vs> AIR is almost as large as the difference between WATER <vs> "BLACK HOLES". Food for thought, anyway.)

Now, remember: NASA tells us that their rockets perform below max efficiency at sea level, at optimal efficiency somewhat higher in the atmosphere (as the rocket pressure equalizes with the external air pressure) and then start losing efficiency again as they ascend into ever thinner air. Note: NASA says so - not me. http://www.septclues.com/SPACE_STATION/RocketExpansionDiagram1.jpg

But the BIG question is: just HOW MUCH power would a rocket lose as it enters into near-vacuum?

Well, consider this: no honest scientists will deny that, when opening a valve between two containers (one containing air at high pressure - and the other only vacuum) the pressures in the two containers will equalize in a fraction of a second, the vacuum container 'sucking' the air to itself with tremendous, almost explosive force. (see the above density figures to understand why.)

Imagine now the high pressure emitted by any rocket from its (always open) nozzle. As it enters the vacuum of outer space, the very same - almost explosively rapid - pressure equalization is bound to occur. The rocket will be emptied of all of its pressurized fuel in a flash - by the overwhelmingly superior power of the vacuum itself. No matter how powerful the rocket (propelled by any fuel known to man / and designed to perform in our 0,001 atmosphere) - the very laws of physics will not allow it to ascend any further into the void of space. It will haplessly tumble back to Earth.

This insurmountable 'little problem' may have been understood back in the heydays of early rocket research - thus paving the way for the ridiculous NASA circus and its clowns to take over and --explore- exploit outer space ... financially.

Rocket engines create thrust by pumping fuel into a combustion chamber where it burns and expands rapidly.  This is where the pressure comes from, not pressurized fuel tanks.   Yes, the combustion chamber is "always open" but the fuel tanks are not.  The rate of fuel consumption is controlled by valves and the turbo pump.   Also, a vacuum is not a "force"  It is the absence of force such as air pressure. 
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Unconvinced on July 26, 2019, 09:18:16 AM

Well, consider this: no honest scientists will deny that, when opening a valve between two containers (one containing air at high pressure - and the other only vacuum) the pressures in the two containers will equalize in a fraction of a second, the vacuum container 'sucking' the air to itself with tremendous, almost explosive force. (see the above density figures to understand why.)

Yes they will.

There’s a limit to how fast gas can equalize through an office.  It’s called throttling.  It’s why I currently have a slow puncture on my bike tire.  The air inside can’t equalize with the atmosphere fast enough to make it completely unusable.

It’s the same with vacuums.  In fact for most engineering applications, we only care about pressure difference (gauge pressure), not absolute pressure.  5 bar to 1 bar is very often no practical difference from 4 bar to 0 bar.

You seem to ascribe almost mythical powers to the awesomeness of vacuums, but they’re not really all that special (aside from being a bit of a pain to create on Earth).

Quote
Imagine now the high pressure emitted by any rocket from its (always open) nozzle. As it enters the vacuum of outer space, the very same - almost explosively rapid - pressure equalization is bound to occur. The rocket will be emptied of all of its pressurized fuel in a flash - by the overwhelmingly superior power of the vacuum itself. No matter how powerful the rocket (propelled by any fuel known to man / and designed to perform in our 0,001 atmosphere) - the very laws of physics will not allow it to ascend any further into the void of space. It will haplessly tumble back to Earth.

No.  Why would it?

Aside from aforementioned throttling from the combustion chamber through the nozzle, fuel in the tanks is not exposed to vacuum.  It has to be pumped into the chamber.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Romp on July 26, 2019, 10:15:38 AM
1. Here are my two cents about rocket propulsion - a line of reasoning using NASA's own data. As you will notice, I am not even mentioning the question of vacuum - only of ever-decreasing air pressure with increasing altitudes - something I trust we can all agree about.

(https://i.postimg.cc/7L112934/HOW-HIGH-CAN-ROCKET-FLY.jpg)

Source of graphics used for above diagram:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine

NOTE : interesting tidbits from that Wiki article:

"Rockets become progressively more underexpanded as they gain altitude."

and...

"The shape of the plume varies from the design altitude, at high altitude all rockets are grossly under-expanded, and a quite small percentage of exhaust gases actually end up expanding forwards".

2. THE MAGDEBURG HEMISPHERES experiment (1654)

Back in 1654, Otto Von Guericke, the inventor of the air pump (to simulate vacuum on Earth) performed a spectacular experiment. He had 16 horses trying to pull apart (in vain) two empty hemispheres held together only by the force of vacuum:

(https://i.postimg.cc/nVdLLmQP/EXPERIMENT.jpg)

QUOTE - from a scientific CERN article:

"By this experiment he demonstrated that it is impossible to pull the two halves apart against the air pressure, even by using 2 X 8 horses (the counter-pressure by air in the interior of the sphere is missing). During this time, it became clear that we are living on the bottom of a huge ocean of air and that the mass of the atmosphere corresponds to a pressure of about 1kg per cm² or 10 tons on an area of 1m². The reason why we don’t feel anything of this tremendous pressure is simply that there is the same pressure inside our body." http://www.cientificosaficionados.com/libros/CERN/vacio1-CERN.pdf

Indeed, folks: we are living on the bottom of a huge ocean of air - and that is something we all tend to forget. Imagine that: "10 tons on an area of 1m²". Pretty heavy stuff, huh? Draw a big breath of air and you'll feel it! Of course, this air surrounding us (our atmosphere) has a certain density. And so has, for instance, water. And so has vacuum. So let's take a look at this table, at present. I have highlighted in blue the densities which are of interest to us right now:

(https://i.postimg.cc/q795wjY5/DENSITY-TABLE.jpg)

As you can readily see, the two densities that NASA's rockets supposedly traverse as they rise up to the skies are hugely different.

(Just to put all this into perspective, on the other side of the spectrum we see that a "black hole" - considered by scientists as the highest imaginable pressure known to mankind - is 10 ^+27. In other words, one could say that the density gap/difference between VACUUM <vs> AIR is almost as large as the difference between WATER <vs> "BLACK HOLES". Food for thought, anyway.)

Now, remember: NASA tells us that their rockets perform below max efficiency at sea level, at optimal efficiency somewhat higher in the atmosphere (as the rocket pressure equalizes with the external air pressure) and then start losing efficiency again as they ascend into ever thinner air. Note: NASA says so - not me. http://www.septclues.com/SPACE_STATION/RocketExpansionDiagram1.jpg

But the BIG question is: just HOW MUCH power would a rocket lose as it enters into near-vacuum?

Well, consider this: no honest scientists will deny that, when opening a valve between two containers (one containing air at high pressure - and the other only vacuum) the pressures in the two containers will equalize in a fraction of a second, the vacuum container 'sucking' the air to itself with tremendous, almost explosive force. (see the above density figures to understand why.)

Imagine now the high pressure emitted by any rocket from its (always open) nozzle. As it enters the vacuum of outer space, the very same - almost explosively rapid - pressure equalization is bound to occur. The rocket will be emptied of all of its pressurized fuel in a flash - by the overwhelmingly superior power of the vacuum itself. No matter how powerful the rocket (propelled by any fuel known to man / and designed to perform in our 0,001 atmosphere) - the very laws of physics will not allow it to ascend any further into the void of space. It will haplessly tumble back to Earth.

This insurmountable 'little problem' may have been understood back in the heydays of early rocket research - thus paving the way for the ridiculous NASA circus and its clowns to take over and --explore- exploit outer space ... financially.

Interesting. But where's the actual evidence of a hoax and the planning for it?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Crutchwater on July 26, 2019, 11:07:47 AM
Without reading 9 pages of the same thing over and over, have we gotten to the "springboard" physics lesson yet?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: JerkFace on July 26, 2019, 11:54:56 AM
Without reading 9 pages of the same thing over and over, have we gotten to the "springboard" physics lesson yet?

Maybe we should ask Heiwa to join the discussion... 

Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Themightykabool on July 26, 2019, 11:59:05 AM

A rifle fires a bullet in one direction and the stock of the rifle kicks your shoulder hard (i.e. it pushes you) in the other direction. A molecule of gas is like a teeny tiny bullet that the rocket engine fires out the back, getting a teeny tiny kick in the other direction (forward). A liter of rocket fuel has something like 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules. The Saturn V rocket burned about a million liters of fuel in the first few minutes of flight and every one of those liters was 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 teeny tiny little bullets fired out the back, each giving its teeny tiny rifle "kick."

Instead of thinking of it as a gas, think of it as a shitload of little bullets. Gas seems like "just air" but it's really a lot of hard, solid, chunks, each with some mass and momentum.

Hmm - that's just what I said in my post #213 above!

I just thought that maybe I could put it into words that would make the rifle/bullet analogy easier to understand. Some folks here have a hard time grasping the concept that a gas is made up of small pieces of "solid" stuff.

what about grasping concepts that the earth is a ball?
i have a hard time grasping the concept that people can figure out a bunch of math, go to space, look at the earth, and be mistaken that it's a flat plate.
or maybe the hard time is grasping why someone would think the above.
would be nice if that person could put it into words, easier to understand.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 26, 2019, 01:22:55 PM


Rocket graveyard

Pritchett explained that his company had permits from the state of Florida to explore seven areas off the coast of Cape Canaveral, where the wrecks were found — an area littered with debris from rocket test launches at the U.S. Air Force base at Cape Canaveral, southeast of NASA's Kennedy Space Center.

"We've found hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of U.S. Air Force rockets that they were testing from 1948 forwards, and also shrimp boats, airplane engines, airplanes, " Pritchett said.

"We have found some of the actual rocket engines, and lots of rocket tubes — some of these things are 30, 40 feet long," he said. "Some are sticking halfway out on the surface, or sticking straight up out of the sand — there are literally thousands of them out there. We GPS and photograph everything we find, and we turn that stuff over to the U.S. Air Force, because one day, it will be valuable to someone for a historical reason."
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Stash on July 26, 2019, 01:44:52 PM


Rocket graveyard

Pritchett explained that his company had permits from the state of Florida to explore seven areas off the coast of Cape Canaveral, where the wrecks were found — an area littered with debris from rocket test launches at the U.S. Air Force base at Cape Canaveral, southeast of NASA's Kennedy Space Center.

"We've found hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of U.S. Air Force rockets that they were testing from 1948 forwards, and also shrimp boats, airplane engines, airplanes, " Pritchett said.

"We have found some of the actual rocket engines, and lots of rocket tubes — some of these things are 30, 40 feet long," he said. "Some are sticking halfway out on the surface, or sticking straight up out of the sand — there are literally thousands of them out there. We GPS and photograph everything we find, and we turn that stuff over to the U.S. Air Force, because one day, it will be valuable to someone for a historical reason."

Ummm, yeah, and...

A rocket boneyard of testing rockets since 1948....oooo...mysteries abound. Seriously? This is evidence of what exactly? NASA has been lying to us and telling us they've been launching shrimp boats into space for the past 70 years when in actuality, they all landed in the ocean?

And geez, what is with you people? Do you understand why rockets slated for space arc? Understand what you are arguing against before you make up arguments about stuff you have no knowledge of.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 26, 2019, 01:56:22 PM
It is interesting to note that De Forest, inventor of the Audion (a vacuum tube that takes relatively weak electrical signals and amplifies them) was a space travel skeptic while, on the other hand, firmly believed that transoceanic television would be possible with "the skillful location of relay stations" and by taking advantage of the waves reflected by the ionosphere. In other words - without the need for launching costly telecommunication satellites into orbit...

(https://i.postimg.cc/MG4nk0DR/DE-FOREST-SPACE-TRAVEL-IS-IMPOSSIBLE.jpg)

Perhaps unsurprisingly, for all his achievements and in spite of being considered in his time as "the father of radio and television", De Forest never rose to international fame and died relatively poor, with just $1,250 in his bank account. Here's just how important his vacuum tube invention https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/jpatos19&div=62&id=&page=
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Stash on July 26, 2019, 02:14:24 PM
It is interesting to note that De Forest, inventor of the Audion (a vacuum tube that takes relatively weak electrical signals and amplifies them) was a space travel skeptic while, on the other hand, firmly believed that transoceanic television would be possible with "the skillful location of relay stations" and by taking advantage of the waves reflected by the ionosphere. In other words - without the need for launching costly telecommunication satellites into orbit...

(https://i.postimg.cc/MG4nk0DR/DE-FOREST-SPACE-TRAVEL-IS-IMPOSSIBLE.jpg)

Perhaps unsurprisingly, for all his achievements and in spite of being considered in his time as "the father of radio and television", De Forest never rose to international fame and died relatively poor, with just $1,250 in his bank account. Here's just how important his vacuum tube invention https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/jpatos19&div=62&id=&page=

I also didn't think 25 years ago that today I could sit at my desk and with a few mouse clicks purchase a hand-blown glass bong from a craftsman in Malaysia and have it with free two day shipping land at my front door in time for the weekend. It's called 'progress'.

You are not making a point at all.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: radioflat on July 26, 2019, 02:38:39 PM
It is interesting to note that De Forest, inventor of the Audion (a vacuum tube that takes relatively weak electrical signals and amplifies them) was a space travel skeptic while, on the other hand, firmly believed that transoceanic television would be possible with "the skillful location of relay stations" and by taking advantage of the waves reflected by the ionosphere. In other words - without the need for launching costly telecommunication satellites into orbit...

(https://i.postimg.cc/MG4nk0DR/DE-FOREST-SPACE-TRAVEL-IS-IMPOSSIBLE.jpg)

Perhaps unsurprisingly, for all his achievements and in spite of being considered in his time as "the father of radio and television", De Forest never rose to international fame and died relatively poor, with just $1,250 in his bank account. Here's just how important his vacuum tube invention https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/jpatos19&div=62&id=&page=

And - what's the relevance of this? History of Science is all very interesting, but it is of no significance to the operation of rockets!
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Sunset on July 26, 2019, 03:00:33 PM
Who was Dr Lee De Forest? Oh, he invented the vacuum tube.

Was he already suffering dementia in 1957, blinded by his own self importance with his own invention, or misquoted by the press? If nothing else, he was certainly a self declared conservative, and likely not much of a visionary outside his field of expertise.

Just 4 years after this newspaper article, Yuri Gargarin journeyed into space and completed one full orbit of the earth.

How did Dr Lee De Forest pass away? Did he choke on his own words? ;D
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: magellanclavichord on July 26, 2019, 03:02:07 PM
Rocket graveyard

Pritchett explained that his company had permits from the state of Florida to explore seven areas off the coast of Cape Canaveral, where the wrecks were found — an area littered with debris from rocket test launches at the U.S. Air Force base at Cape Canaveral, southeast of NASA's Kennedy Space Center.

"We've found hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of U.S. Air Force rockets that they were testing from 1948 forwards, and also shrimp boats, airplane engines, airplanes, " Pritchett said.

"We have found some of the actual rocket engines, and lots of rocket tubes — some of these things are 30, 40 feet long," he said. "Some are sticking halfway out on the surface, or sticking straight up out of the sand — there are literally thousands of them out there. We GPS and photograph everything we find, and we turn that stuff over to the U.S. Air Force, because one day, it will be valuable to someone for a historical reason."

Yes: Before SpaceX started making booster stages that could land and be re-used, all rocket booster stages were jettisoned and allowed to drop into the ocean when their fuel was exhausted and their work was done. Even the Space Shuttle had booster rockets fastened to the sides, and these were jettisoned and dropped into the sea when they were done. The sea floor is littered with these booster stages. (I hope none of those shrimp boats were sunk by falling booster rockets! I think they warned boats to stay out of the area where the rockets would fall.)

And of course, if we're going back to 1948, there were a lot of failed tests, so there'd also be some whole rockets and/or bits of rockets that exploded or were detonated intentionally.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Crutchwater on July 26, 2019, 03:02:45 PM


Rocket graveyard

Pritchett explained that his company had permits from the state of Florida to explore seven areas off the coast of Cape Canaveral, where the wrecks were found — an area littered with debris from rocket test launches at the U.S. Air Force base at Cape Canaveral, southeast of NASA's Kennedy Space Center.

"We've found hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of U.S. Air Force rockets that they were testing from 1948 forwards, and also shrimp boats, airplane engines, airplanes, " Pritchett said.

"We have found some of the actual rocket engines, and lots of rocket tubes — some of these things are 30, 40 feet long," he said. "Some are sticking halfway out on the surface, or sticking straight up out of the sand — there are literally thousands of them out there. We GPS and photograph everything we find, and we turn that stuff over to the U.S. Air Force, because one day, it will be valuable to someone for a historical reason."

Ummm, yeah, and...

A rocket boneyard of testing rockets since 1948....oooo...mysteries abound. Seriously? This is evidence of what exactly? NASA has been lying to us and telling us they've been launching shrimp boats into space for the past 70 years when in actuality, they all landed in the ocean?

And geez, what is with you people? Do you understand why rockets slated for space arc? Understand what you are arguing against before you make up arguments about stuff you have no knowledge of.


Perhaps they were failed attempts to launch Moonshramp boats?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: JackBlack on July 26, 2019, 03:35:29 PM
I notice you still avoid my very simple question like the plauge:
What force is acting on the gas to accelerate it out of the back of the rocket and what is the second body involved in this?
Without some force, the gas needs to remain inside the rocket.

As you will notice, I am not even mentioning the question of vacuum - only of ever-decreasing air pressure with increasing altitudes - something I trust we can all agree about.
And you extrapolate based upon what?
You also need to focus on a vacuum, because you can't drop the pressure below 0.
The main driving force in the under-expanded regime is the pressure differential between the exhaust gas and the ambient environment.

If your exhaust gas is at 100 bar, and the ambient environment is 1 bar, that is a 99 bar driving force.
However if your exhaust gas is at 1 bar and the ambient environment is a perfect vacuum it is only a 1 bar driving force.

I also notice that this image source you use has no mention of NASA at all, so how did you determine what NASA says?

It is called under-expansion because the rocket exhaust has not yet fully expanded by the time it leaves the nozzle.
So under expansion is appropriate.

The reasons the altitudes are unspecified is because they vary depending upon the nozzle.
So in order to say very high altitudes will be a problem, you need to know what altitude the nozzle was made for, and what the effect of the pressure differential will be.
As such, your extrapolation is completely baseless.

And again, you keep jumping between so many different topics.
Are you really that incapable of defending your claims in one particular area?

Well, consider this: no honest scientists will deny that, when opening a valve between two containers (one containing air at high pressure - and the other only vacuum) the pressures in the two containers will equalize in a fraction of a second, the vacuum container 'sucking' the air to itself with tremendous, almost explosive force. (see the above density figures to understand why.)
Stop lying. No honest scientist would ever say that.
Many pressure control systems are based upon opening up valves for a fraction of a second or even longer and allowing some gas to transfer between the 2 containers.
One of the simplest regulators is a spring loaded valve where the force on the spring determines what pressure differential is required to push open the valve, which will then allow some gas through until the pressure differential drops below a critical level and the valve closes.

If what you are saying was true all our pressure based system would be completely useless.

The speed at which it will equalise depend on a multitude of factors, with keys ones being the pressure differential, the connection between the 2, and the amount of gas that needs to flow.

If you have a very large amount of gas that needs to flow through a small opening, with a small pressure differential it will take quite some time.

Imagine now the high pressure emitted by any rocket from its (always open) nozzle. As it enters the vacuum of outer space, the very same - almost explosively rapid - pressure equalization is bound to occur.
Sure "explosively rapid", with the rocket being pushed away by this explosion.

I'm afraid I'll have to cite Newton's Third Law once again.
No, that is what we have been citing repeatedly and you have been ignoring/avoiding repeatedly.

Newton's third law demands that either rockets work in a vacuum or that you can magically contain gas in a container, even with an opening in the container.

Perhaps Newton's third law should have specified (and highlighted the importance of) the relative masses of the two bodies involved. The bodies need to be of equal mass in order for the "equal in magnitude" part of this law to be true.
Pure BS.
The relative masses of the 2 bodies are irrelevant when it comes to Newton's third law.
The forces need to be equal in magnitude and opposite in direction or magically generate forces from nothing.

The mass is important in Newton's second law, F=ma.

The acceleration due to the force will depend upon the mass, and  you can write it like this:
a1*m1=-a2*m2.

So if you have a large object and a small object, then the small object will be accelerated a lot while the large object does not accelerate significantly.
This is used with bullets and with rockets.
The bullet and rocket exhaust exist at very high velocities.

But lets focus on the mass shall we?
The rocket used for the Moon was a Saturn V.
It's first stage has a total mass of 2 290 000 kg.
But only 130 000 kg of that was the empty mass, that leaves 2 160 000 kg of fuel.

The total mass of the Saturn V was roughly 3 000 000 kg.
That means over 2/3 rds of that was used in the 1st stage as fuel, being shot out the back at a very high velocity.

So the comparison to a gun firing a bullet is somewhat inaccurate, as the majority of the mass is in the fuel.

To attain the so-called escape velocity of 8km/s with "recoil power" only, this is what NASA's rockets would have to do: they'd have to shoot out from behind their rockets, all at once (like a bullet from a gun) a mass equal to the mass of the vessel itself - at a velocity of 8km/s.
Please note that I have respectfully observed Newton's Third Law in my above diagram.
While you observed Newton's third law in your diagram, the argument completely rejects it.

That argument only applies if they want to actually have it reach that velocity all at once, which would kill everyone inside.
Instead, what they want to do is have it reach the required velocity over a period of time.
All that requires is providing enough force to overcome gravity and start accelerating the rocket, with that force acting for long enough to achieve the required velocity.

In order to Newton's third law you would need to accept that the gas leaving the rocket needs to accelerate the rocket.

It is interesting to note that ... was a space travel skeptic
No it isn't.
Did he provide any basis for his claim?
No.
Was he a rocket scientist?
No.
Why should what he thinks be interesting to the discussion at all?
He provided no rational argument to back up his claim. Instead all he did was dismiss it.

Without reading 9 pages of the same thing over and over, have we gotten to the "springboard" physics lesson yet?

No, that's skepti.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Romp on July 26, 2019, 04:23:44 PM
It is interesting to note that De Forest, inventor of the Audion (a vacuum tube that takes relatively weak electrical signals and amplifies them) was a space travel skeptic while, on the other hand, firmly believed that transoceanic television would be possible with "the skillful location of relay stations" and by taking advantage of the waves reflected by the ionosphere. In other words - without the need for launching costly telecommunication satellites into orbit...

(https://i.postimg.cc/MG4nk0DR/DE-FOREST-SPACE-TRAVEL-IS-IMPOSSIBLE.jpg)

Perhaps unsurprisingly, for all his achievements and in spite of being considered in his time as "the father of radio and television", De Forest never rose to international fame and died relatively poor, with just $1,250 in his bank account. Here's just how important his vacuum tube invention https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/jpatos19&div=62&id=&page=

Why are you using a quote from an electronics expert to bolster your claim that rockets can’t work in a vacuum. His field was not rocketry.

So where is the actual evidence culled from NASA’s or the US Govt’s archives that the moon landings were planned and carried out as a hoax?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: rabinoz on July 26, 2019, 04:25:17 PM
<< I want a response as to why you use "Photoshopped photos".  I'll tackle your post elsewhere.  >>
Please explain your source of these photos that you use to attempt to prove that NASA lies!
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/kj5aohud8gu7lrs/How%20would%20earth%20look%20from%20the%20moon.jpg?dl=1)
How would earth look from the moon by cikljamas
The inset in the lower right is obviously a composite of two NASA photos. This "photo":
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/j0v58fzlrmhqhtj/Earth%20from%20Moon%2C%20odiupicku%20%235.jpg?dl=1)
Photoshopped "Earth from Moon", by odiupicku

Then at 5:56 in that video I find the following image which I know is a composite of two NASA photos. This "photo":
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/gitimar1o14xf6s/How%20would%20earth%20look%20from%20the%20moon%20%28Faked%29.jpg?dl=1)
Of course the light comes from different directions! That is not a genuine NASA photo.

Now, Mr Cikljamas, either YOU show me the originals of those photos in the official NASA archives or admit to your deception.

If you are going to accuse NASA of lying that you should use genuine NASA photos and not ones "Photoshopped" to look obviously wrong!

Your response and apology would be greatly appreciated!
I thought you admitted your mistakes?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: markjo on July 26, 2019, 05:35:08 PM
Without reading 9 pages of the same thing over and over, have we gotten to the "springboard" physics lesson yet?

Maybe we should ask Heiwa to join the discussion...
When Joule-Thomson was invoked, I thought that Papa Legba was back.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: magellanclavichord on July 26, 2019, 07:17:27 PM
I think the moon hoax people have beans in their ears.


Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: rabinoz on July 26, 2019, 07:50:30 PM
VACUUM MEETS AIR :


Vacuum meets air. They tend to equalize very quickly.

Imagine if the air in that lab was pressurized like the fuel in a rocket tank.

Totally irrelevant because, as you been told before, the "fuel in a rocket tank" does meet a vacuum!
How many times must it be hammered into you that the fuel and oxidiser flows into the combustion chamber are controlled by the pumps and valves?

The combustion chamber might be "open to the vacuum of space" when rocket engine is not running.
But when at full thrust the pressure in the Rocketdyne F-1 combustion chamber was about 7 MPa (about 1015 psi). That is far, far from being a vacuum.

This isolation from the vacuum outside is because of the converging-diverging  (de Laval) nozzle. You might read up on its properties sometime!
This very important component:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/4av33343j02gfbt/Computational%20Analysis%20of%20Bell%20Nozzles%20Fig%201.jpg?dl=1)

You don't understand much about rocket engines, do you, Mr Cikljamas?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: rabinoz on July 26, 2019, 07:55:42 PM
Rabinoz, feel free to scrutinize (with your analytic mind) this APOLLO conundrum :
I see no answer in that to
<< Some response thank you! >>
Why have you used "Photoshopped" images in your videos?
See HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum) « Reply #215 on: Today at 10:10:07 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2190550#msg2190550).

I thought you admitted you mistakes!
Why have you used "Photoshopped" images in your videos?
An answer, thank you!
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Themightykabool on July 26, 2019, 08:18:18 PM
I think the moon hoax people have beans in their ears.



What type of beans would a person have to have if they saw the earth from afar and mistakenly thought it round?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: rabinoz on July 26, 2019, 11:18:15 PM
1. Here are my two cents about rocket propulsion - a line of reasoning using NASA's own data. As you will notice, I am not even mentioning the question of vacuum - only of ever-decreasing air pressure with increasing altitudes - something I trust we can all agree about.
If you are such an expert why haven't you offered your services to the space-industry and made a fortune?
But I would suggest that you really haven't the slightest understanding of this and this post proves that!

Before doing that read up on the topic in ROCKET PROPULSION Supplement #1: Rocket Nozzle Design: Optimizing Expansion for Maximum Thrust (http://www.braeunig.us/space/sup1.htm)

Quote from: cikljamas
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/g2r6pdrvibthpnc/HOW-HIGH-CAN-ROCKET-FLY%20Head.jpg?dl=1)
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/jkfbh1h8es9k5yr/HOW-HIGH-CAN-ROCKET-FLY%20-%20Fig%201.jpg?dl=1)
Get this straight!
For optimal efficiency (it's never 100%) the exhaust bell on a rocket engine can be designed for any given external pressure.
But since the one engine will be used from near sea-level to possibly 100 km it cannot be optimum for all air pressures.
So a compromise is used and a bell to throat area ratio, or expansion ratio, is selected.
If the bell is too large for the air pressure the gas flow can become unstable and can sometimes destroy the engine.
As a result an overexpansion of more thst 30% at sea-level is usually avoided.

Quote from: cikljamas
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/sbeq3gu839mhlt1/HOW-HIGH-CAN-ROCKET-FLY%20-%20Fig%202.jpg?dl=1)
As a result of the above this optimal performance will be met at only one altitude but the penalty for using the non-optimal expansion ratio is not very great.

The thrust of a rocket engine is given by: F = q × Ve + (Pe - Pa) × Ae where:
F = Thrust; q = Propellant mass flow rate; Ve = Velocity of exhaust gases;
Pe = Pressure at nozzle exit: Pa = Ambient pressure: Ae = Area of nozzle exit


Quote from: cikljamas
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/icue2oaifsanl5d/HOW-HIGH-CAN-ROCKET-FLY%20-%20Fig%203.jpg?dl=1)
Yes, if the rocket bell is under-expanded  the bell can be made larger which reduces the exhaust pressure but increases the exhaust velocity and increases the thrust.

Quote from: cikljamas
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/l8f45mktk81ttw8/HOW-HIGH-CAN-ROCKET-FLY%20-%20Fig%204.jpg?dl=1)
Here is where your total ignorance comes to the fore! You imagined critical "zenith" is classic cikljamas stupidity!

Please do not try any "assumed logical extensions" unless you know what you are talking about! And you don't!

All the happens is that the exhaust fans out wide, which is easily observed, and the rocket the rocket thrust increases a little.
But it does not increase quite as much as could be achieved with a larger bell.

The larger bell soon becomes too large for the rocket body so practical expansion ratios are us usually around 9 and 16.
Have a look at: SpaceX has two versions of the Merlin engine, sea level and vacuum. (https://www.quora.com/SpaceX-has-two-versions-of-the-Merlin-engine-sea-level-and-vacuum-What-are-the-big-differences-and-why)

Quote from: cikljamas
Source of graphics used for above diagram:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine

NOTE : interesting tidbits from that Wiki article:

"Rockets become progressively more underexpanded as they gain altitude."
So and why is that a problem? Please explain! You obviously have no understanding of rocket thrust do you?
Quote from: cikljamas
and...

"The shape of the plume varies from the design altitude, at high altitude all rockets are grossly under-expanded, and a quite small percentage of exhaust gases actually end up expanding forwards".
And why is that a problem? No thrust is gained from exhaust gases "expanding forwards"!
The thrust is mainly from the momentum of the exhaust gases with a little from the pressure difference.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 27, 2019, 04:45:41 AM
So, how many more times are you going to put forward this kind of stupid questions : why is that problem, so what is the importance of this, what is the importance of that? What a funny parrots you are...

Rabinoz, what is the importance of this :

Tom Bishop says :

It clearly says the following on NASA's website.

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s1ch2.htm

"The crew checked out the spacecraft, and, after approximately three hours in Earth orbit, the Saturn IV-B stage was fired for approximately five minutes to accelerate the spacecraft to an Earth-gravity escape velocity of 40 233 km/hr (25 000 mph) to begin its 370 149 km (230 000 mile) coast to the moon. Following the translunar injection maneuver, the Apollo spacecraft was separated from the Saturn IV-B stage."

https://images.nasa.gov/details-0100983.html

"The S-IVB restarted to speed the Apollo spacecraft to escape velocity injecting it and the astronauts into a moon trajectory."

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/50-years-ago-the-journey-to-the-moon-begins

"Two hours and 44 minutes after liftoff, the third stage engine ignited for the six-minute TLI burn, increasing the spacecraft’s velocity to more than 24,000 miles per hour, enough to escape Earth’s gravity."

Apollo 15 Flight Journal https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap15fj/03tde.html

The stack is 40 metres long and 6.6 metres at its widest, weighing over 65 metric tonnes; not an insubstantial load to have propelled away from Earth at escape velocity.

Popular mechanics:

Instead, the remaining structure continued to orbit Earth until a "go/no-go" decision was made by Mission Control in Houston. At that time, the third-stage rocket, technically known as an S-IVB, reignited and achieved "translunar injection." Once escape velocity, the speed needed to overcome Earth's gravity, or 24,500 mph, was achieved, the S-IVB was discarded as well.

...

They are clearly claiming to reach escape velocity of the Earth's gravity to inject into a trans lunar orbit. In order to reach escape velocity, it must be done in relation to the center of the earth.

Escape Velocity has only to do with the speed away from the center of the earth, not any particular method of application.

It is just how we are taught about Escape Velocity. Look at this page from Georgia State:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vesc.html

(https://i.imgur.com/WmwN1tj.png)

Disregarding any and all applications which any space agency claims to use, how would you describe this image if you had to put it into a sentence?

One way to phrase it is that the object needs to go straight up, or away from the earth, at 7 miles per second. It is simply what needs to be done. A description of Escape Velocity as commonly taught and nothing more. I can change the "straight up" in the sentence to "away from the earth" if it makes it more clear.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: JackBlack on July 27, 2019, 05:16:16 AM
So, how many more times are you going to put forward this kind of stupid questions
If that is addressed to me, there is nothing stupid about it.
How many more times are you going to avoid this damning question?

Again, you have 3 options:
Either rockets work in space,
Gasses can be magically contained with nothing,
The laws of physics are wrong.

Which will it be?

What force is forcing the gas out of the rocket and what is the other body involved?

You now seem to put forward quite a lot of text, without saying much.
Just what do you think the issue is?
The closest I can find is this:

Escape Velocity has only to do with the speed away from the center of the earth, not any particular method of application.
Actually, it is just velocity relative to Earth. Direction isn't important.
If it is not directly away and you are at escape velocity you will enter a parabolic orbit, any faster and it will be an hyperbolic orbit.

Also, as an additional caveat, they weren't actually escaping the gravity of Earth. Just going to the moon, which is still in Earth's gravity well.

Another important thing to note with escape velocity is that it is dependent on altitude.

Disregarding any and all applications which any space agency claims to use, how would you describe this image if you had to put it into a sentence?
I would say something along the lines of:
If the kinetic energy of an object were equal in magnitude to its gravitational potential energy, then in the absence of friction it could escape from Earth.

If only there were text in the picture to help you determine the author's intent...
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: rabinoz on July 27, 2019, 05:34:42 AM
So, how many more times are you going to put forward this kind of stupid questions : why is that problem, so what is the importance of this, what is the importance of that? What a funny parrots you are...

Rabinoz, what is the importance of this :
Answered in:
The far more important issues are:
  • The usually quoted escape velocity, be it from earth or higher, assumed that no further thrust will be applied.

    It is quite feasible to escape from the earth by first achieving Low Earth Orbit and then applying a small continuous thrust.
  • When a single large thrust is applied to escape the direction does not matter as long as the craft does not impinge on the atmosphere or worse impact the planetary body:
    (https://www.dropbox.com/s/btroyd2ohfsktq3/CalcTool%20Escape%20velocity%20Calculator.jpg?dl=1)
    From: CalcTool: Escape velocity Calculator (http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/astronomy/escape_velocity)
The escape velocity does not have to be directly away from centre of the earth. It can and usually is a tangential velocity.
And "Note that a powered object may escape the gravity of a body at any velocity desired.".

You might also do a "Google search" on the "Isaac Newton cannonball escape velocity calculations" that Tom Bishop alludes to.

Why should I waste more of my time answering your question when you have accused JackBlack of dishonesty yet you have you used "Photoshopped" images in your videos?

That sounds like complete hypocrisy to me. If you don't know what I mean I'll happily explain it to everyone again.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I see no answer in that to
<< Some response thank you! >>
Why have you used "Photoshopped" images in your videos?
See HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum) « Reply #215 on: Today at 10:10:07 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2190550#msg2190550).

I thought you admitted you mistakes!
Why have you used "Photoshopped" images in your videos?
An answer, thank you!

Then you completely ignore this that took quite a time to prepare: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum) « Reply #269 on: Today at 04:18:15 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2191000#msg2191000)
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 27, 2019, 06:40:12 AM
Jack, Rabinoz, and co., all you have to do is to put Tom Bishop's argument (Escape Velocity a.k.a. Flight Direction : Strictly Away from the center of the Earth) in this particular perspective :

DANSITY TABLE :
(https://i.postimg.cc/q795wjY5/DENSITY-TABLE.jpg)

As you can readily see, the two densities that NASA's rockets supposedly traverse as they rise up to the skies are hugely different.

(Just to put all this into perspective, on the other side of the spectrum we see that a "black hole" - considered by scientists as the highest imaginable pressure known to mankind - is 10 ^+27. In other words, one could say that the density gap/difference between VACUUM <vs> AIR is almost as large as the difference between WATER <vs> "BLACK HOLES". Food for thought, anyway.)

Now, remember: NASA tells us that their rockets perform below max efficiency at sea level, at optimal efficiency somewhat higher in the atmosphere (as the rocket pressure equalizes with the external air pressure) and then start losing efficiency again as they ascend into ever thinner air. Note: NASA says so - not me.

- A rocket rising through the atmosphere will nicely proceed upwards in its escape from gravity - as long as certain conditions are maintained: the relative pressures at the rocket's nozzle and the outside atmosphere need to be as equal as possible, in order to obtain maximum 'mileage' / efficiency from the rocket's fuel.

- In fact, NASA clearly states that the optimal running conditions of their rockets occur only ONCE, at a certain unspecified (mid-range) altitude, when the above-mentioned pressures are identical. This, in perfect accordance with Newton's 3d law - what with its notion of "equal and opposite forces". Clearly, these rockets are designed to work best in our earthly atmosphere - and the atmospheric pressure IS in fact "the equal and opposite force" which the rocket thrust pushes against. To deny this fact is pure, outlandish and deceptive NASA hogwash-babble. Ironically, it is NASA itself that claims that their rockets work BEST when those two pressures are equal !

- Aerodynamic drag will of course be a factor in the equation, yet only a minor one - given the pencil-shaped, streamlined vessel. As the atmosphere pressure thins out with altitude, some more speed will probably be gained (out of a given power output) - but this fact would, obviously, have no incidence whatsoever in alleviating the forces needed for the weight of the rocket to escape the pull of gravity.

- Now, as we have previously seen, the atmospheric density range which our spacebound rocket is supposed to operate in, spans from a pressure of 0,001 (the average air density in our atmosphere) to a staggeringly inferior pressure of 0,000000000000000000000001 (the density of space vacuum). Thus, as the rocket climbs ever higher, it will have to exponentially increase its output/thrust (and, of course, its fuel consumption), in order to keep going - and combating the pull of gravity which, contrary to public belief, does NOT decrease exponentially with altitude.

- The rocket (at a given, high altitude which I cannot pretend to calculate precisely) will eventually be overpowered by the force of the exponentially decreasing outside pressure, its fuel being sucked out into the infinite 'vacuum of space' at stratospheric rate/speed - and faster than you can say "Houston-we-have-a-prob...---". Much like a champagne bottle popping its cork here on Earth (due to a minimal pressure difference), the rocket fuel will flush out with explosive force. Moreover, this force will expand in ALL directions (a bit like the diffused spray of your garden waterhose nozzle set on 'broad, soft mode') and provide little or no thrust. The rocket, from there on, will be doomed - and plunge back to Earth.

And for those willing to argue that NASA may have found a way to 'pinch' their rocket nozzles, so that the fuel doesn't get sucked out in a flash : well, you can always open a champagne bottle with great care, making the force inside it fizzle slowly out in the atmosphere. But such a subdued, impotent fizzle would hardly provide the necessary energy to propel a rocket away from Earth's gravity, would it?

Only a pinched fart would produce the same amount of 'power'(odor-power, in this case) as a vigorously expelled bowel-gas sample. We all know that much!


Now, NASA denies that their rockets' propulsion has anything to do with any sort of interaction between their rockets' exhaust-thrust and air/atmosphere. Instead, they appeal to Newton's third law, saying that the exhausts of their rockets push on their own fuel/tank itself - and THAT is where and how the action/reaction occurs. They often compare this with the recoil of a bullet being fired by a shotgun. Of course, this is nonsense. A bullet has very little mass in comparison to a rifle and the man holding the rifle. For example, a bullet fired from an M16 rifle has approx 1763 Joules of kinetic energy as it leaves the muzzle, but the recoil energy exerted on the gun is less than 7 Joules. We may intuitively - and without resorting to complex equations - imagine that "recoil power" alone would not allow a given mass of rocket exhaust to lift a 100.000kg vessel from the ground - let alone propel it at supersonic speeds.

To attain the so-called escape velocity of 8km/s with "recoil power" only, this is what NASA's rockets would have to do: they'd have to shoot out from behind their rockets, all at once (like a bullet from a gun) a mass equal to the mass of the vessel itself - at a velocity of 8km/s. This means that, if this were to be the case (that rockets move due to "recoil action/reaction")- more than half of any rocket's fuel mass would have to be ejected at that speed - as illustrated in this diagram:

(https://i.postimg.cc/j5QkT9Rn/NEWTON-NASA-1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/g04ZPqfk/NEWTON-NASA-2.jpg)

Of course, this is not the case - and would be quite impossible to do. Yet, this is basically how NASA 'explains' how their spacecrafts are propelled through air and vacuum. Please note that I have respectfully observed Newton's Third Law in my above diagram. I think our poor friend Isaac is rolling and howling in his grave - seeing how NASA is abusing / distorting his laws in order to fool the world. Sadly, most people seem to keep buying into their shameless skullduggery.

DO YOU NOTICE AN ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM :

There is a synergy (combined deadly effects (inconsistencies)) of three HUGE problems here :

1. Contrary to known rocket's trajectories, they need to end up going seven miles per second away from the center of gravity (center of gravity = center of the earth)! (see the first post on this page : reply #270)

2. As the rocket climbs ever higher, it will have to exponentially increase its output/thrust (and, of course, its fuel consumption), in order to keep going - and combating the pull of gravity which, contrary to public belief, does NOT decrease exponentially with altitude.

3. To attain the so-called escape velocity of 8km/s with "recoil power" only, this is what NASA's rockets would have to do: they'd have to shoot out from behind their rockets, all at once (like a bullet from a gun) a mass equal to the mass of the vessel itself - at a velocity of 8km/s. This means that, if this were to be the case (that rockets move due to "recoil action/reaction")- more than half of any rocket's fuel mass would have to be ejected at that speed.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Unconvinced on July 27, 2019, 06:42:32 AM
So, how many more times are you going to put forward this kind of stupid questions : why is that problem, so what is the importance of this, what is the importance of that? What a funny parrots you are...

Probably about as many times as you keep repeating the same thing in different colours and increasing font size.  The disagreement isn’t that no one has read what you wrote, it’s that you are just wrong.

Maybe we are “parrots”, but we are parroting the basic physics used by scientists and engineers, not just for rocket design, but all fluid and thermodynamic systems- car engines, aeroplane wings, power station turbines, refrigeration, etc, etc.  They all work using the same fundamental physics.

If you are genuinely interested in how this all works, I strongly recommend you stop getting your physics from fellow conspiracy theorists who are just trying to find some reason to say it doesn’t work, and buy a fluid dynamics text book.

Quote
Rabinoz, what is the importance of this :

Tom Bishop says :

<snip>

Good question.  I asked Tom if he had a point behind quoting escape velocity on the thread this came from.  He didn’t answer.  Do you know what he’s getting at?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 27, 2019, 06:51:02 AM
Rabinoz, feel free to scrutinize (with your analytic mind) this APOLLO conundrum :

James Donaghy 2 years ago
@odiupicku Good job. Here's the thing though,  there is a much more obvious problem with apollo- the heat.
It's such an obvious problem that it is amazing that it has been overlooked for so long. We all know the story of Icarus, but does everyone know the story of Leonov? He is the original spacewalker. He said, "It was so hot I thought I was frightened i was going to die."
Leonov is one of the bravest creatures on this planet which is partly why he was picked for this work.
So how does NASA explain his account of the incredible heat of the sun? They say he entered an awning feet first instead of head first and became so flustered that his monitors registered a dangerously high body temperature because he was such a woss. 
And there's more; if you get a black belt in astrophysics you can explain effortlessly how the sun isn't hot because of the low air pressure in space. In our advanced institutes there are paussies of top notch professors climbing over each other to take credit for reasons why Icarus would have had no feather problems if only he'd managed to get higher and with some breathing apparatus because the sun isn't hot once you reach space. Of course his wings wouldn't work either, but that's not the point.
For 50 years we have been told by those who know more than we, that the sun is cold in space, sorry, I just had to repeat that.
For more see my 5 minute presentation here:


Now put James Donaghy's words into broader ( perspective :


Well, it is indeed Fantasy the lot :

According to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/ (http://Apollo Lunar Surface Journal https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/), for Apollo 12, values given for cabin pressure are 4.8 psi, and for normal operating suit pressure, 3.8 psi. This suggests a pure oxygen environment for the Lunar Module.

For Apollo 11, 12, & 14, during EVA preparation, the suit relative pressures were 4.6 to 5.2 psi when the LM cabin pressure was 3.5 psi, giving suit absolute pressures of 8.1 to 8.7 psi pure oxygen.  At earth's atmospheric pressure of 14.7 psi, this correlates to 55% to 60% oxygen content, which gives an oxygen partial pressure of 8.1 to 8.7 psi.

According to the Apollo 12 ALSJ, the suits were already difficult to bend at 3.8 psi relative pressure (when the LM cabin pressure was 3.5 psi).  When the suit pressures were at about 4.5 psi relative pressure, the suits were very stiff.

The following quotes are from a March 11, 1968 Aviation Week & Space Technology article headlined "Flammability Tests Spur Two-Gas Apollo".

"Washington - Decision to use a two-gas atmosphere (60% oxygen, 40% nitrogen) during manned Apollo on-the-pad preparations and in pre-orbital flight reflects a basic inability to make the spacecraft flameproof after 14 months of redesign that cost more than $100 million and added about 2,000 lb. to the system.

"The decision (AW&ST, Mar. 4, p. 21) was forced on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration after three series of flammability tests on an Apollo command module boilerplate failed to satisfy officials that changes would prevent the spread of fire under a pure-oxygen environment."

The article goes on to mention how a 95% oxygen system at 6.2 psi which would be orbital configuration developed problems in fire propagation tests.

Would not there have been serious flammability problems of such an environment in the lunar module? The article concludes:

"By switching to a two-gas system for pre-flight and immediate post-launch activities, NASA is willing to accept an added problem. Astronauts will be breathing pure oxygen during that phase and they will have to vent the spacecraft cabin during boost to orbit and repressurize to 6 psi with oxygen to permit them to remove their helmets and work in relative comfort.

"Possibility of the 40% of nitrogen causing bends if an emergency escape has to be made during the launch phase was considered by officials less hazardous than that of fire propagation in a one-gas system."

A Feb. 6, 1967 article in AW&ST indicates that when the Apollo program was being planned, the primary reason for choosing a 5-psi cabin oxygen system was weight considerations. Added weight (with a two-gas system) would come from a mixture control system to keep the proper gas ratio. Also, introduction of an oxygen-nitrogen or oxygen-helium environmental control system for Apollo would have meant the addition of an airlock.

Just how dangerous was a pure oxygen environment in the ascent and descent lunar module considered to be?

Here on earth, increasing the percentage of oxygen to slightly above 21% dramatically increases probability of fires. According to The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (p. 567) by Barrow and Tipler, "...the probability of a forest fire being started by a lightning-bolt increases 70% for every 1% rise in oxygen concentration above the present 21%. Above 25% very little of the vegetation on land would survive the fires...". "At the present fraction of 21%, fires will not start at more than 15% moisture content. Were the oxygen content to reach 25%, even damp twigs and the grass of a rain forest would ignite."(p. 568).

Ralph René, in his book NASA Mooned America, provides a list of government-sponsored testing that resulted in oxygen fires. René extracted this information from Appendix G in Mission To The Moon by Kennan & Harvey. Here are some tests on that list:

"September 9, 1962 - The first known fire occurred in the Space Cabin Simulator at Brooks Air Force Base in a chamber using 100% oxygen at 5 psi. It was explosive and involved the carbon dioxide scrubber. Both occupants collapsed from smoke inhalation before being rescued."

"November 17, 1962 - Another incident using 100% oxygen at 5 psi in a chamber at the Navy Laboratory (ACEL). There were four occupants in the chamber, but the simple replacing of a burned-out light bulb caused their clothes to catch on fire. They escaped in 40 seconds but all suffered burns. Two were seriously injured. In addition an asbestos 'safety' blanket caught fire and burned causing one man's hand to catch fire."

"April 28, 1966 - More Apollo equipment was destroyed as it was being tested under 100% oxygen and 5 psi at the Apollo Environmental Control System in Torrance, CA."

"January 1, 1967 - The last known test was over three weeks before Grissom, Chaffee & White suffered immolation. Two men were handling 16 rabbits in a chamber of 100% oxygen at 7.2 psi at Brooks Air Force Base and all living things died in the inferno. The cause may have been as simple as a static discharge from a rabbit's fur ... but we'll never know."

NASA subjected Grissom, White and Chaffee to over 90% pure oxygen at over 16 psi in a test with live electrical circuits and switches being thrown, and with a hatch that took more than three minutes to open, resulting in the fatal Apollo 1 fire.

Bill Kaysing, in his book We Never Went To The Moon, states, in Chapter 9 titled "Murder By Negligence On Pad 34", "If any two documents lend credibility to the contention that the Apollo flights were faked, they are most certainly the Baron Report and the Phillips Report. They were authored by two men of obvious integrity and dedication. Although from diverse backgrounds, both Tom Baron and Sam Phillips were in total agreement on one basic premise, i.e., that North American Aviation and its sponsor, NASA, were totally unequal to the task of assuring even one successful flight to the moon!"

DO YOU NOTICE AN ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM :

There is a deadly synergy of these two moments :

1. Leonov testimony (temperature problem) : Leonov said, "It was so hot I thought I was frightened i was going to die." Leonov is one of the bravest creatures on this planet which is partly why he was picked for this work. So how does NASA explain his account of the incredible heat of the sun?

2. Would not there have been serious flammability problems of such an environment in the lunar module? Just how dangerous was a pure oxygen environment in the ascent and descent lunar module considered to be?

ON TOP OF THAT :

How about the stability of the lunar module in flight. Only a single engine is provided, for both the ascent and descent phases, right in the centre with the potential for a rapidly shifting centre of gravity to be off considerably from the thrust vector due to the design.  Shifting centre of gravity due to fuel consumption and astronaut movement, and eccentric loading due to weight of rover or moon rocks, would result in an unstable and unbalanced craft.  The ascent and descent modules have a significantly different centre of gravity yet they both use the same four sets of quadruple thrusters, giving different flight characteristics and handling.  How can the quadruple thrusters fire quickly enough and sufficiently enough to counteract a quickly changing and significantly changing thrust vector?  How can the system remain stable and not loop uncontrollably?  The ascent stage engine was not gimballed, and the inherently off-center, large torquing thrust would have to have been constantly and very immediately counteracted by the small, low-thrust, quadruple thrusters.  The craft has good potential to fly like a balloon you let go of and let deflate.  I am currently attempting to obtain actual engineering drawings to perform detailed calculations.

Set of excerpts of "docking" : You must be a genuine idiot so to be unable to recognize obvious fakery in this cheap animation : once again : 100% proof moon landing Hoax in a 1 minute clip :

IN ADDITION :

<< Some response thank you! >>
Why have you used "Photoshopped" images in your videos?
See HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum) « Reply #215 on: Today at 10:10:07 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2190550#msg2190550).

I thought you admitted you mistakes!

What mistakes? Even guys who believe that we landed on the moon admit that there is huge amount of altered (photoshopped) "apollo" images.--- MOON FAKERY - 3 : http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2010/192/moon-fakery-3.htm
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Unconvinced on July 27, 2019, 06:57:13 AM
Jack, Rabinoz, and co., all you have to do is to put Tom Bishop's argument (Escape Velocity a.k.a. Flight Direction : Strictly Away from the center of the Earth) in this particular perspective :

DANSITY TABLE :
(https://i.postimg.cc/q795wjY5/DENSITY-TABLE.jpg)

As you can readily see, the two densities that NASA's rockets supposedly traverse as they rise up to the skies are hugely different.

No!

That’s not how pressure differentials work.  It’s the pressure difference that’s important, not the ratio.

100 bar to 1 bar = pressure drop of 99 bar

100 bar to 0 bar = pressure drop of 100 bar
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 27, 2019, 07:05:18 AM
Apollo was not a hoax, but a straight up con of epic proportions.

Moon landing propaganda is like software code being installed on people's brains. And it's purpose is to utterly warp a person's perception of their reality and their senses, to the point that they are likely to believe all manner of nonsense because once you accept that men have gone to the moon, a feat which I'm not even convinced will ever be within the realms of possibility seeing as there isn't even any evidence the moon is actually this rock in space that humans can fly to and land on, but once you accept this garbage you are much more likely to accept other totally unproven "facts" from these deceivers. Suddenly you have people believing unquestioningly the universe started with a big bang explosion from absolutely nothing that happened 14 billion years ago (impossible to know what happened 50,000 years ago let alone 14 BILLION, talk about total insanity) or that people evolved from bacteria in the ocean, all utter nonsense that can never ever be demonstrated, tested or proven in any way. Just math equations and computer models that are entirely made up. But once a person accepts just one of their mind warping propaganda programs, they inevitably end up believing them all.

I think the apollo missions play a big part in how people form their beliefs about the world and the universe so much so that accepting them as hoax would cause their worldviews to collapse and I don’t think most people today are ready to face that kind of a fundamental change in their lives. It changes everything. The apollo missions are nasa’s way of proving to people that they got all the answers and that everything is the way they claim it is because they’re the only ones that have been out there. Now you have billions of people in the world who believe in them and their doctrine and anyone who disagrees with them is portrayed as an insane paranoid conspiracy theorist. The technique used by narcissists to destroy the credibility of their victims.

Simple OFFICIAL science debunks the moon landing. - It's called Van Allen Belt, the radiation would kill everyone and all electronics. The materials used aluminum, nickel/iron, and titanium would have all melted due to the extreme radiation and temperatures.
How could they survive the radiation and high temperature, WITH THAT SUITE. i think that a bunch of fan could never handle that, cause that (include all things on back pack) will broken and become unusable on such a hot temperatures...Just how... is it calculated to know the temperature on the moon? Being the moon is some 1/4 million miles away? The temps calculated for the earth are not always accurate, let-alone to tell us the temps on the moons surface are such.  Are they shooting a beam to the moon such as one checking the temp of his steak on the grill? A 1/4 million miles away. Forgive—a thermometer was stuck in the soil upon arrival.

Our measurments show that the maximum radiation level as of 1958 is equivalent to between 10 and 100 roentgens per hour, depending on the still-undetermined proportion of protons to electrons. Since a human being exposed for two days to even 10 roentgens would have only an even chance of survival, the radiation belts obviously present an obstacle to space flight. Unless some practical way can be found to shield space-travelers against the effects of the radiation, manned space rockets can best take off through the radiation-free zone over the poles. A "space station" must orbit below 400 miles or beyond 30 000 miles from the earth. We are now planning a satellite flight that will test the efficacy of various methods of shielding. The hazard of space-travelers may not even end even when they have passed the terrestrial radiation belts... James Van Allen

In1986 I was a 2nd Lt. and a newly minted, USAF officer and aviator, flying C-130s. One of my first operational missions was to fly some troops to Andrews AFB. We stayed in D.C. for two days. On one day, we wemt to the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum. When I saw the LEM and especially when I saw the lunar rover exhibit, a life size mock-up, I told one of my crewmates, another 2nd Lt., copilot, that this is b.s., no way they landed the LEM with that rover. After seeing that exhibit, I started questioning the veracity of the lunar landings. Most professional aviators do not have the balls to even question the lunar missions, let alone say that they were fake. Look at 911, any active aviator who questions 911 will be grounded. Few will say a thing when they know the Pentagon strike was a virtual impossibility. John Basilone

Blazing Saddles, Boyz in the Hood, Star Wars, and Back to the Future are just a few of the hundreds of films collected in the Library of Congress. But we’re to believe NASA can’t preserve the telemetry data from the moon missions. Hahahahahah!!!
Don’t get me wrong. Those are all great films but I believe the significance of the moon data  may be just a tad bit more important. I guess it’s hard to hold on to something that never existed.

"The only bird who can talk is the Parrot and he didn't fly very well.. There are great ideas left undiscovered to those who can peel away one of truths most protective layers."
- Neil Armstrong --------- Don't be a parrot people..

- YOU ONLY NEED TO PROVE ONE OF THEM TO BE THE SAME PERSON TO PROVE THE THEORY :


- When the first crew who landed on the moon did a world tour ,they presented the Dutch premier with a piece of moon rock ,,,when he died a few years ago the university of Utrecht in Holland did some experiments on what they thought was moon rock ,,and it was found to be worthless petrified wood ,,?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html

ROCKETS CAN'T FLY IN A VACUUM 1 :


ROCKETS CAN'T FLY IN A VACUUM 2 :


COMBUSTION IS IMPOSSIBLE IN A VACUUM :



I crack  up sometimes while watching these evaluations as I suddenly realize how the "brains" behind the moon fake could never have anticipated the way we can scrutinize and study these clips. Further, it must be painful for any living astronauts to see their lies repeated in endless loops on youtube. Their fakery shall live in infamy. lol and God help me, but Buzz is just sooo campy. I never tire of his shenanigans, esp the latest while Trump was speaking. Do you think Trump was trolling Buzz? I like to think so!

The specific thing that lead me to entertain that it's all a hoax is that when I would watch atronots being interviewed on tv; what immediately struck me;was that they didn't look or sound intelligent. But as my mind would be telling me something doesn't add up;it's as if another message immediately started playing about how asteonots are the "creme of the crop", highly educated, intelligent, carefully selected" So my initial instinct would be over ridden by that brainwashed thought, and I would continue watching the interviews.

What is funny to me is that grown 40 year old men and women look back at the movies they watch in the movies when they were little and laugh now of how fake they look now as much as they looked so real when they were little. But those same people look at footage of a film that was made 15 or 20 years before they were even conceived and swear on their children that it is a real event and indeed took place on the surface of the moon.

If some robot like Jesus would walk on the Moon in sandals, wrapped in bed shit and NASA would say that was Jesus,  I am sure millions would believe it.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Unconvinced on July 27, 2019, 07:19:10 AM
Apollo was not a hoax, but a straight up con of epic proportions.

Moon landing propaganda is like software code being installed on people's brains. And it's purpose is to utterly warp a person's perception of their reality and their senses, to the point that they are likely to believe all manner of nonsense because once you accept that men have gone to the moon, a feat which I'm not even convinced will ever be within the realms of possibility seeing as there isn't even any evidence the moon is actually this rock in space that humans can fly to and land on, but once you accept this garbage you are much more likely to accept other totally unproven "facts" from these deceivers. Suddenly you have people believing unquestioningly the universe started with a big bang explosion from absolutely nothing that happened 14 billion years ago (impossible to know what happened 50,000 years ago let alone 14 BILLION, talk about total insanity) or that people evolved from bacteria in the ocean, all utter nonsense that can never ever be demonstrated, tested or proven in any way. Just math equations and computer models that are entirely made up. But once a person accepts just one of their mind warping propaganda programs, they inevitably end up believing them all.

I think the apollo missions play a big part in how people form their beliefs about the world and the universe so much so that accepting them as hoax would cause their worldviews to collapse and I don’t think most people today are ready to face that kind of a fundamental change in their lives. It changes everything. The apollo missions are nasa’s way of proving to people that they got all the answers and that everything is the way they claim it is because they’re the only ones that have been out there. Now you have billions of people in the world who believe in them and their doctrine and anyone who disagrees with them is portrayed as an insane paranoid conspiracy theorist. The technique used by narcissists to destroy the credibility of their victims.

Nice rant, but meaningless if you are wrong. 

Quote
Simple OFFICIAL science debunks the moon landing. - It's called Van Allen Belt, the radiation would kill everyone and all electronics. The materials used aluminum, nickel/iron, and titanium would have all melted due to the extreme radiation and temperatures.
How could they survive the radiation and high temperature, WITH THAT SUITE. i think that a bunch of fan could never handle that, cause that (include all things on back pack) will broken and become unusable on such a hot temperatures...Just how... is it calculated to know the temperature on the moon? Being the moon is some 1/4 million miles away? The temps calculated for the earth are not always accurate, let-alone to tell us the temps on the moons surface are such.  Are they shooting a beam to the moon such as one checking the temp of his steak on the grill? A 1/4 million miles away. Forgive—a thermometer was stuck in the soil upon arrival.

Our measurments show that the maximum radiation level as of 1958 is equivalent to between 10 and 100 roentgens per hour, depending on the still-undetermined proportion of protons to electrons. Since a human being exposed for two days to even 10 roentgens would have only an even chance of survival, the radiation belts obviously present an obstacle to space flight. Unless some practical way can be found to shield space-travelers against the effects of the radiation, manned space rockets can best take off through the radiation-free zone over the poles. A "space station" must orbit below 400 miles or beyond 30 000 miles from the earth. We are now planning a satellite flight that will test the efficacy of various methods of shielding. The hazard of space-travelers may not even end even when they have passed the terrestrial radiation belts... James Van Allen

The level of threat to Apollo astronauts has been done to death.  I’m not going to go through that again.

But consider this-  the first readings of radiation levels were taken by the Explorer satellites.  Satellites put in orbit by fucking rockets!  Rockets you don’t believe can do the job.

So you cite “official science” on the Van Allen belts, while simultaneously rejecting the “official science” behind assessing the risk.

Do you really not see a problem with this logic?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 27, 2019, 07:49:45 AM
Do you really not see a problem with this logic?

Do you really not see a problem with a bunch of elephants in your room :

Apart from an elephants in which direction you have been pointed in my two previous posts above, there are quite a few other huge elephants in your room :

For example :

1. Neil Armstrong and especially Michael Collins have pointed out many times that they hadn't been able to see ANY stars from the moon, or from the lunar orbit.

However, Michael Collins wrote on page 221 of "Carrying the Fire" : "My God, the stars are everywhere: above me on all sides, even below me somewhat, down there next to that obscure horizon. The stars are bright and they are steady. Of course I know that a star's twinkle is created by the atmosphere, and I have seen twinkle-less stars before in a planetarium, but this is different, this is no simulation, this is the best view of the universe that a human ever had."?

See the last part of this video : APOLLO - HOAX OF THE CENTURY - part 3 : It's about Michael Collins contradicting himself : During famous Apollo 11 conference he claimed that he wasn't able to see *ANY* star from the lunar orbit...However in his book he claims that he was very able to observe countless stars from earth' orbit...How about that??? You see, this is an example where the same person asserts two totally contradictory claims (in two different occasions)...There is more to it (concerning Michael Collins) :

Michael Collins was designated the navigator for Apollo 11. In his book he lists the 37 navigation stars they were to use, plus their corresponding octal numbers which identified them to the computers. Here's how Michael explains that navigation package:

"The astronaut, peering out through either his telescope or his sextant finds one of the chosen few, superimposes a + on it, and pushes a button at the instant of perfect alignment. He then tells the computer which star it was, by numbers. Repeating this process on a second star allows the computer and the platform to determine which way the spacecraft is pointing. So we now know which way is up? Well, not exactly, because "up" is a rather fragile concept meaning away from the center of the earth, a direction opposite the gravity vector used to clutch us tightly by. But suppose we cannot even see the earth in our window, suppose we are floating free of earth's gravity. What now, M.I.T.? Back to our friendly stars. We simply define a new up-down and left-right, using the stars in place of earth. All will be well as long as we all play the game by the same rules, as long as the ground controllers send us instructions using the same stellar frame of reference. Now we are free of all terrestrial conventions and can correct our course to and from the Moon by pointing in the proper direction relative to the stars."

Someone could say that there is the difference : Michael Collins was able to see the stars by naked eyes from earth's orbit (Gemini), but he wasn't able to see *ANY* star from the lunar orbit...And if someone attempted to claim such a ridiculous claim, then he would have to be able to explain to us this : what would disable Michael Collins to see the stars from the lunar orbit? If there was anything that could obscure the stars while he was in lunar orbit, that very same reason (an obstacle) would disable him to see the stars TO EVEN A GREATER EXTENT while he was in earth's orbit since according to NeilDeGrass Tyson the only reason why we can't see the stars from the earth (during the day) is the presence of earth's atmosphere which is a glow with scattered light from the sun!!! If you take away the atmosphere, the sun will still be there but the sky goes dark! That is what folks get when they get to the edge of the atmosphere, the atmosphere is no longer between you and the rest of the universe and the stars would reveal themselves just as they would at night! Plain and simple!!!

2. Astronutts' blatant mutual contradictions regarding the stars issue and Apollo 13 case :



3. Is the Founder of Modern Rocket Science trying to tell us something?

(http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/assets/img/von-braun/image-06-large.jpg)

Quote
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
Psalm 19:1



4. Some more elephants in your room :


The lunar ascent module engine had a 15000 N (3500 lb) thrust.  The attitude control thrusters for the Apollo C/SM and LM (which had four sets of quadruple thrusters) had 490 N (110 lb) of thrust each. In comparison, the 38 thrusters for shuttle orbit control each have a nominal thrust of 3870 N (880 lb), with a range from 3114 N to 5338 N.  Why is the exhaust visible from the 3870 N shuttle thruster but not from the 15000 N lunar ascent module engine?

It's impossible to find any images or video footage of any visible flame or exhaust coming from any of the four quadruple clusters used for attitude control of the lunar module, or from the main engines of the ascent and descent modules.  However, official NASA artists' drawings do show a considerable amount of flame and exhaust emanating from the main engine :

(https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/images/pao/AS11/10075184.jpg)
(https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/images/pao/AS11/10075186.jpg)

In the films To The Edge And Back covering Apollo 13 and Apollo 13, animation shows the LM main engine emitting a bright flame for the various burns between the earth and the moon.  In Apollo 13, animation shows visible flame from the LM thrusters during SM separation from the CM and LM.

In the 30-minute documentary Houston, We've Got A Problem covering Apollo 13, an image of the service module shows the panel blown off :
(https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/images/pao/AS13/10075514.jpg)

The SM is bright and takes up a good portion of the screen. On the remainder of the screen stars appear to be indistiguishable from debris. Photographs taken from the surface of the moon do not show stars in the sky.

In For All Mankind by the National Geographic Society, astronauts are shown suiting up. In their launch suits, the astronauts do arm exercises and wave to the crowd.  From these scenes the Apollo suits do not appear to have bearings at the joints like the space shuttle extra vehicular suits, which do have bearings at the elbow, shoulder, wrist, hip, knee, and ankle joints.  How were the Apollo astronauts able to bend their joints, especially their finger joints, on the moon if their suits were pressurized?

(https://i.postimg.cc/kXpDfZkz/APOLLO-PRESSURIZED-SUITS.jpg)

Pressurized suits give a rigid balloon-like appearance which the moon astronauts did not appear to have

The For All Mankind video shows the ground when the lunar module is landing.  As dust is being kicked up from the main engine, a dark shadow of the module appears.  The ground in the lunar module shadow does not show any reflection or brightness from any main engine exhaust flame.

Why were there were no emergencies or problems from the temperature extremes of -100 to -150 degrees Fahrenheit to +215F?  A study paper for a proposed moonbase uses a noon-time worst case of 375 K (102 C, or 215 F) for a lunar surface temperature.

In For All Mankind, ground control announced that the temperature in the shade was -100 to -150 degrees Fahrenheit.  Were the batteries of the lunar rover in the shade, and if so, how were they protected against these temperature extremes?

At temperatures less than -40F (-40C) a lot of materials start becoming very brittle. Electrical items do not work as well.  Batteries produce less current.  The extreme temperature variations from shadow to sunlight would cause significant material contraction and expansion and would make equipment breakdown and failure very likely.

Why did the one-sixth gravity cause the astronauts to alternate between hopping and walking?  We all saw many sequences where an astronauts looked like they were flexing their knees pretty good to jump but they did not travel any higher than 40 cm. Why? The astronauts were not hopping any farther than what the typical person could hop here on Earth.

There a number of times in Apollo footage when the astronauts were landing pretty hard on their knees.  Were they not running a huge risk of puncturing their pressurized suits? According to an article in the Dec. 1, 1969 issue of Aviation Week and Space Technology, Apollo mission planners were worried about suit puncture and cutting.

After an Apollo 14 astronaut sets up and lets go of the flag, the flag flutters, is still, and then flutters again.  This may be viewed on the Apollo Interactive CD-ROM by Simitar Entertainment.

HOW MUCH EXTRA ROOM HAS LEFT IN YOUR OVERCROWDED "ROOM"???
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Unconvinced on July 27, 2019, 08:05:11 AM
Do you really not see a problem with this logic?

Do you really not see a problem with a bunch of elephants in your room :

<Gish Gallop>

Sure, change the subject as soon as a claim is challenged and just spam as many arguments already  done to death as possible.

If you’re not going to attempt to answer any of my points, then you clearly have no interest in honest debate. 
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: JackBlack on July 27, 2019, 02:26:31 PM
Jack, Rabinoz, and co., all you have to do is to put Tom Bishop's argument (Escape Velocity a.k.a. Flight Direction : Strictly Away from the center of the Earth) in this particular perspective
No, we don't.
If you want to claim escape velocity requires you to go directly away from Earth, you need to prove it.
The simple version is quite simple:
In a gravity well you have a particular gravitational potential energy, which is negative.
If your kinetic energy is equal in magnitude to this gravitational potential energy, then your total energy is 0 and you can escape.
If your kinetic energy is less than your total energy is less than 0 and you can't escape.
The only way in which directionality is important to escape a gravity well is to make sure you don't hit anything.

As you can readily see, the two densities that NASA's rockets supposedly traverse as they rise up to the skies are hugely different.
You are aware basically nothing of man's has gone into interstellar space?

And again, WHO CARES?
All this means is that there is less resistance to motion higher up.

You are just spouting the same refuted garbage again and again, while ignoring the very simple question which shows it all to be BS.
Your so called elephant in the room is pure fiction.
Meanwhile this very real elephant remains:


WHAT IS CAUSING THE GAS TO MOVE?
It needs a force to be applied to it in order to move.
This force needs to involve an interaction with another body.
This interaction will apply a force to this other body.

So what body is applying this force?

Deal with the reality of rockets working in space before changing the subject.

Either admit they can work in space and that you have been repeatedly lying to everyone or defend your BS.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: rabinoz on July 27, 2019, 02:52:27 PM
Jack, Rabinoz, and co., all you have to do is to put Tom Bishop's argument (Escape Velocity a.k.a. Flight Direction : Strictly Away from the center of the Earth) in this particular perspective:

You dare post accusations like this when you prove your own deception by using "Photoshopped" photos and refusing to even admit to it when pointed out:
I have demonstrated my honesty by admitting (every single time) that i was wrong whenever i noticed a mistake that i had made. However, this simple concept (of admitting your obvious mistakes) is totally strange and incomprehensible to you and to Jack Black. Whenever it comes to my mind to tell you "shame on you", the next thought comes to my mind in a nanosecond : They have no idea what the word "shame" designates, and they have no idea what "a shame" is, because they haven't got a clue what the word "honesty" means.
Now firstly please point out where either JackBlack or I made mistakes we should admit to and then answer why you, yourself, are so deceptive!.

But it would appear that you do not simply "make mistakes" you used at least two obviously "Photoshopped" images in one of the few of your videos I've bothered to watch, the EIFFEL TOWER PROOF:
EIFFEL TOWER PROOF :

It starts with the question, "How would earth look from the moon?" And at 0:30 in that video we find this image:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/kj5aohud8gu7lrs/How%20would%20earth%20look%20from%20the%20moon.jpg?dl=1)
How would earth look from the moon by cikljamas

The inset in the lower right is obviously a composite of two NASA photos.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/j0v58fzlrmhqhtj/Earth%20from%20Moon%2C%20odiupicku%20%235.jpg?dl=1)
Photoshopped "Earth from Moon", by odiupicku
       Then at 5:56 in that video I find the following image which I know is a composite of two NASA photos[/size].
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/gitimar1o14xf6s/How%20would%20earth%20look%20from%20the%20moon%20%28Faked%29.jpg?dl=1)
Of course the light comes from different directions! That is not a genuine NASA photo.

Now, Mr Cikljamas, you have two options either:
You continual ignoring of this just goes to show that you know you are being deceptive in your own videos!

Your response and apology would be greatly appreciated!
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: rabinoz on July 27, 2019, 03:49:20 PM
Jack, Rabinoz, and co., all you have to do is to put Tom Bishop's argument (Escape Velocity a.k.a. Flight Direction : Strictly Away from the center of the Earth) in this particular perspective :
Rubbish! Your "particular perspective" is totally ludicrous as i show below,
Quote from: cikljamas
DANSITY TABLE :
(https://i.postimg.cc/q795wjY5/DENSITY-TABLE.jpg)

As you can readily see, the two densities that NASA's rockets supposedly traverse as they rise up to the skies are hugely different.

(Just to put all this into perspective, on the other side of the spectrum we see that a "black hole" - considered by scientists as the highest imaginable pressure known to mankind - is 10 ^+27. In other words, one could say that the density gap/difference between VACUUM <vs> AIR is almost as large as the difference between WATER <vs> "BLACK HOLES". Food for thought, anyway.)
I am not answering all that in one go but first the total misoperation in you "density table". But why on earth do you use those funny cgs units and not SI units?

First of all your "density gap/difference between VACUUM <vs> AIR is almost as large as the difference between WATER <vs> BLACK HOLES" is total garbage!
"Density differences" are quite irrelevant anyway. It is only "pressure differences" that matter though for gasses they are related.

And it appears that you missed out on arithmetic in school because the difference between two numbers say A and B is A - B and NOT A/B.

It appears that you do not know even the simplest rules of arithmetic!
So the difference between (air density) and the (density of free space)  is simply only 10-3 - 10-24 = 10-3 gm/cm3.

As far as a rocket's performance goes or the stresses involved in pressurising a crew habitat is make little difference if the pressure outside is one hundredth or one trillionth of normal atmospheric pressure.

And it makes you claim "In other words, one could say that the density gap/difference between VACUUM <vs> AIR is almost as large as the difference between WATER <vs> "BLACK HOLES". Food for thought, anyway.)" totally ludicrous!

But the density gap/difference between AIR vs VACUUM is just 1 while the density gap/difference between "BLACK HOLES" vs WATER is 1027 - not in the same "ball-park"!.

That doesn't have the emotional impact of your ridiculous and meaningless 1060, does it?

But you talk of densities rather misses the point! It is external pressure differences that slightly affect the thrust.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 27, 2019, 05:34:47 PM
And it appears that you missed out on arithmetic in school because the difference between two numbers say A and B is A - B and NOT A/B.

It appears that you do not know even the simplest rules of arithmetic!
So the difference between (air density) and the (density of free space)  is simply only 10-3 - 10-24 = 10-3 gm/cm3.

LOL

Rab, isn't it too early (in Australia) to drink so much?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Stash on July 27, 2019, 05:39:54 PM
So after 10 pages of meandering around every conceivable lame and doctored moon landing hoax argument, at the end of the day, it seems to have been shown overwhelmingly that yes, rockets do work in space. And quite well in fact. I'm glad we got that worked out. Carry on.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: rabinoz on July 27, 2019, 06:12:11 PM
And it appears that you missed out on arithmetic in school because the difference between two numbers say A and B is A - B and NOT A/B.

It appears that you do not know even the simplest rules of arithmetic!
So the difference between (air density) and the (density of free space)  is simply only 10-3 - 10-24 = 10-3 gm/cm3.
LOL
Rab, isn't it too early (in Australia) to drink so much?
You might post drunk but I don't drink and drive, drink and post and I even forget the the last time I drank any alcohol at all.

If you ridicule that the difference between (air density) and the (density of free space) is simply only 10-3 - 10-24 = 10-3 gm/cm3 would you please post your own.

Maybe you could understand it better as 0.001 - 0.000000000000000000000001 =  0.000999999999999999999999 gm/cm3
I suggest that 0.000999999999999999999999 Is close enough to  0.001 for even you.

Any objections?

By the way do you still post deceptive videos with "Photoshopped" images in your attempt to prove that NASA posts deceptive photos and videos?

Pot, kettle and a very sooty black springs to mind, Mr Arithmetically Challenged Cikljamas!

Now, Mr Cikljamas, you have two options either:
  • YOU show me the originals of those photos in the official NASA archives (with AS numbers) or

  • admit to your deception in using fake photos in which you deceive people in you vain attempt show that NASA are liars.

PS Please learn that the difference between A and B is A - B and that A/B is A divided by B! Did you miss primary school or simply fail?
     
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 27, 2019, 06:20:14 PM
And it appears that you missed out on arithmetic in school because the difference between two numbers say A and B is A - B and NOT A/B.

It appears that you do not know even the simplest rules of arithmetic!
So the difference between (air density) and the (density of free space)  is simply only 10-3 - 10-24 = 10-3 gm/cm3.
LOL
Rab, isn't it too early (in Australia) to drink so much?
You might post drunk but I don't drink and drive, drink and post and I even forget the the last time I drank any alcohol at all.
Well, then you have to change your local drug dealer! lol
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: sokarul on July 27, 2019, 06:40:41 PM
If you are a fan of density, why do you think a rocket can push off of air?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Sunset on July 27, 2019, 06:43:29 PM
Cikljamas, your video about remembering hot days in 1969 and therefore it was too hot for Apollo 11 to go to the moon, so it was all hoaxed, is comedy gold!

You haven't seen the Apollo 11 documentary doing the rounds in cinemas? Do yourself a favor and go see it. All this silly moon landing hoax evidence will drop away as your jaw drops.

Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: rabinoz on July 27, 2019, 06:53:11 PM
<<  >>
I would like some rational answers to the following, thank you Mr Photoshop Posting Cikljamas.
Failing that will be taken as a tacit admission that you admit to:Now a rational reply to this please!
If you ridicule that the difference between (air density) and the (density of free space) is simply only 10-3 - 10-24 = 10-3 gm/cm3 would you please post your own.

Maybe you could understand it better as 0.001 - 0.000000000000000000000001 =  0.000999999999999999999999 gm/cm3
I suggest that 0.000999999999999999999999 Is close enough to  0.001 for even you.

Any objections?

By the way do you still post deceptive videos with "Photoshopped" images in your attempt to prove that NASA posts deceptive photos and videos?

Pot, kettle and a very sooty black springs to mind, Mr Arithmetically Challenged Cikljamas!

Now, Mr Cikljamas, you have two options either:
  • YOU show me the originals of those photos in the official NASA archives (with AS numbers) or

  • admit to your deception in using fake photos in which you deceive people in you vain attempt show that NASA are liars.

PS Please learn that the difference between A and B is A - B and that A/B is A divided by B! Did you miss primary school or simply fail?
     
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: rabinoz on July 27, 2019, 07:05:58 PM
Cikljamas, your video about remembering hot days in 1969 and therefore it was too hot for Apollo 11 to go to the moon, so it was all hoaxed, is comedy gold!

You haven't seen the Apollo 11 documentary doing the rounds in cinemas? Do yourself a favor and go see it. All this silly moon landing hoax evidence will drop away as your jaw drops.
I don't remember that one. Was it a ridiculous thermosphere "proof"?

I like this comedy better:

Was the Moon Landing FAKE? | COLOSSAL MYSTERIES by DreamWorksTV
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Sunset on July 27, 2019, 07:48:52 PM
This one:




Is this comedian actually you, cikljamas?


Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: rabinoz on July 27, 2019, 08:54:16 PM
Do you really not see a problem with a bunch of elephants in your room :
Not in my room! And are you sure yours aren't mice or pink elephants. The Dunning-Kruger Syndrome sure is strong in this one.

Quote from: cikljamas
Apart from an elephants in which direction you have been pointed in my two previous posts above, there are quite a few other huge elephants in your room :

For example :

1. Neil Armstrong and especially Michael Collins have pointed out many times that they hadn't been able to see ANY stars from the moon, or from the lunar orbit.
Where did they say "that they hadn't been able to see ANY stars . . . .  from the lunar orbit"?
And if you can't understand the problems of seeing stars on the moon through the face visors I don't hold out for your sanity:
(https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/Images/buzz-aldrin-apollo-11-guinness-world-records_tcm25-328790.jpg)
Please bear in mind that the sun is about 16,000,000,000 times brighter than the brightest star!
The ability to see stars depends a lot on what is between you and the stars and even more on allowing the eyes to adjust to the dark conditions.

So I'll ignore the rest of your starry claims!

Quote from: cikljamas
3. Is the Founder of Modern Rocket Science trying to tell us something?
(http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/assets/img/von-braun/image-06-large.jpg)
Quote
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
Psalm 19:1
Sure! He knew, as I do, that "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork" and why is that a problem?

Quote from: cikljamas
4. Some more elephants in your room :
Really? You would know the difference between an elephant and a mouse! Don't you mean more points that illustrate your own ignorance?

Quote from: cikljamas
The lunar ascent module engine had a 15000 N (3500 lb) thrust.  The attitude control thrusters for the Apollo C/SM and LM (which had four sets of quadruple thrusters) had 490 N (110 lb) of thrust each. In comparison, the 38 thrusters for shuttle orbit control each have a nominal thrust of 3870 N (880 lb), with a range from 3114 N to 5338 N. Why is the exhaust visible from the 3870 N shuttle thruster but not from the 15000 N lunar ascent module engine?
Point #1 illustrating your own ignorance!

Why should there be?
Quote
Why is there no exhaust from the LM’s ascent rocket engine? (http://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/2017/07/612-why-is-there-no-exhaust-from-lms.html)
IN A NUTSHELL: Because there shouldn’t be. Rocket motors don’t generate a fiery exhaust in the vacuum of space. Rockets that use the same propellant as the Lunar Module don’t generate a visible plume even in the Earth’s atmosphere.

Figure 6.12-1. Liftoff of the Apollo 17 Lunar Module on 14 December 1972, as shown by the live TV broadcast sent by the remote-controlled camera installed on the Rover.


Quote from: cikljamas
It's impossible to find any images or video footage of any visible flame or exhaust coming from any of the four quadruple clusters used for attitude control of the lunar module, or from the main engines of the ascent and descent modules.
Because from rocket engines using those fuels there should be no exhaust plume!
The Ascent Module main engine used Liquid-fuel engine N2O4 (Dinitrogen tetroxide, often called nitrogen tetroxide) and Aerozine 50.
Even the Titan II missile burning the same fuel shows a quite colourless flame.
(https://spaceflightnow.com/titan/g9/images/titan2quikscat.jpg)

I would think that someone like you trying to prove NASA's non-existent deception might do a little research beforehand instead of showing yourself to be an ignorant fool.

Quote from: cikljamas
However, official NASA artists' drawings do show a considerable amount of flame and exhaust emanating from the main engine :
(https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/images/pao/AS11/10075184.jpg)
(https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/images/pao/AS11/10075186.jpg)
I see no "official NASA artists' drawings" but if you do ask the artists. I would simply say "artistic licence" to show the engine is running.

Quote from: cikljamas
In the films To The Edge And Back covering Apollo 13 and Apollo 13, animation shows the LM main engine emitting a bright flame for the various burns between the earth and the moon.  In Apollo 13, animation shows visible flame from the LM thrusters during SM separation from the CM and LM.
The LM descent engine used the same Aerozine 50 fuel/nitrogen tetroxide oxidizer as the ascent stage.
Go and ask the producers what was used in the film but films like that are not evidence and the Aerozine 50 fuel/nitrogen tetroxide oxidizer flame is very unimpressive in a film!

Quote from: cikljamas
In the 30-minute documentary Houston, We've Got A Problem covering Apollo 13, an image of the service module shows the panel blown off :
(https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/images/pao/AS13/10075514.jpg)

The SM is bright and takes up a good portion of the screen. On the remainder of the screen stars appear to be indistiguishable from debris. Photographs taken from the surface of the moon do not show stars in the sky.
But exactly how bright is the SM? Whether stars show or not depends entirely on the exposure used.  Where in that video is the bit you refer to?

Quote from: cikljamas
In For All Mankind by the National Geographic Society, astronauts are shown suiting up. In their launch suits, the astronauts do arm exercises and wave to the crowd.  From these scenes the Apollo suits do not appear to have bearings at the joints like the space shuttle extra vehicular suits, which do have bearings at the elbow, shoulder, wrist, hip, knee, and ankle joints.  How were the Apollo astronauts able to bend their joints, especially their finger joints, on the moon if their suits were pressurized?

APOLLO-PRESSURIZED-SUITS (https://i.postimg.cc/kXpDfZkz/APOLLO-PRESSURIZED-SUITS.jpg)
Pressurized suits give a rigid balloon-like appearance which the moon astronauts did not appear to have
I believe that the Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) used on the moon had a protective over-suit over the pressure suit.

Quote from: cikljamas
The For All Mankind video shows the ground when the lunar module is landing.  As dust is being kicked up from the main engine, a dark shadow of the module appears.  The ground in the lunar module shadow does not show any reflection or brightness from any main engine exhaust flame.
Possibly because the engine was shut-off before touchdown and even before that was throttled right back.

Quote from: cikljamas
Why were there were no emergencies or problems from the temperature extremes of -100 to -150 degrees Fahrenheit to +215F?  A study paper for a proposed moonbase uses a noon-time worst case of 375 K (102 C, or 215 F) for a lunar surface temperature.
Why should there be?
Quote from: cikljamas
In For All Mankind, ground control announced that the temperature in the shade was -100 to -150 degrees Fahrenheit.  Were the batteries of the lunar rover in the shade, and if so, how were they protected against these temperature extremes?

At temperatures less than -40F (-40C) a lot of materials start becoming very brittle. Electrical items do not work as well.  Batteries produce less current.  The extreme temperature variations from shadow to sunlight would cause significant material contraction and expansion and would make equipment breakdown and failure very likely.
NASA and any competent engineer knows far more than you about the temperatures reached and the material properties.
"Electrical items do not work as well" and "batteries produce less current" but only if actually subject to those temperatures.
The temperatures might have been extreme but a vacuum conducts no heat leaving only radiation and contact with the lunar surface.
Study up on what NASA and others have written on the temperature control of spacecraft and stop pointing out nothing but you own pathetic ignorance.

Quote from: cikljamas
Why did the one-sixth gravity cause the astronauts to alternate between hopping and walking?  We all saw many sequences where an astronauts looked like they were flexing their knees pretty good to jump but they did not travel any higher than 40 cm. Why? The astronauts were not hopping any farther than what the typical person could hop here on Earth.
How far can you hop when wearing a bulky EMU with mass 115 kg that restricts movement?

Quote from: cikljamas
There a number of times in Apollo footage when the astronauts were landing pretty hard on their knees.  Were they not running a huge risk of puncturing their pressurized suits? According to an article in the Dec. 1, 1969 issue of Aviation Week and Space Technology, Apollo mission planners were worried about suit puncture and cutting.
It was obviously a concern but the outer suit was a protective suit over the inner pressure suit and the pressure was only 4.3 psi.

Quote from: cikljamas
After an Apollo 14 astronaut sets up and lets go of the flag, the flag flutters, is still, and then flutters again.  This may be viewed on the Apollo Interactive CD-ROM by Simitar Entertainment.
You claim it does then you prove it.
I'm not wasting more time on these mice that you conspiratorial mind blows up into imaginary pink elephants.

Quote from: cikljamas
HOW MUCH EXTRA ROOM HAS LEFT IN YOUR OVERCROWDED "ROOM"
There are no elephants in my room, not even tail-less mice.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Stash on July 27, 2019, 10:53:13 PM
This one:



Is this comedian actually you, cikljamas?

This is literally the best bit of video evidence posted here in a long time. "I remember, was it June? 1969...It was 84 degrees Fahrenheit, ummm, at 8 o'clock in the morning...it gets warmer the higher up you go...those things you pull down on an airplane window, hot sun...too hot for Apollo..."

cikljamas, give us more just like this!
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: rabinoz on July 27, 2019, 11:55:21 PM
This one:



Is this comedian actually you, cikljamas?

This is literally the best bit of video evidence posted here in a long time. "I remember, was it June? 1969...It was 84 degrees Fahrenheit, ummm, at 8 o'clock in the morning...it gets warmer the higher up you go...those things you pull down on an airplane window, hot sun...too hot for Apollo..."

cikljamas, give us more just like this!
Comedy gold! Why do we have snow on mountains? Why do people freeze to death on Mt Everest?
At least cikljamas tries to impress with Bart Sibrel's total ignorance of the thermosphere and the Van Allen belts.
It's funny how Bart Sibrel claims to know more about the radiation hazards of the VABs that Dr James Van Allen himself.

But I don't know that even cikljamas plumbs the depths of ignorance as deeply as James Donaghy ;D.
Though he's trying lately, very, very trying!
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: rabinoz on July 28, 2019, 03:36:12 AM
A little interesting  extra on the appearance of rocket exhausts:

It's impossible to find any images or video footage of any visible flame or exhaust coming from any of the four quadruple clusters used for attitude control of the lunar module, or from the main engines of the ascent and descent modules.
Because from rocket engines using those fuels there should be no exhaust plume!
The Ascent Module main engine used Liquid-fuel engine N2O4 (Dinitrogen tetroxide, often called nitrogen tetroxide) and Aerozine 50.
Even the Titan II missile burning the same fuel shows a quite colourless flame.
(https://spaceflightnow.com/titan/g9/images/titan2quikscat.jpg)

This might be of interest to some:

Why Rocket Exhausts Look The Way They Do by Scott Manley
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 28, 2019, 03:39:33 AM
Hey, NASA paid shills, how many of you are freemasons?
All of you?
No wonder!

The Flat Earth Society is a controlled opposition group that mixes lies with satire to discredit genuine geocentric, anti-NASA research, a job they have been doing for a long time now.  Founded in 1970 by Leo Ferrari, a suspected Freemason and philosophy professor at St. Thomas' University, Leo spent his life making a mockery of the legitimate subject of our geocentric Earth. Though he passed away in 2010, his Flat Earth Society still exists today online as a website/forum which, still true to form, purports extremely stupid flat-Earth arguments (in contrast to somewhat less stupid flat-Earth arguments) and treats the entire subject of geocentric truth (disguised in flat-earth theory), as well as of anti-NASA SPACE TRAVELLING FRAUD truth, anti-BIG BANG COSMOLOGY truth, anti-EINSTEINIAN PHYSICS truth, anti-DARWINISTIC truth, anti 9/11 OFFICIAL STORY truth, anti GLOBAL WARMING truth, etc... as a dead-pan joke.

I am here to laugh at you!!!

Feel free to read the pinned comment below this video :



Pay attention to what this guy says in the first sentence of this video :



We live in a Truman Show :



So, this video sums it up :


Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: JackBlack on July 28, 2019, 04:36:32 AM
I am here to laugh at you!!!
Well that seems to be one of the few things you are capable of.
You are certainly yet to present any rational argument to back up your nonsense.

This one question destroys your position:
What force causes the gas to leave the rocket and what other body is involved?

The only options are to reject physics or accept rockets work in space.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 28, 2019, 04:48:58 AM
I am here to laugh at you!!!
This one question destroys your position:
Last time you destroyed me at page 11 (remember?) :
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=80229.300
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: rabinoz on July 28, 2019, 04:54:18 AM
Hey, NASA paid shills, how many of you are freemasons?
I know for an absolute certainty that I get no pay from NASA or anybody for this and don't even know anyone who might be a freemason!

But I also know that you are such a blatant hypocrite that you refuse to even acknowledge your proven guilt!

Here have another go at defending yourself!

You dare post accusations like this when you prove your own deception by using "Photoshopped" photos and refusing to even admit to it when pointed out:
I have demonstrated my honesty by admitting (every single time) that i was wrong whenever i noticed a mistake that i had made. However, this simple concept (of admitting your obvious mistakes) is totally strange and incomprehensible to you and to Jack Black. Whenever it comes to my mind to tell you "shame on you", the next thought comes to my mind in a nanosecond : They have no idea what the word "shame" designates, and they have no idea what "a shame" is, because they haven't got a clue what the word "honesty" means.
Now firstly please point out where either JackBlack or I made mistakes we should admit to and then answer why you, yourself, are so deceptive!.

But it would appear that you do not simply "make mistakes" you used at least two obviously "Photoshopped" images in one of the few of your videos I've bothered to watch, the EIFFEL TOWER PROOF:
EIFFEL TOWER PROOF :

It starts with the question, "How would earth look from the moon?" And at 0:30 in that video we find this image:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/kj5aohud8gu7lrs/How%20would%20earth%20look%20from%20the%20moon.jpg?dl=1)
How would earth look from the moon by cikljamas

The inset in the lower right is obviously a composite of two NASA photos.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/j0v58fzlrmhqhtj/Earth%20from%20Moon%2C%20odiupicku%20%235.jpg?dl=1)
Photoshopped "Earth from Moon", by odiupicku
       Then at 5:56 in that video I find the following image which I know is a composite of two NASA photos
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/gitimar1o14xf6s/How%20would%20earth%20look%20from%20the%20moon%20%28Faked%29.jpg?dl=1)
Of course the light comes from different directions! That is not a genuine NASA photo.

Now, Mr Cikljamas, you have two options either:
  • YOU show me the originals of those photos in the official NASA archives (with AS numbers) or

  • admit to your deception in using fake photos in which you deceive people in you vain attempt show that NASA are liars.

Your continual ignoring of this just goes to show that you know you are being deceptive in your own videos!

Your response and apology would be greatly appreciated!

You are a proven deceiver and if you expect anyone to take you seriously you will admit your guilt and takedown that and other videos that might have similar faked photos.

PS You titled this thread "HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)" and
      it looks as though you have neither proven taht the lunar landings were a  hoax or that "Rockets can't fly in a vacuum"! What a loser!
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: rabinoz on July 28, 2019, 05:33:22 AM
I am here to laugh at you!!!
Well that seems to be one of the few things you are capable of.
You are certainly yet to present any rational argument to back up your nonsense.

This one question destroys your position:
What force causes the gas to leave the rocket and what other body is involved?

The only options are to reject physics or accept rockets work in space.
You forgot half of JackBlack's post so I restored it! No need to thank me I do these little things just to be helpful.

But I must have missed the bit where you gave a rational answer to "What force causes the gas to leave the rocket and what other body is involved?"

Would you care to enlighten us again as to "What force causes the gas to leave the rocket and what other body is involved?"

Come to think of it, I've never seen you give a rational answer as to why "Rockets can't fly in a vacuum" so I must assume that you have no idea!

Quote from: cikljamas
Last time you destroyed me at page 11 (remember?) :
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=80229.300
You mean this post:
Get use to this :
Get used to this:
Stop spamming the thread with irrelavent nonsense.
Stop making completely false claims about the HC model.
Start dealing with the refutations of your claims.

If you are unwilling to defend your claims then stop making them.

Now what do you have to say about the stellar day vs sidereal day?

These points seem just as relevant to your behaviour in this thread:
Stop spamming the thread with irrelevant nonsense.
Stop making completely false claims about the supposed lunar mission hoaxes and rockets flying in a vacuum.
Start dealing with the refutations of your claims.

If you are unwilling to defend your claims then stop making them.

Because here you just ignore all the solid reasons that your claims are pure nonsense and seem totally unwilling or unable to defend them.

And you refuse to even acknowledge, let alone apologise for, including proven "Photoshopped" images in at least one video you posted on YouTube.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: boydster on July 28, 2019, 06:20:22 AM
Please keep the mocking, attacking, and low content portions of your commentary out of the upper boards everyone.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 28, 2019, 06:59:08 AM
Something I have noticed in various forums discussing the subject of space propulsion is exemplified by this other comment - by "alancalverd", a supporter of PmbPhy's arguments on the Naked Scientists forum. At one point, alancalverd says :

"Have you ever fired a rifle? The recoil force is exactly the same whether you fire it under water or in air. Recoil force is independent of the surrounding medium. Conservation of momentum is demonstrated in many ways: billiard balls, "Newton's Cradle", spinning tops and skaters.... and in no case is there any requirement of "something to push against". Rockets work by conservation of momentum, nothing else. You chuck stuff out of the back and the rocket moves forward so that the net change in momentum is zero."

In fact, I have often seen this 'bullet-recoil' argument being brought up by folks convinced by the feasibility of space propulsion - and I remember reading on some other forum that burning rocket fuel basically works like the flow of bullets fired out of a machine gun: what propels a spacecraft, it is argued, is the mass of the exploding fuel recoiling against the combustion chamber coupled with the momentum of the exhausts rapidly expelled out of the nozzle, yet - ( and this is clearly / strongly argued ) - these same, supersonic exhausts do no work whatsoever as they impact the atmosphere (not even at sea-level). As it is, the consensus among these people seems to be that rockets work exclusively by 'recoil effect' and 'rapid mass / momentum transfer' - and that no analogy whatsoever can be made between a jet engine and a rocket engine - as far as the very nature of their propulsion forces is concerned.

Fair enough. So with this theory in mind, I have decided to set up an experiment. On the beach.

THE MIDGET-SOLDIER ROCKET PROJECT

I have this midget soldier (my little Italian trooper only weighs in at 50kg or so) that I wish to launch and briefly propel upwards (in the atmosphere, that is - i am not even thinking of reaching the 'vacuum' of space for now!). Looking around for the 'world's fastest machine gun' I have also found this remarkable Russian machine gun, the "SKHAS Ultra" used in WWII - capable of firing 3000 (yes, three-thousand) rounds per minute - i.e. 50 rounds per second.

ShKAS machine gun specifications: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ShKAS_machine_gun

(https://i.postimg.cc/3xgxzVDz/RUSSIAN-SOLDIER-ROCKET.jpg)

Now, the basic specifications of the Ariane 5 rocket :

(https://i.postimg.cc/qvdkcwZw/ARIANE-5.jpg)

Weight of Ariane 5 rocket: 760.000 kg
Mass of fuel ejected per second : 2000 kg / s
Ratio of fuel-weight expelled per second / vs vessel weight: 1/380
(in other words, 0.263 % of total vessel weight is expelled every second)
Exhaust velocity (at sea level) : 2749 m/s

As compared to :

Weight of midget soldier + machine gun + 650 rounds of ammunition: 50+10+40 = 100 kg
Mass of 50 rounds (of 24g each) fired per second : 1.2 kg
Ratio of rounds expelled each second / vs soldier+gun assembly: 1/83
(in other words, 1.2 % of total vessel weight is expelled every second)
Muzzle exit velocity : 825 m/s

So, let's see: my 'vessel' (i.e. the midget soldier and his machine gun & ammunition) is :

About 4.5 X superior (more efficient) in terms of mass expelled per second / vs vessel weight
About 3.3 X times inferior (slower) in terms of 'muzzle / exhaust exit velocity'.

By the looks of it - and since my mass-ejected-per-second-ratio is 4.5 X superior to that of the Ariane rocket - this looks promising, yet I'm a bit worried that my exit velocity (of my 'rocket fuel' - i.e. the bullets of my machine gun) is inferior to the Ariane rocket's.

I'm currently stuck at a more profound / momentous question:

Will my midget soldier take off at all - and briefly soar up in the skies? If not - WHY NOT?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: sceptimatic on July 28, 2019, 07:18:45 AM
I am here to laugh at you!!!
Well that seems to be one of the few things you are capable of.
You are certainly yet to present any rational argument to back up your nonsense.

This one question destroys your position:
What force causes the gas to leave the rocket and what other body is involved?

The only options are to reject physics or accept rockets work in space.
No, the options aren't to reject physics. The option is to reject explanations that are not based on genuine physics but bullied into the psyche of the masses.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: magellanclavichord on July 28, 2019, 07:43:38 AM
The Flat Earth Society is a controlled opposition group that mixes lies with satire to discredit genuine geocentric, anti-NASA research, a job they have been doing for a long time now.  Founded in 1970 by Leo Ferrari, a suspected Freemason and philosophy professor at St. Thomas' University, Leo spent his life making a mockery of the legitimate subject of our geocentric Earth. Though he passed away in 2010, his Flat Earth Society still exists today online as a website/forum which, still true to form, purports extremely stupid flat-Earth arguments (in contrast to somewhat less stupid flat-Earth arguments) and treats the entire subject  of geocentric truth (disguised in flat-earth theory), as well as of anti-NASA SPACE TRAVELLING FRAUD truth, anti-BIG BANG COSMOLOGY truth, anti-EINSTEINIAN PHYSICS truth, anti-DARWINISTIC truth, anti 9/11 OFFICIAL STORY truth, anti GLOBAL WARMING truth, etc... as a dead-pan joke.

The above is so convoluted that I actually cannot tell whether you support or deny Darwin, Einstein, 9/11, and climate change.

I get it that you believe in a geocentric universe, and you don't like the Flat-Earth Society, but I cannot figure out now whether you believe that the Earth is flat or a ball.

Would you please clarify your positions for me?:

Is the Earth flat or is it a ball?
Do you believe in evolution?
Do you believe in Relativity physics?
Do you believe in anthropogenic climate change?
And while I'm asking, how old do believe the Earth to be? Either exact or approximate is fine.

Thanks in advance for clarifying your views.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 28, 2019, 09:14:35 AM

1. Do you believe in evolution?
2. Do you believe in Relativity physics?
3. Do you believe in anthropogenic climate change?
4. And while I'm asking, how old do believe the Earth to be? Either exact or approximate is fine.
5. Is the Earth flat or is it a ball?

Thanks in advance for clarifying your views.

1. No, i know it's bullshit
2. No, i know it's bullshit
3. No, i know it's bullshit
4. Approximately 10 - 20 000 years
5. It's a ball!!!

How do i know all this???

Feel free to read the pinned comment below this video :


Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: sokarul on July 28, 2019, 10:35:50 AM
Whats it like to live with so much paranoia?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Themightykabool on July 28, 2019, 01:11:55 PM
The Flat Earth Society is a controlled opposition group that mixes lies with satire to discredit genuine geocentric, anti-NASA research, a job they have been doing for a long time now.  Founded in 1970 by Leo Ferrari, a suspected Freemason and philosophy professor at St. Thomas' University, Leo spent his life making a mockery of the legitimate subject of our geocentric Earth. Though he passed away in 2010, his Flat Earth Society still exists today online as a website/forum which, still true to form, purports extremely stupid flat-Earth arguments (in contrast to somewhat less stupid flat-Earth arguments) and treats the entire subject  of geocentric truth (disguised in flat-earth theory), as well as of anti-NASA SPACE TRAVELLING FRAUD truth, anti-BIG BANG COSMOLOGY truth, anti-EINSTEINIAN PHYSICS truth, anti-DARWINISTIC truth, anti 9/11 OFFICIAL STORY truth, anti GLOBAL WARMING truth, etc... as a dead-pan joke.

The above is so convoluted that I actually cannot tell whether you support or deny Darwin, Einstein, 9/11, and climate change.

I get it that you believe in a geocentric universe, and you don't like the Flat-Earth Society, but I cannot figure out now whether you believe that the Earth is flat or a ball.

Would you please clarify your positions for me?:

Is the Earth flat or is it a ball?
Do you believe in evolution?
Do you believe in Relativity physics?
Do you believe in anthropogenic climate change?
And while I'm asking, how old do believe the Earth to be? Either exact or approximate is fine.

Thanks in advance for clarifying your views.

Would you also be so kind to clarify your position, mage?

Why do you feel the earth to be flat when you also claim all (mainstream) science is correct EXCEPT when it comes to the shape of the planet?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Sunset on July 28, 2019, 01:29:08 PM
Cikljamas, your toy soldier is going nowhere, except maybe to the emergency department with a dislocated shoulder or bullet wound to the face from a ricochet.

The individual mass of each expelled round is simply too small compared to the size of your midget. Type in "Rocketman" on YouTube and have a look at how rockets strapped to a person's back can carry an average sized adult up into the sky, and look closely at how those rockets work. 

Does being a government employee qualify a person being a "NASA shill", in your view?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: JackBlack on July 28, 2019, 03:02:32 PM
I see you still failed to address the question.
Why?

What force causes the gas to leave the rocket and what other body is involved?

The only options are to reject physics or accept rockets work in space.

So, let's see: my 'vessel' (i.e. the midget soldier and his machine gun & ammunition) is :
About 4.5 X superior (more efficient) in terms of mass expelled per second / vs vessel weight
About 3.3 X times inferior (slower) in terms of 'muzzle / exhaust exit velocity'.
You mean the Ariane is 3.3 times faster.

As a simple approach you can use the rocket thrust equation and ignore the pressure term.
So just taking your numbers for the machine gun, the force will be 1.2 kg/s * 825 m/s = 990 N.
Assuming it is going straight up, then the force it needs to provide just needs to counter gravity, and thus for a 100 kg load needs to be roughly 980 N.

But quickly checking, your numbers are off. The bullet weight isn't 24 g. That is the weight of the entire round, including the gas and cartridge which would be ejected at much slower speeds.
The actual bullet, which is what leaves at the quoted speed is only 9.6 g, or 0.4 times the mass you used. That means the thrust would be roughly 0.4 times the previously calculated thrust or 396 N.
That isn't even enough to lift your 50 kg person.

If you have a correct percentage you can also simplify it a bit.
If the percentage mass flow rate multiplied by the velocity is greater than g (roughly 9.8 m/s^2), it can fly.
Sticking in the original numbers you gave for the gun person that gives 9.9. Correcting it to the actual bullet (0.48%) you only get 3.96. So you aren't going to fly.

As for the Ariane, that is quite a bit more complex. It has 2 boosters and a core, each throwing out some mass at some velocity. And there are different models. I hate it when companies do that.
The 2 boosters give a collective 3429 kg/s mass flow rate.
The core gives 315 kg/s.

So that is already quite different to what you have said. That is 3744 kg/s, or 0.49% of the mass of the rocket.

So when both numbers are corrected, you end up with the Ariane ejecting a slightly larger fraction of its mass per second than the gun is (at least when focusing on the quickly moving ejected parts).

So in reality your comparison would be:
Ariane is about 1x the fractional mass flow rate.
Ariane is about 3x the velocity.

But I can't find the numbers for the velocity anywhere.
But if I just take your word for it, then we end up with a thrust of 10292256 N, enough to lift a ~ 1 million kg object.


The option is to reject explanations that are not based on genuine physics but bullied into the psyche of the masses.
No, the physics being discussed are based firmly upon reality and confirmed by mountains of evidence.
You not liking these laws of physics doesn't mean they aren't real.
So the option remain the same:
Reject physics, or accept rockets work in space.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: magellanclavichord on July 28, 2019, 04:14:30 PM

1. Do you believe in evolution?
2. Do you believe in Relativity physics?
3. Do you believe in anthropogenic climate change?
4. And while I'm asking, how old do believe the Earth to be? Either exact or approximate is fine.
5. Is the Earth flat or is it a ball?

Thanks in advance for clarifying your views.

1. No, i know it's bullshit
2. No, i know it's bullshit
3. No, i know it's bullshit
4. Approximately 10 - 20 000 years
5. It's a ball!!!

Thank you for the clarification.


Would you also be so kind to clarify your position, mage?

Is the Earth flat or is it a ball?
Do you believe in evolution?
Do you believe in Relativity physics?
Do you believe in anthropogenic climate change?
And while I'm asking, how old do believe the Earth to be? Either exact or approximate is fine.

Happy to clarify my views on the same subject. (Though I will not engage in arguments over them, since I have no agenda to convince you or anyone else.)

1. It's flat.

2. All life on Earth evolved from earlier forms by the process of natural selection. I lean towards Stephen Jay Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium, that most evolution occurs during geologically brief episodes, separated by relatively long periods of stasis.

3. Relativity physics is correct, though incomplete since it breaks down at quantum length scales. For the very big, the very fast, and the very massive, it correctly describes how stuff works.

4. The climate is changing in ways that are disastrous for humans, and human activity is responsible for nearly all of it.

5. The Earth is around 4.5 billion years old, give or take a few hundred million.

And while I'm at it, Neil Armstrong and several others over the course of the latter Apollo missions, walked on the moon. Considering that they and NASA thought that their chances of making it back alive were around 50/50, I would not have wanted to go in their place. These were brave men indeed, as are all the men and women who have gone into space.

Happy to state my views. I know you regard them as incompatible. I feel no need to defend them. I respect everybody's views.

P.S. And clearly rockets work in space because otherwise Armstrong and the others could not have gotten to the moon.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Crutchwater on July 28, 2019, 04:21:41 PM
There is absolutely NO WAY you can believe in a flat earth and NASA moonlandings!

You are, of course, free to SAY you believe these things, but no, you are wrong.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: rabinoz on July 28, 2019, 06:22:36 PM
Something I have noticed in various forums discussing the subject of space propulsion is exemplified by this other comment - by "alancalverd", a supporter of PmbPhy's arguments on the Naked Scientists forum. At one point, alancalverd says :

"Have you ever fired a rifle? The recoil force is exactly the same whether you fire it under water or in air. Recoil force is independent of the surrounding medium. Conservation of momentum is demonstrated in many ways: billiard balls, "Newton's Cradle", spinning tops and skaters.... and in no case is there any requirement of "something to push against". Rockets work by conservation of momentum, nothing else. You chuck stuff out of the back and the rocket moves forward so that the net change in momentum is zero."

In fact, I have often seen this 'bullet-recoil' argument being brought up by folks convinced by the feasibility of space propulsion - and I remember reading on some other forum that burning rocket fuel basically works like the flow of bullets fired out of a machine gun: what propels a spacecraft, it is argued, is the mass of the exploding fuel recoiling against the combustion chamber coupled with the momentum of the exhausts rapidly expelled out of the nozzle, yet - ( and this is clearly / strongly argued ) - these same, supersonic exhausts do no work whatsoever as they impact the atmosphere (not even at sea-level). As it is, the consensus among these people seems to be that rockets work exclusively by 'recoil effect' and 'rapid mass / momentum transfer' - and that no analogy whatsoever can be made between a jet engine and a rocket engine - as far as the very nature of their propulsion forces is concerned.

Fair enough. So with this theory in mind, I have decided to set up an experiment. On the beach.

THE MIDGET-SOLDIER ROCKET PROJECT
I have this midget soldier (my little Italian trooper only weighs in at 50kg or so) that I wish to launch and briefly propel upwards (in the atmosphere, that is - i am not even thinking of reaching the 'vacuum' of space for now!). Looking around for the 'world's fastest machine gun' I have also found this remarkable Russian machine gun, the "SKHAS Ultra" used in WWII - capable of firing 3000 (yes, three-thousand) rounds per minute - i.e. 50 rounds per second.

ShKAS machine gun specifications: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ShKAS_machine_gun
<< No need for a picture: RUSSIAN-SOLDIER-ROCKETRUSSIAN-SOLDIER-ROCKET (https://i.postimg.cc/3xgxzVDz/RUSSIAN-SOLDIER-ROCKET.jpg) >>

Now, the basic specifications of the Ariane 5 rocket :
<< No need for a picture: ARIANE-5 (https://i.postimg.cc/qvdkcwZw/ARIANE-5.jpg) >>

Weight of Ariane 5 rocket: 760.000 kg
Mass of fuel ejected per second : 2000 kg / s
Incorrect! The Arianne 5 has a central core and two booster with a total Mass of fuel ejected per second 3658 kg/sec.
Quote from: cikljamas
Ratio of fuel-weight expelled per second / vs vessel weight: 1/380
(in other words, 0.263 % of total vessel weight is expelled every second)
Exhaust velocity (at sea level) : 2749 m/s
Incorrect!
Quote from: cikljamas

As compared to :
Weight of midget soldier + machine gun + 650 rounds of ammunition: 50+10+40 = 100 kg
Mass of 50 rounds (of 24g each) fired per second : 1.2 kg
Incorrect! The mass of the 7.62 mm projectile is only 9.6 grams.
Quote from: cikljamas
Ratio of rounds expelled each second / vs soldier+gun assembly: 1/83
(in other words, 1.2 % of total vessel weight is expelled every second)
Muzzle exit velocity : 825 m/s

So, let's see: my 'vessel' (i.e. the midget soldier and his machine gun & ammunition) is :

About 4.5 X superior (more efficient) in terms of mass expelled per second / vs vessel weight
About 3.3 X times inferior (slower) in terms of 'muzzle / exhaust exit velocity'.

By the looks of it - and since my mass-ejected-per-second-ratio is 4.5 X superior to that of the Ariane rocket - this looks promising, yet I'm a bit worried that my exit velocity (of my 'rocket fuel' - i.e. the bullets of my machine gun) is inferior to the Ariane rocket's.

I'm currently stuck at a more profound / momentous question:

Will my midget soldier take off at all - and briefly soar up in the skies? If not - WHY NOT?
No, your midget soldier will not take off at all because the thrust generated, (mass ejected per second) x (velocity of that mass), is insufficient to lift him!
But the Arianne 5 rocket will take off because the thrust generated is greater than the lift-off mass of the rocket.

First we'll check on your soldier. I looked up your ShKAS machine gun specifications (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ShKAS_machine_gun) and found that
Quote
7.62 mm ammunition specifications
  • Bullet weight: 148 grains (9.6 grams)
  • Round weight: 370 grains (24 grams)
So NOT  of "of 24g each" but only of 9.6 grams each - quite a difference I'd say!
You claim this:
Mass of 50 rounds (of 24g each) fired per second : 1.2 kg
Ratio of rounds expelled each second / vs soldier+gun assembly: 1/83
(in other words, 1.2 % of total vessel weight is expelled every second)
Muzzle exit velocity: 825 m/s
     But I find that:
Mass of 50 rounds (of 9.6g each) fired per second:  0.48 kg
Ratio of mass-expelled each second/soldier+gun assembly: (0.48 kg/100 kg) = 1/83 - not that it means anything!
(in other words, 1.2 % of total vessel weight is expelled every second)
Muzzle exit velocity: 825 m/s
So the ratio of mass ejected per second/total mass: 0.48/100 = 208 not that it means anything here!
And the average thrust on the soldier would be (mass per second) x (Muzzle exit velocity) or (0.48 kg) x (825 m/s) = 396 Newtons or about 40 kg.

Your soldier might isn't going anywhere!

Then let's look at a real Arianne 5:, including it's two solid rocket boosters that provide most of the lift-off thrust
Quote
Ariane 5 utilizes two solid boosters, each standing more than 30 meters tall with 237.8 metric tons of propellant. The boosters are ignited on the launchpad once the main cryogenic stage’s Vulcain engine has stabilized its thrust output. They deliver more than 90 percent of the launcher’s total thrust at the start of flight and burn for 130 sec. before they are separated over a designated zone of the Atlantic Ocean.
Each burns "237.8 metric tons of propellant" in "130 sec" or an average total fuel burn rate of (2 x 237.8/130) = 3658 kg/sec with an effective exhaust velocity of 2459 m/s.
So the thrust of each booster is about 4,497 kN or 457,308 kg.

In addition, the Arianne 5 has a core stage which at sea-level burns about 315 kg/sec and has an effective exhaust velocity of about 3049 m/s.
So the thrust of the core stage is about 960 kN or 97,593 kg.

The Arianne 5 burns a total of 3658 kg/sec for the boosters plus about 315 kg/sec for the core or a total mass burn rate of 3658 kg/sec.
And the ratio of fuel-mass expelled per second / vs vessel mass: (3658 kg/752,260 kg) = 1/205 - not that it means anything!

Hence the total thrust is about 2 x 457,308 + 97,593 = 1,012,208 kg.
And the launch mass is about 2 x 278,330 (boosters) + 184,700 (core stage) + 10,900 (second stage) = 752,260 kg.
Maybe I'm a bit out but it seems reasonable and the mass falls off at 3658 kg/sec.

So you soldier with 40 kg thrust and a total mass of 100 kg is going nowhere!
But the Arianne 5 with a total thrust of 1,012,208 kg and a total mass of 752,260 kg is headed for orbit!

I fail to see the point of your whole post! You've shown that a burst from a machine gun causes a force insufficient to lift the person firing it and
the exhaust gas expelled from an Arianne 5 causes a force on the rocket quite sufficient to send it into orbit - congratulations!
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: magellanclavichord on July 28, 2019, 09:37:29 PM
There is absolutely NO WAY you can believe in a flat earth and NASA moonlandings!

If this is what you think, you do not understand the workings of the human brain.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Unconvinced on July 29, 2019, 12:32:12 AM
There is absolutely NO WAY you can believe in a flat earth and NASA moonlandings!

It’s a tragic and cautionary tale.

Once there was a regular flat earther and a regular regular person.  No one remembers their original names.

They tried to combine their knowledge of science and pseudo science together to create a matter transporter.  All was looking good until they stepped into the pods themselves.

What came out were scrambled versions of their former selves.

cikljamas belives everything flat earthers believe, except the bit about the earth being flat.

magellanclavichord belives the earth is flat, but none of the other stuff.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Sunset on July 29, 2019, 01:43:07 AM
There is absolutely NO WAY you can believe in a flat earth and NASA moonlandings!

If this is what you think, you do not understand the workings of the human brain.

Ok, cool. So, you are happy man walked on the moon, but that all the photos taken from the moon of the earth which unmistakably shows the earth in all it's roundness, is fake. Am I on the right track?

Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: JackBlack on July 29, 2019, 01:54:26 AM
Ok, cool. So, you are happy man walked on the moon, but that all the photos taken from the moon of the earth which unmistakably shows the earth in all it's roundness, is fake. Am I on the right track?
You misunderstand him.
He thinks Earth appears to be round in every way, but is flat.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Themightykabool on July 29, 2019, 06:55:14 AM

1. Do you believe in evolution?
2. Do you believe in Relativity physics?
3. Do you believe in anthropogenic climate change?
4. And while I'm asking, how old do believe the Earth to be? Either exact or approximate is fine.
5. Is the Earth flat or is it a ball?

Thanks in advance for clarifying your views.

1. No, i know it's bullshit
2. No, i know it's bullshit
3. No, i know it's bullshit
4. Approximately 10 - 20 000 years
5. It's a ball!!!

Thank you for the clarification.


Would you also be so kind to clarify your position, mage?

Is the Earth flat or is it a ball?
Do you believe in evolution?
Do you believe in Relativity physics?
Do you believe in anthropogenic climate change?
And while I'm asking, how old do believe the Earth to be? Either exact or approximate is fine.

Happy to clarify my views on the same subject. (Though I will not engage in arguments over them, since I have no agenda to convince you or anyone else.)

1. It's flat.

2. All life on Earth evolved from earlier forms by the process of natural selection. I lean towards Stephen Jay Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium, that most evolution occurs during geologically brief episodes, separated by relatively long periods of stasis.

3. Relativity physics is correct, though incomplete since it breaks down at quantum length scales. For the very big, the very fast, and the very massive, it correctly describes how stuff works.

4. The climate is changing in ways that are disastrous for humans, and human activity is responsible for nearly all of it.

5. The Earth is around 4.5 billion years old, give or take a few hundred million.

And while I'm at it, Neil Armstrong and several others over the course of the latter Apollo missions, walked on the moon. Considering that they and NASA thought that their chances of making it back alive were around 50/50, I would not have wanted to go in their place. These were brave men indeed, as are all the men and women who have gone into space.

Happy to state my views. I know you regard them as incompatible. I feel no need to defend them. I respect everybody's views.

P.S. And clearly rockets work in space because otherwise Armstrong and the others could not have gotten to the moon.

Thats not really what was asked.


"Would you also be so kind to clarify your position, mage?

Why do you feel the earth to be flat when you also claim all (mainstream) science is correct EXCEPT when it comes to the shape of the planet?"
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: magellanclavichord on July 29, 2019, 07:08:21 AM
What was asked was to clarify my position on five points. I did.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Themightykabool on July 29, 2019, 07:14:53 AM
Why do you feel the earth to be flat when you also claim all (mainstream) science is correct EXCEPT when it comes to the shape of the planet?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: JerkFace on July 29, 2019, 10:40:13 AM
Why do you feel the earth to be flat when you also claim all (mainstream) science is correct EXCEPT when it comes to the shape of the planet?

Subjective reality?

Anyway,  some have the view that the it's space itself that is curved giving the appearance of being spherical  ( oblate or otherwise ) when it's really flat. 

Something to do with orbiting satellites travelling in straight lines,  if I recall correctly.   I probably explained that wrong.

On another note,  silk pajamas has more than a few problems coping with reality,  I'd suggest,  go easy on him he's trying to understand the world in terms that he can relate to. He's allowed to be wrong if he wants to,  likewise I'm sure none of us is ever "right" all the time. 

Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Crutchwater on July 29, 2019, 10:43:54 AM
I'll stick with the hundreds of people who have traveled to space, and the many thousands who did the calculations and engineering to get them there.

Their words mean much more than a random internet dude!
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: magellanclavichord on July 29, 2019, 11:53:55 AM
Why do you feel the earth to be flat when you also claim all (mainstream) science is correct EXCEPT when it comes to the shape of the planet?

We've been through this before: I'm happy to state my position. I have no interest in arguing or justifying it to anyone.  :)
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Themightykabool on July 29, 2019, 02:56:04 PM
Why do you feel the earth to be flat when you also claim all (mainstream) science is correct EXCEPT when it comes to the shape of the planet?

We've been through this before: I'm happy to state my position. I have no interest in arguing or justifying it to anyone.  :)

aahya but you haven't stated anything.
and no we haven't even got to the debating part which of course you're free to ignore which clearly the others have jumped on without knowing anything about your actual position.

you've stated it's flat.
you've stated "they" (scientists) are right.

can we claim that's a position?
possibly i guess.
answer your on position questions that reveal nothing.
troll on then.

kind of funny you feel you can call out other FEs and debate the merits of their POV.
too bad so sad they are brave enough, on an anonymous forum, to actually tell all their views and face ridicule.
hypocrite on then.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Themightykabool on July 29, 2019, 02:57:17 PM
Why do you feel the earth to be flat when you also claim all (mainstream) science is correct EXCEPT when it comes to the shape of the planet?

Subjective reality?

Anyway,  some have the view that the it's space itself that is curved giving the appearance of being spherical  ( oblate or otherwise ) when it's really flat. 

Something to do with orbiting satellites travelling in straight lines,  if I recall correctly.   I probably explained that wrong.

On another note,  silk pajamas has more than a few problems coping with reality,  I'd suggest,  go easy on him he's trying to understand the world in terms that he can relate to. He's allowed to be wrong if he wants to,  likewise I'm sure none of us is ever "right" all the time.

after mage...pajamas isn't interesting.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Themightykabool on July 29, 2019, 02:58:00 PM
What was asked was to clarify my position on five points. I did.

those five points were not what was asked.
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Themightykabool on July 29, 2019, 02:59:11 PM
There is absolutely NO WAY you can believe in a flat earth and NASA moonlandings!

It’s a tragic and cautionary tale.

Once there was a regular flat earther and a regular regular person.  No one remembers their original names.

They tried to combine their knowledge of science and pseudo science together to create a matter transporter.  All was looking good until they stepped into the pods themselves.

What came out were scrambled versions of their former selves.

cikljamas belives everything flat earthers believe, except the bit about the earth being flat.

magellanclavichord belives the earth is flat, but none of the other stuff.

haha

(https://images.app.goo.gl/tsW6cRzhMwxvS7o18)
https://images.app.goo.gl/tsW6cRzhMwxvS7o18

PS:
how to get image to be imbedded vs link?
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: Sunset on July 29, 2019, 03:01:11 PM
Why do you feel the earth to be flat when you also claim all (mainstream) science is correct EXCEPT when it comes to the shape of the planet?

We've been through this before: I'm happy to state my position. I have no interest in arguing or justifying it to anyone.  :)

Your position reminds me of all the straight people in the 90's who pretended to be gay because it was fashionable. I hope your strategy is working well for you in increasing your social status..... ;)
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 30, 2019, 03:20:28 AM
There is absolutely NO WAY you can believe in a flat earth and NASA moonlandings!

It’s a tragic and cautionary tale.

Once there was a regular flat earther and a regular regular person.  No one remembers their original names.

They tried to combine their knowledge of science and pseudo science together to create a matter transporter.  All was looking good until they stepped into the pods themselves.

What came out were scrambled versions of their former selves.

cikljamas belives everything flat earthers believe, except the bit about the earth being flat.

magellanclavichord belives the earth is flat, but none of the other stuff.

Well, believing and knowing are two different things. If you are a believer, then you are gullible, and you can fall into the trap of many scams. For a believer, if something sounds good, he or she will believe it instantaneously. So, it is extremely important that you feed your mind with the right information.

In order to illustrate the difference between knowing and believing i am going to quote here one very interesting short exchange of thoughts :

MacAndrew: ...that it doesn’t “react with baryonic matter” but with “electromagnetic and gravitational activity” (seeGWW, Vol 1, page 263).[6] How can he possibly know these things? His claims are vague, unquantified and entirely unsatisfactory to physicists, they arise without rhyme or reason, and he never explains how he has come by them. Their empirical and mathematical foundation remains a mystery. The undeniable fact is that he’s just making it up. His kind of knowledge is like that of a child who just knows her imaginary friend is wearing a blue dress and has brown eyes. It’s a fantasy.

R.Sungenis: Of course, since we see that Mr. MacAndrew didn’t get past page 263 in his reading of GWW, he is prone to make his own straw man to beat up. If he read toward the end of Volume 1, and into Volume 2, he would have found out why I say these things. (But in MacAndrew’s world it is better to jump to conclusions and name‐call your opponent than read his notes). 

We know that the Planck aether reacts with EM activity because we see fringe shifts in all the interferometer experiments, particularly the 1887 and 1925 Michelson experiments (something that neither SRT or GRT can answer, since the fringe shifts discredit both SRT and GRT). Fringe shifts mean that something is interacting with the light beams. In fact, the very reason the light beams move at 3 x 10^8 m/s is because that is the only speed allowed in the Planck medium (unless the Planck medium is altered in some way, as it is when it has more tension). 

As for gravity and the Planck aether, since the density of the Planck aether is so great (10^94g/cm^3) it can:

(1) penetrate all baryonic matter. But since it cannot replace baryonic  matter,  the baryonic/Planck combination (as occurs, for example, in a typical planet) will create a huge vacuum against the pure Planck aether in space. This vacuum will attempt to compensate by pulling in any object that has less of a baryonic/Planck combination (less because it is smaller than the planet), and this is what we understand as gravity.

(2) Additionally, the Planck aether solves the gravity speed problem (Einstein limited gravity to c because of the demands of his SRT, but that slow speed for gravity simply doesn’t work). In a Planck aether universe, the speed of gravity is practically unlimited. Since the Planck aether is so dense, it can carry longitudinal waves or compression waves over the entire universe in a split second (about 10^‐11 seconds).

(3) Additionally, the Planck aether solves the “action‐at‐a‐distance” problem of Newton’s physics, as well as the problem of “entanglement.”  Newton had the problem that his theory of gravity required non‐locality, that is, gravity had to act upon objects instantaneously that were huge distances apart. This problem is solved by the instantaneous speed of gravity allowed by a Planck aether. In “entanglement” an electron in one place has a coupling with an electron in a different place. This instantaneous communication between electrons is allowed by the Planck aether. 

Read more : http://galileowaswrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/MacAndrew-Walks-the-Planck.pdf

Here is an endorsement dr. Robert Sungenis received from Wolfgang Smith, a professor of physics and mathematics at MIT:

April 2010: “Dear Dr. Sungenis: Since writing to you two days ago to thank you for your letter and the gift of your two‐volume treatise, I have had a chance to peruse this  work  and  feel  compelled  to  congratulate  you  and  Dr.  Bennett  on  this outstanding achievement! Though I am not usually a loss for words, I find it hard to express my admiration for this masterpiece, which has no peer and constitutes without a doubt the definitive work on the subject of geocentrism...You are to be congratulated not only on your erudition and command of an incredibly vast subject matter, but also on the logical clarity of your presentation and lucidity of style. At your hands this subject of virtually unimaginable complexity becomes ‘almost’ simple, and certainly understandable (up to a point) to nonspecialists. Let me not swell this letter; perhaps I will get back to you on some specific points. Today I just wanted to express my admiration for your book, which strikes me as epochal in its implications...Yours sincerely in Christ, signed, Wolfgang Smith.”
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: rabinoz on July 30, 2019, 04:53:55 AM
I thought that the topic, YOUR topic, was "HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)".

You have made no sensible rebuttals to the arguments against your claims hence I assume that you now admit the Lunar Landings were not a hoax and that Rockets can really fly in a vacuum

So now maybe, instead of turning this into a general fishing expedition, it might be a good idea to make a new thread that is really about geocentrism.

But since you've raised it:
R.Sungenis: Of course, since we see that Mr. MacAndrew didn’t get past page 263 in his reading of GWW, he is prone to make his own straw man to beat up. If he read toward the end of Volume 1, and into Volume 2, he would have found out why I say these things. (But in MacAndrew’s world it is better to jump to conclusions and name‐call your opponent than read his notes). 

We know that the Planck aether reacts with EM activity because we see fringe shifts in all the interferometer experiments, particularly the 1887 and 1925 Michelson experiments (something that neither SRT or GRT can answer, since the fringe shifts discredit both SRT and GRT). Fringe shifts mean that something is interacting with the light beams. In fact, the very reason the light beams move at 3 x 10^8 m/s is because that is the only speed allowed in the Planck medium (unless the Planck medium is altered in some way, as it is when it has more tension). 

As for gravity and the Planck aether, since the density of the Planck aether is so great (10^94g/cm^3) it can:

(1) penetrate all baryonic matter. But since it cannot replace baryonic  matter,  the baryonic/Planck combination (as occurs, for example, in a typical planet) will create a huge vacuum against the pure Planck aether in space. This vacuum will attempt to compensate by pulling in any object that has less of a baryonic/Planck combination (less because it is smaller than the planet), and this is what we understand as gravity.

(2) Additionally, the Planck aether solves the gravity speed problem (Einstein limited gravity to c because of the demands of his SRT, but that slow speed for gravity simply doesn’t work). In a Planck aether universe, the speed of gravity is practically unlimited. Since the Planck aether is so dense, it can carry longitudinal waves or compression waves over the entire universe in a split second (about 10^‐11 seconds).

(3) Additionally, the Planck aether solves the “action‐at‐a‐distance” problem of Newton’s physics, as well as the problem of “entanglement.”  Newton had the problem that his theory of gravity required non‐locality, that is, gravity had to act upon objects instantaneously that were huge distances apart. This problem is solved by the instantaneous speed of gravity allowed by a Planck aether. In “entanglement” an electron in one place has a coupling with an electron in a different place. This instantaneous communication between electrons is allowed by the Planck aether. 
That sounds like total guesswork about nothing more than a hypothesis.

You might not bother to but others might read the following. Whatever you might claim, I'd suggest Dr. Alec MacAndrew's understanding of physics leaves that of Robert Sungenis for dead!
Quote from: Dr. Alec MacAndrew
Geocentrism Debunked: Aether, Springs, and Light: Physics Blunders in Galileo Was Wrong (https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/aether-springs-light-sungenis-fails/)
1 Introduction
I sometimes browse Mr Robert Sungenis’s Facebook page here (https://www.facebook.com/groups/574635989349745/), the one called Ask Robert Sungenis about Geocentrism, because the spectacle of a man virtually devoid of education in science giving absurd answers to earnest scientific questions posed by his undiscerning admirers can be very funny.

As it is on the Facebook page here (https://www.facebook.com/groups/574635989349745/permalink/759335194213156/)[1], where Sungenis answered a question about the propagation of light in a “rotating universe”. There is much wrong with his reply, which we’ll get to later, but one very elementary mistake jumped out at me. His reply depends on the existence of a speculative medium, the “geocentric aether”, which he invented and which he believes is needed for the propagation of light. He claimed, among other things, that the speed of light depends on the tension in the aether (don’t worry, we’ll come back later to these claims about how light travels) and he provided an analogy for how he thinks this works.

<< Read the rest to see how laughably wrong Robert Sungenis is in simple physics. >>
Only someone who had no understanding of physics could be fooled by the ideas put forward by Robert Sungenis.
Those interested might like to read Welcome to GeocentrismDebunked.org (https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/)

For a start a Geocentric Solar System is completely impossible even under simple Newtonian Mechanics and Gravitation - but you never understood them anyway, did you?
If you disagree, please calculate the centripetal acceleration needed hold the moon in an orbit where it rotates about the earth once in about 24.8 hours.
Then explain what mechanism supplies that necessary centripetal acceleration.

In closing, I must ask why are you afraid to admit to your own deception when you use "Photoshopped" images in a video that tries to prove NASA's deception.
See again: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum) « Reply #300 on: July 28, 2019, 09:54:18 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2191157#msg2191157).
That's blatant dishonesty and hypocrisy in my book.

I'll take your refusal to answer as a tacit admission of your gullt!

[1] Ask Robert Sungenis About Geocentrism: This post has been removed or could not be loaded. - I wonder why Robert Sungenis removed it ????
Title: Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
Post by: cikljamas on July 30, 2019, 07:33:08 AM
The bottom line is that rotary motion, such as the earth's rotation, can be and is regularly measured.
The bottom line is this :

No experiment has ever been performed with such excruciating persistence and meticulous precision, and in every conceivable manner, than that of trying to detect and measure the motion of the Earth. Yet they have all consistently and continually yielded a velocity for the Earth of exactly ZERO mph.

The toil of thousands of exasperated researchers, in the extremely varied experiments of Arago, De Coudre's induction, Fizeau, Fresnell drag, Hoek, Jaseja's lasers, Jenkins, Klinkerfuess, Michelson-Morley interferometry, Lord Rayleigh's polarimetry, Troughton-Noble torque, and the famous 'Airy's Failure' experiment, all conclusively failed to show any rotational or translational movement for the earth, whatsoever."

Some scientists admit the truth in their own words. Dutch physicist *HENDRIK LORENTZ* (of the Lorentz translation equations, foundation of the General Theory of Relativity) noted that:

"Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest…"

His great contemporary *HENRI POINCARE* confessed:

"A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth’s movement. The results were always negative..."

*LINCOLN BARNETT* agrees:

“No physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.”

In other words, the notion that the earth revolves around the sun having become dogma, its denial spells automatic excommunication from the scientific establishment. As for the unthinking masses, a lie need only be systematized in textbooks to pass for truth.

Enter Albert Einstein . To save the world from having to
reconnect itself with the Middle Ages, Einstein set his mind to finding an
explanation to the Michelson-Morley experiment . Most people don’t
realize, and even less would admit it, but Relativity was created for one
main reason
: so that mankind would not be forced to admit that Earth
was standing still in space
. As his contemporary, Max von Laue stated:

Thus, a new epoch in physics created a new mechanics... it
began, we might say, with the question as to what effect the
motion of the Earth has on physical processes which take place
on the Earth... we can assign to the dividing line between
epochs a precise date: It was on September 26, 1905, that
Albert Einstein’s investigation entitled “On the
Electrodynamics of Bodies in Motion”
appeared in the Annalen
der Physik
.

In fact, Einstein would be called “a new Copernicus.
Unbeknownst