WHY would the government trick us?

  • 280 Replies
  • 5688 Views
Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« Reply #270 on: June 15, 2024, 07:32:25 AM »
You keep saying that,

Done throwing your temper tantrum.

So bulma.  If things need to push off things to move.  And need a force to get an object to accelerate from stationary.  In the Pop-It video in your no gravity delusion.  When the magnet holding the metal ball to the top of the tank is removed to drop the metal ball.  How does the metal ball physically and knows to drop straight down through the vacuum.  Why doesn’t the metal ball just roll around on the underside of the top plate of the container.  Why does it move at all.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42609
Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« Reply #271 on: June 15, 2024, 10:22:17 AM »
I want to see a full-size but not full-tanked (1% fuel) rocket launch upward in a vacuum. Without tethers. In the biggest chamber you can afford.
Why?  What is that supposed to prove? 

The proof that has to be shown is that when a rocket it depleted of fuel, that it will not fall back to earth.
The lower stages of rockets do fall back to earth when the fuel is depleted.  I don't think that anyone has claimed otherwise.  In fact, even the upper stages of rockets that put satellites into orbit will do a de-orbit burn so as to fall back to earth and reduce space junk.

Even a tiny rocket without restraints moving up an not falling down. Ignition is not enough. "What goes up, must come down," Newton says. " Objects in motion stay in motion unless acted upon by another force." Which do you want to believe?
Fixed that for you.  Do you think what someone is claiming that the tiny rocket should levitate in the vacuum chamber after the propellant is consumed?

I already know it will fall. You still believe such a thing as "escape velocity" exists despite only seeing this "evidence" on TV.
Actually, it's physics that says that escape velocity is a thing.
https://www.britannica.com/science/escape-velocity

They lie about the shape of the Earth to prop up other lies. We can live in a space thingy (ISS) for years. We can go to Mars. As those lies are exposed, suddenly things get shuttered.
Quote
What lies were being propped up during the 2000 or so years before space travel?

The Earth is a plane, and it has been made so it cannot be moved.
Tom Bishop, among others would disagree with you on the "cannot be moved" bit.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

JackBlack

  • 22180
Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« Reply #272 on: June 15, 2024, 03:16:21 PM »
Yes, as a matter of fact they do.
No.
They don't.
YOU DO.
YOU incorrectly think that crap.

All of these videos of rockets
Are these videos including the ones going into space.

I want to see a full-size but not full-tanked (1% fuel) rocket launch upward in a vacuum.
Why?
So you can appeal to more dishonest BS where you have yet another invalid comparison?

In order for the rocket to keep going, it needs to be in orbit or at or above escape velocity.
If it is on a sub-orbital trajectory, it will collide with Earth, and that collision will stop it.


But the rule of burden of proof is that the one making a claim must supply proof.
And we have plenty. With you just rejecting it, appealing to dishoneset tests where you ignore key differences, all to reject reality.
All while ignoring simple questions which show your claim is wrong.

your socialist ideas say that those with money must give taxes to those without. So you have to pay for this.
And yet another blatant misrepresentation.
Socialism is not the rich must pay for what ridiculous BS idiots demand.

If you need to go see a doctor, I'm fine with the rich paying for that.
If people need to go to school, or use roads, and so on, I'm fine for the rich paying for that.

But if you want to reject reality and make ridiculous demands, you pay for it.

The proof that has to be shown is that when a rocket it depleted of fuel, that it will not fall back to earth.
And again, if you want that you need it to be fully fueled so it can go to orbit or acheive escape velocity.

"What goes up, must come down," Newton says.
Does he?
Because you have already had it explained why that isn't the case.

Although I suppose people like turbo would say it does, because to orbit in a circle, remaining the same height about Earth it needs to "go down".

Again, an object in orbit continually accelerates towards Earth.

But just as a hypothetical, what would happen if the object came down, but instead of colliding with Earth it passes straight through and isn't affected by friction or air resistance?
Then just like a pendulum, it continues to speed up until it passes a lowest point, and then starts going back up.
Gravity can't stop things. It just converts between kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy.
It isn't gravity causing things like that to stop, it is air resistance and far more importantly the collision with Earth.

I already know it will fall.
No, you don't.
You BELIEVE it, without reason.

You still believe such a thing as "escape velocity" exists
Yes, because it is simple math.
We know that gravity gets weaker with increasing altitude. Specifically following an inverse square law.
We know that that means if you launch an object up, the rate at which it slows down will decrease.
We can also easily convert that to energy, and find that gravitational potential energy is -GMm/r.
If it has more than that as kinetic energy, gravity can't stop it.
You need something else to stop it.

They lie about the shape of the Earth to prop up other lies.
You mean to prop up other truths you hate.
But these don't need Earth to be round.

Even in your fantasy, things can magically float above Earth for years.
So even if your delusional fantasy was true, there is nothing stopping them setting up a habitat high up above Earth and having that float there for years.
We would still be able to go to the other planets, they would just be a lot smaller.
Satellites would still be useful.

But even then, what purpose is this serving?
Just to lie for the sake of lying?
Where they then waste loads of money faking so many things?
There really is no purpose.

But this really just shows the level of your insanity, of how much you need to reject to cling to the lie that Earth is flat.

But that wasn't a question for you.
For you, the questions still remain:
WHERE DOES THE KINETIC ENERGY GO?
WHERE DOES THE MOMENTUM GO?
WHAT FORCE IS ACTING TO STOP IT?

How do you know?
How do you know that I am delusional?
I think it is more likely to be extreme dishonesty.
But we can't tell the difference between someone who is so horribly brainwashed and deluded and/or stupid to keep spouting the BS you are; vs someone who is so incredibly dishonest.

One clear example is how you quoted a source to allegedly say our understanding of Newton was wrong, with the source clearly saying that changes in motion require a force, which would include stopping requiring a force; yet you represented it as saying that continuing motion requires a force and stopping motion not requiring a force, directly contradicting it.

You have had your BS refuted repeatedly, yet you keep repeating the same refuted BS, continuing to ignore why it is BS which doesn't work to show a problem with rockets.
You even went so far as to directly appeal to what makes your comparison BS as if it should explain why the rocket stops.

You effectivley admit to rockets working in space to propell themselves, you even show plenty of example videos of exactly that, but you then proceed to continue to repeat the same BS of "push ups on water" to pretend that can't work.

All while avoiding simple questions which show you are wrong.

So it is pretty clear, you are either continually lying to everyone and doing so knowingly; a complete imbecile that can't comprehend simple things (at which point I would suspect you would be too stupid to use the forums) or you are so brainwashed and deluded your mind stops you from seeing those connections.

But what is clear, is that you are NOT an honest, intelligent, sane (i.e. not brainwashed/deluded) person. One of those must be missing.

You can leave out the other irrelavent crap until you deal with the issue at hand.

*

JackBlack

  • 22180
Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« Reply #273 on: June 15, 2024, 03:17:07 PM »
I want you to try this. I want you to get in the car, and drive away, and show me how momentum is an infinite force.
So you don't want reality to be shown to you.
You want to continue clinging to dishoneset BS.

Again, MOMENTUM IS NOT A FORCE!
You need a force to change momentum, to change motion.
No force, no change in motion.
No force, no stopping the rocket.

And a car is not a rocket.
It has lots of losses which you keep on ignoring.

Just look at how you are saying it will go wrong:

first the wheels will heat up. Then the tire will go flat
i.e. the problem is the very thing which you are inserting into this BS comparison which doesn't exist on a rocket.
Considering you are appealing to magic anyway to ignore friction on this ice, throw in a bit more and have the car levitate without wheels. Then no issues at all. It just keeps on going. No tires heating up, no tires breaking, it just keeps going.

Escape velocity? What escape velocity?
For Earth, roughly 11 km/s.

Even in a vacuum, you cannot make that work.
Yet you cannot provide any actual objection to it.

Energy is used up, one way or another.
This is the issue you keep avoiding.
We can point out where it is going in your pathetic comparisons.
Yet you still cannot explain where this kinetic energy is going for a rocket in space.

Energy can't just magically vanish. It has to go somewhere.

But you're hoping I'm gullible enough to believe momentum continues in adverse conditions.
You mean I know you are gullible and desperate enough to accept whatever BS any one can come up with to prop up your FE fantasy, while entirely incapable of showing any fault with reality (rockets in space).

Did you notice it continue to move forward?
Did you notice the other forces acting on it?
Of course not, because dishoneset people like you want to ignore things that show they are full of shit.

It collided with a wall and broke apart.

Where is this magic wall of yours in space?

The other one instead hits the wall and bounces without breaking up; and is tied to a string as well.
Where is this magic wall and string in space?

The purpose of these experiments is NOT to show a rocket in orbit or achieving escape velocity. It is to show rockets work in a vacuum. That they can be propelled without needing air.
So your objection of "doing push ups against water" is pure BS.
But people like you refuse to put that together.

Again, if you want to show it in orbit you need to have a setup where it can orbit and have it going at orbital velocity, without losses due to friction holding it there.

This is what the internet says happens when a rocket loses all fuel.
You mean this is what lying POS like you say, based upon blatant misrepesentations?
Again, for the rocket where is the string? Where are the others it is smashing into?

Nowhere.

You have already had that blatant lie of yours refuted.
Why provide the same dishonset BS?

Friction still exists in a vacuum.
As explained before, the firciton which occurs in the vacuum of interplanetary space is negligble.

Heat exchange still exists in a vacuum.
Which allows an object to heat or cool. It can't magically take away kinetic energy.

Again:
WHERE DOES THE KINETIC ENERGY GO?
WHERE DOES THE MOMENTUM GO?
WHAT FORCE IS ACTING TO STOP IT?

Until you can answers these, your arguments are pure BS.

Stop appealing to BS analogies which contain things which a rocket in space doesn't, and instead answer the simple questions.
If you can't, just be honest for once in your life and admit you don't have any reason for why rockets shouldn't continue in space.

Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« Reply #274 on: June 15, 2024, 06:48:41 PM »
You keep saying that,

Done throwing your temper tantrum.

You're valuing yourself too much. I don't care enough to get mad at you.

You haven't any concept of why you know what you know.  And since you dodged the question, to quote Jesus himself,
Quote
Neither will I tell you...

Moving on to marky mark broseph.

Quote
Why?  What is that supposed to prove?

If fuel is not important and momentum is all important, then our huge vacuum space will allow us to continue up and up.
But if an object's weight is important and momentum is really only good for the energy of least resistance, then since an uphill climb is supposed to be harder than a downhill path, what goes up must come down. Escape velocity? Nah man, the thing will fall back to the ground.

Quote
Fixed that for you.  Do you think what someone is claiming that the tiny rocket should levitate in the vacuum chamber after the propellant is consumed?

But you don't believe that strongly enough.

If you say gravity is a thing (or even like me, you don't), then the heavier a rocket, the more fuel it needs to launch. This means that is there is even is ever a shortage, this force as you put it will put act upon it. But this is semantics. Whether we say an opposing causes it to fall, or we say that it runs out kinetic energy, it's just two ways of saying the same thing. And that thing is that there ain't no way that the rocket will stay in motion. It's gonna fall.

But the truth is that it does run out of kinetic energy, in the same way that a cue ball in pool runs out of energy from a combination of distance and friction.

Quote
Actually, it's physics that says that escape velocity is a thing.
https://www.britannica.com/science/escape-velocity

Like Data, you trusting "physics says so" instead of "this matches what I can observe." A pity. Another slave.

I don't care what Britannica says. Escape velocity is not a thing. It's just a fiction people came up to justify the fact that actual vacuum tests show nothing of this so-called "friction-free paradise". Again, the pendulum inside the vacuum chamber stops. Friction still exists. So escape velocity and the No True Scotsman fallacy are employed to explain away why objects inside a vacuum don't do that at all. "That isn't a real vacuum." Yeah but we have never been in a true vacuum then. Read this:
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/184/1
Basically, "outer space" still has air in it, so the claim that you escaped anything is a patent lie. But we have never been there either.   

Quote
Tom Bishop, among others would disagree with you on the "cannot be moved" bit.

And I'm supposed to care about him, why? I don't even necessarily agree with other flat Earthers on everything. Eric Dubay seems to think religion is part of the hoax. I don't even agree with my friends always. I don't care what other people "know" to be true. 
« Last Edit: June 15, 2024, 06:50:19 PM by bulmabriefs144 »

*

JackBlack

  • 22180
Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« Reply #275 on: June 15, 2024, 07:50:01 PM »
If fuel is not important and momentum is all important, then our huge vacuum space will allow us to continue up and up.
Fuel is important to burn to give you enough momentum.
If you want to keep going up, you need to go fast enough.

You are basically saying that if an object below escape velocty doesn't escape then escape velocity can't exist.
It makes no sense at all.
The math shows you need to be going at a certain speed (escape velocity) or higher to escape.
So showing you don't escape below that speed is useless.
It doesn't show that escape velocity is real.

As a simple example, put a ball in a bowl.
Then just tap it to make it move a bit.
Then boldly proclaim because that tiny tap couldn't get it out, no matter how fast it goes it will never get out of the bowl.
That is the level of stupidity/dishonesty you are appealing to now.

If you say gravity is a thing (or even like me, you don't), then the heavier a rocket, the more fuel it needs to launch.
Which does not mean it doesn't launch.

it's just two ways of saying the same thing.
No, they are fundamentally different, if at least done honesetly.
If energy just magically runs out, it stops, regardless of direction, and nothing will change that.
If it is a force, then that force has a directionality.
If that direction is inwards (like gravity) this means if you are going fast enough sideways, you orbit instead of falling down.
And if this force is not constant, but instead varies with distance, then you can go fast enough such that it will never stop you.

Notice the difference?

But the truth is that it does run out of kinetic energy, in the same way that a cue ball in pool runs out of energy from a combination of distance and friction.
Distance doesn't cause it.
Friction does.
In that case, friction of the ball on the table.
What is the table meant to be for the rocket?
Yet again, you appeal to another BS analogy to further demonstrate your dishonesety or stupidity.

I don't care what Britannica says. Escape velocity is not a thing.
Yet you have no rational objection to it.

Again, the pendulum inside the vacuum chamber
Is suspended and has friction acting to slow it down.
It also is not going at escape velocity, nor orbital velocity.

The simple fact is that all the evidence available shows a force is required to slow things down. That they don't magically stop on their own accord due to energy magically disappearing.
Experiments show that energy cannot be created or destroyed. So the energy can't just die, it has to go somewhere.

In the crap you keep appealing to, we can show the force, and where the energy is going.
But you can't do that for a rocket in space.
You just keep on fleeing from the questions because you know they show your claims are pure BS.

Again:
WHERE DOES THE KINETIC ENERGY GO?
WHERE DOES THE MOMENTUM GO?
WHAT FORCE IS ACTING TO STOP IT?

Until you can answers these, your arguments are pure BS.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42609
Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« Reply #276 on: June 15, 2024, 08:40:37 PM »
If fuel is not important and momentum is all important, then our huge vacuum space will allow us to continue up and up.
But if an object's weight is important and momentum is really only good for the energy of least resistance, then since an uphill climb is supposed to be harder than a downhill path, what goes up must come down. Escape velocity? Nah man, the thing will fall back to the ground.
Are you under the impression that rockets are traveling straight up when they reach the vacuum of space? ???

If you say gravity is a thing (or even like me, you don't), then the heavier a rocket, the more fuel it needs to launch.
Congratulations, you just discovered the tyranny of the rocket equation.  Something that rocket scientists have been struggling with since the beginning.
https://www.marssociety.ca/2021/01/07/rocket-physics-the-rocket-equation/

I don't care what Britannica says. Escape velocity is not a thing. It's just a fiction people came up to justify the fact that actual vacuum tests show nothing of this so-called "friction-free paradise".
Escape velocity isn't so much about escaping friction as it is escaping earth's gravitational field.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« Reply #277 on: Today at 03:23:17 AM »
Quote
Still see the sun comes up in the east every morning over the same trees for the view from my house, and bulmabriefs144 is still delusional and wrong.

Btw, Data, the sun doesn't actually rise from the east.
https://solar-center.stanford.edu/AO/sunrise.html
Quote
Most people know that the Sun "rises in the east and sets in the west". However, most people don't realize that is a generalization. Actually, the Sun only rises due east and sets due west on 2 days of the year -- the spring and fall equinoxes! On other days, the Sun rises either north or south of "due east" and sets north or south of "due west."

So yeah, you don't know I'm deluded. You are as sure as something that (like a faulty clock) is right twice a year.

I like what it says next.
"Imagine a tiny version of yourself standing in the middle of the wooden disk."

Quote
Are you under the impression that rockets are traveling straight up when they reach the vacuum of space?


No, I'm under the impression that space travel is fraud. A magic trick designed to bilk money from a gullible populace. You see it wasting thousands of tons of propulsion fuel on a "gradual ascent" then the public is told such a clear and obvious lie when they see the shuttle's nose dip over the horizon that it might as well be that an emperor is robed in fabulous threads when they all can see him naked. The shuttle is too low in the sky. It flies like a plane, not like something earnestly trying to exit atmosphere. It's going to a remote location away from people, not upward.

Quote
Congratulations, you just discovered the tyranny of the rocket equation.

I didn't just discover this. I've been talking about it for like the last three pages. You just discovered that I was referring to it.

More importantly, this fuel load equation is why rocket packs after years of trying (world's fair after world's fair) have literally never gotten off the ground as a technology. By 2015, we were supposed to have invented hoverboards if Back to the Future was our roadmap. Instead, yummy  :P Tide Pods! Yes, this is the state of stupidity our culture is at. We think we are brilliant but actually we swallow the long explanation of the scientific equivalent of a bearded lady at a carnival.
 "Thinking themselves wise, they became fools."

Quote
Escape velocity isn't so much about escaping friction as it is escaping earth's gravitational field.

 You don't escape friction or gravity. The problem of a vacuum (and this is why I believe in buoyancy) is that it makes feathers drop like stones. All tests involving gravity fail, and instead require complicated rationalizations, when simply explaining them according to buoyancy makes sense. The feather drops because it is denser than air. The rocket likewise won't continue upward in a vacuum. When science makes predictions based on repeated observations, it is science. When it makes rationalizations and excuses, referring to films (where objects float in space because reasons) instead of observations in reality (where objects like feathers don't float in a vacuum, but they do float in the water, and they do float in a parabolic flight, and they do float in a wind tunnel).
 "Oh no, that's a vacuum within gravity. It will behave completely different in the vacuum of space."
 Let's humor you. Past the Karman Line, let's say even though all this time, things fell, once outside this line, even a few cm they suddenly switch to an orbit instead. Great you just described a side wind effect that knocks the ship into a spin if it ever stops moving. This is so much better.  ;D

If friction still exists, and the forces of buoyancy still exist, then every object trying to rise the layers of air pressure, whether doing it gradually or directly, must contend with the idea of a brick being launched from the bottom of the ocean to the air. You and I both know that at a certain point the brick is heavier than the water density and naturally sinks, not floats, and thus requires energy to rise. The density of a rocket is significantly more than that of a brick, and the layers of atmosphere are significantly thinner. And, again, there is nothing to push against. You are basically treading water by pushing using solid masses of expended gas.

Like a flying brick launched by a sling, it doesn't get to keep going and going. If propulsion tapers off for even a few seconds... back to Earth it goes.
« Last Edit: Today at 03:30:14 AM by bulmabriefs144 »

Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« Reply #278 on: Today at 05:53:55 AM »
Everybody, you can all relax.

The sun actually does rise in the East and set in the West - every day.  But it only rises in the due East twice a year, and sets in the due West twice a year. Every other time, it rises north or south of due East, and sets North or South of due West.

Somebody (not mentioning any names), must avoid wearing shoes with laces.

Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« Reply #279 on: Today at 08:43:53 AM »
The pedundulm is what?
A weight hanging by a wire string or stick and tied to a pivot point.

Not air friction.
But friction from the pivot point.

Astounding!







Air pressure can crush a barrel.
Air pressure can float a balloon.
Pressure is where bouyancy comes from.
And propulsion is the flow out of the balloon or rocket.
Two different means of lift.

Amazing!





*

JackBlack

  • 22180
Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« Reply #280 on: Today at 03:00:17 PM »
So yeah, you don't know I'm deluded.
Again, it is delusion, extreme stupidity, or dishonesty.
And you have demonstrated that yet again by running from the topic yet again to throw out more BS.

such a clear and obvious lie when they see the shuttle's nose dip over the horizon
Yet sane people realise that is in part due to perspective with it going far away, and due to Earth being round and it orbitting it.

The shuttle is too low in the sky. It flies like a plane, not like something earnestly trying to exit atmosphere.
Yet again, you repeat the same stupid BS.
For the most part, rockets are not going straight up, because that would be useless.
Most go into orbit.
And that requires going sideways.
Going straight up, turning 90 degrees and then trying to speed up would be a massive waste.

More importantly, this fuel load equation is why rocket packs after years of trying (world's fair after world's fair) have literally never gotten off the ground as a technology.
Yes, beacuse they want to be able to be carried by a person.

That is like saying jet planes must be fake because you can't carry a model plane that can fly you a considerable distance.

By 2015, we were supposed to have invented hoverboards if Back to the Future was our roadmap.
Only an idiot was use it as a roadmap.

You don't escape friction or gravity.
You can escape gravity.
You just keep pretending you can't.

The problem of a vacuum (and this is why I believe in buoyancy) is that it makes feathers drop like stones.
No, it doesn't. Gravity does.
But gravity is not magic, as already explained.

All tests involving gravity fail
Yet you cannot show a single one.
Conversely, simple tests and simple questions demonstrate your buoynacy idea is pure BS which cannot explain anything.

But stick to rockets.

When science makes predictions based on repeated observations, it is science.
And it is that science which tells us rockets do work in a vacuum, that they can orbit, and that they can exceed escape velocity.
This has also been quite repeatable, with loads of crafts put into orbit, and several sent away from Earth.

But you instead respond with pathetic excuses; with BS analogies which fail to represent what is being discussed.

Let's humor you. Past the Karman Line, let's say even though all this time, things fell, once outside this line, even a few cm they suddenly switch to an orbit instead.
Not how it works either.
The issue isn't vacuum or not, the issue is orbit or not. And there isn't some magical distance where things change from going down to orbitting. The issue is speed and direction.

A feather in a vacuum chamber sitting on Earth, even at the equator, is only going at ~450 m/s. Orbital velocity for that altitude is roughly 8 km/s.
So it is going far too slow.

If an object is stationary and released, it falls down and hits Earth.
If an object is moving at a significant horizontal velocity and is released, it instead follows an arc, where it moves some horizontal distance and some vertical distance.
If that is the right speed, that matches the curvature of Earth and it remains the same altitude.
If that is in a certain range of speeds, it doesn't perfectly match Earth so it does go up and down, but it still doesn't collide with Earth and it doesn't escape.
If it is fast enough, then gravity isn't strong enough to pull it down so it keeps getting higher and higher, escaping Earth's gravity.

Again, this isn't hard to understand, it is just simple math.

It was even shown before with Newton's Cannonball:


If friction still exists
We have been over this, friction in space (trying to slow the rocket down) is negligible.

the forces of buoyancy still exist
Buoyancy requires a fluid pushing up.
Your magic buoyancy BS never exists.

the brick is heavier than the water density and naturally sinks, not floats, and thus requires energy to rise.
If only they had some kind of engine which burns fuel and shoots it out at a high velocity. Oh wait, they do.

And, again, there is nothing to push against.
You have already admitted that is pure BS.
You have provided videos showing that is pure BS.
Videos clearly showing rockets can and do work in a vacuum, by which I mean the fuel they use being burnt provides thrust as it is expelled out the back at a high rate of speed pushing the rocket forwards.

You are now running back to the same refuted BS which you have refuted yourself because you have run out of excuses.

Yet you claim to not be deluded.
If you aren't deluded then you are just lying to everyone, or a complete imbecile incapable of connecting the dots or holding more than a single thought in your head at a time.


Now again, if you want your BS to work you need to answer the questions you keep fleeing from:
WHERE DOES THE KINETIC ENERGY GO?
WHERE DOES THE MOMENTUM GO?
WHAT FORCE IS ACTING TO STOP IT?

Until you can answers these, your arguments are pure BS.