Moon Hoax, Not

  • 1293 Replies
  • 189288 Views
Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #600 on: February 19, 2013, 09:04:18 AM »
If an atmosphere is needed for rockets to work then why is there a slight increase in thrust and efficiency the higher up the rocket is? Obviously there is less air up there so by your logic it should work the opposite.

Could you please answer the question now?

Seriously Sceptimatic why do rockets work like this in real life?
Why use evidence
Ok

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #601 on: February 19, 2013, 09:04:43 AM »


Unbelievable. You have to be trolling now.  ;D
;D I'm not trolling, it's just that I've been through all this before and I just thought your picture was funny.

Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #602 on: February 19, 2013, 09:07:32 AM »
Scepti would you agree that a rocket can travel at super sonic speeds?
To be honest, I'm not sure. Seriously. Probably though.

wouldn't the cold/hot air combination pushing the rocket therefore have to also be traveling at super sonic speeds?
Think of a jet.
Ok I'm thinking of an aircraft powered by a jet engine as opposed to this jet, is that correct?
I'd like to agree with you but then we'd both be wrong!

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #603 on: February 19, 2013, 09:10:07 AM »
Scepti would you agree that a rocket can travel at super sonic speeds?
To be honest, I'm not sure. Seriously. Probably though.

wouldn't the cold/hot air combination pushing the rocket therefore have to also be traveling at super sonic speeds?
Think of a jet.
Ok I'm thinking of an aircraft powered by a jet engine as opposed to this jet, is that correct?

Yes.

Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #604 on: February 19, 2013, 09:20:06 AM »
Oh well I'll stop thinking about her then. OK so now I'm thinking of a jet powered aircraft what next?

It works on the same fundamental principles as a rocket, hot stuff is being pushed out the back.


« Last Edit: February 19, 2013, 09:24:13 AM by Manarq »
I'd like to agree with you but then we'd both be wrong!

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #605 on: February 19, 2013, 09:29:43 AM »
So how does that jet engine propel the jet forward?

Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #606 on: February 19, 2013, 09:34:45 AM »
Scepti would you agree that a rocket can travel at super sonic speeds?
To be honest, I'm not sure. Seriously. Probably though.

wouldn't the cold/hot air combination pushing the rocket therefore have to also be traveling at super sonic speeds?
Think of a jet.
Ok I'm thinking of an aircraft powered by a jet engine as opposed to this jet, is that correct?


Ah, Jet...  I use to fap to her when I was younger.

Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #607 on: February 19, 2013, 09:38:08 AM »
If an atmosphere is needed for rockets to work then why is there a slight increase in thrust and efficiency the higher up the rocket is? Obviously there is less air up there so by your logic it should work the opposite.

Could you please answer the question now?

Seriously Sceptimatic why do rockets work like this in real life?

I wonder why you appear to be ignoring this question. It really disproves your theory yet you haven't answered it the 5 or so times I asked.

Edit: ^Ok then... heh
Why use evidence
Ok

Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #608 on: February 19, 2013, 09:41:27 AM »
So how does that jet engine propel the jet forward?

I'd like to agree with you but then we'd both be wrong!

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #609 on: February 19, 2013, 09:57:08 AM »
It's a bit vague.

Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #610 on: February 19, 2013, 11:05:30 AM »
It's a bit vague.

Any more detail and your brain would explode.  >:(

Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #611 on: February 19, 2013, 11:12:19 AM »
It's a bit vague.

Do you not understand it?

Or do you not believe it?

Two different things.

*

Dr.Nor

  • 2196
  • Yes, i am a guru
Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #612 on: February 19, 2013, 11:20:19 AM »
Definition of VAGUE

1
a : not clearly expressed : stated in indefinite terms <vague accusations>
b : not having a precise meaning <a vague term of abuse>
Sir Th*rk is a sexy hero. And his voice is warm and husky like dark melted chocolate.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #613 on: February 19, 2013, 11:21:05 AM »
It's a bit vague.

Any more detail and your brain would explode.  >:(
I'm a simple kind of guy who likes to view things simple.

If 1+1 =2, I want to know that it's 1 add 1 equals 2, I do not want to know that 4 quarters, plus two halves, take away 9 plus 7 sixteenths add 4 plus 4 eighths equals two, if you get my meaning.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2013, 11:24:46 AM by sceptimatic »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #614 on: February 19, 2013, 11:24:05 AM »
It's a bit vague.

Do you not understand it?

Or do you not believe it?

Two different things.
Scientists explain s a lot of thing in a difficult way that can be easily explained using a much more simplistic way.
It is done the hard way because scientists do not like to follow any simplistic route to get to an answer as it makes their theories and themselves look ordinary and they cannot be having that as they want to be a master of their field.


?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #615 on: February 19, 2013, 11:24:16 AM »

 I'm a simple kind of guy


well no shit, thing is you are trying to understand rocket science. you always ask if something can be broken down into basic terms. you say it a lot. if anything is more complex than 1+1=2 you call it 'shoe horned'.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #616 on: February 19, 2013, 11:28:25 AM »

 I'm a simple kind of guy


well no shit, thing is you are trying to understand rocket science. you always ask if something can be broken down into basic terms. you say it a lot. if anything is more complex than 1+1=2 you call it 'shoe horned'.
No , no , no, I do not. I call things that are made to fit, shoe horned, as in , why don;t we fall off the earth? The answer is, we have a mystical atmosphere and gravity that sticks us to it and centrifugal force coupled with centripetal force keeps us all snug and the math can be done to show why it works, yet nobody has a frigging clue as to what it means.
E=MC2...? why?
Of course, we know it's energy equals mass times the speed of light blah blah blah but what the hell is it? Well, we can go and do the equations to prove this..go on try it.

I think you get my meaning about "shoehorned" now.  :)

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #617 on: February 19, 2013, 11:33:31 AM »
fair enough.

you do need to accept that a lot of things cant be broken down into such simple terms too. a lot of the things you post about (if you are genuine) are complex things that require specialist knowledge in that field. you then claim to have more feasible alternatives to what the mainstream tells you.

look at your discussion on the ISS for example. you have these ideas about it, yet you wont even observe it for yourself. this is why you are called names round here and probably on other forums you chat on. your ideas wouldnt be so stupid if you actually had some leg work behind them to prove your point.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #618 on: February 19, 2013, 11:41:51 AM »
fair enough.

you do need to accept that a lot of things cant be broken down into such simple terms too. a lot of the things you post about (if you are genuine) are complex things that require specialist knowledge in that field. you then claim to have more feasible alternatives to what the mainstream tells you.

look at your discussion on the ISS for example. you have these ideas about it, yet you wont even observe it for yourself. this is why you are called names round here and probably on other forums you chat on. your ideas wouldnt be so stupid if you actually had some leg work behind them to prove your point.
Try not to view me through a scientific eye then.
My name is sceptimatic for a reason. It's because I've spent a long time in my life being fed bull shit and now I tighten my lips when the spoon fed garbage goes to my mouth, until I'm sure that what I'm about to swallow, smells nice, looks nice and won;t leave a bitter after taste once I've opened up to it.

If I knocked on your door to tell you that the rep from the window firm, who you have just paid 10 grand to, has ripped you off and you can get it for cheaper, I don;t need to stand there and do you a full on calculation for you, based on the amount of windows you have do I?
You will take heed of what I say and get better quotes or you will be naive and tell me to piss off and go with the nice man in the suit who you believe has told you what you wanted to hear.

The man in the suit or the white badged overall stood in front of you at the university, may arrogantly believe he knows what he knows, yet he could also be teaching flawed science, yet he gets paid to teach what they tell him to teach and to go against it means he not only loses his job, he loses and potential to take on another job in that science, as he will be known as a black sheep.


?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #619 on: February 19, 2013, 11:47:03 AM »
So you won't look at the ISS? And the reason is?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #620 on: February 19, 2013, 11:51:30 AM »
So you won't look at the ISS? And the reason is?
What do you mean, "I won't look at the ISS?"

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #621 on: February 19, 2013, 11:55:51 AM »
You stated on here that you won't check to see the ISS because you don't think you need to.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #622 on: February 19, 2013, 11:57:12 AM »
You stated on here that you won't check to see the ISS because you don't think you need to.

He said that?

*

Dr.Nor

  • 2196
  • Yes, i am a guru
Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #623 on: February 19, 2013, 12:06:27 PM »
You stated on here that you won't check to see the ISS because you don't think you need to.

Where an when did he say so? And in what context? If you are wrong, this might be the RE-scandal of the year. You'll better find that statement very quick, sir!

waiting
Sir Th*rk is a sexy hero. And his voice is warm and husky like dark melted chocolate.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #624 on: February 19, 2013, 12:08:01 PM »
You stated on here that you won't check to see the ISS because you don't think you need to.
I don't have the equipment for one and also, I am not going to follow the co-ordinates of a website to track the ISS as that sets alarm bells ringing for starters.

I'd love somebody to track an orbit of this supposed ISS though. Someone who is savvy to all of this and can track it based on how they work out it's orbit, without the aid of a website that could be tied into N.A.S.A or whoever.

That person would have to be someone who doesn't simply accept as gospel what they are told though and not someone who unconditionally believes there is an ISS 230 odd miles up in space.

Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #625 on: February 19, 2013, 12:16:36 PM »
Actually yes, he did say that, but I'm sure it will take a long time to search through his last 500 or so posts.
Also, I'm still waiting for an answer Sceptimatic.
Why use evidence
Ok

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #626 on: February 19, 2013, 12:23:45 PM »
Actually yes, he did say that, but I'm sure it will take a long time to search through his last 500 or so posts.
Also, I'm still waiting for an answer Sceptimatic.
An answer to what?

Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #627 on: February 19, 2013, 12:55:07 PM »
If an atmosphere is needed for rockets to work then why is there a slight increase in thrust and efficiency the higher up the rocket is? Obviously there is less air up there so by your logic it should work the opposite.

Could you please answer the question now?

Seriously Sceptimatic why do rockets work like this in real life?

That is, if you still believe your theory on why rockets work.
Why use evidence
Ok

Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #628 on: February 19, 2013, 12:58:00 PM »

It's a bit vague.

&

I'm a simple kind of guy who likes to view things simple.
Too many arrows and words?

I'm not sure how much simpler it can be. 

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #629 on: February 19, 2013, 12:59:21 PM »
If an atmosphere is needed for rockets to work then why is there a slight increase in thrust and efficiency the higher up the rocket is? Obviously there is less air up there so by your logic it should work the opposite.

Could you please answer the question now?

Seriously Sceptimatic why do rockets work like this in real life?

That is, if you still believe your theory on why rockets work.
I still stand fast on them needing an atmosphere to work in yes.
I 100% stand by my stance on them not working in the vacuum of space as we are told space is.Which I don't believe it is what we are told to be honest.

I happen to think getting out of our atmosphere would be impossible and a shit load scarier than just breaking through an atmosphere into a vacuum.