HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)

  • 1372 Replies
  • 23869 Views
*

cikljamas

  • 1857
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« 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
« Last Edit: July 20, 2019, 07:55:42 AM by cikljamas »
"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #1 on: July 20, 2019, 06:12:10 AM »
since youtube is shutting my channel down)
No kidding. Why could that possibly be??

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #2 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 !!

*

cikljamas

  • 1857
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #3 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
« Last Edit: July 20, 2019, 07:11:37 AM by cikljamas »
"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack

*

sokarul

  • 16042
  • Discount Chemist
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

*

cikljamas

  • 1857
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #5 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!
"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack

*

cikljamas

  • 1857
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #6 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

"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack

*

sokarul

  • 16042
  • Discount Chemist
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #7 on: July 20, 2019, 07:28:23 AM »
Take the argument over to the other thread. It’s all explained there.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

*

cikljamas

  • 1857
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #8 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!
« Last Edit: July 20, 2019, 07:56:23 AM by cikljamas »
"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack

*

cikljamas

  • 1857
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #9 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?
"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack

*

sokarul

  • 16042
  • Discount Chemist
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #10 on: July 20, 2019, 07:42:09 AM »

Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

*

cikljamas

  • 1857
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #11 on: July 20, 2019, 08:02:28 AM »



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...
"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack

*

mightyfletch

  • 186
  • 14yr Meteorologist...because the Earth is round.
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #12 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. 

Look up in the sky, it's a bird, no, it's a plane, no, it's the International Space Station!

*

mightyfletch

  • 186
  • 14yr Meteorologist...because the Earth is round.
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #13 on: July 20, 2019, 08:27:05 AM »



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.
Look up in the sky, it's a bird, no, it's a plane, no, it's the International Space Station!

*

Macarios

  • 1687
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #14 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.
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 18370
  • Backstage
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #15 on: July 20, 2019, 10:10:59 AM »
HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY to all !
boydster the angry globalist being a mod is my red line. During he continues to be mod, others will be ignored till infinity.






*

cikljamas

  • 1857
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #16 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 :
"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack

*

sokarul

  • 16042
  • Discount Chemist
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #17 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.




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.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

*

Macarios

  • 1687
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #18 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):


~~~~~~~~~~

Further violent expansion of gasses inside the nozzle pushes the rocket additionally:



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

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.
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #19 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.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #20 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.

Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #21 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.

*

rabinoz

  • Ranters
  • 22351
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #22 on: July 20, 2019, 04:06:02 PM »
You are useless.
He probably hit a nerve somewhere !!

Is he treathening your sacred ‘munlundings’ ?
  • Cikljamas does not believe in your flat motionless earth but in a Universe with the Globe Earth at the centre of the Universe. So he shows far more sense than you!

  • But anyone anyone who claims that rockets can't fly in a vacuum does not know the first thing about the physics of motion.
    So you should stand in the corner and study:


    So put on your dunces hat!

*

rabinoz

  • Ranters
  • 22351
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #23 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".

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #24 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 ?

*

rabinoz

  • Ranters
  • 22351
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #25 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!

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #26 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 ! ;)

« Last Edit: July 21, 2019, 03:37:34 AM by dutchy »

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 18370
  • Backstage
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #27 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.
boydster the angry globalist being a mod is my red line. During he continues to be mod, others will be ignored till infinity.






*

rabinoz

  • Ranters
  • 22351
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #28 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.
  • The Apollo missions landed on the moon before the surface temperature of the moon had risen too high.

  • The main thermal control on the LM was a very effective insulating material covering both the descent and the ascent stages - the stuff that looks like gold foil is part of that.

  • The suits the astronauts wore used evaporative cooling by letting water slowly evaporate into space and so cool the air that was circulated in the suit.
NASA had carefully planned all this long before.

Read more detail in: How did the air conditioning work on Apollo 11 lunar landing module?

*

cikljamas

  • 1857
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #29 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)???



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 :

« Last Edit: July 21, 2019, 06:00:06 AM by cikljamas »
"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack