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

The laws of physics asserts that humans and every other living, walking, running, jumping, crawling, flying or swimming creature and all man-made machines that move on wheels, tracks and legs, fly or hover with propellers, rotors, jets or rockets must have the inherent ability to thrust against a separate external resistant force in order to be able to physically move in a chosen direction.

Please quote these laws of physics that demand "the inherent ability to thrust against a separate external resistant force in order to be able to physically move in a chosen direction"!

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

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

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

By the way, are you still pushing fake photos as "proof " of NASA "fakery "? Yes or No!

Quote from: cikljamas on July 21, 2019, 05:41:20 AM

The laws of physics asserts that humans and every other living, walking, running, jumping, crawling, flying or swimming creature and all man-made machines that move on wheels, tracks and legs, fly or hover with propellers, rotors, jets or rockets must have the inherent ability to thrust against a separate external resistant force in order to be able to physically move in a chosen direction.

Please quote these laws of physics that demand "the inherent ability to thrust against a separate external resistant force in order to be able to physically move in a chosen direction"!

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

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

Your stupidity reminded me to one other similar conversation :

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

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

Straight from my "rocket school for dummies" notes: BOWLING BALL VS AIR: rockets like jets push off air, one uses compressed air the other expanding gases, take away the air or interfere with full penetration of the air by the exhaust thrust column as you saw in the video above, and as we see at lift off by the flame trench and the rocket goes nowhere or in the later case the flame trench retards the accent by acting as a throttle, thus, we falsify what you just said, because we are not using bowling balls but air, and we falsify the claim that all work is done before the gas exits, any questions??

Ckljamas, there's a whole other thread devoted to rocket propulsion, perhaps you could add to that thread?

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

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

Have a closer look.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The laws of physics asserts that humans and every other living, walking, running, jumping, crawling, flying or swimming creature and all man-made machines that move on wheels, tracks and legs, fly or hover with propellers, rotors, jets or rockets must have the inherent ability to thrust against a separate external resistant force in order to be able to physically move in a chosen direction.

Citation needed.  What law says this?

Quote from: cikljamas on July 21, 2019, 05:41:20 AM

The laws of physics asserts that humans and every other living, walking, running, jumping, crawling, flying or swimming creature and all man-made machines that move on wheels, tracks and legs, fly or hover with propellers, rotors, jets or rockets must have the inherent ability to thrust against a separate external resistant force in order to be able to physically move in a chosen direction.

Citation needed.  What law says this?

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

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

Markjo probably has fond memories.

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 :

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

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

The laws of physics asserts that humans and every other living, walking, running, jumping, crawling, flying or swimming creature and all man-made machines that move on wheels, tracks and legs, fly or hover with propellers, rotors, jets or rockets must have the inherent ability to thrust against a separate external resistant force in order to be able to physically move in a chosen direction.

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

How does a flat Earth digress into rockets supposedly not being able to work in space, anyway? Rockets clearly do work in space, and that has no bearing whatsoever on the shape of the Earth. It's a completely separate matter.

Ckljamas, there's a whole other thread devoted to rocket propulsion, perhaps you could add to that thread?

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

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

Have a closer look.

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

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

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

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

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

Neil Armstrong EXCLUDED that he (or generally speaking anyone) saw (or could see) stars from the lunar surface, because quote : ''the sky is pitch black and other than the sun the earth is the ONLY visble object''.
Liars sometimes forget the exact propaganda about what they should see but didn't see when asked for...don't you understand ?

...thus, we falsify what you just said, because we are not using bowling balls but air, and we falsify the claim that all work is done before the gas exits, any questions??

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



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

Do you have an explanation how the operation continued while the survival operation temperature limit was 60 degrees celcius but 107 degrees exist on the moon? Your tears can not cool down the temperature.

Citation needed.
What makes you claim the survival operation temperature limit was 60 C?
How do you know the temperature where they were (not the moon in general, but there particular location) was 107 C or did you actually mean 107 F?

The laws of physics asserts that humans and every other living, walking, running, jumping, crawling, flying or swimming creature and all man-made machines that move on wheels, tracks and legs, fly or hover with propellers, rotors, jets or rockets must have the inherent ability to thrust against a separate external resistant force in order to be able to physically move in a chosen direction.

That highly depends upon what you mean by "separate external resistant force".
All you need is an object that is not you which you can exert a force on and have it apply a force back to you.
For a rocket, that is provided by the gas it generates, which ceases to be a part of it as it is expelled out the back of the rocket.

So no problem there.

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

You mean like sending a rocket into space and still having it work, like they have done plenty of times?
Glad we got that covered.

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

And the only way to do that would be to completely disregard the laws of physics, utilise a skewed version of Newton’s third law

You mean use the actual version of Newton's third law and accept that the gas expelled from the rocket is having a force applied to it by the rocket and thus it in turn provides a force to the rocket?

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

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

Yes, just a like a rocket throwing away the exhaust.
There is no rationally denying that.

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

You mean you were repeatedly refuted by providing a pure nonsense thought experiment which doesn't match reality at all and which you didn't even carry out properly.

Long before he extends his arms to the full extent and even much long before he throws the ball (before the ball is fully detached from his hands).

Yes, exactly as expected by mainstream physics.
He is applying a force to the ball to accelerate it, for the entire duration he is accelerating it.
While it does so it will apply the same force back to him.

It means that in our "balloon exhausting" kind of experiments we should expect the same result : our toy cars should start being propelled (pushed back) even before the air is exhausted out of the nozzle (drinking straw) into the surrounding environment!!!

Yes, as it is repeatedly observed in any valid experiments, i.e. ones designed to allow the air to escape and act like a rocket rather than the dishonest garbage some people provide to pretend they can't work.

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

.......let me ask you, what is the second body being acted upon, IN A VACUUM ??!!

The first body is the rocket. The second body is the exhaust gas.
(Or if you like, the individual particles that make it up).

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

No, we understand your  mistake.

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

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

COMBUSTION IS IMPOSSIBLE IN A VACUUM :

No, it is still quite possible, but some forms are very difficult or impossible.

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

You mean the idiot then says pure garbage?
No one appealed to half an explosion. That is just your strawman to pretend there is a problem.
Sure, the analogy isn't perfect, but it works fairly well.
An explosion is a very quickly expanding region of gas.
That matches what happens with the rocket quite well.
An explosion will not necessarily cause the rocket to explode. Instead it just pushes outwards, meaning the rocket will be pushed in one direction by the gas.

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

BOWLING BALL VS AIR: rockets like jets push off air

For Jets, that is the air they suck in and then expel. For rockets that is the "air" that they generate from combustion.
What happens to the air after it leaves the engine/nozzle is irrelevant.
That still means rockets work in a vacuum.

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

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

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

Now how about you try to answer that very simple question:
What force acts on the gas to make it move in a particular direction when exiting the rocket and what body is providing this force?
Again, the only rational answer is that the rocket is providing a force to the gas to move it backwards due to the way it is partially contained.

It only adds to the confusion.

No, it doesn't add to the confusion at all.
The only source of confusion is people not understanding how perspective works and how the same object will appear different from different angles.
An extreme example of that is this "optical illusion" type setup:

You cannot determine the shape of an object just from one view.

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

Silver oxide batteries have good performance characteristics at temperature extremes. They can be used up to 55°C(131°F)

This applies to the temperature of the batteries, not the outside temperature.
Another similar example is the use of superconducting magnets which need operating temperatures in the liquid nitrogen or liquid helium range.
Yet these work in devices which are sitting in a normal air conditioned room.
They operate because they have cooling in the device to keep the temperature in the required range.

were such that the lunar rover could be easily powered by two silver-oxide batteries.

What is the problem with that?
Why do you think it couldn't be?

Neil Armstrong EXCLUDED that he (or generally speaking anyone) saw (or could see) stars from the lunar surface

So what?
Trying seeing tiny spots of light when you have a massively bright light shining in your face.
Your eyes will adjust for the brightness of the lunar surface/the sun/the bright Earth. That will make the much dimmer stars much harder to see.

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

Another good example is a phone screen in bright daylight. A dim screen can be quite difficult to see anything on, simply because it isn't bright enough. But take it into a dark room and give your eyes time to adjust and you can easily see it.

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)

There is nothing wrong with the skateboard starting to move before the ball has left his hand. That is simply conservation of momentum -- the ball is starting to have some momentum to the left, meaning the boy/skateboard has to have equal momentum to the right. If the boy held onto the ball once his arms were fully extended, both the ball and the skateboard would stop. If the boy then pulled the ball back like he pushed it away, the ball and skateboard would return to their original position (approximately because of friction loss).

NASA is not the fraud here, it is your understanding of high school physics that is the problem.

Quote from: wise on July 21, 2019, 04:08:17 AM

Do you have an explanation how the operation continued while the survival operation temperature limit was 60 degrees celcius but 107 degrees exist on the moon? Your tears can not cool down the temperature.

Citation needed.
What makes you claim the survival operation temperature limit was 60 C?

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

Quote from: JackBlack on July 21, 2019, 02:24:54 PM

Quote from: wise on July 21, 2019, 04:08:17 AM

Do you have an explanation how the operation continued while the survival operation temperature limit was 60 degrees celcius but 107 degrees exist on the moon? Your tears can not cool down the temperature.

Citation needed.
What makes you claim the survival operation temperature limit was 60 C?

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

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

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

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

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

No, it doesn't add to the confusion at all.
The only source of confusion is people not understanding how perspective works and how the same object will appear different from different angles.

Please.... in highschool in 1982 i was allowed to do arts as a major school subject.
I am very aware how the different types of perspective work and able to perfectly execute it on a canvas.
This one has nothing to do with a different angle.
Don’t you see the top of the mountains ??

You cannot determine the shape of an object just from one view.

It totally depends on the object....
If that were true the first ‘blue marble’ a single shot from earth was not enough for you to accept the earth to be a sphere 

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

I am not upset, i am actually very much aware how perspective works
And you did not comment on the ‘growing mountain on the right’
But i presume you will throw in some fancy camera related nonsense ?

This applies to the temperature of the batteries, not the outside temperature.
Another similar example is the use of superconducting magnets which need operating temperatures in the liquid nitrogen or liquid helium range.
Yet these work in devices which are sitting in a normal air conditioned room.
They operate because they have cooling in the device to keep the temperature in the required range.

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

And i don’t believe how they handled the cooling properly, using change-of-phase wax thermal capacitor packages and reflective, upward-facing radiating surfaces.
It always sounds so plausible..... untill you understand that even when they went to most outlandish ‘worlds’ that it’s pretty easy to think of a ‘plausible’ way as to why their equipment did work in whatever place they want it to work.
That’s the power of scientific jargon..... that’s why startrek was such a success . You wondered from time to time why our rockets hadn’t integrated warp speed 

So what?
Trying seeing tiny spots of light when you have a massively bright light shining in your face.
Your eyes will adjust for the brightness of the lunar surface/the sun/the bright Earth. That will make the much dimmer stars much harder to see

You could not possibly know.
Fact is you would never get the facts wrong about your own special experiences in a way Armstrong does.
Somehow you are continiously avoiding the obvious.
Arnstrong claimed he could only see the earth and moon and this was presented as a general fact ‘the sky is pitchblack and other than the sun the earth is the only visible object’
It EXCLUDES the tiniest of faint stars, otherwise Armstrong SHOULD have included those.
It’s not about how hard something is to see, but about IF you could see them.
And during the Patrick Moore interview Armstrong simply forgets the full detailed NASA reality about standing on the lunar surface and gazing upwards and being able to see faint stars from time to time.

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

Another good example is a phone screen in bright daylight. A dim screen can be quite difficult to see anything on, simply because it isn't bright enough. But take it into a dark room and give your eyes time to adjust and you can easily see it.

But if you did this experiment and you did see some faint objects in the total black room you would remember for ever and ever 
And when i would interview you, you would especcially refer to the faint objects, because that would be the exception in the room of total darkness.
Armstrong ? He doesn’t refer to the exception other than the bright objects earth and sun.
The rest is just dark.... really dark.
If he or generally speaking ‘other astronauts’ would have seen tiny faint stars , those would be the exception and really special in a pitch black surrounding.
First thing on Armstrong’s mind after mentioning the earth and sun.

Don’t you get it ?
It’s not a matter of intensity of starlight it’s about wether they are there as the exception in an otherwise pitch black lunar sky.
The extremely faint stars should be strongly engraved in the memory BECAUSE they were hard to see !!!! The sun and earth are irrelevant because they are the rule when standing on the lunar surface.
 Researching this whole Apollo hoax thing made me very aware of the smallest details, because totally unimportant and irrelevant matters at first are actually extremely telling.
This is one of them if you dare to give it some real second thoughts.

Quote from: wise on July 21, 2019, 11:43:59 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on July 21, 2019, 02:24:54 PM

Quote from: wise on July 21, 2019, 04:08:17 AM

Do you have an explanation how the operation continued while the survival operation temperature limit was 60 degrees celcius but 107 degrees exist on the moon? Your tears can not cool down the temperature.

Citation needed.
What makes you claim the survival operation temperature limit was 60 C?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Stash on July 22, 2019, 12:15:31 AM

Quote from: wise on July 21, 2019, 11:43:59 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on July 21, 2019, 02:24:54 PM

Quote from: wise on July 21, 2019, 04:08:17 AM

Do you have an explanation how the operation continued while the survival operation temperature limit was 60 degrees celcius but 107 degrees exist on the moon? Your tears can not cool down the temperature.

Citation needed.
What makes you claim the survival operation temperature limit was 60 C?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The moon is not the sun. It absorbs and reflects heat from the sun, much like earth.

It is in the video 3. Video number 3 says it is so.

So your citation is a conspiracy nut that is happy to lie or blatantly misrepresent reality to pretend there is a problem.

Do you have a credible citation?

The lack of heat conduction also meant that there was no combustion, and as a result this would prevent the operation of the rover and other vehicles.

No, the 2 are fundamentally different.
The lack of atmosphere meant no normal combustion (but it is still possible if you have your own oxidiser).
The rover was electric and didn't need combustion to work.

The sun has a temperature of millions of degrees and transmits it to us.

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

Because you need an excuse.

You are the one looking for excuses here.

So your citation is a conspiracy nut that is happy to lie or blatantly misrepresent reality to pretend there is a problem.

Writing a source does not magically be a lie or mispresent anything, without a supportive argument proved by you. Otherwise, we have to accept all your writings are lie and mispresenting.

Do you have a credible citation?

Yes. You have been cooked like a chicken at 100 degrees.

No, the 2 are fundamentally different.

Yes. It is your mistake of fundamentals. Your mental problems does not magically make anything wrong, but makes yourself so.

The lack of atmosphere meant no normal combustion (but it is still possible if you have your own oxidiser).

Even for scuba diving, oxygen is enough for 1 hour. it is certain that the combustion environment required to move a spacecraft will require much more than that. even today we do not have this technology. but your fundamental perspective may make it possible. Please keep your lack fundamentalism to yourself.

The rover was electric and didn't need combustion to work.

Even electrik needs oxygen for work.

Good job showing very little understanding again.

You have even not show it.

The sun has a core temperature in the millions of degrees. By the time you get to the surface it is only a few thousand. By the time the radiation makes its way to Earth and has  Earth in equilibrium, you only have a few hundred K.

I can write it too. It does not magically become an argument.

Notice the massive loss in each step?

Nope. And you? You are talking like you have measured it, but I don't think you did it. You are reading from somewhere and writing here. You have not your own observations and your own thoughts.

Yes, the moon will radiate heat, but it will not be enough to significantly heat up the space suits, which are also radiating heat.

a spacecraft, such as chicken in the oven wrapped with aluminum foil to protect 100 degrees from the heat, no one but the mind of nasa. this is just, obviously, childish.

You I and other NASA workers are looking for excuses here.

Corrected for you.

Electric motors do not need oxygen to work.

Yes. You have been cooked like a chicken at 100 degrees.

So that's a no. No source indicating the temperature of the moon would be a problem.

Yes. It is your mistake of fundamentals.

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

Conduction and oxygen are vastly different.

it is certain that the combustion environment required to move a spacecraft will require much more than that.

Which will be stored in the rocket. So no problem there.

Even electrik needs oxygen for work.

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

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

Corrected for you.

Dishonestly changing what I said so it does not resemble the truth at all is not correcting. Grow up.

Electric motors do not need oxygen to work.

Prove.

So that's a no. No source indicating the temperature of the moon would be a problem.

This is not an argument. Your saying No source indicating the temperature of the moon would be a problem does not magically convert problems to a none problem. Your astro'nots are still cooked at 100 degrees.

Are you just going to continue this childish crap?

"childish crap" is reported. You have not a right to insult me because you can not find enough argument. Obviously insulting isn't an argument. Stop to insult me by using support of your moderator slaves. This behave, ie your being has to insult proves that why the earth is flat. Because you angry globularists has not a chance but insulting after a while when you have cornered. I can't reply you with your language, because if I do it they ban me; but both we know that they can not ban you because of you are their patron, right? Be fair, grow up and stop to childish behaves or agree earth's being flat.

Why do you feel the need to attack basically everything, even things which FE would have no problem with?

Why do you feel yourself need to personnel attack by using our own moderation team support? I am not you. I have just tell my thoughts depend on evidences.

Do you also claim that grass isn't green and that water is poison?

I don't remember such a claim. Please remind me. I guess you need reset to your factory settings.

Conduction and oxygen are vastly different.

I guess we are talking on different things.

Which will be stored in the rocket. So no problem there.

Prove how much oxygen has been stored in what kind of containers. And prove that technology was really existed other than your magical dreamings.

Pure garbage.

Again, stop to insult me by using your moderation supporter slaves. Normally you do get warn for this type of talkings. But you are free to insult. Is it fair? I don't think so. Where is justice here? Your claiming something pure garbage does not magically them garbage but your own talkings. meanwhile it proves the earth is flat because you have cornered and started to insult.

Batters rely upon electrochemical reactions, with many batteries not being compatible with air.

again, oxygen is required to occur in the combustion event. if you used superior electromagnetic technology in your rockets, you should explain it instead of insulting.

Take a charged lithium ion battery and break it open in the air and guess what happens? It bursts into flames.

which explains the need for oxygen to turn into flames.

The motors rely upon electromagnetic induction and again have no reliance upon the air.

like I said before, I'm talking about rover. I don't think your moon rover is electrical. electric vehicles have just been discovered.

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

Draw your moon rover's technical details worked in moon at 1969 other than magically your dreamings.

Dishonestly changing what I said so it does not resemble the truth at all is not correcting. Grow up.

You who have to grow up. Grow up and give up to write from GSM. Open your computer and use one account. It lets you draw shapes and proves you are not doing any dishonesty. Then it gives you a right to call me acting fair.

Quote from: sokarul on July 20, 2019, 06:04:37 AM

You are useless.

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

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


If you are holding a dubious minority theory that they don't, it's up to you to prove it.

Quote from: cikljamas on July 20, 2019, 07:08:53 AM

Quote from: sokarul on July 20, 2019, 06:04:37 AM

You are useless.

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

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

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

Quote from: Romp on July 22, 2019, 04:49:31 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on July 20, 2019, 07:08:53 AM

Quote from: sokarul on July 20, 2019, 06:04:37 AM

You are useless.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I tip my hat to those with patience for this.

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

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

Quote from: wise on July 22, 2019, 04:54:03 AM

Quote from: Romp on July 22, 2019, 04:49:31 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on July 20, 2019, 07:08:53 AM

Quote from: sokarul on July 20, 2019, 06:04:37 AM

You are useless.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I tip my hat to those with patience for this.

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

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

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

And of course, their mission relies on rockets working in a vacuum.

Quote from: Sunset on July 21, 2019, 06:32:34 AM

Ckljamas, there's a whole other thread devoted to rocket propulsion, perhaps you could add to that thread?

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

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

Have a closer look.

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

Haha!  Who’s making excuses now?

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

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

Quote

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

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

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

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

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

This video is an absolute joke.  Complete failure on technical parts, not even bothering to check where the rover was supposed to be stored before making ridiculous claims, and apparently being too blind to see the difference between two pictures.  All presented as “smoking guns”.

Quote from: wise on July 22, 2019, 04:54:03 AM

Quote from: Romp on July 22, 2019, 04:49:31 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on July 20, 2019, 07:08:53 AM

Quote from: sokarul on July 20, 2019, 06:04:37 AM

You are useless.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I tip my hat to those with patience for this.

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

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

Hello mister new globularist.

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

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