« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 106   Go Down

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

  • 3179 Replies
  • 398606 Views
*

JackBlack

  • 21714
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #150 on: July 23, 2019, 03:05:05 PM »
Quote from: dutchy on July 23, 2019, 11:03:59 AM
The mountain backdrop top plateau in photo 2 and 4 is further to the left.
You mean taking photos from different angles can make background objects appear to move relative to foreground objects?
Damn, here I was thinking that by walking around a table the entire room moved as well.

Are you sure you took those basic art classes, cause that is extremely simple perspective/parallax.
Even lame games have that with your motion making the background move far less than the foreground.

These photos are taken from different angles.
As such, you will end up with parallax issues where the background does not line up.

Here is a very simplified top down view to demonstrate that.
In no way is it intended to be accurate.

Notice how taking the photo from a different position results in the mountain appearing in a different location relative to the LM?

So again just what do you think the issue is?
Quote from: dutchy on July 23, 2019, 12:07:11 PM
Only from a different angle towards the LEM....but both LEMS are viewed from approximately the same angle.
No they aren't.
They are viewed from a range of roughly 90 degrees.
Take a look at your photos again.
See the section on the left of photo 1?
I will call that the back.
The section facing towards you in photo 1 I will call the side.

In the first photo the back is facing to the left, quite significantly, almost 90 degrees from you.
But in the second photo, it isn't. Instead the back is facing directly towards you, with the side going off to the right.
Then in the 3rd photo it is in between, with both the back and the side pointing to some location beside you.
That facing off to the left.

So no, they were not viewing the LM from the same angle. The angles are vastly different.

Do I need to make a picture of the 2 side by side for you to see this?


Quote from: dutchy on July 23, 2019, 12:25:51 PM
It looks beyond fake and rediculous compared to any photograph on earth...
So far all we have for that is your baseless assertion.
You are yet to provide anything to indicate it is fake or ridiculous.
Logged
*

magellanclavichord

  • 897
  • Cheerful Globularist
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #151 on: July 23, 2019, 04:20:23 PM »
Quote from: dutchy on July 23, 2019, 01:24:58 PM
Evil conspired with NASA.
What evil would give nazi rocket scientists a ''new'' life with all the ''goodies'' ?
<...snip...>

The United States taking in Nazi war criminals, letting them get off without punishment for their crimes, and giving them good jobs to boot, is a shameful and long-known page in United States history.

But NASA did not exist at the time. So NASA had nothing to do with that. And our shameful deals with the Nazis has no bearing on whether or not men walked on the moon.

Logged
*

Smoke Machine

  • 3153
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #152 on: July 23, 2019, 04:30:13 PM »
Duchy, you're absolutely correct about no atmosphere on the moon explaining why distant landmarks or mountains may appear closer than they are.

This same lack of atmosphere will come in handy one day when the flat moon society kicks off, and someone points out when something is over the curve, it is over the curve. No refraction index is necessary.

If you still believe the distant mountains in the photos are a backdrop, then a backdrop of what? I sense your hatred towards NASA is a small part of your overall hatred of the American government and part of a whole list of other conspiracies you also buy into.

Make no mistake, the depths mankind have stooped to in the past are shameful  , but the moon landings represent the heights mankind can ascend to (excuse the pun).
Logged
*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #153 on: July 23, 2019, 08:01:47 PM »
Quote from: magellanclavichord on July 23, 2019, 04:20:23 PM
Quote from: dutchy on July 23, 2019, 01:24:58 PM
Evil conspired with NASA.
What evil would give nazi rocket scientists a ''new'' life with all the ''goodies'' ?
<...snip...>
The United States taking in Nazi war criminals, letting them get off without punishment for their crimes, and giving them good jobs to boot, is a shameful and long-known page in United States history.
Were they "war criminals"? Who tried and convicted them - dutchy?

Quote from: magellanclavichord
But NASA did not exist at the time. So NASA had nothing to do with that. And our shameful deals with the Nazis has no bearing on whether or not men walked on the moon.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2019, 08:29:17 PM by rabinoz »
Logged
?

Romp

  • 62
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #154 on: July 23, 2019, 09:44:37 PM »
Don”t think this has been posted before, but if it has then apologies. Basically it’s a filmmaker explaining that they couldn’t have faked the film sequences, because they didn’t have the technology to do so.

Logged
*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #155 on: July 23, 2019, 10:28:03 PM »
Quote from: Romp on July 23, 2019, 09:44:37 PM
Don”t think this has been posted before, but if it has then apologies. Basically it’s a filmmaker explaining that they couldn’t have faked the film sequences, because they didn’t have the technology to do so.


Of  course dutchy thinks himself far more knowledgeable than S G Collins on film production (and everything else) :P.
If you want to read some for/against have a look at
            International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories Camera work of Apollo 17, page 3.
The rest might be worth reading: International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories Camera work of Apollo 17, page 1.
Logged
?

Romp

  • 62
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #156 on: July 23, 2019, 11:08:10 PM »
Quote from: rabinoz on July 23, 2019, 10:28:03 PM
Quote from: Romp on July 23, 2019, 09:44:37 PM
Don”t think this has been posted before, but if it has then apologies. Basically it’s a filmmaker explaining that they couldn’t have faked the film sequences, because they didn’t have the technology to do so.


Of  course dutchy thinks himself far more knowledgeable than S G Collins on film production (and everything else) :P.
If you want to read some for/against have a look at
            International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories Camera work of Apollo 17, page 3.
The rest might be worth reading: International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories Camera work of Apollo 17, page 1.

Thanks for that. I dip into the international skeptics forum quite often, but usually the current events etc., threads. The links you gave will give me some reading for this evening.

I understand you’re in Australia. One of the best reasons for the moon landings not able to have been faked, as told me by a colleague, was that the Australians would have spilled the beans on it since if the ‘dish’ they had didn’t pick up the signals from the moon, they just wouldn’t have kept quiet. Probably due to their irreverent nature, apparently, so i’m told.
Logged
*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #157 on: July 24, 2019, 12:12:31 AM »
Quote from: Romp on July 23, 2019, 11:08:10 PM
Quote from: rabinoz on July 23, 2019, 10:28:03 PM
Quote from: Romp on July 23, 2019, 09:44:37 PM
Don”t think this has been posted before, but if it has then apologies. Basically it’s a filmmaker explaining that they couldn’t have faked the film sequences, because they didn’t have the technology to do so.


Of  course dutchy thinks himself far more knowledgeable than S G Collins on film production (and everything else) :P.
If you want to read some for/against have a look at
            International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories Camera work of Apollo 17, page 3.
The rest might be worth reading: International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories Camera work of Apollo 17, page 1.

Thanks for that. I dip into the international skeptics forum quite often, but usually the current events etc., threads. The links you gave will give me some reading for this evening.

I understand you’re in Australia. One of the best reasons for the moon landings not able to have been faked, as told me by a colleague, was that the Australians would have spilled the beans on it since if the ‘dish’ they had didn’t pick up the signals from the moon, they just wouldn’t have kept quiet. Probably due to their irreverent nature, apparently, so i’m told.
And living in Australia I know for certain that the Ice-Wall map is total crap when it comes to east-west distances.

How's that for irreverence?
Logged
?

Romp

  • 62
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #158 on: July 24, 2019, 12:35:50 AM »
Quote from: rabinoz on July 24, 2019, 12:12:31 AM
Quote from: Romp on July 23, 2019, 11:08:10 PM
Quote from: rabinoz on July 23, 2019, 10:28:03 PM
Quote from: Romp on July 23, 2019, 09:44:37 PM
Don”t think this has been posted before, but if it has then apologies. Basically it’s a filmmaker explaining that they couldn’t have faked the film sequences, because they didn’t have the technology to do so.



Of  course dutchy thinks himself far more knowledgeable than S G Collins on film production (and everything else) :P.
If you want to read some for/against have a look at
            International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories Camera work of Apollo 17, page 3.
The rest might be worth reading: International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories Camera work of Apollo 17, page 1.

Thanks for that. I dip into the international skeptics forum quite often, but usually the current events etc., threads. The links you gave will give me some reading for this evening.

I understand you’re in Australia. One of the best reasons for the moon landings not able to have been faked, as told me by a colleague, was that the Australians would have spilled the beans on it since if the ‘dish’ they had didn’t pick up the signals from the moon, they just wouldn’t have kept quiet. Probably due to their irreverent nature, apparently, so i’m told.
And living in Australia I know for certain that the Ice-Wall map is total crap when it comes to east-west distances.

How's that for irreverence?

Sounds quite reasonable. Beat me why FEers can't check this simple fact for themselves.
Logged
?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #159 on: July 24, 2019, 02:32:58 AM »
Isn’t it sad that the only pro Apollo expert on film and photography is SG Collins who we all know as mister ‘lightguy’ because he vastly overplayed his hand when addressing Apollo and the means of fakery in 1969 ?
And we have , what i call, lots of amatures defending, explaining and adding to the Apollo footage as why they look so fake.
The leader of the pro Apollo bandwagen surely is Jay Windley from Clavius who freely dedicated his life  ::) for more than a decade to defend Apollo.
Then you have Astrobrant (2), Phill Plait, onebigmonkey ( used to post here) and a handfull of names responsible for the pro Apollo commentary on the www other than NASA and mainstream media articles.
But never a decorated photographer or Hollywood filmmaker of name burns his hands on openly claiming he went through all the Apollo imagery and came to the conclusion it was as ’moonish’ as it gets.

While Massimo Mazzucco let Toni Thorimbert, Aldo Fallai, Oliviero Toscani and Peter Lindbergh do some real PROFESSIONAL talking on the Apollo imagery.
Not only that, the most intelligent, most skilled pro Apollo person Jay Windley has been giving lots of airtime in the ‘American moon’ docu from Massimo Mazzucci.
Steadily (after the anniversary avalange is over) people will come to grips with this moon nonsense.

Rabinoz knows he his loosing his grip therefor his arguments gets worse by the day and often aimed at me as a personal dig.....

« Last Edit: July 24, 2019, 03:00:00 AM by dutchy »
Logged
?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #160 on: July 24, 2019, 02:54:32 AM »
Quote from: JackBlack on July 23, 2019, 03:05:05 PM
Quote from: dutchy on July 23, 2019, 11:03:59 AM
The mountain backdrop top plateau in photo 2 and 4 is further to the left.
These photos are taken from different angles.
As such, you will end up with parallax issues where the background does not line up.
I skipped over the insults if you don’t mind but you are wrong.....some pictures are taken from approxemately the same angle only a slightly varying height and different lens settings.
Still the background moves. Not that i imply that they moved the LEM, but their extremely close backdrop is in error and moves way to fast when viewing items in front of the backdrop instead of far away huge mountains......
That’s the panorama Mesdag effect what we are wittnessing.
 
Quote
Here is a very simplified top down view to demonstrate that.
In no way is it intended to be accurate.

Notice how taking the photo from a different position results in the mountain appearing in a different location relative to the LM?
Yeah indeed ‘ no way it is accurate’ because it shows exagerated angles.
Quote

So no, they were not viewing the LM from the same angle. The angles are vastly different.

Do I need to make a picture of the 2 side by side for you to see this?
Yeah please do !!!
From picture 1 and.... 2 and 3( same angle pictures) and what mountains are supposedly behind picture 1 please elaborate where and what the mountains are compared to the other photographs in photo 1.




« Last Edit: July 24, 2019, 02:58:47 AM by dutchy »
Logged
*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #161 on: July 24, 2019, 03:18:38 AM »
Quote from: JackBlack on July 23, 2019, 03:05:05 PM
Tremendous amount of twisted logic, ludicrous claims and utter stupidity... 

Gas pressure requires molecules to be in contact with each other, bouncing off each other, causing millions of collisions per second, etc… If you release gas into the vacuum of space, the first molecule that pops out will shoot off into the distance at a constant speed, so will the one behind that, never catching up with the first one. The third, fourth, etc… all fly off into the distance trying to fill the vacuum by finding their empty corner. So no matter how much gas you produce none of it will ever change the pressure under a space ship. None it if will ever push a spaceship. To push a spaceship there must be some locally high pressure under it, which is impossible since the pressure in space is 0 everywhere.

Back the the Nozzle and the Massflow equation F=MA on earth
Think about a fire hose shooting water. A force comes directly back against the column of water shooting out. Why? Because the first drop of water has to pas through air, which is dense, causing many collisions, slowing down the drop of water. The second drop, directly behind the first, will not be slowed down by the air so it will collide with the first drop, the third drop hits the second drop and so on, the fast water coming through the hose pushing through the slower water outside causes Newton’s 3rd Law to push back on the column of water. This is why you need people holding the hose to add an unbalanced force otherwise the hose would not be able to push water through that column anymore, the water column would be diverted and the hose would flop around. It is obvious that one drop of water does not push back on the hose, you need a fast moving column.

The nozzle and the Massflow equation in space
Since the molecules leaving the combustion chamber and entering the vacuum never slow down, never collide with any outside objects, nor with each other, their force is always moving forward, away from the ship. There is no way for that force to be returned to the ship. There is no way for the force of the moving molecules to be extracted and used for propulsion. Their force is carried off into the far corners of space. This is also known as Joule Expansion. Remember that as soon as the nozzle is opened, the combustion chamber becomes part of the vacuum of space as is subject to its laws. A closed chamber is under pressure but not an open one.

NASA is lying at the molecular level
But that’s OK because most people don’t usually look there. The awesome, spectacular and heroic nature of space exploration is enough to cloud the most logical minds. Most respectable engineering schools won’t touch space flight and those who do have tiny departments. If it was really a multi-billion dollar government funded operation, every school in America would have their hands out for government grants like they do with Engineering, Computer Science and Biology. But why train thousands of the best minds of a generation in a field that doesn’t exist?

So, once again, just for you Jack :

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

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

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

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


You still haven't watched this video :



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

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

In the context of a bowling ball experiment :

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

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

Get it???

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, back on the track :

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



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 :
Logged
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP
*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #162 on: July 24, 2019, 03:24:04 AM »
Quote from: dutchy on July 24, 2019, 02:54:32 AM
Quote from: JackBlack on July 23, 2019, 03:05:05 PM
Quote from: dutchy on July 23, 2019, 11:03:59 AM
The mountain backdrop top plateau in photo 2 and 4 is further to the left.
These photos are taken from different angles.
As such, you will end up with parallax issues where the background does not line up.
I skipped over the insults if you don’t mind but you are wrong.....some pictures are taken from approxemately the same angle only a slightly varying height and different lens settings.
Still the background moves. Not that i imply that they moved the LEM, but their extremely close backdrop is in error and moves way to fast when viewing items in front of the backdrop instead of far away huge mountains......
That’s the panorama Mesdag effect what we are wittnessing.
 
Quote
Here is a very simplified top down view to demonstrate that.
In no way is it intended to be accurate.

Notice how taking the photo from a different position results in the mountain appearing in a different location relative to the LM?
Yeah indeed ‘ no way it is accurate’ because it shows exagerated angles.
Quote

So no, they were not viewing the LM from the same angle. The angles are vastly different.

Do I need to make a picture of the 2 side by side for you to see this?
Yeah please do !!!
From picture 1 and.... 2 and 3( same angle pictures) and what mountains are supposedly behind picture 1 please elaborate where and what the mountains are compared to the other photographs in photo 1.

Can you post the picture reference numbers you have questions about. I've been pouring through them manually, but there are so many.
Logged
?

radioflat

  • 118
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #163 on: July 24, 2019, 03:46:17 AM »
Quote from: cikljamas on July 24, 2019, 03:18:38 AM
Quote from: JackBlack on July 23, 2019, 03:05:05 PM
Tremendous amount of twisted logic, ludicrous claims and utter stupidity... 


In the context of a bowling ball experiment :

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

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


No, you are doing it again... Above you note that the medicene ball is the second body, because it's HEAVY.
But you forget that the expelled gasses also have mass and thus constitute the second body.
Your problem is that you think that gas is light so it's can't have mass - but of course it does.
Logged
*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #164 on: July 24, 2019, 03:46:21 AM »
Quote from: Romp on July 23, 2019, 11:08:10 PM
Thanks for that. I dip into the international skeptics forum quite often, but usually the current events etc., threads. The links you gave will give me some reading for this evening.

I understand you’re in Australia. One of the best reasons for the moon landings not able to have been faked, as told me by a colleague, was that the Australians would have spilled the beans on it since if the ‘dish’ they had didn’t pick up the signals from the moon, they just wouldn’t have kept quiet. Probably due to their irreverent nature, apparently, so i’m told.

Mike# Boy 2 years ago
@ odiupicku this is mind bending for me, hey went and check with my own eyes to see this honeysuckle nasa tracking dish it's a 22 metre dish, Apollo rd, near Canberra there nothing there just a concrete slab and it is ridiculous sign boards saying they went to the moon? What about parks its a 64 metre radio telescope dish i kid you not apparently parks dish received lunar and modular transmission. What going on???Apparently honeysuckle was commissioned 1967 and decommissioned 1981 hey just saying these magnetic tapes that went missing 700 so boxes. I do not get it, honeysuckle dish was a massive step for mankind, so they dismantle it. WTF?

Mike# Boy 2 years ago
@ odiupicku, bro we are on the same page, just a  guess i suspect you are smarter then me, but it is not important just saying, anyway Apollo program brought me here i hate NASA they lied and deceive me just saying. My dad who has pass many years ago 18 to be precise, he was in the australian air force, radar and communication. He said to me 1969 the transmission where impossible there is not enough wattage. He new, but i did not, i told him that's silly it's on tv and it's live from outer space. Odiupicku you are right it's just a show to fool the world and it worked like a treat. I am ashamed i did believe my father and yes i am educated. What awoke me 18 months ago, when a buddy talk about bill clinton autobiography book " the old carpenter, he must have been ahead of his time" I was blown. I am not a big fan of Mr Clinton he should have been impeached for lying to the American people. Hey i know you are busy and its time consuming to make theses vids i commend you, it's passion......Cheers bro.
P.s my dad did teach me this pseudo maths..
I will try to post or write the impossible transmission with links or the maths, wish me luck i also have passion.
I am calling the Apollo program as total B... S....dad got something right do not use profanities

So, i am told...
Logged
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP
*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #165 on: July 24, 2019, 03:52:22 AM »
Quote from: radioflat on July 24, 2019, 03:46:17 AM
Quote from: cikljamas on July 24, 2019, 03:18:38 AM
Quote from: JackBlack on July 23, 2019, 03:05:05 PM
Tremendous amount of twisted logic, ludicrous claims and utter stupidity... 


In the context of a bowling ball experiment :

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

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


No, you are doing it again... Above you note that the medicene ball is the second body, because it's HEAVY.
But you forget that the expelled gasses also have mass and thus constitute the second body.
Your problem is that you think that gas is light so it's can't have mass - but of course it does.

Some more food for thought :

the reason why thrust cant work is simple
thrust equals = weight in order to have weight we need gravity.
see its like this in space everything weighs nothing so i would say a rocket weighs 0
or put like this rocket =0
                       thrust=0 because without gravity there is no weight behind the thrust
to cause a reaction so no movement would take place.
on earth if you sit in a chair that has wheels on it and throw a heavy ball you would
move back, and guess why of course because of gravity; see gravity makes the ball weigh something but if you did the same thing in space you wouldnt move because you and the ball weigh nothing at all.

Oh yes as long as we are within the earths atmosphere the rocket engine  which is chucking out thrust, weight, pounds more than it weighs to get up there is acting with two important things Gravity is needed to give the thrust weight, imagine seeing a flame out the back of a rocket with no weight no substance behind it just like a blow torch a flame without any force behind it that's not going to move much is it .then we come to the next important thing its called air or atmospheric gasses. the thrust of a rocket engine has to have something to push against it cant push against its self. That would be like bolting an engine with a prop on it to a boat and pointing it at the sail do you think the boat would move? Of course it wouldn't we have created a sealed circuit where no reaction can take place. so in orbit the elements needed for trust to produce momentum still exist, but in true space or outside higher orbit there is a vacuum no air no gasses no gravity not much of anything for thrust to push against and, so a rocket can't push against its self using Newton’s third law.

Get it?
Logged
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP
?

radioflat

  • 118
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #166 on: July 24, 2019, 03:56:02 AM »
Quote from: cikljamas on July 24, 2019, 03:52:22 AM
Quote from: radioflat on July 24, 2019, 03:46:17 AM
Quote from: cikljamas on July 24, 2019, 03:18:38 AM
Quote from: JackBlack on July 23, 2019, 03:05:05 PM
Tremendous amount of twisted logic, ludicrous claims and utter stupidity... 


In the context of a bowling ball experiment :

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

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


on earth if you sit in a chair that has wheels on it and throw a heavy ball you would
move back, and guess why of course because of gravity; see gravity makes the ball weigh something but if you did the same thing in space you wouldnt move because you and the ball weigh nothing at all.


No, you move because the ball has MASS and in space of course you would move... Look at pucks on a air-table...

Mass and weight are totally distinct and separate entities! Is your example above, gravity is directed downwards to the centre of mass of the earth.
Logged
*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #167 on: July 24, 2019, 03:58:56 AM »
Quote from: cikljamas on July 24, 2019, 03:52:22 AM
Quote from: radioflat on July 24, 2019, 03:46:17 AM
Quote from: cikljamas on July 24, 2019, 03:18:38 AM
Quote from: JackBlack on July 23, 2019, 03:05:05 PM
Tremendous amount of twisted logic, ludicrous claims and utter stupidity... 


In the context of a bowling ball experiment :

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

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


No, you are doing it again... Above you note that the medicene ball is the second body, because it's HEAVY.
But you forget that the expelled gasses also have mass and thus constitute the second body.
Your problem is that you think that gas is light so it's can't have mass - but of course it does.

Some more food for thought :

the reason why thrust cant work is simple
thrust equals = weight in order to have weight we need gravity.
see its like this in space everything weighs nothing so i would say a rocket weighs 0
or put like this rocket =0
                       thrust=0 because without gravity there is no weight behind the thrust
to cause a reaction so no movement would take place.
on earth if you sit in a chair that has wheels on it and throw a heavy ball you would
move back, and guess why of course because of gravity; see gravity makes the ball weigh something but if you did the same thing in space you wouldnt move because you and the ball weigh nothing at all.

Oh yes as long as we are within the earths atmosphere the rocket engine  which is chucking out thrust, weight, pounds more than it weighs to get up there is acting with two important things Gravity is needed to give the thrust weight, imagine seeing a flame out the back of a rocket with no weight no substance behind it just like a blow torch a flame without any force behind it that's not going to move much is it .then we come to the next important thing its called air or atmospheric gasses. the thrust of a rocket engine has to have something to push against it cant push against its self. That would be like bolting an engine with a prop on it to a boat and pointing it at the sail do you think the boat would move? Of course it wouldn't we have created a sealed circuit where no reaction can take place. so in orbit the elements needed for trust to produce momentum still exist, but in true space or outside higher orbit there is a vacuum no air no gasses no gravity not much of anything for thrust to push against and, so a rocket can't push against its self using Newton’s third law.

Get it?

Mass is the word you are looking for. There is mass in space.
Logged
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Quote from: Shifter on July 05, 2020, 09:53:30 AM
It's no slur if it's fact.
*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #168 on: July 24, 2019, 03:59:04 AM »
cikljamas ..  I asked you this question earlier, perhaps you missed it.

Quote from: cikljamas on July 22, 2019, 08:38:45 AM

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


So you grew up right next to Johnson Space Center (Houston).   I'm interested in what sort of work did your parents do at NASA?
Logged
Quote from: Space Cowgirl on March 01, 2018, 01:35:42 PM
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.
*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #169 on: July 24, 2019, 04:05:37 AM »
Quote from: cikljamas on July 24, 2019, 03:46:21 AM
Quote from: Romp on July 23, 2019, 11:08:10 PM
Thanks for that. I dip into the international skeptics forum quite often, but usually the current events etc., threads. The links you gave will give me some reading for this evening.

I understand you’re in Australia. One of the best reasons for the moon landings not able to have been faked, as told me by a colleague, was that the Australians would have spilled the beans on it since if the ‘dish’ they had didn’t pick up the signals from the moon, they just wouldn’t have kept quiet. Probably due to their irreverent nature, apparently, so i’m told.

Mike# Boy 2 years ago
@ odiupicku this is mind bending for me, hey went and check with my own eyes to see this honeysuckle nasa tracking dish it's a 22 metre dish, Apollo rd, near Canberra there nothing there just a concrete slab and it is ridiculous sign boards saying they went to the moon? What about parks its a 64 metre radio telescope dish i kid you not apparently parks dish received lunar and modular transmission. What going on???Apparently honeysuckle was commissioned 1967 and decommissioned 1981 hey just saying these magnetic tapes that went missing 700 so boxes. I do not get it, honeysuckle dish was a massive step for mankind, so they dismantle it. WTF?

Mike# Boy 2 years ago
@ odiupicku, bro we are on the same page, just a  guess i suspect you are smarter then me, but it is not important just saying, anyway Apollo program brought me here i hate NASA they lied and deceive me just saying. My dad who has pass many years ago 18 to be precise, he was in the australian air force, radar and communication. He said to me 1969 the transmission where impossible there is not enough wattage. He new, but i did not, i told him that's silly it's on tv and it's live from outer space. Odiupicku you are right it's just a show to fool the world and it worked like a treat. I am ashamed i did believe my father and yes i am educated. What awoke me 18 months ago, when a buddy talk about bill clinton autobiography book " the old carpenter, he must have been ahead of his time" I was blown. I am not a big fan of Mr Clinton he should have been impeached for lying to the American people. Hey i know you are busy and its time consuming to make theses vids i commend you, it's passion......Cheers bro.
P.s my dad did teach me this pseudo maths..
I will try to post or write the impossible transmission with links or the maths, wish me luck i also have passion.
I am calling the Apollo program as total B... S....dad got something right do not use profanities

So, i am told...

The Honeysuckle creek dish was dismantled and relocated to the deep space network site near Canberra,   Parkes has no transmit capability so you can't use Parkes to communicate to the spacecraft,  also Parkes bigger dish has a much slower slew rate and can't move fast enough to track low earth orbit spacecraft.  Wheras Honeysuckle creek's smaller dish can be slewed fast enough to track LEO.  Parkes however is pretty good for receiving signals from the moon. 

Honeysuckle creek had a 22KW transmitter,  it used Unified S band. 

« Last Edit: July 24, 2019, 04:07:58 AM by JerkFace »
Logged
Quote from: Space Cowgirl on March 01, 2018, 01:35:42 PM
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.
*

JackBlack

  • 21714
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #170 on: July 24, 2019, 04:32:49 AM »
Quote from: dutchy on July 24, 2019, 02:32:58 AM
explaining and adding to the Apollo footage as why they look so fake.
Really? Where?
So far I have seen plenty of people assert they think it is fake, plenty even give nonsense to try and back it up. But I am yet to find any that can actually explain why it is fake with an argument which withstands scrutiny.

Quote from: dutchy on July 24, 2019, 02:32:58 AM
But never a decorated photographer or Hollywood filmmaker of name burns his hands on openly claiming he went through all the Apollo imagery and came to the conclusion it was as ’moonish’ as it gets.
Maybe that is because they realise there is no point. Those who reject the moon landings wont listen. Anyone that would listen to them would likely already accept the landings are real.

Quote from: dutchy on July 24, 2019, 02:54:32 AM
I skipped over the insults if you don’t mind
No insults, just pointing out how ridiculous your argument was and how completely inconsistent it is with someone who has done arts as a major school subject.

Quote from: dutchy on July 24, 2019, 02:54:32 AM
some pictures are taken from approxemately the same angle only a slightly varying height and different lens settings.
Still the background moves.
Says you.
Care to provide an example that shows a problem? I am yet to find one.
So far the examples you have provided have been from vastly different angles.

Quote from: dutchy on July 24, 2019, 02:54:32 AM
but their extremely close backdrop is in error and moves way to fast when viewing items in front of the backdrop instead of far away huge mountains......
And you are basing this on what?
How far away was the mountain from the LM?
How far apart were the pictures taken?

Quote from: dutchy on July 24, 2019, 02:54:32 AM
Yeah indeed ‘ no way it is accurate’ because it shows exagerated angles.
No it doesn't.
It shows the angles someone with knowledge of how 3D space works with how objects appear different from angles would conclude are there.
Yes, the approximate, but they aren't being exaggerated.

Quote from: dutchy on July 24, 2019, 02:54:32 AM
Yeah please do !!!
From picture 1 and.... 2 and 3( same angle pictures)
Here you go:

Going to accept it is being viewed from different angles, not the same angle like you claim?
Logged
*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #171 on: July 24, 2019, 04:39:28 AM »
Quote from: cikljamas on July 24, 2019, 03:18:38 AM
Quote from: JackBlack on July 23, 2019, 03:05:05 PM
Tremendous amount of twisted logic, ludicrous claims and utter stupidity... 

Gas pressure requires molecules to be in contact with each other, bouncing off each other, causing millions of collisions per second, etc… If you release gas into the vacuum of space, the first molecule that pops out will shoot off into the distance at a constant speed, so will the one behind that, never catching up with the first one. The third, fourth, etc… all fly off into the distance trying to fill the vacuum by finding their empty corner. So no matter how much gas you produce none of it will ever change the pressure under a space ship. None it if will ever push a spaceship. To push a spaceship there must be some locally high pressure under it, which is impossible since the pressure in space is 0 everywhere.
Incorrect! That is total crap!
Sure the gas molecules "fly off" but not at an infinite velocity. You obviously don't know the first thing about gas flow especially at hypersonic velocities.

There is no need for any local high pressure under the rocket to push it though a small amount of thrust can come from the finite difference between the pressure at the exit of the nozzle and the external pressure.

Most of the thrust from a rocket engine comes from the huge mass flow of exhaust gas exiting the rocket nozzle at a hypersonic velocity.
Each Rocketdye F-1 engine of the Saturn V had a mass flow rate of 2,578 kg/sec and an effective exit velocity of 2.58 km/sec.
This would work out at a thrust from this rate of change of momentum of about 6.7 MNewtons or 678,000 kilograms.

There is a little extra thrust from the pressure difference between that of the exhaust gasses and the pressure outside so the total thrust of a rocket engine is given by:
Thrust = (mass flow rate) × (exhaust velocity) + ((exhaust pressure) - (external pressure)) × (area of exhaust)
And you might note that a rocket works better in a vacuum than at sea-level!

For the F-1 engine the specific thrust Isp is 263 sec at sea-level but 304 sec in a vacuum.
The thrust I gave above was at sea-level and is proportionately higher in a vacuum.

But a rocket "pushes on nothing" except the enormous mass of exhaust gas ejected at a hypersonic velocity.
Logged
*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #172 on: July 24, 2019, 04:46:01 AM »
James Donaghy 2 years ago
@odiupicku Good job. Here's the thing though,  there is a much more obvious problem with apollo- the heat.
It's such an obvious problem that it is amazing that it has been overlooked for so long. We all know the story of Icarus, but does everyone know the story of Leonov? He is the original spacewalker. He said, "It was so hot I thought I was frightened i was going to die."
Leonov is one of the bravest creatures on this planet which is partly why he was picked for this work.
So how does NASA explain his account of the incredible heat of the sun? They say he entered an awning feet first instead of head first and became so flustered that his monitors registered a dangerously high body temperature because he was such a woss. 
And there's more; if you get a black belt in astrophysics you can explain effortlessly how the sun isn't hot because of the low air pressure in space. In our advanced institutes there are paussies of top notch professors climbing over each other to take credit for reasons why Icarus would have had no feather problems if only he'd managed to get higher and with some breathing apparatus because the sun isn't hot once you reach space. Of course his wings wouldn't work either, but that's not the point.
For 50 years we have been told by those who know more than we, that the sun is cold in space, sorry, I just had to repeat that.
For more see my 5 minute presentation here:


Now put James Donaghy's words into broader ( perspective :


Well, it is indeed Fantasy the lot :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Logged
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP
*

JackBlack

  • 21714
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #173 on: July 24, 2019, 04:55:24 AM »
Quote from: cikljamas on July 24, 2019, 03:18:38 AM
Quote from: cikljamas pretending to be someone else on July 24, 2019, 03:18:38 AM
Tremendous amount of twisted logic, ludicrous claims and utter stupidity... 
Great job showing you have no rational counter to what I said.

So perhaps I should just ignore everything you said and just ask the same question again:
What is causing the gas to leave the rocket? What body is applying a force to it?
Can you tell me?
Or do you know the only possible answer would be the rocket applies the force to the gas to have it leave the rocket and thus the gas must apply a force back to the rocket, and thus they work in space?

Quote from: cikljamas on July 24, 2019, 03:18:38 AM
Gas pressure requires molecules to be in contact with each other, bouncing off each other, causing millions of collisions per second, etc… If you release gas into the vacuum of space, the first molecule that pops out will shoot off into the distance at a constant speed
This requires you to "release" them in a highly specific direction with a specific velocity (which requires forcing them to go in that particular direction).
If you don't do that and instead just release them and let them go in random directions then they don't just all fly out the opening.
That is because some wont be going to the opening.
Instead some will be heading away from it.
They then collide with the rocket, interacting with it such that the rocket is force in one direction and the gas is forced in the other.
They can also collide with other gas molecules, and cause a similar issue.
The continues with the gas molecules bouncing around in the rocket until they are forced out in a particular direction by these collisions, and as a result of Newton's third law, they have to push something else the other way.

It is only if you release gas in a perfect vacuum with absolutely nothing around it that it will do as you say as then there is no obstacle in any direction.

If you have an obstacle to one side, it will push that obstacle away as it tries to expand past it.

Quote from: cikljamas on July 24, 2019, 03:18:38 AM
To push a spaceship there must be some locally high pressure under it, which is impossible since the pressure in space is 0 everywhere.
No, the pressure is 0 no where. It is quite low in most locations, but in the rocket engine and in the exhaust near the rocket, it is quite high.
If it wasn't, the gas would just sit there doing nothing.

Quote from: cikljamas on July 24, 2019, 03:18:38 AM
Think about a fire hose shooting water. A force comes directly back against the column of water shooting out. Why?
Because water, like gas, has inertia and thus the hose needs to apply a force to direct the water.
If you put an obstacle some distance away from the hose, there will no change in the force applied to the hose, because the water is the second body for the action and reaction, not just a magical force transmitter like you want to pretend.

Quote from: cikljamas on July 24, 2019, 03:18:38 AM
Since the molecules leaving the combustion chamber
Don't start there. Start with the molecules in the combustion chamber. If you start with them already out they have already force the rocket away and the rocket has forced them away.

Quote from: cikljamas on July 24, 2019, 03:18:38 AM
This is also known as Joule Expansion.
That requires expansion in all directions, not going out of the nozzle in a particular direction.

Quote from: cikljamas on July 24, 2019, 03:18:38 AM
So, once again, just for you Jack :
Repeating the same lie wont help you.
The rocket is the first body. The gas is the second body.
If you wish to claim otherwise you need to explain how the gas leaves the rocket in a particular direction, which requires it to be forced away from the rocket by some body, which according to you is not the rocket.

Quote from: cikljamas on July 24, 2019, 03:52:22 AM
thrust equals = weight in order to have weight we need gravity.
No it doesn't.
That isn't food for thought. It is food to avoid thought.
Thrust=force=mass*acceleration.
You don't need weight, you need mass.

Many people confuse weight and mass, but the 2 are very different.

You can try your experiment in free fall, still within the atmosphere, but where objects are weightless.
Guess what? They still have mass and thus still have inertia (which is basically just a fancy word for mass) and thus still require a force to move and thus still exert a force back on the first object.

Also note if you wanted to go down your rabbithole of mass not existing in a 0 g environment then what it would mean is F=0*a
i.e. for any acceleration, you need no force.
That means a rocket can easily work as no force is required to move it.

Now going to answer the question, or will you continue to avoid it?
What body is acting on the gas to force it in a particular direction?
Logged
?

Romp

  • 62
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #174 on: July 24, 2019, 04:56:39 AM »
Quote from: dutchy on July 24, 2019, 02:32:58 AM
Isn’t it sad that the only pro Apollo expert on film and photography is SG Collins who we all know as mister ‘lightguy’ because he vastly overplayed his hand when addressing Apollo and the means of fakery in 1969 ?
And we have , what i call, lots of amatures defending, explaining and adding to the Apollo footage as why they look so fake.
The leader of the pro Apollo bandwagen surely is Jay Windley from Clavius who freely dedicated his life  ::) for more than a decade to defend Apollo.
Then you have Astrobrant (2), Phill Plait, onebigmonkey ( used to post here) and a handfull of names responsible for the pro Apollo commentary on the www other than NASA and mainstream media articles.
But never a decorated photographer or Hollywood filmmaker of name burns his hands on openly claiming he went through all the Apollo imagery and came to the conclusion it was as ’moonish’ as it gets.

While Massimo Mazzucco let Toni Thorimbert, Aldo Fallai, Oliviero Toscani and Peter Lindbergh do some real PROFESSIONAL talking on the Apollo imagery.
Not only that, the most intelligent, most skilled pro Apollo person Jay Windley has been giving lots of airtime in the ‘American moon’ docu from Massimo Mazzucci.
Steadily (after the anniversary avalange is over) people will come to grips with this moon nonsense.

Rabinoz knows he his loosing his grip therefor his arguments gets worse by the day and often aimed at me as a personal dig.....

As inevitable as it is, these always descend into 'he said she said' ping pong:

http://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/2014/07/532-how-come-famous-photographers-claim.html


Logged
*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #175 on: July 24, 2019, 05:06:03 AM »
Attempt number 4.. 

Quote from: JerkFace on July 24, 2019, 03:59:04 AM
cikljamas ..  I asked you this question earlier, perhaps you missed it.

Quote from: cikljamas on July 22, 2019, 08:38:45 AM

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


So you grew up right next to Johnson Space Center (Houston).   I'm interested in what sort of work did your parents do at NASA?
Logged
Quote from: Space Cowgirl on March 01, 2018, 01:35:42 PM
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.
*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #176 on: July 24, 2019, 05:06:44 AM »
Quote from: cikljamas on July 24, 2019, 03:46:21 AM
Quote from: Romp on July 23, 2019, 11:08:10 PM
Thanks for that. I dip into the international skeptics forum quite often, but usually the current events etc., threads. The links you gave will give me some reading for this evening.

I understand you’re in Australia. One of the best reasons for the moon landings not able to have been faked, as told me by a colleague, was that the Australians would have spilled the beans on it since if the ‘dish’ they had didn’t pick up the signals from the moon, they just wouldn’t have kept quiet. Probably due to their irreverent nature, apparently, so i’m told.

Mike# Boy 2 years ago
@ odiupicku this is mind bending for me, hey went and check with my own eyes to see this honeysuckle nasa tracking dish it's a 22 metre dish, Apollo rd, near Canberra there nothing there just a concrete slab and it is ridiculous sign boards saying they went to the moon? What about parks its a 64 metre radio telescope dish i kid you not apparently parks dish received lunar and modular transmission. What going on???Apparently honeysuckle was commissioned 1967 and decommissioned 1981. I do not get it, honeysuckle dish was a massive step for mankind, so they dismantle it. WTF?
I'm from Australia!
Honeysuckle Creek had a 26m dish and was used for most telemetry.
Parkes is a radio-telescope and made an better receiver than Honeysuckle Creek so was used for the Apollo 11 first moon walk.
It had no transmitter, however, so could not transmit to the Apollo craft.

Honeysuckle Creek was decommissioned 1981 after Apollo, Skylab, Viking and Voyager because a better communications centre was already at Tidbinbilla near Canberra.

The Canberra Deep Space Communication Complex in 2010

You can chase up the details of which was used for what mission etc.
Logged
*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #177 on: July 24, 2019, 05:25:54 AM »
Quote from: cikljamas on July 24, 2019, 04:46:01 AM
<< Ignored until you sort out your rocket in a vacuum rubbish! >>
Logged
*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #178 on: July 24, 2019, 05:27:58 AM »
The nail in the coffin of all NASA crapola is the idea of sending a video image 200K miles away...LOL....With analog equipment and no repeater stations...I installed communications systems in the USAF...The most powerful and far reaching communications we had was HF radio...Which uses the Ionosphere like Ham Radio, Only our transmitters were 5000 watts...You would need a billion watts and repeater amplifier stations between the earth and moon...Entropy of signal physics.

Alan Bean says his mission had no problem with Van Allen Belt (radiation) because it hadn't been discovered yet (at the time)....lol...lol...lol...lol...lol...

So all you have to do is close your eyes while going thru the Van Allen belt and you're protected from radiation WOW!!!!!! Amazing

So, the Van Allen Belt didn't cause them problems because they hadn't discovered it yet? Who knew life really was like a Wily Coyote cartoon and you could do things like walk straight off of cliffs without falling as long as you didn't realize you were in danger??!! Well, I'm going to change my parenting style based off of this knowledge. I won't teach my baby about bad strangers, accidental burns, or anything else dangerous, because what she doesn't know can't hurt her. I won't have to waste money on medicine, child car seats, babysitters, etc., because as long as I keep her ignorant of danger she can't get hurt. why teach her not to rub with scissors when I could just keep her safe my keeping her ignorant of the possible dangers associated with it?

We leave you much that is undone. There are great ideas undiscovered, breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth’s protective layers. There are places to go beyond belief.?
*NEIL ARMSTRONG*

Interviewer: " You said: "How long must it take before I cease to be known as a spaceman" ....Why did you make that comment" ?

Armstrong: "..I guess we all want to be recognized not for one piece of fireworks"

Interviewer: "You seem uncomfortable with your celebrity.. that you'd rather not have all this attention"

Armstrong: "No, I just don't deserve it"?

Few more interesting comments from my viewers :

Heine ken thomsen 1 year ago
Notice how the falcon "feather" jump up from the rock when it hits the rock (about 5cm), just like a fork would do, when you drop it on a rock, a real feather would not do that, was the feather made of metal?

Tony Hind 1 year ago
I know someone who spoke to person who was directly involved with medical care for the astronauts on one of the Apollo missions. I had only a few weeks ago said to my friend about the moon landings being fake.  So they asked this person out of the blue "So did they really go to the moon" ? This person just stopped and became flustered embarrassed and immediately changed the subject. My friend who was not a believer in fake moon lands after seeing that reaction now feels that they are indeed fake.

Michael Freed 1 year ago
NebTheWeb, the video time delay: it's seconds from when the bag drops to their reaction. They moved only steps away. That isn't altered video. That distance is all they moved. So it HAS to be unaltered. He only moves back that distance, the one covered in that amount of time! So it WAS an instant reaction. There is NO WAY the image of the fallen back reached Earth and was reacted to in that time!?

Ashley Law 1 year ago
odiupicku you got them worried...the sound delay would be much more than 2.5 seconds...the power needed to transmit and receive would be huge would need big power unit very big. Bigger than a radio station broadcasting accross even a state as small as New York.

Robbie Fekete 1 year ago
I think the real question is why did they even "go" to the moon? You would think that they would make a full documentary and record every moment while they were up there on the surface showing them doing some actual research or exploration but they only have videos of them driving in circles for no reason. People make documentaries here on earth exploring jungles and what not all the time you would think that they would record everything as they ventured to a place no one has ever been to. Just my thoughts on the whole "moon" mission.

Tommy Sullivan 1 year ago
The question is this : *What heck are they doing up there?* Or to put it another way : Even if you knew nothing about Apollo Space Program Hoax, wouldn't you expect different kinds of alarm turning on in the head of any intelligent person when pondering on the possible purpose of silly apollo-moon games : playing golf on the moon, driving buggy like children in the playground, running (jumping) around like drunk lunatics, drilling holes, performing fraudulent scientific experiments (simultaneously dropping the hammer and feather (made out of metal) etc..)???

Kalee Berry 1 year ago
1:28 I looked into why they haven't gone back. Excuses such as "we don't have the technology anymore and safety reasons" but they biggest excuse ... "It's really expensive and NASA doesn't have enough funding". Sooo, I researched how much money has been budgeted for NASA.. from 1958-2018 round $601 billion! In 2017,the budget given is $19.653 billion which $628 million above the original request for the agency in the Obama administration. I have also read their expenditures were only 1/5 or around $101 billion. So why again is money an issue?
 And who in the f loses or "erases" one of the biggest advances in history due to a shortage of film. I have read it was like 700 boxes of the original moon landing . Really??

Drew Bravo 1 year ago
People that insist NASA put man on the moon, have NO PROBLEM with NASA not going back for over 40 years. And also losing ALL 14,000 reels of moon footage. And saying they don't have the technology to go to the moon. And that Buzz Aldrin refused  the rest of his life, to give a simple interview about him going to the moon And moon rocks given to other countries multiple times by NASA.....analyzed as being completely FAKE, and being from Earth. And the Apollo astronauts giving that "post-moon landing" press conference looking like they're all on trial for murder. And them all giving completely different descriptions of even the most basic shit like, what can you see ?? And a video camera, recording the astronauts leaving the moon, following the capsule perfectly the whole time when there wasn't anybody there on the moon to control the filming. (don't even think about answering that one with it was remotely controlled) I swear to God, or even on my deceased father's grave....in my whole 46 years of living, I have never seen so much bullshit & basic deceitfulness being thrown out to the public, like I do with NASA. TRILLIONS of dollars of our money given to this agency, and that can't even produce a video of their operation. I am ashamed to be part of a human race, with so many simpletons that say NASA put men on the moon have no problem with them throwing away ALL the tapes of the missions as well as the technology to do it again!! Just that little nugget right there should be the biggest red flag. Please, somebody, please explain this to me? How can so many people trust that 6 times with NO MISHAPS, we went to the moon, when there's over 25 hard facts that clearly state it was all a farce!!! I would be willing to bet that over half of our books about basic space, are all completely fabricated!!! If not more.

Simon Crutch 1 year ago
Holy fuck, the thing that is doing it for me is this at 4.55  when they jump and salute, why would his salute be slow motion? You might jump higher and come down slower but why are the movements of their arms and legs slower?  can somebody explain? Like an astronaut in zero gravity still moves their limbs normally, they don't become slow motion right?

austinr09 1 year ago
Why would nasa go to the moon and put men in very delicate suits. To do a bunch of athletic shit? That makes no sense.

Pete Mitchell 1 year ago
You notice when the guy said I got you, the other guy started laughing, don't you people wonder why he found that funny??

Joe Ceonnia 1 year ago
When you do not tell the truth and then years go by it's hard to remember which was the lie and which was the truth..

daro20961 year ago
I am sure that anyone who has been in 'space' has signed the official secrets act or whatever it is called in America, Russia and China. And once you have signed it you have signed it for life.

Devin Norsworthy 1 year ago
Yes thats totally correct about the dust thing, and weighing 60 pounds boy, im jumping over a car straight up easily here on earth, let alone on the moon.

Bridge Beautys 1 year ago
Nicely put together. NASAs credibility is going down the toilet. It’s becoming more and more apparent we’ve been lied to by quite a lot, more than we know


Michael DeSilvio 1 year ago
U know how I know it's fake.. Hold your fist out arms length. Your face represents the earth. the fist represents the moon. If from your face the moon is the size of ur fist , thus the earth should be the size of the face from the fist. Fuck you liar ass fucks . NASA

Just for laugs comment :
Look you can all argue the case did we or didn't we go to the moon, the government is lying to us, it is a conspiracy, zero gravity, not zero gravity, why no acrobatics etc. The point is clear as day and you are all missing the one crucial question that has not been answered by anyone on either side of the argument in over 50 years! Are you still with me? Good so here it is, plain and simple. If cows are vegetarian why do they wear leather jackets?
Logged
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP
*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)
« Reply #179 on: July 24, 2019, 05:44:13 AM »
Attempt number 5 ..  I'm beginning to think cikljamas can't actually read.. 

Quote from: JerkFace on July 24, 2019, 03:59:04 AM
cikljamas ..  I asked you this question earlier, perhaps you missed it.

Quote from: cikljamas on July 22, 2019, 08:38:45 AM

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


So you grew up right next to Johnson Space Center (Houston).   I'm interested in what sort of work did your parents do at NASA?
Logged
Quote from: Space Cowgirl on March 01, 2018, 01:35:42 PM
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 106   Go Up
« previous next »