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

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?

They produced coke bottles :

Quote from: JerkFace 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?

They produced coke bottles :

Ok.  No more questions.

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.

O.K., for the sake of truth i will agree with you on that one (and only on that one) issue!!!

As for the core of the issue, i am 100 % right, and you know that, so i am going to repeat this just once more for everyone who will ever read this thread :

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 the 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 :

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.

That's total crap by someone who has no idea about radio communication!

The S-band used by NASA does not get reflected by the ionosphere as HF radio does and uses antennae with enormous gains like this one!


Or this:



So tell your mate he knows nothing about space radio transmission!

Quote from: JackBlack on July 24, 2019, 04:55:24 AM

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.

<< Repeated crap deleted  >>

Now some sensible answers on thrust = (mass flow rate) × (exhaust velocity) please!

The nail in the coffin

Is that you are running away to yet another topic after failing to defend your prior claims.

You still refuse to answer a very simple question.

As for the core of the issue, i am 100 % right, and you know that, so i am going to repeat this just once more for everyone who will ever read this thread :

No, I know you are wrong. I am fairly certain you know that as well.
Repeating the same lie again and again wont help you.

If you release pressurised gas it will attempt to expand in ALL DIRECTIONS!
Not just one preferential direction.
What this means for the rocket is that the gas created in the rocket will be expanding in all directions, including towards the rocket.
This gas will hit the rocket (or hit more gas which in turn hits the rocket and so on) and thus apply a pressure and force to the rocket.
This force will allow the rocket to move.
In turn the rocket will force the gas backwards, causing it to escape from the inside of the rocket by going out the nozzle.

Once again:
Rocket - First body.
Gas - Second body.

Get it?

Now how about you answer the question. It is a very simple one:
What body is acting on the gas which leaves the rocket in a preferential direction meaning it needs to have been forced into that direction?

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.....

What’s sad is that your hero Mazzucco says things like this:

The sun being far away, it cannot go diagonally.  The shadows must be parallel at such a distance.

When reality begs to differ:



It’s sad that several other fashion photographers said the same thing, while reality begs to differ.

It’s sad that I presented this to you before and you refused to address my criticisms, except to call me an amateur.

It’s sad you still bang on about about your “top photography experts” as if they hadn’t made total fools of themselves by being just plain wrong in one of the most obvious ways possible.

Quote from: cikljamas on July 24, 2019, 05:56:25 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on July 24, 2019, 04:55:24 AM

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.

<< Repeated crap deleted  >>

Now some sensible answers on thrust = (mass flow rate) × (exhaust velocity) please!

I have demonstrated my honesty by admitting (every single time) that i was wrong whenever i noticed a mistake that i had made. However, this simple concept (of admitting your obvious mistakes) is totally strange and incomprehensible to you and to Jack Black. Whenever it comes to my mind to tell you "shame on you", the next thought comes to my mind in a nanosecond : They have no idea what the word "shame" designates, and they have no idea what "a shame" is, because they haven't got a clue what the word "honesty" means.

Here’s a simple explanation as to why rockets won’t work in space:

What pushes a rocket upwards through the air? Expanding gasses in the combustion chamber shooting out the back.

But if they’re shooting out the back towards the ground how can they be pushing the rocket upwards?

Oh, some of the gas is still in the chamber and that gas is pushing up against the rocket (what the people at Physics Today claim)

OK, but what happens in space, which is a vacuum? The gas in the combustion chamber exits at a a speed of 1 km/s (google The expansion of a Gas-Cloud into a vacuum). So if you open the nozzle all the gas goes shooting out into space within a fraction of a second.

The gas cannot push the ship with the nozzle closed because gas trapped in the combustion chamber does no work but if you open the nozzle all the gas exits immediately before it can push against the ship. Therefore you cannot use gas in the vacuum to power a rocket ship.

This force pushing a rocket cannot be pushing on the inside of the rocket any more than you can push with your feet upwards against the inside of a cardboard box you are within to stop it from falling from a height. It sounds absurd but that is what NASA claims happens in a rocket.

So how do rockets fly?

An object sitting on the ground can only move upwards if it is pushed from underneath or lifted from the side/top. Since we know rockets are not lifted , they must be pushed. Therefore the gasses underneath the rocket must be pushing it up and off the launchpad.

An object moving straight up into the air will eventually be pulled back down by gravity unless it is continuously pushed from underneath or pulled from the top/side by a force greater than gravity.

Since I have shown the rocket cannot push against itself and is not pulled from above, the area under the rocket must be higher pressure than the area below. While I have several theories as to what causes the pressure I have not followed through on them and I do not need to. I only need to show that the rocket is rising due to higher pressure underneath it (as opposed to pushing itself, being lifted from the top/sides) because in the vacuum of space there can be no higher pressure underneath the rocket. In the vacuum of space the pressure will be equal and 0 on all sides ofthe rocket, hence it would not move under its own power and immediately fall back to earth.

This video begs the question :


This article casts some light on it :
https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/universe/at-what-altitude-does-earth-end-and-space-start.html

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.....

What’s sad is that your hero Mazzucco says things like this:

Quote from: Massimo Mazzucci

The sun being far away, it cannot go diagonally.  The shadows must be parallel at such a distance.

When reality begs to differ:



It’s sad that several other fashion photographers said the same thing, while reality begs to differ.

It’s sad that I presented this to you before and you refused to address my criticisms, except to call me an amateur.

It’s sad you still bang on about about your “top photography experts” as if they hadn’t made total fools of themselves by being just plain wrong in one of the most obvious ways possible.

Indeed:

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&id=91427133DF5A42C2FE865AC4F7A9AAE8F15F9119&thid=OIP.5my3DPqmQ_WhqE-3t7AsKgHaE8&mediaurl=https%3A%2F%2Ffarm1.staticflickr.com%2F437%2F19506333526_093bb44759_b_d.jpg&exph=683&expw=1024&q=image+parallel+sun+shadows+on+clouds&selectedindex=3&ajaxhist=0&vt=0&eim=1,2,6&ccid=5my3DPqm&simid=608042534866781170

E2A: Apologies, I messed up the cut and paste.

You still haven't watched this video :

I did.  It’s a total mess I’m afraid:

1.  Demonstration of punching the air compared to punching a wall  trying to show there’s no equal and opposite reaction.  No, there is slight air resistance, but his hand stops because he pulled his punches.  His own muscles reverse the forward motion of his hand. 

Hit the air as hard as possible without pulling your punch, and you will sure as hell feel it in your shoulder socket.  Although you’ll have to overcome your own instincts screaming at you not to.

2.  This also makes no sense, because he claims rockets do work in atmosphere, so why is pretending that punching atmosphere is like punching nothing?

3. Pushing a bowling ball or car is exactly the same as pushing a balloon or ping pong ball.  They’re just heavier.  What is the point of this comparison?

4.  Drone rotors work by pulling air from above and accelerating downwards, causing upward force on them.  Putting a piece of card under the drone, alters the airflow, by increasing pressure a little as it flows through.  That is not how rockets work, rockets carry the fuel they need for propulsion.  Although the presence or not of an atmosphere will after the flow from the rocket.

5.  None of the examples shown disprove rockets in the slightest.  They are all pointless.

6.  You won’t find his explanation in any fluid dynamics textbooks.  It’s just fundamentally wrong.  If you find a more credible source, I’ll eat my hat.

This force pushing a rocket cannot be pushing on the inside of the rocket any more than you can push with your feet upwards against the inside of a cardboard box you are within to stop it from falling from a height. It sounds absurd but that is what NASA claims happens in a rocket.

I can if the box is open on one side and my foot goes from being inside the box to outside the box.

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.

No.  Air is about 784 times less dense than water.  As far as the water is concerned, the air might just as well not even be there.

I have demonstrated my honesty by admitting (every single time) that i was wrong whenever i noticed a mistake that i had made.

You were wrong about Honeysuckle creek,  and wrong about the signal strength,  can you point to where you admitted your mistake.

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.

I was born in 1960.
In late 70s I was member of YU1AFX radio club.
When we used radio waves to measure distance to the Moon, I was a teenager.
If I remember correctly, our 432MHz (70 cm) transceiver was 350 Watts, or something like that.
Not the "billions" (or even thousands).
We didn't have Kenwood, older members made the transceiver themselves.
(When I joined the club it was already there.)

You occasionally send short beep and hope to receive it.
(You have to point and adjust the antenna set, ofcourse.)
When you finally do, you put your mic close to the receiving speaker, beep again, adjust the volume and make it resend.
When you set everything well, your initial beep will make series of beeps with about 2.5 sec difference.
Then you measure time for, say, 12 of them.
(They were more and more distorted in noise but still distinguished as pulses.)
If the time was 31 sec, you know the one beep time was 2.58333 sec.
That way the signal trip length would be (31 / 12) s x 300 000 km/s = 775 000 km there and back.
So, the distance to the Moon was 387 500 km.

~~~~~

Not only power affects the wave propagation.
Frequency does too.
Your 5000 Watts using Ionosphere was meant to establish reliable communication and at different frequencies.
To reach "around a corner", not directly the Moon in the line of sight.

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.

The amateur radio record for 10 Ghz EME was recently broken,  some guys bounced a 10Ghz signal off the moon and established 2 way contact between New Zealand and England.   That was with 10 watts,  and a 1 meter diameter dish.

For comparison the Honeysuckle Creek ground station had 22,000 watts on 2 Ghz,  and a 26 meter diameter dish.   

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.....

What’s sad is that your hero Mazzucco says things like this:

Quote from: Massimo Mazzucci

The sun being far away, it cannot go diagonally.  The shadows must be parallel at such a distance.

When reality begs to differ:



It’s sad that several other fashion photographers said the same thing, while reality begs to differ.

It’s sad that I presented this to you before and you refused to address my criticisms, except to call me an amateur.

It’s sad you still bang on about about your “top photography experts” as if they hadn’t made total fools of themselves by being just plain wrong in one of the most obvious ways possible.

I think your example could be done in photoshop when you are setting the drop shadow effect on an layer, uncheck the "Use Global Light" checkbox. Uncheck the "Use Global Light" checkbox in the Drop Shadow dialog.
I special wideangle objective can create the same illusion ?

The top photographers in the docu understand the same camera's of the Apollo era and have worked with them.
Photoshop wasn't around like now in 1969.

But when you go to a dessert or flat bright area with your car and other items and try to replicate the multiple shadows cast in different directions as shown in the Apollo footage you are a very capable man..... using an old fashioned camera.
Not in a million years you'll succeed.

Ps the Apollo specialists out there are allready commenting in blogs and reviews about 'American Moon'
Not one of them has your silly shadow argument.
To the contrary, they praise their indisputable expertise on earth.
Their only argument us that those top photographers are not familiar with the moon conditions of a bright sun, reflective rigolet and earth.

Your argument about them being stupid photographers who simply don't understand the basics of how shadows behave says a lot more about you..

Quote from: Unconvinced on July 24, 2019, 06:12:33 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.....

What’s sad is that your hero Mazzucco says things like this:

Quote from: Massimo Mazzucci

The sun being far away, it cannot go diagonally.  The shadows must be parallel at such a distance.

When reality begs to differ:



It’s sad that several other fashion photographers said the same thing, while reality begs to differ.

It’s sad that I presented this to you before and you refused to address my criticisms, except to call me an amateur.

It’s sad you still bang on about about your “top photography experts” as if they hadn’t made total fools of themselves by being just plain wrong in one of the most obvious ways possible.

I think your example could be done in photoshop when you are setting the drop shadow effect on an layer, uncheck the "Use Global Light" checkbox. Uncheck the "Use Global Light" checkbox in the Drop Shadow dialog.
I special wideangle objective can create the same illusion ?

The top photographers in the docu understand the same camera's of the Apollo era and have worked with them.
Photoshop wasn't around like now in 1969.

But when you go to a dessert or flat bright area with your car and other items and try to replicate the multiple shadows cast in different directions as shown in the Apollo footage you are a very capable man..... using an old fashioned camera.
Not in a million years you'll succeed.

Ps the Apollo specialists out there are allready commenting in blogs and reviews about 'American Moon'
Not one of them has your silly shadow argument.
To the contrary, they praise their indisputable expertise on earth.
Their only argument us that those top photographers are not familiar with the moon conditions of a bright sun, reflective rigolet and earth.

Your argument about them being stupid photographers who simply don't understand the basics of how shadows behave says a lot more about you..

My example is just a stock photo of trees.  Why would anyone photoshop fake shadows on it?

The camera used is irrelevant, it’s just a matter of perspective.  Shadows on the ground only appear parallel if you are perpendicular to them.  They converge to vanishing points just like everything else.

Looks like it’s nice and sunny in the Netherlands right now, so don’t take my word for it.  Go outside, and see for yourself.

Just taken a photo of a beer glass, lighter and battery pack to demonstrate this.  Any way to post my own photos without joining an image hosting site?

Ah, here we go.  No lugging of equipment to the desert necessary.  Just a pub beer garden.

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on July 22, 2019, 03:46:09 AM

Electric motors do not need oxygen to work.

Prove.

You honestly believe that electric motors need air to operate?   Why?

Quote from: cikljamas 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.

The amateur radio record for 10 Ghz EME was recently broken,  some guys bounced a 10Ghz signal off the moon and established 2 way contact between New Zealand and England.   That was with 10 watts,  and a 1 meter diameter dish.

For comparison the Honeysuckle Creek ground station had 22,000 watts on 2 Ghz,  and a 26 meter diameter dish.

I am chuiffed that people are using the EME example, about which I started a thread recently ...

I have demonstrated my honesty by admitting (every single time) that i was wrong whenever i noticed a mistake that i had made.

No you haven't.
You have done a few times when you felt it wasn't crucial to your argument or that you admitting that mistake could further your argument.
There have plenty of times where you have been completely wrong, it has been clearly explained that you were completely wrong, yet you continue to assert the same nonsense.

This very simple case is yet another example of that.

I have admitted my mistakes when I have made them.

Here’s a simple explanation as to why rockets won’t work in space:
What pushes a rocket upwards through the air? Expanding gasses in the combustion chamber shooting out the back.
But if they’re shooting out the back towards the ground how can they be pushing the rocket upwards?
Oh, some of the gas is still in the chamber and that gas is pushing up against the rocket (what the people at Physics Today claim)

It is the gas in the chamber that is important.
Causing this gas to shoot out the back is what forces the rocket.
The gas is one body which is forced out the back of the rocket. The other body is the rocket, being forced forwards by the ground.

You repeatedly ignoring that will not help you.

Stop just saying the gas is coming out the back, you need to explain why it does so in the first place.

Again, the simple explanation is that the rocket is pushing it backwards.
The more complex explanation is that the particles of gas inside the combustion chamber repeatedly bounce around, interacting and transferring momentum as they do so, until they exit the nozzle. As they are now heading backwards, that means the last interaction they had would result in them being forced backwards and whatever they hit being forced forwards.
This will carry through to the rocket, forcing the rocket forwards and the gas backwards.

If the gas was just expanding, like it does if you just release it in a vacuum, then it would expand outwards in all directions, not just out the back of the rocket.
That means a large portion will collide with the rocket (either directly, or indirectly by colliding with something that collides with the rocket) and only a small portion will escape.

Since I have shown

You have only shown that all you can do is appeal to pure magic.
You are yet to explain how the gas magically leaves the rocket in one higher preferred direction, requiring a significant force to have it do so, without the rocket being the body to provide this force.

So I will ask again, what is forcing the gas out the back of the rocket?
Start with it just after the combustion.
You have the fuel and oxidiser. It is injected into the combustion chamber and burns creating a lot of gas.
This gas (when considered as a whole) initially just has the momentum of the fuel and oxidiser, which is negligible due to the low speed and mass.
Now how does this go from basically no momentum, to a very large amount from shooting out the back of the rocket at a very high velocity?

Dutchy, I noticed you didn't reply to my post.
Did you just miss it, or couldn't you think of how to justify your claim that the photos were taken from the same angle?

Also, I realised something I missed before.
You claim the mountains move way too fast for something allegedly so far away, but we aren't seeing the mountains move. What we see is relative motion between the LM and the mountains.
So what we are actually seeing more of is the closer LM appear to move significantly compared to the distant mountain.

But when you go to a dessert or flat bright area with your car and other items and try to replicate the multiple shadows cast in different directions as shown in the Apollo footage you are a very capable man..... using an old fashioned camera.
Not in a million years you'll succeed.

Are you referring to the slight variations caused by perspective?
If so, you can easily reproduce them on any flat surface.

Or are you referring to the more significant variations due to the uneven surface of the moon, in which case you wouldn't try to replicate them on a flat surface.

Quote from: rabinoz on July 24, 2019, 06:02:34 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on July 24, 2019, 05:56:25 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on July 24, 2019, 04:55:24 AM

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.

<< Repeated crap deleted  >>

Now some sensible answers on thrust = (mass flow rate) × (exhaust velocity) please!

I have demonstrated my honesty by admitting (every single time) that i was wrong whenever i noticed a mistake that i had made. However, this simple concept (of admitting your obvious mistakes) is totally strange and incomprehensible to you and to Jack Black. Whenever it comes to my mind to tell you "shame on you", the next thought comes to my mind in a nanosecond : They have no idea what the word "shame" designates, and they have no idea what "a shame" is, because they haven't got a clue what the word "honesty" means.

I refuse to debate anyone that makes accusations like that, thank you, Mr Cikljamas.

What I have been posting is correct as far as I know it and YOU have never refuted it!

I decided my reply might be better posted in: The hypocrisy of cikljamas/odiupicku.

The amateur radio record for 10 Ghz EME was recently broken,  some guys bounced a 10Ghz signal off the moon and established 2 way contact between New Zealand and England.   That was with 10 watts,  and a 1 meter diameter dish.

That's very impressive! What mode were they using? CW? I once worked Perth from the middle of the U.S. on 10 Mhz CW with a dipole and 80 watts input. This would have been some time around the early 1980's. EME with 10 watts, even on 10 Ghz, is really impressive.

I just can't get over how some folks can't understand that the thrust of a rocket comes from the hot gas pushing against the rocket engine, not from it pushing on air after it has left the engine and can no longer have any effect on the rocket.

Quote from: JerkFace on July 24, 2019, 08:22:13 AM

The amateur radio record for 10 Ghz EME was recently broken,  some guys bounced a 10Ghz signal off the moon and established 2 way contact between New Zealand and England.   That was with 10 watts,  and a 1 meter diameter dish.

That's very impressive!

It is very impressive but is helped by there being very little atmospheric path loss - far less that between distant points on earth.

What mode were they using? CW? I once worked Perth from the middle of the U.S. on 10 Mhz CW with a dipole and 80 watts input. This would have been some time around the early 1980's. EME with 10 watts, even on 10 Ghz, is really impressive.

You used a dipole with a gain of no more than 2 dB but the EME link could use 2 or 3 m dishes with gains in the 45 to 48 dB region.

I just can't get over how some folks can't understand that the thrust of a rocket comes from the hot gas pushing against the rocket engine, not from it pushing on air after it has left the engine and can no longer have any effect on the rocket.

Neither can I.
One thing that makes the "rocket pushes in the air hypothesis" totally impossible is that for ICBMs and these large rockets the exhaust gas velocity is hypersonic - around Mach 6.

No effect can travel upstream in any supersonic flow so the rocket cannot push on the air behind it.
An exception might be if the exhaust gases could "bounce" off the launch pad but this is precluded by diverting the exhaust gases to the side.

You still haven't watched this video :

Your best evidence of why rockets can't propel in the vacuum of space is this guy, who claims to be a mechanical engineer, standing in a conference room with a poorly rendered depiction of a rocket on a whiteboard in front of maybe two people. One of which somehow has a balloon handy to aid in his demonstration. He punches the air a couple of times followed by more randomly strung together words then proceeds to the break-room and uses a quad copter to demo why rockets can't do what they do?

Seriously? This is the evidence/explanation you hang your hat on? Wow.

Your argument about them being stupid photographers who simply don't understand the basics of how shadows behave says a lot more about you..

But they still seem to claim that a single distant light source must cast parallel shadows and this is a complete fallacy!

Perspective alone can make shadows appear to be at angle to each other.

And uneven terrain can cause the shadows to be far from parallel.

Quote from: dutchy on July 24, 2019, 09:06:49 AM

Your argument about them being stupid photographers who simply don't understand the basics of how shadows behave says a lot more about you..

But they still seem to claim that a single distant light source must cast parallel shadows and this is a complete fallacy!

Perspective alone can make shadows appear to be at angle to each other.

And uneven terrain can cause the shadows to be far from parallel.

I think dutchy is trolling you,  nobody could be that dumb.   ( I was going to write "geometrically challenged"  but then I remembered the ongoing confusion about spherical shapes and flat dishes. )

Quote from: cikljamas on July 24, 2019, 05:56:25 AM

You still haven't watched this video :

Your best evidence of why rockets can't propel in the vacuum of space is this guy, who claims to be a mechanical engineer, standing in a conference room with a poorly rendered depiction of a rocket on a whiteboard in front of maybe two people. One of which somehow has a balloon handy to aid in his demonstration. He punches the air a couple of times followed by more randomly strung together words then proceeds to the break-room and uses a quad copter to demo why rockets can't do what they do?

Seriously? This is the evidence/explanation you hang your hat on? Wow.

When asked about the boy and bowling he says that the bowling ball has "inertia".
Doesn't he think that the tonnes of exhaust gas ejected from an F-1 has inertia? I find it incomprehensible that a "scientist" can ignore that.