• Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
  • There are no markets
  • "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

'Fake' Apollo Moon Landing

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,047
Likes
7,596
"That's a rather tender subject. Another slice, anyone" ~Dr. Frank-N-Furter
 

#48Fan

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 14, 2014
Messages
468
Likes
345
Only thing an engine would need to do is throw a lot of something in the opposite direction it wants to move to accelerate. No need for anything behind it to push off of. Simple physics. Of course, I could be ridiculed for stating this, as there are some who seem to think these easily testable and observable physical phenomena that have been known about for centuries are the product of NASA lies.

Sorry bro, but that whole set up is flawed. The rocket was encased in a tube with 1 atmosphere of pressure plus the end of the plastic tube. Not to mention that the guy even admits he didn't take it down to a pure vacuum which does not remotely come close to the negative pressure of space.
 

EricTheCat

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
648
Likes
1,078
Location
Southern MN
Sorry bro, but that whole set up is flawed. The rocket was encased in a tube with 1 atmosphere of pressure plus the end of the plastic tube. Not to mention that the guy even admits he didn't take it down to a pure vacuum which does not remotely come close to the negative pressure of space.
I don't disagree that this was not a perfect test and actually I expected that to be pointed out.

However, the same concept can be tested without even using rockets or a vacuum. If you throw something, an equal force is exerted on to you. You could test this by throwing something while standing on a rolling platform. If you put enough force into the throw you and the platform will move in the opposite direction you through the object. All a rocket engine is doing is throwing gas opposite the direction it wants to move. Rockets don't need to push off anything to work. You can keep believing they do if you want.
 

#48Fan

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 14, 2014
Messages
468
Likes
345
I don't disagree that this was not a perfect test and actually I expected that to be pointed out.

However, the same concept can be tested without even using rockets or a vacuum. If you throw something, an equal force is exerted on to you. You could test this by throwing something while standing on a rolling platform. If you put enough force into the throw you and the platform will move in the opposite direction you through the object. All a rocket engine is doing is throwing gas opposite the direction it wants to move. Rockets don't need to push off anything to work. You can keep believing they do if you want.
Sure, if the object you are throwing has a lot of mass otherwise there is nothing.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,859
Likes
5,788
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Sure, if the object you are throwing has a lot of mass otherwise there is nothing.
You don't think 6 million pounds of rocket fuel has a lot of mass? When you burn it, its volume rapidly increases exponentially from that of a liquid into a gas. Expelling all that mass out the back of a rocket is in fact the action that causes the equal and opposite reaction of the rocket moving forward.
...and you should realize that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, so if you start out with 6 million pounds of liquid fuel, you'll still have 6 million pounds of gases after its been burnt. All that's happened is an exothermic reaction that converted your liquid fuel into a gas that rapidly expanded out the rear of the rocket.


It'd be the equivalent of sitting in a rolling chair while holding a fire hose. When it's turned on, you'd start moving quickly. Do you really think the water pushing against the air is what would cause you to move away from the streams direction? I think you're smart enough to realize that the air would just move out of the way.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,859
Likes
5,788
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Speaking of rapidly expanding gases, take a look at this. Exhaust plume of Apollo 11's Saturn V rocket.

Millions of pounds of liquid being turned into a gas.
...and this is just one stage of 3

 

EricTheCat

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
648
Likes
1,078
Location
Southern MN
It'd be the equivalent of sitting in a rolling chair while holding a fire hose. When it's turned on, you'd start moving quickly. Do you really think the water pushing against the air is what would cause you to move away from the streams direction? I think you're smart enough to realize that the air would just move out of the way.
That is a good example. Sort of like how toy water rockets work. They certainly aren't pushing off of the air. They throw mass in the direction opposite the direction they are to accelerate.

Also I would think it nearly impossible to get satellites into a geosynchronous orbit if there wasn't some form of propulsion that worked in space (let alone many other observable spacecraft).
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
7,620
Likes
4,081
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
Speaking of rapidly expanding gases, take a look at this. Exhaust plume of Apollo 11's Saturn V rocket.

Millions of pounds of liquid being turned into a gas.
...and this is just one stage of 3

Do you even know what you are writing/arguing about? You know it's kind of funny but if I didn't drink already conversing with you would drive me to drink, as it is you only drive me to drink early-er.:finished 2:

@#48 fan: I am not a flat earth'r but they do have some compelling arguments. One of these arguments is that the earth is a closed system we can neither inter nor leave. Which is fine by me because I always thought we went to the moon, that is until I figured out what the Van Allen Belts were all about so all I see of the moon landings is fakery. But on the off chance we can fall in space by being propelled by a gas I think it can happen because according to all those wacked phisisit's the universe has a cosmic temperature and a temperature denotes pressure and pressure denotes containment and inside a contained vessel one can navigate.....they just don't wont us to know that. Kind of crazy when one thinks about the universe having an actual boundary maybe even like a bubble. Other wise you are correct and no amount of propulsion will suffice to travel the distance because there is nothing to push against.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,859
Likes
5,788
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Do you even know what you are writing/arguing about? You know it's kind of funny but if I didn't drink already conversing with you would drive me to drink, as it is you only drive me to drink early-er.
Reading your posts, I usually just assume you're always drinkin'.
...and since you brought it up, maybe try to take it easy on that stuff? Got a friend who also likes the wifkey, same as you. About same age too. Just diagnosed with an advanced case of arld. Don't let it happen to you Mike.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,859
Likes
5,788
Location
Instant Gratification Land
That is a good example. Sort of like how toy water rockets work. They certainly aren't pushing off of the air. They throw mass in the direction opposite the direction they are to accelerate.
Yea, water rockets are another great example. Pressurized air pushing a stream of water out of a small hole producing the thrust that causes the rocket to be propelled into the air.
@#48Fan , didn't you ever have one of those when you were a kid? The water didn't push on the air to make it rise. In fact, the whole idea that pushing on the air is why rockets work is like saying they work via displacement, like boats do.



For fun and information. Especially the part from 8:00 onward where his daughter performs the mouse trap experiment.
 

Attachments

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,047
Likes
7,596
They throw mass in the direction opposite the direction they are to accelerate.
Which is precisely what I said the NASA defense squad would say...an entire page back. It doesn't work if there's nothing to push against. You'd have to take two masses aloft, one tied directly to the space/time ship and the other expendable. In short you'd have to carry your own hammer AND anvil aloft. Just squirting some gas into the allegedly infinite negative pressure of space/time isn't going to do squat.

Note, I tried to watch your video, but the guy was running others down to make himself feel better within the first couple sentences.
 

#48Fan

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 14, 2014
Messages
468
Likes
345
I actually did have a few water rockets growing up. I broke many of them over pumping them. I would have to say that the action/reaction of a water rocket is the water with the ground, not water with the air. Frames it perfectly. Liquid reacting to a solid, not gas. If it were a air rocket, like a balloon release, it would be a gas to gas reaction. This example wouldn't have any merit in a gas/nothing, liquid/nothing, solid/nothing environment. If you released a balloon on the moon, would it move or just deflate as the air would be sucked out of it instead of being pushed out by the balloon.
 

Oldmansmith

Midas Member
Midas Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
4,858
Likes
4,963
Location
Taxachusetts
I am enjoying the discussion but
Speaking of rapidly expanding gases, take a look at this. Exhaust plume of Apollo 11's Saturn V rocket.

Millions of pounds of liquid being turned into a gas.
...and this is just one stage of 3


But somehow the video of them taking off from the moon has no exhaust plume. Maybe liquid turning into gas is invisible in a vacuum..... Or maybe it was pulled up by a string.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,859
Likes
5,788
Location
Instant Gratification Land
But somehow the video of them taking off from the moon has no exhaust plume. Maybe liquid turning into gas is invisible in a vacuum..... Or maybe it was pulled up by a string.
It's called hypergolic fuel. It's a two part fuel/oxidizer mixture that ignites on contact. It also burns relatively clear. Another example of nearly clear exhaust is the space shuttle's main engines.
3 minutes
 

DodgebyDave

Metal Messiah
Midas Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
6,769
Likes
5,504
That's a good question, I imagine it has alot to do with the lack of atmosphere to catalyze with. Just like IF you could run a jet engine their is no water to vaporize...no contrails.

5 big J-5 engines on a long burn vs a burp to get off the moon

An excuse to post a rocket video

 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,047
Likes
7,596
I am enjoying the discussion but



But somehow the video of them taking off from the moon has no exhaust plume. Maybe liquid turning into gas is invisible in a vacuum..... Or maybe it was pulled up by a string.
Poor special effects, by modern standards, from nearly half a century ago. Stanley Kubrick could only do so much with what he had to work with.

"Space may be the final frontier
But it's made in a Hollywood basement" ~Some red hot chili heads.
 

EricTheCat

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
648
Likes
1,078
Location
Southern MN
Which is precisely what I said the NASA defense squad would say...an entire page back. It doesn't work if there's nothing to push against. You'd have to take two masses aloft, one tied directly to the space/time ship and the other expendable. In short you'd have to carry your own hammer AND anvil aloft. Just squirting some gas into the allegedly infinite negative pressure of space/time isn't going to do squat.
Yeah it does work when there is nothing to push against. The water rockets for example keep accelerating after they are a little ways away from the ground without anything to push off of. How about a CO2 car? I've seen them run without anything to push off from behind them and they can get some pretty good speed just with a can of CO2. The fact that if you throw mass one direction you cause an equal opposing force in the opposite direction is a very simple concept that is easily testable. I guess you have to deny a whole lot of easily observable phenomena in order to fit your view.


Note, I tried to watch your video, but the guy was running others down to make himself feel better within the first couple sentences.
If I happen to find a video on the same topic with someone with as kind of manors as you I will be sure to post it. Oh here is one:
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
7,620
Likes
4,081
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
BS f'n BS So kiddies how does the liquid that is ionized suddenly gain mass? right about 2:27 but other than that the whole teslakroil is a bust when said bonhead admitted to the conservation of mass ie: going in and out of.

now as far as I watched....damm that was right funny.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
7,620
Likes
4,081
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
I actually did have a few water rockets growing up. I broke many of them over pumping them. I would have to say that the action/reaction of a water rocket is the water with the ground, not water with the air. Frames it perfectly. Liquid reacting to a solid, not gas. If it were a air rocket, like a balloon release, it would be a gas to gas reaction. This example wouldn't have any merit in a gas/nothing, liquid/nothing, solid/nothing environment. If you released a balloon on the moon, would it move or just deflate as the air would be sucked out of it instead of being pushed out by the balloon.
And, this my friends is why the GAS law rules in a vacuum because(I think it was bo...) oh crap have to look it up:
The ideal gas law is the equation of state of a hypothetical ideal gas. It is a good approximation of the behavior of many gases under many conditions, although it has several limitations. It was first stated by Émile Clapeyron in 1834 as a combination of the empirical Boyle's law, Charles's law and Avogadro's Law.1

Boyle's Law is a basic law in chemistry describing the behavior of a gas held at a constant temperature. The law, discovered by Robert Boyle in 1662, states that at a fixed temperature, the volume of gas is inversely proportional to the pressure exerted by the gas.2

inversely proportional to the pressure exerted by the gas. this means that in a vacuum it will fill all of the void. chickie mo-fo's SPACE is a big vacuum and you are going to orient ur lil spacie craft with small squirts?
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
7,620
Likes
4,081
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
Yeah it does work when there is nothing to push against. The water rockets for example keep accelerating after they are a little ways away from the ground without anything to push off of. How about a CO2 car? I've seen them run without anything to push off from behind them and they can get some pretty good speed just with a can of CO2. The fact that if you throw mass one direction you cause an equal opposing force in the opposite direction is a very simple concept that is easily testable. I guess you have to deny a whole lot of easily observable phenomena in order to fit your view.




If I happen to find a video on the same topic with someone with as kind of manors as you I will be sure to post it. Oh here is one:
F this crap...where was the moon dust disturbance? next we will be on to the little feet humanoid.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,859
Likes
5,788
Location
Instant Gratification Land
I actually did have a few water rockets growing up. I broke many of them over pumping them.
Yea, everyone did that with them. What I learned was that if you over fill them with water, and don't over pump as much, it will go a bit higher as it has more water to that has to be expelled. Pumping the shit out of it just ends up breaking it, like you said.

I would have to say that the action/reaction of a water rocket is the water with the ground, not water with the air. Frames it perfectly. Liquid reacting to a solid, not gas. If it were a air rocket, like a balloon release, it would be a gas to gas reaction.
Nope, not pushing off the ground either. A small column of water like that doesn't have any stength to transfer force with. It'd be like pushing on a string.

This example wouldn't have any merit in a gas/nothing, liquid/nothing, solid/nothing environment.
Of course not, as it requires that one think that something must be pushed against for it to work. It doesn't require that.

Back when I was a kid in school, I was in the model rocketry club and I remember thinking that it needed the little flat launch pad in order to push off of, but I quickly learned that that wasn't how it worked. Didn't you ever play with model rockets when you were a kid? If not, you missed out.


If you released a balloon on the moon, would it move or just deflate as the air would be sucked out of it instead of being pushed out by the balloon.
Assuming you could have a balloon made of a strong enough material that it could withstand the pressure of the gas,* it would indeed move in the opposite direction the opening of the balloon was pointed. Air goes one way, balloon goes the other. Equal/opposite action/reaction.

* you might be able to do that by only putting a very small amount of gas in it to begin with. When it expands due to the lack of outside pressure, you might be able to have a balloon material strong enough to hold it without rupturing.
...but you couldn't take a fully inflated regular balloon out into space. Ie: fill it inside the ISS for example and take it on a EVA. It would pop.
 
Last edited:

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
7,620
Likes
4,081
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
If you released a balloon on the moon, would it move or just deflate as the air would be sucked out of it instead of being pushed out by the balloon

no... oh chrim-a-knee dam...The rubber would expand till the balloon broke. K. peeps: read up on the ruskiey that did the first outside float....he had to release the air in his suit to get back into the capsule.

I think I need me some 16penney nails and a 2x4....I already have my forehead.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,047
Likes
7,596
There's no need to even speculate here...we know what happens when a balloon rises too high...it bursts. Why? Could it have something to do with too little atmospheric pressure? ...gosh I wonder.
I guess you have to deny a whole lot of easily observable phenomena in order to fit your view.
You've seemingly a monopoly on that phenomenon cat man. You observe what transpires in our atmosphere and then attempt to transfer that to the theoretical infinite negative pressure of space/time...it doesn't work.

NASA said so, isn't a reason.

 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,859
Likes
5,788
Location
Instant Gratification Land
If rockets can't work in space, how do they get sats up to geosynchronous orbit? You can prove those are up there. All ya gotta do is set up a sat tv dish. If you can receive a signal, there's something up there transmitting it to ya.

I mean really, the fact sats are in orbits from 200 miles all the out to 32000+ miles, proves that something got them there.
...and the atmosphere doesn't extend that far. 90% of all the air if below 52,000' and 99.999% of it is below 60 miles. There's nothing much up there for millions of pounds of rocket to "push" off of. If that's how it worked, you'd need to exponentially increase the thrust as the rocket rose due to there being an exponentially decreasing amount of air to push off of. The whole idea of pushing on the air to launch a rocket is just complete and utter nonsense.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,047
Likes
7,596
All logic is a circle to some. For proof of NASA's integrity...let's use NASA.

I've set up a half dozen "satellite" dishes and aimed every single one of them at the Southern sky...very very low in the Southern sky. Was it aimed at a satellite? I dunno, I imagine you think you "know" though.

Page 6 of this now 25 page thread.
Everything NASA puts out is CGI and VR. Can anyone show me a single real photograph of a satellite in orbit? I've never seen one...
Are there satellites in "orbit"? I dunno. I do know that pictures of them in orbit are incredibly rare to non-existent, yet there's supposedly thousands of satellites up there.

People be like the government did 9/11, the government is behind ISIS, the government lies to us about what they're spending money on, the government is behind all these wars, the government is full of liars...

Same people when you tell them the Earth isn't just some big ball of mud in a vast universe that's being explored by government using gravity magic...

"nah man you must be stupid the government wouldn't lie about something like that"

 
Last edited:

EricTheCat

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
648
Likes
1,078
Location
Southern MN
You've seemingly a monopoly on that phenomenon cat man. You observe what transpires in our atmosphere and then attempt to transfer that to the theoretical infinite negative pressure of space/time...it doesn't work.
It does work. Take my gravity simulation program for example. Not only did it tell me an object at Earth's surface will fall at about 9.8 meters in the first second (as we can observe here). I have since added the mass and radius of the Sun then added the mass, radius, distance and velocity of Mercury, Venus, Earth, Earth's moon, Mars, Jupiter and the brightest 4 Jupiter moons. With the very same program logic that tells me an object will fall at about 9.8 meters in the first second I also show a stable orbit for all objects mentioned. Earth's moon and Jupiter's 4 brightest moons are both objects that we can observe and the math works out perfectly. No NASA involved.

You just seem hell bent on making stuff up to fit your assumptions. I don't even know why I bother with you. Your beliefs are so far from observable reality that I think you're a lost cause.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,047
Likes
7,596
It does work. Take my gravity simulation program for example. Not only did it tell me an object at Earth's surface will fall at about 9.8 meters in the first second (as we can observe here). I have since added the mass and radius of the Sun then added the mass, radius, distance and velocity of Mercury, Venus, Earth, Earth's moon, Mars, Jupiter and the brightest 4 Jupiter moons. With the very same program logic that tells me an object will fall at about 9.8 meters in the first second I also show a stable orbit for all objects mentioned. Earth's moon and Jupiter's 4 brightest moons are both objects that we can observe and the math works out perfectly. No NASA involved.

You just seem hell bent on making stuff up to fit your assumptions. I don't even know why I bother with you. Your beliefs are so far from observable reality that I think you're a lost cause.
...and you seem hell bent on building mathematical models based on preconceived notions and then presenting that as evidence...somehow. Did you know that NIST made a mathematical model of how WTC7 collapsed on its own footprint and at free fall velocity due to office fires? So because someone made a model, does that make it reality? Computers process data...if you feed them garbage...you get garbage.

On another note...that's freaking weird. Almost like photos are easier to fake than videos...


Look at all that curvature!!! ...well there isn't any, but ignore that.

 
Last edited:

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
7,620
Likes
4,081
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
All logic is a circle to some. For proof of NASA's integrity...let's use NASA.

I've set up a half dozen "satellite" dishes and aimed every single one of them at the Southern sky...very very low in the Southern sky. Was it aimed at a satellite? I dunno, I imagine you think you "know" though.

Page 6 of this now 25 page thread.

Are there satellites in "orbit"? I dunno. I do know that pictures of them in orbit are incredibly rare to non-existent, yet there's supposedly thousands of satellites up there.

People be like the government did 9/11, the government is behind ISIS, the government lies to us about what they're spending money on, the government is behind all these wars, the government is full of liars...

Same people when you tell them the Earth isn't just some big ball of mud in a vast universe that's being explored by government using gravity magic...

"nah man you must be stupid the government wouldn't lie about something like that"

nope, she still stuck a flute somewhere...can't fool this dog; he knows how to hunt.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
7,620
Likes
4,081
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
...and you seem hell bent on building mathematical models based on preconceived notions and then presenting that as evidence...somehow. Did you know that NIST made a mathematical model of how WTC7 collapsed on its own footprint and at free fall velocity due to office fires? So because someone made a model, does that make it reality? Computers process data...if you feed them garbage...you get garbage.

On another note...that's freaking weird. Almost like photos are easier to fake than videos...


Look at all that curvature!!! ...well there isn't any, but ignore that.

Dag-nab-it now I want to watch "Vanishing Point." Yester year transvitulites from tranvestula today....fuck its "crash and burn" hell with what's for dinner I sure am luv'n these movie suggestions,
 

Lt Dan

Gold Pirate
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
3,619
Likes
5,546
Location
VA Psych Ward
Yeah it does...my girlfriend.....k, i'll just leave it at that.
*ties up tongue and fingers*
Sounds kinky!

I'm an old married man! What's a girlfriend have to do with physics, I took physics, wife did not, I think she took Home Ec, knows how to make me a sandwich, burns just about anything she tries to cook. :don't know:
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,047
Likes
7,596
Let us not get started on women and cooking...egads this thread will be permanently off the rails. lol