Moon Hoax - Rockets CANNOT work in space

?
wont the rocket need o2 to burn the fuel?

how did the astonauts *blast* off from the moon with no o2 for the fuel to burn?

Believe or not, I'm pretty sure that with no atmospheric air friction and with the vacuum effect as well, they simply did not have any power to lift off anything from the moon.

Last Edited by DVCMCM on 08/29/2012 08:28 AM

But the video shows rocket explosions as the Eagle lifts off from the surface of the moon. ???

the fuel they carry has its own oxidizer and has no need of outside air. if it did it would not be a rocket but rather a jet.

racist

Did you ever see the engine power stuff of ...the eagle?



Last Edited by DVCMCM on 08/29/2012 08:38 AM

What friction?


Facts are proven by observation, not formula.
Relativistic effects have been observed.

Objects at relativistic speed are heavier.
Objects at relativistic speed are wider.
Objects at relativistic speed live longer.


Stop wasting time asking non-relevant questions.
You have been advised to learn what relativity is.
THEN you know what questions to ask.

this is bullshit based on the fact that you can bounce lasers off certain points of the moon which are reflectors that the astronauts left there. this has been scientifically proven and checked multiple times. search for it. fucking retards.

m = mo / √(1 - v²/c²)


You can use CGS or MKS -- just keep the units consistent.


100,000 km/s = 10^8 m/s, call C 300,000,000 m/s, V^2 = 10^16, C^2 = 9x10^18, v^2/C^2 = 236.5, (1-236.5)^1/2

Gamma = 0.065

So a 1,000 kg ship traveling at 100,000 km/s would have a relativistic mass of 106,500 kg.

Of course GLP doesn't support formula. frab. have to type by hand..

M = m/ (1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2)

How do you know they weren't sent there on a unmanned mission?

We don't know that they weren't flown there on the backs of magical flying ponies.

Saying that you can't show something is impossible, is far from having shown that such a thing is probable.

There are an infinite number of "not impossible" solutions for the problem of the lunar retroreflectors.

There is only one "probable" solution -- only one for which there is even a single scrap of supporting evidence.

So your saying there are no satelites in space either?

Sorry, but your calculations are wrong (for c^2 = 9 · 10^16)

v = 100,000 Km/s = c/3, so

(v/c)^2 = 1/9

1 - (v/c)^2 = 1 - 1/9 = 8/9

sqrt (1 - (v/c)^2) = 0.942809

M = mo / sqrt (1 - (v/c)^2) = 1000 Kg / 0.942809 = 1060.6602 Kg = 1061 Kg

Anyway, the concept of relativistic mass is not used: the used notion is relativistic momentum.

You are partially wrong:

Objects at relativistic speed have a greater relativistic momentum: the notion of "heaviness" is not an appropriate one.

Objects at relativistic speed are not wider: on the contrary, the length of an object measured in an inertial reference frame relative to which the object is moving is contracted in the direction of the movement:

l = l0 sqrt( 1 - (v/c)^2) when

l0 = the proper length = the length of the object measured in the coordinate system in which it is at rest.

I see looking above that I slipped in two places; I added a decimal place to C when converting to like units, and when I wrote the final answer I copied the velocity (100,000) instead of the mass (1,000) -- but in my defense, the OP kept changing his starting assumptions and I simply got lost trying to remember which I was using!

If you back-track through those two errors, I did actually get the formula right, at least! Which is to say; I ended up quoting 1/30 C and got a mass increase of about 5%.



And, yeah. You'll get into a nice argument anywhere physics is being taught on that one! Last I heard, the teaching of relativistic mass is being downgraded (as a misleading way to view the physics) but still, yes, taught and even used as a simplified way of working with some of the numbers. When you really want to understand the underlying concepts, then you don't use it.

LOL people still believe we landed on the moon with that tin can in 1969?

Bwhahahahhahahaha

I don't believe in anything because this issue is not a matter of personal opinion. I have the knowledge of that, based in evidence beyond any reasonable doubt. Only hoaxers hold irrational claims based on the personal beliefs and lies of "magic-ufo-supporters" (Magufos) which fill their pockets at the expense of the lack of education of the people, but never have the guts to present a legal case against NASA in court.

Care to explain?

By this logic, there is no outer space. Gravity states that every object in the universe attracts every other object. It lessens based on distance, but the gravitational attraction is still there.

oprocketard

This is something that I have been contemplating.