Moon Hoax - Rockets CANNOT work in space | |
DUCM900 User ID: 22807004 Italy 08/29/2012 07:58 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | how did the astonauts *blast* off from the moon with no o2 for the fuel to burn? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 419649 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 IWASTHERE on 08/29/2012 08:28 AM |
Thor's Hamster User ID: 1248699 United States 08/29/2012 08:30 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | how did the astonauts *blast* off from the moon with no o2 for the fuel to burn? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 419649 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. But the video shows rocket explosions as the Eagle lifts off from the surface of the moon. ??? Apollo astronauts couldn't have passed through Van Allen's Belt. Van Allen wore suspenders. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 14143765 United States 08/29/2012 08:31 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | In point of fact, the propellant pushes against the ROCKET, not the surrounding environment. Quoting: Tholidor By your logic, a rocket would be more efficient underwater than in air - which is a patent falsehood. Stay awake in Science class.... ? wont the rocket need o2 to burn the fuel? 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. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 22779128 Australia 08/29/2012 08:33 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
DUCM900 User ID: 22807004 Italy 08/29/2012 08:35 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | how did the astonauts *blast* off from the moon with no o2 for the fuel to burn? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 419649 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. But the video shows rocket explosions as the Eagle lifts off from the surface of the moon. ??? Did you ever see the engine power stuff of ...the eagle? Last Edited by IWASTHERE on 08/29/2012 08:38 AM |
Halcyon Dayz, FCD User ID: 19507663 Netherlands 08/29/2012 12:23 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Ok so find the resistance variable factor as the friction from 0 speed to 300.000 Km/s Quoting: DUCM900 Again this, what's variable that affect that friction on space? 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. Reaching for the sky makes you taller. Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1524355 United States 08/29/2012 12:35 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
DUCM900 User ID: 22807004 Italy 08/29/2012 12:53 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
nomuse (not logged in) User ID: 2380183 United States 08/29/2012 01:24 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | However, do you believe at Lorenz's factor as a resistance variable? Quoting: DUCM900 So, show me that data value at the speed of 100.000 km/s. 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. |
nomuse (not logged in) User ID: 2380183 United States 08/29/2012 01:31 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 2971122 United States 08/30/2012 02:50 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 23046661 United States 09/02/2012 11:11 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 23832320 United Kingdom 09/18/2012 12:16 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 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. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1524355 How do you know they weren't sent there on a unmanned mission? |
nomuse (not logged in) User ID: 2380183 United States 09/19/2012 05:05 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | 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. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1524355 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. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 10393879 United States 09/19/2012 05:07 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 24214480 Spain 09/22/2012 06:52 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | However, do you believe at Lorenz's factor as a resistance variable? Quoting: DUCM900 So, show me that data value at the speed of 100.000 km/s. 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. 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. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 24214480 Spain 09/22/2012 07:16 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Objects at relativistic speed are heavier. Quoting: Halcyon DayzObjects at relativistic speed are wider. Objects at relativistic speed live longer. 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. |
nomuse (not logged in) User ID: 2380183 United States 09/22/2012 12:55 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | However, do you believe at Lorenz's factor as a resistance variable? Quoting: DUCM900 So, show me that data value at the speed of 100.000 km/s. 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. 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. 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. |
BossBattles User ID: 8410224 United States 09/22/2012 01:04 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 24247329 Spain 09/22/2012 05:43 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | LOL people still believe we landed on the moon with that tin can in 1969? Quoting: BossBattles 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. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 25195084 United Kingdom 10/09/2012 02:57 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | LOL people still believe we landed on the moon with that tin can in 1969? Quoting: BossBattles 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? |
jamesd1628 User ID: 2231652 United States 10/09/2012 03:26 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Technically, no human has ever been in "outer" space. The moon is still within the earth's pull, so even going there is still local. Quoting: - 7621469 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. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 26718154 United Kingdom 11/03/2012 03:57 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
DUCM900 User ID: 28197078 Italy 11/21/2012 06:48 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 8768008 United Kingdom 03/17/2013 01:23 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 42245425 United Kingdom 06/24/2013 11:43 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 25050963 United States 06/24/2013 11:51 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 28566565 United States 06/26/2013 12:43 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | one of the biggest hoaxes of all time! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11057845 rocket propulsion cannot work in space. you get tricked by being told about newtons third law and how the propellant pushes against the body so therefore (equal opposite) has to push the rocket. but newtons third law ironically proves this to be false if viewed from the other way round, the propellant cannot push against a vacuum (zero force) so in turn (equal and opposite) applies zero force to the rocket/vehicle itself. can anyone find me a video of a rocket, firecracker or something similar creating force in a vacuum? The rocket pushes against itself in space. How do you think satellites are put into their proper orbits? Are you going to say communication satellites are fake now? How do you think Hubble & the ISS are positioned into orbit? They also have to have their orbits corrected or altered on occasion. If there is one conspiracy that I think shows some merit, it's the dumbing down of the general population by cutting educational funding. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 9915561 United Kingdom 06/26/2013 12:48 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 43332749 United Kingdom 07/18/2013 04:18 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |