NASA 3rd LIE. “Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.” Newton’s Law III

Correct about the ball on the Atmosphere, some force would have to propel it forward, same for so-called satellites and the Shuttle. The Sun and Moon are the same size, I'm not sure which is heavier, but if I were to guess although the Sun is brighter I would venture to say its lighter. Light rests over darkness, translation: light rises over darkness, meaning the Sun resting on the Atmosphere would press lighter then the Moon on it and cause its ocean tides to be just alittle less then the Moon does.

Standard Punisher behavior:


Step 1 - Create a thread proposing some nonsensical proof of a supposed flaw in Science.

Step 2 - Wait for people to counter argue with reasoned, thought out, logical responses.

Step 3 - Respond with nonsense under the cover of a scientific argument.

Step 4 - Go around in circles for a few pages.

Step 5 - When cornered, respond with nonsensical gibberish and name calling.

Step 6 = Repeat Step 5 for several pages.

Step 7 - Stop posting.

Step 8 - Wait a few hours or days.

Step 9 - Go to Step 1.

You are a bunch of chumps.

For example, if you were in 'space' and were to kick an object exerting a forward force (let us think of this simply in two dimensions) you would be pushed backwards. Space is not a perfect vacuum, if any area of space was a perfect vacuum, which is an area of 0 pressure, the universe would implode around that point. Because as I'm sure you know P1V1=P2V2, and if the pressure equalled zero it would have an infinite force to fill the void.

Correct about the ball on the Atmosphere, some force would have to propel it forward, same for so-called satellites and the Shuttle. The Sun and Moon are the same size, I'm not sure which is heavier, but if I were to guess although the Sun is brighter I would venture to say its lighter. Light rests over darkness, translation: light rises over darkness, meaning the Sun resting on the Atmosphere would press lighter then the Moon on it and cause its ocean tides to be just alittle less then the Moon does.
----------------------------
Ya, I would think it would be lighter to, being gaseous and all.

The only way I can formulate this is like a waterbed. If you but a light ball and a heavy ball on the bed, the weight of the heavy one pushes on the light one causing it to roll. It started rolling at the dawn of our time and has been going ever since. There is no resistance up there on top of the atmosphere for it to slow down or stop. But I believe it has stopped a few times in our past. Well, either the rotation of the earth stopped briefly, or the sun and moon stopped rolling around up there on our air.

Isn't there another theory like this? The space fabric or something theory. Where the sun sits on the fabric of space and time and the earth rolls on the dip of the fabric the sun makes.

Canadian, if you placed a ball in your area of the neighborhood will that ball start rolling around the round Earth? Not my ball! Now if we would take the same ball and place it right above the same area of your neighborhood on the Atmosphere, "why will this ball now start rolling around the flat looking surface area parallel to your neighborhood?"
---------------------------
If the shuttle was in freefall, I guess that would go against the flat earth theory. All I know about that is what you have said and I have read.

If the ball was sitting on top of the atmosphere and it started rolling, to me that would mean there would be something else up there on the atmosphere to affect it.

Now see if I have this correct. The sun and the moon are the same size and are floating there on the atmosphere. What is it, 4000 miles up? Are the moon and sun at the same distance from the earth. What causes them to travel around on the atmosphere? I think either one has more mass than the other, or, one is closer to earth than the other.

Neat stuff. I like the growing planets theory best myself.

Correct about the ball on the Atmosphere, some force would have to propel it forward, same for so-called satellites and the Shuttle. The Sun and Moon are the same size, I'm not sure which is heavier, but if I were to guess although the Sun is brighter I would venture to say its lighter. Light rests over darkness, translation: light rises over darkness, meaning the Sun resting on the Atmosphere would press lighter then the Moon on it and cause its ocean tides to be just alittle less then the Moon does.

You are a bunch of chumps.

For example, if you were in 'space' and were to kick an object exerting a forward force (let us think of this simply in two dimensions) you would be pushed backwards. Space is not a perfect vacuum, if any area of space was a perfect vacuum, which is an area of 0 pressure, the universe would implode around that point. Because as I'm sure you know P1V1=P2V2, and if the pressure equalled zero it would have an infinite force to fill the void.

Back to the main topic, similarly to kicking an object, exerting a force through a rocket causes a reaction force which acts on the spaceship in the opposite direction of that of the rocket. This causes the spaceship to be propelled in a straight line in accordance to the reaction force (ignoring gravitational influences of course).

You are a bunch of chumps.

For example, if you were in 'space' and were to kick an object exerting a forward force (let us think of this simply in two dimensions) you would be pushed backwards. Space is not a perfect vacuum, if any area of space was a perfect vacuum, which is an area of 0 pressure, the universe would implode around that point. Because as I'm sure you know P1V1=P2V2, and if the pressure equalled zero it would have an infinite force to fill the void.


Perhaps this fits in on the growing planet theory. Like if you put a marshmallow into a sealed jar and then removed the air from it. The marshmallow expands. Well I can make it fit.

Correct about the ball on the Atmosphere, some force would have to propel it forward, same for so-called satellites and the Shuttle. The Sun and Moon are the same size, I'm not sure which is heavier, but if I were to guess although the Sun is brighter I would venture to say its lighter. Light rests over darkness, translation: light rises over darkness, meaning the Sun resting on the Atmosphere would press lighter then the Moon on it and cause its ocean tides to be just alittle less then the Moon does.
----------------------------
Ya, I would think it would be lighter to, being gaseous and all.

The only way I can formulate this is like a waterbed. If you but a light ball and a heavy ball on the bed, the weight of the heavy one pushes on the light one causing it to roll. It started rolling at the dawn of our time and has been going ever since. There is no resistance up there on top of the atmosphere for it to slow down or stop. But I believe it has stopped a few times in our past. Well, either the rotation of the earth stopped briefly, or the sun and moon stopped rolling around up there on our air.

Isn't there another theory like this? The space fabric or something theory. Where the sun sits on the fabric of space and time and the earth rolls on the dip of the fabric the sun makes.
First off the Earth is stationed STILL, if the Earth did revolve around the Sun half of the Earth's sphere would constantly be lit-up giving those living on Earth 12hrs of light and 12hrs of night 36/5.

Second, the Sun is accompanied by the Stars, you can only see the Stars after the Sun has crossed your sky, look carefully with bino's if you have them you will see the first of the Stars trailing the Sun. In a round Earth theory you should always see the Stars.

The waterbed formulation is good in understanding how both the Moon and the Sun cause the ocean tides. Although I believe and it may even be documented that the Moon's tides bulge alittle more then the Sun's.

You are a bunch of chumps.

For example, if you were in 'space' and were to kick an object exerting a forward force (let us think of this simply in two dimensions) you would be pushed backwards. Space is not a perfect vacuum, if any area of space was a perfect vacuum, which is an area of 0 pressure, the universe would implode around that point. Because as I'm sure you know P1V1=P2V2, and if the pressure equalled zero it would have an infinite force to fill the void.

Back to the main topic, similarly to kicking an object, exerting a force through a rocket causes a reaction force which acts on the spaceship in the opposite direction of that of the rocket. This causes the spaceship to be propelled in a straight line in accordance to the reaction force (ignoring gravitational influences of course).

you would be pushed backwards.
Why? When you kick a ball on Earth are you pushed back? NO! Same in space, only you'd kick that ball harder because you'd have less resistance (atmospheric pressure) to slow down your leg swing, therefore, your kick would swing faster.

I too as you don't agree with NASA about space being a vacuum, "but why did NASA lie?" NASA says this: [The principal environmental characteristic of outer space is the vacuum.

[link to quest.nasa.gov]

Pounds Per Pressure is the downfall of Space Aviation.

The Shuttle produces (X) pounds of thrust per atmospheric pressure, in Space where its a vacuum and there is no air-pressure because you're outside of the Atmosphere, "how does the Shuttle lift & dock with the ISS?"

Error --> pounds of thrust. <not per atmos pressure>

More lies from your science web-sites:

Although resistance is important in flight on Earth or in getting off of Earth, once a ship enters space, it becomes less important. We can simplify by getting rid of resistance for now.
[link to www.qrg.northwestern.edu]

How can the laws of flight dynamics change for the Shuttle that was designed 'for and with' flight dynamic criteria's and still achieve any possible lift to dock with the ISS if there is no-pressure for the pounds of thrust the engines produce?

<Lift not needed - its space>

Pounds per NO-pressure = Pressure per NO-pounds.

This translates to: if you produce X-pounds of thrust but there is NO-atmospheric air pressure around, you don't go anywhere. The same applies to the opposite: that if you have atmospheric air-pressure around but you produce NO-pounds of thrust, "you guess it, you go NO-where!"

<your an idiot>

Newton's Law: "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction."

<experient --> please let someone punch you in the face>

This suggests that if the Shuttle's engines produce 10,000 pounds of thrust per Atmospheric pressure, the engines of the Shuttle will obtain an equal and opposite reaction (direction) of the engines thrusts. Meaning, the direction that the "thrust" is headed the Shuttle's engines will "be heading" the opposite direction, provided that there is an opposite to react off of, like PRESSURE!!!!!!

<wrong --> NOT per Atmospheric pressure>

QUESTION REMAINS: "How are the Space Monkeys docking the Shuttle to the ISS without Newton's Law in Space?

Standard Punisher behavior:


1. Come up with a theory that challenges long held scientific beliefs.

2. Wait for the inevitable responses that show a total lack of logic on the part of those who attempt to defend the status quo.

3. Ignore the replies that are so obviously ridiculous that they serve no purpose except for comedic relief.

4. Standing over the dead bodies of those who were ill-equipped to engage in intellectual battle, declare total victory and move on to another front and another conquest.

5. Laugh your fucking ass off!!!!!

6. Repeat Step #1.

This suggests that if the Shuttle's engines produce 10,000 pounds of thrust per Atmospheric pressure, the engines of the Shuttle will obtain an equal and opposite reaction (direction) of the engines thrusts. Meaning, the direction that the "thrust" is headed the Shuttle's engines will "be heading" the opposite direction, provided that there is an opposite to react off of, like PRESSURE!!!!!!



No, like the SHUTTLE'S MASS.

And what pushes against this 10,000kg (it's kg btw) is inertia.

If the shuttle's mass is 10,000 kg, the thrusters need to push at more than 10,000 kg (it could be 0.00000g more and it would be ok) to move the shuttle from its inertia.

Standard Punisher behavior:


1. Come up with a theory that challenges long held scientific beliefs.

2. Wait for the inevitable responses that show a total lack of logic on the part of those who attempt to defend the status quo.

3. Ignore the replies that are so obviously ridiculous that they serve no purpose except for comedic relief.

4. Standing over the dead bodies of those who were ill-equipped to engage in intellectual battle, declare total victory and move on to another front and another conquest.

5. Laugh your fucking ass off!!!!!

6. Repeat Step #1.

This suggests that if the Shuttle's engines produce 10,000 pounds of thrust per Atmospheric pressure, the engines of the Shuttle will obtain an equal and opposite reaction (direction) of the engines thrusts. Meaning, the direction that the "thrust" is headed the Shuttle's engines will "be heading" the opposite direction, provided that there is an opposite to react off of, like PRESSURE!!!!!!



No, like the SHUTTLE'S MASS.

And what pushes against this 10,000kg (it's kg btw) is inertia.

If the shuttle's mass is 10,000 kg, the thrusters need to push at more than 10,000 kg (it could be 0.00000g more and it would be ok) to move the shuttle from its inertia.


You say, “And what pushes against this 10,000kg (it's kg btw) is inertia.” And I say you need to put on a pair of steel-toed shoes, go back to your old high school and kick your science teacher in the ass!!! Let me begin by explaining what inertia really is”

Inertia according to Wikipedia:

“In common usage….. people use the term "inertia" to refer to an object's "amount of resistance to change in velocity" (which is quantified by its mass), and sometimes its momentum, depending on context (e.g. "this object has a lot of inertia"). The term "inertia" is more properly understood as a shorthand for "the principle of inertia" as described by Newton in Newton's First Law of Motion which, expressed simply, says: "An object that is not subject to any outside forces moves at a constant velocity, covering equal distances in equal times along a straight-line path." In even simpler terms, inertia means "A body in motion tends to remain in motion, a body at rest tends to remain at rest." On the surface of the Earth the nature of inertia is often masked by the effects of friction which brings moving objects to rest relatively quickly unless they are coasting on wheels, well lubricated, or perhaps falling or going downhill (and thus being accelerated by gravity). This is what misled classical theorists such as Aristotle who believed objects moved only so long as force was being applied to them.”

Let me break it down to those who have been shortchanged by the public school system. Inertia is the tendency for an object at rest to remain at rest, or if moving to continue moving in the same direction and at the same speed unless acted upon by some outside force. Inertia is not a thing, but merely describes the behavior of things. One could no more push against inertia than one could push against anger, love, hypocrisy, capitalism, religion or homosexuality. If you cannot distinguish between a “thing” and a “principle,” between that which can be quantitatively or objectively measured and that which can be valued only subjectively, you are forever lost on the realm of the intellectually walking-dead.

I would suggest that the primary purpose of your birth was to make Punisher look good. As for me, I have very few rules, and you violated one of my most sacred tenets: no one should voice strong opinions on subjects of which they know nothing.

In spite of your rather crude and unsuccessful attempt to define inertia as an opposing force, you have yet to answer Punisher’s question: exactly what is it that the rocket’s thrust pushes against in order to propel the rocket forward? I would advise you to give the matter a lot more thought before reentering the debate arena.

One final thought, although I believe it is beyond your comprehension. Inertia, by definition, includes the rule that objects which are moving will continue to move at the SAME SPEED and in the SAME DIRECTION unless acted against by some outside force (not intrinsic inertia, which is not a force, but a rule of science). If intrinsic inertia offered resistance a moving object would be slowed down by such a force. If inertia offered resistance, the very definition of inertia is invalidated!!

Jeeeeeeez!!

Standard Punisher behavior:


1. Come up with a theory that challenges long held scientific beliefs.

2. Wait for the inevitable responses that show a total lack of logic on the part of those who attempt to defend the status quo.

3. Ignore the replies that are so obviously ridiculous that they serve no purpose except for comedic relief.

4. Standing over the dead bodies of those who were ill-equipped to engage in intellectual battle, declare total victory and move on to another front and another conquest.

5. Laugh your fucking ass off!!!!!

6. Repeat Step #1.
YES!!!!!!!

Thank-you, Professor!!!!!!!

Standard Punisher behavior:


1. Come up with a theory that challenges long held scientific beliefs.

2. Wait for the inevitable responses that show a total lack of logic on the part of those who attempt to defend the status quo.

3. Ignore the replies that are so obviously ridiculous that they serve no purpose except for comedic relief.

4. Standing over the dead bodies of those who were ill-equipped to engage in intellectual battle, declare total victory and move on to another front and another conquest.

5. Laugh your fucking ass off!!!!!

6. Repeat Step #1.

Obviously you're not a professor.

Obviously you're not a professor.


Wrong! I put the letters MBA, JD after my name, and I am, or rather was a professor (I am now retired).

But that's enough about me, so let's talk about you. You were in complete error on something you proclaimed to be "obvious, " and that my unenlightened friend defines you as a fool. Now go and ask your mommy to wipe your nose and make you a sandwich. Leave the scientific debate to whose of us who are trained in science and logic.

For the record, although my formal education has been in business and law, I have studied science for over fifty years. I have also been trained in logic, a discipline that enables proper analysis of scientific observations. Most of those who challenge Punisher simply haven’t been trained how to think. If you know so much, why don’t you try debating me on a specific issue.

I will give you the last word. Further dialogue would only embarrass you and I would receive no benefit thereby.

Leave the scientific debate to whose of us who are trained in science and logic.

You were in complete error on something you proclaimed to be "obvious"

Punisher, please stop with all your idiotic posturing, it just shows how truly stupid you are.

It's obvious you can't read and interpret the diagram correctly, and that you are not even trying.

I repeat:
A clue: Look at the second diagram. Draw the Earths axis on the diagram. Look at Australia.

QUESTION REMAINS: "How are the Space Monkeys docking the Shuttle to the ISS without Newton's Law in Space?

Similarly, how did they blast off from the moon? Kind of find that one hard to believe, especially considering that twenty years after the first moon landing, the space shuttle couldn't get off the ground without being 'piggybacked' on top of a 747.
They never landed on the Moon. No-one enters there. Its all a lie, all of it. Planets, Mars landing, Moon landing, Hubble this and Hubble that. LIES courtesy of NASA a payed program for programing by your government.

QUESTION REMAINS: "How are the Space Monkeys docking the Shuttle to the ISS without Newton's Law in Space?

Similarly, how did they blast off from the moon? Kind of find that one hard to believe, especially considering that twenty years after the first moon landing, the space shuttle couldn't get off the ground without being 'piggybacked' on top of a 747.
--------------------------------
They never landed on the Moon. No-one enters there. Its all a lie, all of it. Planets, Mars landing, Moon landing, Hubble this and Hubble that. LIES courtesy of NASA a payed program for programing by your government.
--------------------------------
You may be right Punisher that NASA was only established in 1958 as a military disinformation propaganda campaign. That 99% of what NASA supposedly does is all faked.

Read the NASA Act of 1958:
[link to www.nasa.gov]

You will find buried written in this Act:
"TITLE I--SHORT TITLE, DECLARATION OF POLICY, AND DEFINITIONS
SHORT TITLE"

"DECLARATION OF POLICY AND PURPOSE"

Sec. 102. (f) The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the unique competence of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in science and engineering systems be directed to assisting in bioengineering research, development, and demonstration programs designed to alleviate and minimize the effects of disability.
---------------------

These words, "The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that.......demonstration programs designed to alleviate and minimize the effects of disability."

People may on the surface of it, may take this reference to mean one of the Main aims of NASA is to help develop technology to help disabled people with new technology. But this reference in this NASA foundation document would be absurd.

The real meaning of the above reference is that "demonstration programs(Fake Simulations) designed to alleviate and minimize the effects of disability"(making NASA appear that they can do, and achieve much more than they are actually capable of)