| Users Online Now: 1,780 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 1,175,777 | |
| Pageviews Today: 2,062,336 | Threads Today: 790 | Posts Today: 15,721 |
| 10:14 PM | ||
| Users Online Now: 1,780 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 1,175,777 | |
| Pageviews Today: 2,062,336 | Threads Today: 790 | Posts Today: 15,721 |
| 10:14 PM | ||
NASA Thrust Equation gets destroyed. | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 77441735  United Kingdom03/09/2019 09:09 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 77441821  Canada03/09/2019 09:44 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 72591242 one video was a screenshot of him plying Starcraft. The second video the rocket didn’t leave earth How about a simple experiment? Bullshit in both accusations. The Falcon Heavy boosters reached 100 km altitude, they had no problem reversing course using their rocket engines in a vacuum better than a laboratory vacuum chamber. The other video is not a video game, it's real footage too. [link to russianspaceweb.com] What bollocks. The thing didn’t even go to Space That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The evidence shows that the thing went to space, it was witnessed by thousands of people, and Astro filmed it, firsthand, uncut from takeoff to landing. If that isn't acceptable evidence to you, pray, what is? By comparison, you offer *nothing* in the way of evidence that the Falcon Heavy 'didn't even go to space.' See how that works? Astro be like watch my vid of rocket stil visible in the blue sky. I can also see airplanes in the blue sky. |
Dr. Deplorable Astromut Senior Forum Moderator  03/09/2019 10:56 AM  Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Dr. Deplorable Astromut Bullshit in both accusations. The Falcon Heavy boosters reached 100 km altitude, they had no problem reversing course using their rocket engines in a vacuum better than a laboratory vacuum chamber. The other video is not a video game, it's real footage too. [link to russianspaceweb.com] What bollocks. The thing didn’t even go to Space That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The evidence shows that the thing went to space, it was witnessed by thousands of people, and Astro filmed it, firsthand, uncut from takeoff to landing. If that isn't acceptable evidence to you, pray, what is? By comparison, you offer *nothing* in the way of evidence that the Falcon Heavy 'didn't even go to space.' See how that works? Astro be like watch my vid of rocket stil visible in the blue sky. I can also see airplanes in the blue sky. I can also see ISS in the "blue sky" but that doesn't mean it's not in space. It most certainly is in space, which is a fact I've verified myself. It does not follow that just because something is visible "in the blue sky" that it means it must not be in space. The moon, sun and Venus can all be seen by naked eye in broad daylight. What, did you expect the blue sky to turn black as it went into space? That only happens from the perspective of the rocket, not a ground observer watching it!  |
| 74444 User ID: 74444  United States03/09/2019 11:45 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Plenty of evidence has been provided that rockets do not work in space. Now the ball is in your court to prove that they do. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77003244 Sigh. One step forward, two steps back. You ALSO avoid my challenge altogether. When Astro provided motion captures of a satellite firing a thruster in space taken by a telescope, it is called fake (with no evidence to, of course, back that up). When one can see the ISS in orbit with your OWN naked eye, and Space X docking with it YOURSELF, fake is yelled again. Believers won't even be arsed to go to sites identifying satellites you can see from your very spot on Earth and *look up.* There is *no evidence* you'll accept that rockets work in space. None. If you want to prove me wrong, spell out *exactly* what evidence you WOULD accept. And imagine my shock when you don't. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 72591242 Canada03/09/2019 04:17 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Concorde Warrior F-BVFA User ID: 77399824  France03/09/2019 04:21 PM  Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation |  for later reading. I came. I saw. I Concorde. For once you have tasted Concorde you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return. "I would say today we can integrate all religions and races EXCEPT ISLAM." Singapore's founding father Lee Kuan Y ew |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 77440744  Australia03/09/2019 04:22 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Halcyon Dayz, FCD User ID: 76260827  Netherlands03/09/2019 09:23 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Astro is like I can t disprove any of op’s claims so here is some video that is ambiguous Quoting: Anonymous Coward 72591242 What particular type of neurological dysfunction would compel a human being to make such a statement? Is it A - sociopathy B - retardation C - wilful ignorance (i.e. you're not actually human) D - insanity or E - a combination of the above?  Reaching for the sky makes you taller. Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 77429764 United States03/09/2019 09:29 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Astro is like I can t disprove any of op’s claims so here is some video that is ambiguous Quoting: Anonymous Coward 72591242 What particular type of neurological dysfunction would compel a human being to make such a statement? Is it A - sociopathy B - retardation C - wilful ignorance (i.e. you're not actually human) D - insanity or E - a combination of the above? Science is reproducible and verifiable. If you can’t verify that rocket can work in a vacuum in earth, it doesn’t work no matter how may alleged videos there are. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 77444218 United States03/10/2019 07:43 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| 74444 User ID: 74444 United States03/10/2019 11:43 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Halcyon Dayz, FCD User ID: 76260827 Netherlands03/10/2019 12:56 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Astro is like I can t disprove any of op’s claims so here is some video that is ambiguous Quoting: Anonymous Coward 72591242 What particular type of neurological dysfunction would compel a human being to make such a statement? Is it A - sociopathy B - retardation C - wilful ignorance (i.e. you're not actually human) D - insanity or E - a combination of the above? Science is reproducible and verifiable. If you can’t verify that rocket can work in a vacuum in earth, it doesn’t work no matter how may alleged videos there are. Your hysterical blindness to the evidence is of no concern to the sane people. By your logic, since YOU CAN'T PROVE that these videos are faked they must be genuine. Logic much? Reaching for the sky makes you taller. Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 4448622 United States03/10/2019 01:21 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | OP, please explain the ISS and other satellites seen in the sky per published sighting schedules....how did they all get up there...and stay up there? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 4448622 Prove that satellites exist in space and you’re not just seeing a plane flying by. people 50 miles apart also see the ISS, in generally the same azimuth and elevations...an aircraft at cruising altitude wouldn't allow this, only an object vastly higher. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 4448622 United States03/10/2019 01:27 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | two people, 200 miles apart, see the same object in orbit above them, simultaneously (slightly different azimuths). Quoting: Anonymous Coward 4448622 Dude, there's only 11,000 or so objects in Earth orbit, nice clear night you might see a couple or few after sunset...some do polar orbits, others more low inclination orbits. Some are living about 100 miles up, others in geosynch around 24k miles out.. it's quite possible you're using one right now.....I am, watching DTV. believe what you want, it's what you really know that matters.. and without satellites in orbit around Earth, we'd be in the 50s again...no instant internet, news, wireless international calls, real time satellite weather, phone calling China from Colorado...try that with ground systems, pal...had a great conversation with my niece... I know what's real....you're just "uh-uh"... None of those things work by satellite, those signals are transmitted by towers or cables. in the middle of the Pacific Ocean??? |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 42079668 United States03/10/2019 01:28 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | What you think is irrelevant. If your reasoning based on your interpretation of scientific principles leads you to a DEMONSTRABLY wrong conclusion than your reasoning or your understanding of the relevant scientific principles (or both) must be wrong too. In science observation beats theory every time. Rocket propulsion works in space, why it does is secondary. You not understanding the why, or being very confused about it, doesn't change the facts. Give this demonstration then that disproves it. You are aware that there are man-made objects orbiting the Earth? If you're going to post some space video from NASA then go fuck yourself. Fuckwit. Quoting: Norwegian Tard 69278179 Proposing a complicated conspiracy involving millions of people just so you can hang on to your delusion that one of the simplest machines imaginable doesn't work is and irrational and not parsimonious. The most parsimonious explanation of this kerfuffle is obviously you being and stupid and ignorant and paranoid. IOW just another typical conspiritard, the modern day iteration of a village idiot. It doesn't involve millions of people. All the millions of scientists engineers and workers who build the spacecraft all think they are really flying in space. They are watching the same CGI we are and thinking they are doing something great, when they are being lied to. Imagine the rage from the millions of "space employees" ( who don't actually go to space ) and they find out they have been lied to all these years??? |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 42079668 United States03/10/2019 01:29 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The evidence shows that the thing went to space, it was witnessed by thousands of people, and Astro filmed it, firsthand, uncut from takeoff to landing. If that isn't acceptable evidence to you, pray, what is? By comparison, you offer *nothing* in the way of evidence that the Falcon Heavy 'didn't even go to space.' See how that works? Astro be like watch my vid of rocket stil visible in the blue sky. I can also see airplanes in the blue sky. I can also see ISS in the "blue sky" but that doesn't mean it's not in space. It most certainly is in space, which is a fact I've verified myself. It does not follow that just because something is visible "in the blue sky" that it means it must not be in space. The moon, sun and Venus can all be seen by naked eye in broad daylight. What, did you expect the blue sky to turn black as it went into space? That only happens from the perspective of the rocket, not a ground observer watching it! ISS just a projector mounted on a plane. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 42079668 United States03/10/2019 01:31 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: 74444 That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The evidence shows that the thing went to space, it was witnessed by thousands of people, and Astro filmed it, firsthand, uncut from takeoff to landing. If that isn't acceptable evidence to you, pray, what is? By comparison, you offer *nothing* in the way of evidence that the Falcon Heavy 'didn't even go to space.' See how that works? Astro be like watch my vid of rocket stil visible in the blue sky. I can also see airplanes in the blue sky. I can also see ISS in the "blue sky" but that doesn't mean it's not in space. It most certainly is in space, which is a fact I've verified myself. It does not follow that just because something is visible "in the blue sky" that it means it must not be in space. The moon, sun and Venus can all be seen by naked eye in broad daylight. What, did you expect the blue sky to turn black as it went into space? That only happens from the perspective of the rocket, not a ground observer watching it! ISS just a projector mounted on a plane. Even if low earth orbit was real, ISS was real and satellites were real, that doesn't prove the earth is a ball. The existence of an area where we can supposedly float above the earth without the affects of gravity really doesn't make sense on a ball earth either. So it is possible that low earth orbit exists. But the earth is still flat. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 4448622 United States03/10/2019 01:47 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Good stuff OP. Near 10 pages and no one is touching your claims. Only shills with nasa videos Quoting: Anonymous Coward 77441735 ...that's refreshing to see...down to Earth, hard hitting facts...NOT! Phone service in the middle of the Atlantic, weather satellite photos, GPS in the middle of nowhere....ICBMs. OP is running on ignorance and lack of interest in spaceflight...probable a chemtrail shill as well. Ignorance is bliss...he doesn't know anything about spaceflight, and doesn't care... |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 77341717 United States03/10/2019 02:16 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | what are the dots of light going over at night, matching the sighting guides for various satellites/space stations...and can be seen from widely separated viewing sites 100 miles away at the same time (at a different angle, of course)? you can't bs orbital mechanics either... It could be plane or balloons. The night sky was sparkling with start and lights before satellites Still can’t bs math You're a fucking idiot. You use flawed math. You can go down to any amateur rocket launches, and it will prove to your FACE, you're wrong. Dumbass. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 59669941 United States03/10/2019 02:24 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 4448622 United States03/10/2019 02:29 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | action/reaction.. proportionally...that's why Aldrin had such a hard time on his EVA with the docked Agena. It's why there are tether attachment points and handholds all over the exterior of the ISS...you touch something big, and it's mass pushes back. |
| 74444 User ID: 74444 United States03/10/2019 03:12 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Even if low earth orbit was real, ISS was real and satellites were real, that doesn't prove the earth is a ball. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 42079668 The existence of an area where we can supposedly float above the earth without the affects of gravity really doesn't make sense on a ball earth either. So it is possible that low earth orbit exists. But the earth is still flat. How can you ORBIT a flat Earth? What keeps you up? Orbital Mechanics can't work over a flat surface. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 54214626 Canada03/10/2019 07:24 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | No viable evidence has been presented which refutes spaceflight. Misunderstanding a simple equation is not evidence of anything except ignorance. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 4448622 action/reaction.. proportionally...that's why Aldrin had such a hard time on his EVA with the docked Agena. It's why there are tether attachment points and handholds all over the exterior of the ISS...you touch something big, and it's mass pushes back. Why don’t you point out the misunderstanding? |
| syncro User ID: 75835116 United States03/10/2019 10:35 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The vacuum cleaner provides an external source of flow going through two holes in the pipe. Why should there be a force on the pipe as would happen if gas contained inside it was expelled from one end? These are entirely different systems. The one example has no bearing on the other. Similarly, your conclusion is incorrect with the equations. Velocity is inherent to both mass flow rate and volumetric flow rate. But I don't see how this has anything to do with your vacuum cleaner example and conclusion. Force is proportional to mass flow rate, yes. And? There is nothing here. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 76809044 United States03/10/2019 11:04 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The vacuum cleaner provides an external source of flow going through two holes in the pipe. Why should there be a force on the pipe as would happen if gas contained inside it was expelled from one end? These are entirely different systems. The one example has no bearing on the other. Similarly, your conclusion is incorrect with the equations. Velocity is inherent to both mass flow rate and volumetric flow rate. But I don't see how this has anything to do with your vacuum cleaner example and conclusion. Force is proportional to mass flow rate, yes. And? There is nothing here. can vacuum cleaners fly? |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 77446242 United States03/10/2019 11:05 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The vacuum cleaner provides an external source of flow going through two holes in the pipe. Why should there be a force on the pipe as would happen if gas contained inside it was expelled from one end? These are entirely different systems. The one example has no bearing on the other. Similarly, your conclusion is incorrect with the equations. Velocity is inherent to both mass flow rate and volumetric flow rate. But I don't see how this has anything to do with your vacuum cleaner example and conclusion. Force is proportional to mass flow rate, yes. And? There is nothing here. The vacuum cleaner simply creates low pressure, that is all. [link to www.quora.com (secure)] The equation stated that there is force due to mass flow rate exiting a pipe. There is flow rate exiting the pipe. Where is the force observed? |
| syncro User ID: 75835116 United States03/10/2019 11:51 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The vacuum cleaner provides an external source of flow going through two holes in the pipe. Why should there be a force on the pipe as would happen if gas contained inside it was expelled from one end? These are entirely different systems. The one example has no bearing on the other. Similarly, your conclusion is incorrect with the equations. Velocity is inherent to both mass flow rate and volumetric flow rate. But I don't see how this has anything to do with your vacuum cleaner example and conclusion. Force is proportional to mass flow rate, yes. And? There is nothing here. The vacuum cleaner simply creates low pressure, that is all. [link to www.quora.com (secure)] The equation stated that there is force due to mass flow rate exiting a pipe. There is flow rate exiting the pipe. Where is the force observed? Air is moving due to difference in pressure caused by the vacuum cleaner. We have mass and acceleration, force. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 77447003 United States03/11/2019 07:05 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The vacuum cleaner provides an external source of flow going through two holes in the pipe. Why should there be a force on the pipe as would happen if gas contained inside it was expelled from one end? These are entirely different systems. The one example has no bearing on the other. Similarly, your conclusion is incorrect with the equations. Velocity is inherent to both mass flow rate and volumetric flow rate. But I don't see how this has anything to do with your vacuum cleaner example and conclusion. Force is proportional to mass flow rate, yes. And? There is nothing here. The vacuum cleaner simply creates low pressure, that is all. [link to www.quora.com (secure)] The equation stated that there is force due to mass flow rate exiting a pipe. There is flow rate exiting the pipe. Where is the force observed? Air is moving due to difference in pressure caused by the vacuum cleaner. We have mass and acceleration, force. The acceleration caused by pressure differential is pressure gradient force, not because the rocket pushes it out. Just like gravity, it doesn’t need to push off anything. [link to en.m.wikipedia.org (secure)] |
| Halcyon Dayz, FCD User ID: 76260827 Netherlands03/11/2019 07:46 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | IOW just another typical conspiritard, the modern day iteration of a village idiot. Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD It doesn't involve millions of people. Only someone utterly ignorant of space travel could possibly think that. You know the drill: what can be asserted without evidence can, and will be, rejected without evidence. You are rejected. Reaching for the sky makes you taller. Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans. |
| syncro User ID: 75835116 United States03/11/2019 05:11 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: syncro The vacuum cleaner provides an external source of flow going through two holes in the pipe. Why should there be a force on the pipe as would happen if gas contained inside it was expelled from one end? These are entirely different systems. The one example has no bearing on the other. Similarly, your conclusion is incorrect with the equations. Velocity is inherent to both mass flow rate and volumetric flow rate. But I don't see how this has anything to do with your vacuum cleaner example and conclusion. Force is proportional to mass flow rate, yes. And? There is nothing here. The vacuum cleaner simply creates low pressure, that is all. [link to www.quora.com (secure)] The equation stated that there is force due to mass flow rate exiting a pipe. There is flow rate exiting the pipe. Where is the force observed? Air is moving due to difference in pressure caused by the vacuum cleaner. We have mass and acceleration, force. The acceleration caused by pressure differential is pressure gradient force, not because the rocket pushes it out. Just like gravity, it doesn’t need to push off anything. [link to en.m.wikipedia.org (secure)] Pressure difference is how the rocket pushes it out, and how the vacuum cleaner lifts, and how wings and propellers lift. Newton's third law applies to all of them and to gravity. |
