Space travel is hoax

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Space travel is hoax

Space travel is hoax21-03-2024 23:40
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	I have been doing a little bit of research lately and turns out that space travel is a hoax. Rocket engine does not work outside the atmosphere. Rocket engine needs back pressure from the atmosphere to work. The higher the rocket rises the more unefficient the rocket becomes. In zero atmosphere the back pressure does not exist and the rocket engine can not move. You will say that the gun is kickbacking because the bullet leaving the barrel will cause the kickback of the gun according to Newton. But here is an ultra slow motion video about fireing a gun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtK3P6Jd_co&ab_channel=rocketspushoffair At 1.51 you can see with your own eyes that the bullet is already long gone from the barrel when the actual kick back starts to happen. The kick back is caused by the air entering the empty barrel. The actual kickback energy from the bullet is piddle. So it turns out that the moon landings were fake. Also, Nukes are fake. Corona is fake etc, etc 99,9% what the goverment shoves down your throat is fake. The ruling class and their food chain needs those scams fill their pockets with taxpayers money. Nothing more. Also those who want to learn a thing or two about physics should google "free expansion of gases in vacuum" It is a simple law that states that gases will expand in vacuum without doing any work. They simply move away without any resistance and therefore can not do any work aka push the rocket. A rocket is a simple torch which burns fuel. The gases produced will simply expand without any resistance instantly into the space and the torch/rocket would not move a single millimeter. Here is a quote about free expansion of gases in vacuum: F ree expansion of an ideal gas refers to when the gas expands freely and instantaneously into a vacuum without any heat exchange or work done. Edited on 21-03-2024 23:44
22-03-2024 18:23
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	Xadoman wrote: I have been doing a little bit of research lately and turns out that space travel is a hoax. Rocket engine does not work outside the atmosphere. They certainly do. Rockets provide their own oxygen and fuel. Xadoman wrote: Rocket engine needs back pressure from the atmosphere to work. The higher the rocket rises the more unefficient the rocket becomes. In zero atmosphere the back pressure does not exist and the rocket engine can not move. A rocket does not need gas to push against. Xadoman wrote: You will say that the gun is kickbacking because the bullet leaving the barrel will cause the kickback of the gun according to Newton. That is correct. Xadoman wrote: But here is an ultra slow motion video about fireing a gun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtK3P6Jd_co&ab_channel=rocketspushoffair The gun begins to cycle before the bullet leaves the gun. That's reaction, dude. Xadoman wrote: At 1.51 you can see with your own eyes that the bullet is already long gone from the barrel when the actual kick back starts to happen. The gun begins to cycle before the bullet leaves the gun. That's reaction, dude. Xadoman wrote: The kick back is caused by the air entering the empty barrel. The actual kickback energy from the bullet is piddle. Air is already in the barrel. Xadoman wrote: So it turns out that the moon landings were fake. Nope. You can see the equipment left on the moon with a good telescope, and that equipment is still responding measuring distance between Earth and the Moon. Xadoman wrote: Also, Nukes are fake. I think a lot of folks in Hiroshima and Nagasaki would disagree with you. So would folks in Las Vegas. Xadoman wrote: Corona is fake Nope. You can see it with a solar scope. Xadoman wrote: etc, etc 99,9% what the goverment shoves down your throat is fake. The government doesn't pay for these observations. SpaceX itself recently had a fairly successful launch of their rocket (the largest ever built). Gorgeous pictures of the rocket's flight and re-entry. Xadoman wrote: The ruling class and their food chain needs those scams fill their pockets with taxpayers money. Nothing more. SpaceX does not use taxpayer money. Neither do the numerous other private rocketeers. Xadoman wrote: Also those who want to learn a thing or two about physics should google "free expansion of gases in vacuum" A rocket isn't gas. It's ejecting material at velocity. The rocket moves the other way. Xadoman wrote: It is a simple law that states that gases will expand in vacuum without doing any work. They simply move away without any resistance and therefore can not do any work aka push the rocket. A rocket doesn't need to push on anything. Xadoman wrote: A rocket is a simple torch which burns fuel. The gases produced will simply expand without any resistance instantly into the space and the torch/rocket would not move a single millimeter. A rocket doesn't need to push on anything. Xadoman wrote: Here is a quote about free expansion of gases in vacuum: F ree expansion of an ideal gas refers to when the gas expands freely and instantaneously into a vacuum without any heat exchange or work done. A rocket is not a gas. It is about velocity of gas. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
22-03-2024 23:18
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	ITN, watch the video. The bullets is long gone when the kickback happens. The kickback happens because the air enters the empty barrel. Just watch the video. In space the gas will expand instantly without resistance doing no work. Just think about an internal combustion engine. Why does the gas move the piston? Because it has nowhere else to go. There is resistance. The valves are closed. It can only expand towards the piston which moves away and simultanously rotates the cranckshaft. The gas pushes the piston. Now lets say we have a leaky head gasket. Now the gases are free to expand through that leak. The gas would not push as hard on the piston as it would without the leak. The engine does not work as good as it should. At some point the engine would not work at all. Now lets open the valves just after the ignition . The gas just started to push the piston but then there is a new open way to expand. It simply flows out from the valves and does no work on the piston. No lets think about the rocket. It pushes exhaust gases into the atmosphere. The atmosphere gives a resistance to push against. Just like a cylinder head and head gasket that form a combustion chamber. Compared to the internal combustion engine the rocket engine has very unefficient " combustion chamber". Now lets move this rocket into the space. A gas in space would instantly expand without any resistance doing no work. It can not push anything. The gas is being "sucked" out of the rocket instantly and the rocket would not move. Moon travel was a hoax. There are no gas stations in space. Even if a rocket could somehow move in space it would ran out of gas quickly. There are also no toilets in space. How did those guys took a shit in the rocket? There is also no way to enter back into the atmosphere without burning to dust. Hard rocks are melting away while entering the atmosphere. We are suppose to believe that humans in the tin can could survive entering into the atmosphere while meteorites burn into nothingness? Nukes are hoax. Terrorists would constantly wipe off large areas if nukes would be possible. Think about it logically. Are we suppose to belive that Russians could figure the nukes out just in 4 years in 1949 and nowadays people with supercomputers and AI can not figure it out? What a hoax. Hiroshima and Nagasaki had no bald spot after the explosion. Telephone post were standing still after the explosion. Those cities were simply carpet bombed with napalm and other conventional explosives. Nothing more.
24-03-2024 10:24
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	Why does a piston move in internal combustion engine? Because the gas in the combustion chamber is not allowed to expand without resistance. The cylinder head and head gasket form a combustion chamber and valves are closed during the power stroke. The gas can only expand towards the piston moving it away from the combuston chamber. The IC engine is quite efficient. It s combustion chamber does not allow gases to expand freely away from the piston. This is the resistance or "back pressure". In rocket engine the combustion chamber is formed basically from open air. There are no valves which are closed. The gas expands quite freely into the atmosphere. But the atmosphere has "resistance". Meteorits melt away while entering the atmosphere because the air friction. This is quite serious resistance. So there is a back pressure from atmosphere that allows the rocket to move. In space there is no atmosphere and back pressure can not form. The gases would expand instantly without resistance doing no work. Joules law, more than century old. Space travelling is therefore not possible. There are no gas stations in space and there are also no toilets in space. Imagine being on the moon in space suit for three days not taking a shit. Re-entering the atmosphere is also not possible. Meteorits - hard rocks - simply melt away into nothingness entering the atmosphere. The earth is bombarded with millions of meteorites per day but few make it to the ground. Most simply melt away in the atmosphere. And we are supposed to belive that people could survive entering the atmosphere in a tin can while hard rocks melt away doing the same? What a hoax. Juri Gagarin supposedly jumped out with parachute while re-entering. Another great hoax. Remember, rocks melt away while entering the atmosphere.
30-03-2024 03:08
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	Xadoman wrote: Why does a piston move in internal combustion engine? It's just a matter of time before you refer to this as a hoax. Xadoman wrote: Because the gas in the combustion chamber is not allowed to expand without resistance. The cylinder head and head gasket form a combustion chamber and valves are closed during the power stroke. What will you say about this when you refer to internal combustion as a hoax? Xadoman wrote: So there is a back pressure from atmosphere that allows the rocket to move. Nope. This is not what propels the rocket. I'll give you three guesses as to who does not understand Newton's laws of motion. Xadoman wrote: In space there is no atmosphere and back pressure can not form. Correct. That is totally irrelevant. Xadoman wrote: The gases would expand instantly without resistance doing no work. The explosive ignition of the fuel is what generates the force that accelerates the rocket's mass. There is no "back pressure" involved. The power of the ignition causes work over time. Xadoman wrote: Joules law, more than century old. Focus on Newton's laws of motion. That's what applies to your scenario. Xadoman wrote: Re-entering the atmosphere is also not possible. Thermal shields.
01-04-2024 09:27
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	Xadoman wrote: ITN, watch the video. I did. The reaction starts long before the bullet leaves the gun. Xadoman wrote: The bullets is long gone when the kickback happens. Nope. The bullet is still in the barrel. The first action is to compress the mainspring starting the cycling of the gun. After that, kickback reaches the wrist (after the bullet is gone). Xadoman wrote: The kickback happens because the air enters the empty barrel. Just watch the video. Nope. Reaction starts as soon as the charge is fired, before the bullet leaves the gun. Watch the gun begin to cycle. Xadoman wrote: In space the gas will expand instantly without resistance doing no work. A rocket is not about gas expanding. Xadoman wrote: Just think about an internal combustion engine. Why does the gas move the piston? Because it has nowhere else to go. There is resistance. The valves are closed. It can only expand towards the piston which moves away and simultanously rotates the cranckshaft. The gas pushes the piston. So? Xadoman wrote: Now lets say we have a leaky head gasket. Now the gases are free to expand through that leak. The gas would not push as hard on the piston as it would without the leak. The engine does not work as good as it should. At some point the engine would not work at all. Nope. The engine works just as hard. The effect of most head gasket failures is to connect the oil and coolant galleries together. Xadoman wrote: Now lets open the valves just after the ignition . The gas just started to push the piston but then there is a new open way to expand. It simply flows out from the valves and does no work on the piston. The cylinder will never fire. You must compress the gas to fire the cylinder. Xadoman wrote: No lets think about the rocket. It pushes exhaust gases into the atmosphere. The atmosphere gives a resistance to push against. Nope. A rocket does not use a push at all. It is a reaction vessel. It's about nozzle velocity, not gas pressure. Xadoman wrote: Just like a cylinder head and head gasket that form a combustion chamber. WRONG. A rocket is an external combustion engine. A car uses an internal combustion engine. Xadoman wrote: Compared to the internal combustion engine the rocket engine has very unefficient " combustion chamber". Nope. A rocket is an external combustion engine. There is no chamber. Just a nozzle. Xadoman wrote: Now lets move this rocket into the space. A gas in space would instantly expand without any resistance doing no work. It can not push anything. The gas is being "sucked" out of the rocket instantly and the rocket would not move. Then the rocket moves FASTER. It's about nozzle velocity, not gas pressure. Xadoman wrote: Moon travel was a hoax. Then how did the instruments we have on the Moon and are still reporting their data back to Earth get there? One instrument left on the Moon is a simple mirror, which uses the speed of laser light to measure the distance to the Moon accurately. Xadoman wrote: There are no gas stations in space. So? None needed to get to the Moon. Xadoman wrote: Even if a rocket could somehow move in space it would ran out of gas quickly. Rockets work just fine in space. Once launched into the proper trajectory to reach the Moon, no rockets are not even being used. You coast to the Moon on a trajectory like a little planet. Xadoman wrote: There are also no toilets in space. How did those guys took a shit in the rocket? The capsule AND the suits had toilets. Xadoman wrote: There is also no way to enter back into the atmosphere without burning to dust. There certainly is. Spacecraft and meteors both get through the atmosphere and read the ground. Xadoman wrote: Hard rocks are melting away while entering the atmosphere. Some reach the ground. They're called meteorites. Go visit Meteor Crater in AZ to see the effect of a big one hitting the ground. Spacecraft have heat shields, made of very good thermal insulation. The plasma just flows around it without damaging the spacecraft at all. Xadoman wrote: We are suppose to believe that humans in the tin can could survive entering into the atmosphere while meteorites burn into nothingness? Yup. That heat shield works very well. Xadoman wrote: Nukes are hoax. Tell that to the folks in Las Vegas, NV and the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Xadoman wrote: Terrorists would constantly wipe off large areas if nukes would be possible. Nope. Terrorists can't afford them. They require rather expensive equipment to make the weapons grade nuclear material. Xadoman wrote: Think about it logically. Logic isn't what you are using. Argument of the Stone fallacy. Xadoman wrote: Are we suppose to belive that Russians could figure the nukes out just in 4 years in 1949 and nowadays people with supercomputers and AI can not figure it out? What a hoax. Nukes are easy. Nothing more to figure out. Once you have the weapons grade nuclear material (made with expensive centrifuges and a lot of time), the rest is pretty easy. The plutonium for one can be obtained from a nuclear reactor. A chemical explosion is set off by an electric charge, starting the fission reaction. This reaction is strong enough to use as a fuse for a fusion bomb (H bomb). As hydrogen fuses into helium, it undergoes the same nuclear reaction that drives the Sun. The only difference is that this bit of 'sun' is delivered as a bomb. [quote]Xadoman wrote: Hiroshima and Nagasaki had no bald spot after the explosion. They certainly did. Xadoman wrote: Telephone post were standing still after the explosion. No, they weren't. Xadoman wrote: Those cities were simply carpet bombed with napalm and other conventional explosives. Not possible with a single aircraft. Such bombing wouldn't leave the radiation shadows that still exist on the walls buildings today. A shadow of death. A shadow of a person that once stood there before being literally vaporized. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
01-04-2024 13:29
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	Not possible with a single aircraft. Such bombing wouldn't leave the radiation shadows that still exist on the walls buildings today. A shadow of death. A shadow of a person that once stood there before being literally vaporized. Nothing got vaporized there. Concrete and stone buildings were standing still. Bridges did not collapse and only wooden houses burned away in napalm carpet bombing. Electrical and telephone post were standing still after the vaporizations. The mainstream explanation for the telephone and electric posts is quite fun - because they were standing upward pointing towards the explosion they were like rockets flying through the atmosphere and therefore able to suistain the damage. Again, no bald spot in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those places looked exactly the same like all the other cities which got carpet bombed with napalm and conventional explosives. The nuke story is simply a hoax. Terrorist would vaporize large areas if it were not. Simple as that. Simple logic.
02-04-2024 00:47
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	Nope. A rocket is an external combustion engine. There is no chamber. Just a nozzle. A quote I found: Is a rocket an internal combustion engine? Internal-combustion engines are the most broadly applied and widely used power-generating devices currently in existence. Examples include gasoline engines, diesel engines, gas-turbine engines, and rocket-propulsion systems.
02-04-2024 04:49
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	Xadoman wrote: Nope. A rocket is an external combustion engine. There is no chamber. Just a nozzle. A quote I found: Is a rocket an internal combustion engine?Internal-combustion engines are the most broadly applied and widely used power-generating devices currently in existence. Examples include gasoline engines, diesel engines, gas-turbine engines, and rocket-propulsion systems. Xadoman is a hoax. How can all cryptos be earning 50x when they are all scams?
02-04-2024 07:51
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	IBdaMann wrote: Xadoman wrote: Nope. A rocket is an external combustion engine. There is no chamber. Just a nozzle. A quote I found: Is a rocket an internal combustion engine?Internal-combustion engines are the most broadly applied and widely used power-generating devices currently in existence. Examples include gasoline engines, diesel engines, gas-turbine engines, and rocket-propulsion systems. Xadoman is a hoax. How can all cryptos be earning 50x when they are all scams? He's "working" you, softening you up for the big sale. Did you buy Apple? He's seen where I've discussed dark matter but refuses to read any articles so he'd have an opinion. With space, I like to keep it simple. The high and low tides proves there is a gravitational field around the Earth? Does that matter? Usually no. For what he's on about, he must've read my posts saying there is dark matter and now wants to say because a rocket has thrust that proves dark matter. It seems he does not know that Johannes Kepler said universal electricities back around 1680. He doesn't understand what the "debate" is about. When light bends more than Newton's gravity allows for, space and time are acting equally on it. When discussing dark matter, this example is used in association with Einstein's 1915 paper on General Relativity. This then allows for the combusted gasses from a rocket interacting with space/time will accelerate accordingly. I could show you the math for rocket science but that's not my field of interest. You know I'm more of a KE = 3/2kT kind of guy. xado, Newton said 2G while Einstein said 4G. The speed of light wasn't know in Newton's lifetime. And you know that G is the universal constant which is 6.67408×10^-11Nm2/kg2 and this is funny, √6.67408×10^-11Nm/kg is the same thing. And what does this mean xado? It's a fraction like 1/2 or 1/4. If you weigh 150kg then gravity is only acting on 150kg x 6.67408×10^-11 = 1.001112. See how easy that is? If your scale says you weigh 150kg (330lbs), gravity is only acting on 1/150th of your mass as weight. And now there's another conundrum, how can you weigh that much when gravity is only acting on a small part of your mass. If clocks were adjusted to sidereal time then they'd be worthless. And it's known that sidereal time is the right time. Edited on 02-04-2024 08:43
02-04-2024 08:52
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	James_ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Xadoman wrote:[quote]Nope. A rocket is an external combustion engine. There is no chamber. Just a nozzle. A quote I found: Is a rocket an internal combustion engine?Internal-combustion engines are the most broadly applied and widely used power-generating devices currently in existence. Examples include gasoline engines, diesel engines, gas-turbine engines, and rocket-propulsion systems. Xadoman is a hoax. How can all cryptos be earning 50x when they are all scams? He's "working" you, softening you up for the big sale. Did you buy Apple? Edited on 02-04-2024 09:15
03-04-2024 10:26
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	James, according to Einstein gravity force does not exist. Einsteinian gravity is a warped space time. Rocket engines are cosidered to be internal combustion engines. The cylinder head is formed from open air. That is also the reason why this type of engine is very unefficient. It loses its efficiency the higher the rocket climbs because the "cylinder head" which is formed from open air gets thinner and thinner. This is analogous to a conventional internal combustion engine compression troubles. The leaky head gasket reduces pressure in the combustion chamber. The engine does not work as good as it should. Leaky valves also cause the gas to escape from alternative route doing no work on piston. The engine loses power. The rocket engine has very leaky combustion chamber. Its head gasket and cylinder head is formed from open air. The exhaust gas pushes the air(cylinder head of the rocket engine) and this will move the rocket(like piston in the ITN engine). In space the rocket engine does not have a cylinder head because there is no atmosphere. The gas will expand wihout any resistance( no cylinder head) doing no work. This is called Joules expansion, google it. This law is more than century old. The newton third law is for solid object. Formed a couple hundred years before the gas laws. IbDaMann likes the example of the ball being thrown away sitting on the skateboard. Yes, the guy sitting on the roller skate will move if the surface is smooth and plane. But the rocket moves vertically. Take a skateboard, stand against the wall and put the skateboard between the wall and your back and throw a ball now. You are not going to move upward. Einsteinian warped space time does not allow it
05-04-2024 06:04
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	Xadoman wrote: James, according to Einstein gravity force does not exist. Are you saying that Einstein's theory of Relativity somehow does NOT explain how to calculate the force of gravity? Are you saying that Einstein has us computing something that he doesn't believe exists? Xadoman wrote: Einsteinian gravity is a warped space time. So, Einsteinian gravity isn't a straightforward algebraic calculation? Xadoman wrote: Rocket engines are cosidered to be internal combustion engines. Let's say we were to simply not care about labels. Do you accept Newton's laws of motion? Do you accept that every force creates an equal force in the opposite direction? Do you accept that anyone silly enough to be caught in the nozzle of an active rocket engine would be pushed with enough force to accelerate a rocket upward? Do you even see where I'm going with this?
05-04-2024 07:11
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	IBdaMann wrote: Xadoman wrote: James, according to Einstein gravity force does not exist. Are you saying that Einstein's theory of Relativity somehow does NOT explain how to calculate the force of gravity? Are you saying that Einstein has us computing something that he doesn't believe exists? Xadoman wrote: Einsteinian gravity is a warped space time. So, Einsteinian gravity isn't a straightforward algebraic calculation? Xadoman wrote: Rocket engines are cosidered to be internal combustion engines. Let's say we were to simply not care about labels. Do you accept Newton's laws of motion? Do you accept that every force creates an equal force in the opposite direction? Do you accept that anyone silly enough to be caught in the nozzle of an active rocket engine would be pushed with enough force to accelerate a rocket upward? Do you even see where I'm going with this? So it's easy to work out that the GPE needed to lift 1kg up to 400km is only about 4MJ. This is small compared with the 30MJ of KE required. Why is the KE 7.5 times greater? https://phys.org/news/2016-04-rocket-space-ship-sea.html
05-04-2024 15:48
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	The reason for the difference in the 4MJ to lift something and the 30MJ of KE is because of f = ma. The rocket is accelerating. And this aspect of rocket science is found in perpetual motion. To lift the top weight takes work. To accelerate the weight moving UPWARDS takes more energy. With what I am building, the top weight is not lifted upwards but is allowed to slowly drop as it falls outward like a tree does. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVHi6xG7ajI And now the tree is overbalanced. It's about the same thing on a wheel, if the top weight moves to the right from top center it is moving away from the axle of the wheel. And thanks to rocket science it is known that accelerating a weight takes much more energy than it does to lift it. That is what everyone has missed and is most likely why everyone for the most part has failed. When a weight is accelerated to the right of top center, it is moving in roughly the same direction as the wheel is rotating in. This does not take energy away from the wheel rotating. What it does is it changes the location of that KE. This basically means the only work being done is to lift the bottom weight but that's not being lifted either. Technically speaking it's conserving angular momentum. As with a rocket and its engines firing, atmospheric gasses are most likely interacting with the rocket's combustion at the gravitational level or just another example of Coulomb's law where opposing forces repel each other. The combusted gasses have an electrical charge just as atmospheric gasses do. A ride using that principle differently; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ3Ob9IF_w8 Hmm, I desalinated seawater, made steam and then was a cat steam operator. With magnets, parts do not touch each other. They use one field to push against another field. This is the inverse function of Coulomb's law (attraction). And if anyone notices, they talk about the energy requirements of different loads. p.s., swan, your attacks against me have paralleled the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine and Gaza. And this is because I served in the U.S. Navy while you avoided military service. And now swan you have to accept that any country supplying Israel with arms like the U.S. is doing is complicit in genocide. There are some things you just shouldn't be allowed to do to people. And yet you could've worked with me on perpetual motion and have learned something but you're both MAGA and a Trumpster and as we all know, Hitler took back the election but not Trump. And the U.S. as a world leader? I think once the U.N. found Israel to be committing genocide, that's a reflection of Israel's ally's as well. And do I think a 2 State solution will happen now? It took genocide for Judes to have a country and now there are people like them who have also shared the same historical land. See how that works? And swan, on Yahoo, the pro Israel news stories have basically disappeared and now it is okay to say Israel and genocide when before Israel was the victim and killing all those Palestinians was called for. I think everyone knows Netanyahu will be tried as a war criminal when this is over. And when posting with people on Yahoo I was quoting Beetee who said it was written into law by man certainly it can be unwritten and this parallels The Hunger Games in a sense and now the dome might've been broken. Who knows, to encourage peace even Putin might go for a cease fire. Attached image: Edited on 05-04-2024 16:28
06-04-2024 22:37
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	Xadoman wrote: Not possible with a single aircraft. Such bombing wouldn't leave the radiation shadows that still exist on the walls buildings today. A shadow of death. A shadow of a person that once stood there before being literally vaporized. Nothing got vaporized there. Blatant lie. Xadoman wrote: Concrete and stone buildings were standing still. Which is why they are used as fallout shelters. Xadoman wrote: Bridges did not collapse They were wood. They vaporized. Xadoman wrote: and only wooden houses burned away in napalm carpet bombing. No. They were vaporized. Xadoman wrote: Electrical and telephone post were standing still after the vaporizations. None close to the center of detonation. Xadoman wrote: The mainstream explanation for the telephone and electric posts is quite fun - because they were standing upward pointing towards the explosion they were like rockets flying through the atmosphere and therefore able to suistain the damage. They didn't. Xadoman wrote: Again, no bald spot in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Blatant lie. Xadoman wrote: Those places looked exactly the same like all the other cities which got carpet bombed with napalm and conventional explosives. A nuclear bomb is essentially an incendiary, but with radiation. Xadoman wrote: The nuke story is simply a hoax. Tell that to the people that suffered radiation sickness, or were simply vaporized. Xadoman wrote: Terrorist would vaporize large areas if it were not. Simple as that. Simple logic. Terrorists can't afford them, dumbass. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-04-2024 22:38
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	Xadoman wrote: Nope. A rocket is an external combustion engine. There is no chamber. Just a nozzle. A quote I found: Is a rocket an internal combustion engine? Internal-combustion engines are the most broadly applied and widely used power-generating devices currently in existence. Examples include gasoline engines, diesel engines, gas-turbine engines, and rocket-propulsion systems. No internal combustion engine. Just a nozzle and gas velocity. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-04-2024 22:48
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	Xadoman wrote: James, according to Einstein gravity force does not exist. Einsteinian gravity is a warped space time. Einstein never said gravity does not exist. Xadoman wrote: Rocket engines are cosidered to be internal combustion engines. Rocket engines are not internal combustion engines. Xadoman wrote: The cylinder head is formed from open air. Rockets have no cylinder head. Xadoman wrote: That is also the reason why this type of engine is very unefficient. It loses its efficiency the higher the rocket climbs because the "cylinder head" which is formed from open air gets thinner and thinner. Rockets have no cylinder head. Xadoman wrote: This is analogous to a conventional internal combustion engine compression troubles. A properly functioning internal combustion engine doesn't have compression troubles. Xadoman wrote: The leaky head gasket reduces pressure in the combustion chamber. The engine does not work as good as it should. A leaky head gasket typically connects oil and coolant. The cylinder usually stays sealed. Xadoman wrote: Leaky valves also cause the gas to escape from alternative route doing no work on piston. The engine loses power. Leaks of the sort you are describing means the engine does not run at all. Xadoman wrote: The rocket engine has very leaky combustion chamber. No combustion chamber. Xadoman wrote: Its head gasket No head gasket. Xadoman wrote: and cylinder head No cylinder head. Xadoman wrote: is formed from open air. Cylinders heads are not gaseous. Xadoman wrote: The exhaust gas pushes the air(cylinder head of the rocket engine) and this will move the rocket(like piston in the ITN engine). No cylinder head. No piston. Xadoman wrote: In space the rocket engine does not have a cylinder head because there is no atmosphere. No cylinder head. Xadoman wrote: The gas will expand wihout any resistance( no cylinder head) doing no work. No cylinder head. The nozzle provides resistance of expanding gases. Xadoman wrote: This is called Joules expansion, google it. This law is more than century old. Non-sequitur fallacy. Xadoman wrote: The newton third law is for solid object. Formed a couple hundred years before the gas laws. A rocket is a solid object. Newton's law applies to ALL objects and materials, not just solid ones. Xadoman wrote: IbDaMann likes the example of the ball being thrown away sitting on the skateboard. Yes, the guy sitting on the roller skate will move if the surface is smooth and plane. Yes. Xadoman wrote: But the rocket moves vertically. Take a skateboard, stand against the wall and put the skateboard between the wall and your back and throw a ball now. You are not going to move upward. There is no 'vertically' in space. Xadoman wrote: Einsteinian warped space time does not allow it Non-sequitur fallacy. Buzzword fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
07-04-2024 05:17
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	Into the Night wrote: Xadoman wrote: James, according to Einstein gravity force does not exist. Einsteinian gravity is a warped space time. Einstein never said gravity does not exist. Xadoman wrote: Rocket engines are cosidered to be internal combustion engines. Rocket engines are not internal combustion engines. Xadoman wrote: The cylinder head is formed from open air. Rockets have no cylinder head. Xadoman wrote: That is also the reason why this type of engine is very unefficient. It loses its efficiency the higher the rocket climbs because the "cylinder head" which is formed from open air gets thinner and thinner. Rockets have no cylinder head. Xadoman wrote: This is analogous to a conventional internal combustion engine compression troubles. A properly functioning internal combustion engine doesn't have compression troubles. Xadoman wrote: The leaky head gasket reduces pressure in the combustion chamber. The engine does not work as good as it should. A leaky head gasket typically connects oil and coolant. The cylinder usually stays sealed. Xadoman wrote: Leaky valves also cause the gas to escape from alternative route doing no work on piston. The engine loses power. Leaks of the sort you are describing means the engine does not run at all. Xadoman wrote: The rocket engine has very leaky combustion chamber. No combustion chamber. Xadoman wrote: Its head gasket No head gasket. Xadoman wrote: and cylinder head No cylinder head. Xadoman wrote: is formed from open air. Cylinders heads are not gaseous. Xadoman wrote: The exhaust gas pushes the air(cylinder head of the rocket engine) and this will move the rocket(like piston in the ITN engine). No cylinder head. No piston. Xadoman wrote: In space the rocket engine does not have a cylinder head because there is no atmosphere. No cylinder head. Xadoman wrote: The gas will expand wihout any resistance( no cylinder head) doing no work. No cylinder head. The nozzle provides resistance of expanding gases. Xadoman wrote: This is called Joules expansion, google it. This law is more than century old. Non-sequitur fallacy. Xadoman wrote: The newton third law is for solid object. Formed a couple hundred years before the gas laws. A rocket is a solid object. Newton's law applies to ALL objects and materials, not just solid ones. Xadoman wrote: IbDaMann likes the example of the ball being thrown away sitting on the skateboard. Yes, the guy sitting on the roller skate will move if the surface is smooth and plane. Yes. Xadoman wrote: But the rocket moves vertically. Take a skateboard, stand against the wall and put the skateboard between the wall and your back and throw a ball now. You are not going to move upward. There is no 'vertically' in space. Xadoman wrote: Einsteinian warped space time does not allow it Non-sequitur fallacy. Buzzword fallacy. The cylinder head is formed from open air. Rockets have no cylinder head.[/quote] The bottom of the rocket where the nozzle is mounted is the cylinder head. Atmospheric gasses create a "piston". When combustion occurs in the combustion chamber then the piston resists the effects of combustion. And as the piston is pushed away from the cylinder head it generates thrust. In space, we know space isn't empty. Why probes can have their telemetry changed. Currently they say galaxies like the Milky Way (our galaxy) is in a field of dark matter because it's a spiral galaxy.
07-04-2024 06:01
getgreenlife ☆☆☆☆☆ (2)	Definitely not a hoax, we are just tooooooooo early to the party.
14-04-2024 08:04
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	Double Edited on 14-04-2024 08:04
14-04-2024 08:04
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	Hey look even Hollywood is now saying the moon landing was fake. https://youtu.be/lW7enw6mFxs?si=qyiqI8K8yEPdT8U7
14-04-2024 20:11
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	Technically speaking the ISS could be considered space travel because it is orbiting the Earth in space. And it's possible if they develop better engines then the ISS will be expanded because it's a part of the space program.
15-04-2024 13:16
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	When I prove that both Einstein and Newton got their math wrong and their work is incomplete, that will mean they were wrong and that they failed. I will use how I've been attacked for understanding math and science. And in school, what happens when you turn in incomplete work with mistakes on it? And Alan Bauldree, white supremacist will be an example of what science allows for. He can either Google it or search Wikipedia for what he knows. And I can't have a life unless I serve him. After all, do Newton's laws of motion and thermodynamics allow for conservation of energy? They do. And yet all people can tell me is "scientists say" when they are not doing the work. Do you see them wanting to know what their research showed them something they do not understand and so they are IGNORING it! Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. And then AAL (d3 artnam) everyone in here who says "CO2 is not causing climate change" is ignoring what the IPCC itself placed in its own report which is research it supports. We can't lower CO2 emissions is what the IPCC's report says, they wrote it i Engelsk for you guys. p.s., The mistakes that Newton and Einstein made in their work with gravity is what's preventing a better propulsion system from being developed. There's a reason why Newton said g = Gm1m2/r^2, maybe a couple. To give you guys an idea (again), the Moon's mass times the Earth's mass and gravity does not work that way. Gravity has an exponential decrease from the center of a mass so we know that Newton's equation cannot be right. And basically any discussion of space flight starts with discussing gravity, why do you think so many probes crash for? Scientists don't know what gravity is, this gets into unifying magnetism and gravity because of the Earth's atmosphere. Where if scientists took a little more interest in science they'd probably find that interesting. It is possible that Alan Bauldree and his friends will have proven Einstein and Newton to be frauds. Their work will have to be seen as incomplete and having plagiarized other scientists as well. Newton plagiarized Johannes Kepler and Einstein plagiarized Max Planck. As for Jesus, out of respect for my sister's faith I will use her as an example of what Jesus hoped his Christians would be like. She was special if I do say so myself. swandeded, er, ered, astronomers say that the Milky Way (what this galaxy is) is in a pocket of dark matter; Attached image: Edited on 15-04-2024 13:48
15-04-2024 15:57
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	A thought on rocket travel in space. Rockets should be able to use the orbital velocity of the Sun to travel from one celestial body to another celestial body. Any craft not in orbit around a celestial body will be accelerated by the Sun's gravity because then said craft will have become a celestial body in the Sun's orbit. Since G is the universal constant then it can be considered that both the thrust and mass of a spacecraft will have the same value attached to them as well. This would be getting a little bit into rocket science. Then by directing thrust towards a higher or lower orbit then how the orbital velocity influences the movement of a satellite. And when you understand the basics like this then how can you improve the efficiency in the relationship between G and the source of propulsion? Of course, some people would throw out Newton's and Einstein's work because they have their own agenda to pursue. Yet when ignoring who contributed to their work, that hurts science itself. It's kind of like seeing just the tip of the iceberg. I'm aware of a lot of the work that really isn't made known, something about them and their work. Edited on 15-04-2024 15:59
15-04-2024 17:21
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	p.s., to give you guys a clue, 6.67408×10^-11, with this value, if each unit of 1 represents an individual particle then that could suggest that 1 particle/charge is moving a given mass. The value given could be the number of vertices from the center of mass. With the particle/charge, is the field or only 1 particle affected? Since the field would have the energy of 1 particle, wheat is happening to the rest of the energy? It's stuff like this that needs to be understood but isn't.
15-04-2024 18:27
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	To let you guys know I'm getting serious, I took off my brace to use my keyboard more easily. With 6.67408×10^-11, it is also 1/6.67408×10^11 = 1/0.0000000000667408 I think I got the zeroes right. 10 decimal points to the right. That means there are 667,408,000,000.0 particles in 1 point of gravity. Then if you consider Planck's E = hλ/c which is the energy/mass of light, how many points of gravity does it have? Light is electromagnetic which means it has gravity because it has mass. When Einstein said E = MC^2 he was saying that E = hλC^2. This relates Einsteinian energy to Plank's energy. This understanding is over 100 years old. Hasn't anyone ever picked up a book about physics and just read it? Just an FYI, while scientists are searching for dark matter, this post might explain to them how it was already described scientifically by scientists before WW I. And when they didn't consider that g = Gm1m2/r^2 is the right idea but does not properly describe the gravitational attraction between the Earth and the Moon they didn't really seem to understand what the math was saying. And now I'll need to take a walk so I can get some woodworking done today. You know what they say, measure twice and cuts once! Edited on 15-04-2024 18:38
15-04-2024 19:38
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	James_ wrote: Technically speaking the ISS could be considered space travel because it is orbiting the Earth in space. And it's possible if they develop better engines then the ISS will be expanded because it's a part of the space program. The ISS doesn't need engines to orbit the Earth. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
15-04-2024 19:40
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	James_ wrote: A thought on rocket travel in space. Rockets should be able to use the orbital velocity of the Sun to travel from one celestial body to another celestial body. Any craft not in orbit around a celestial body will be accelerated by the Sun's gravity because then said craft will have become a celestial body in the Sun's orbit. Since G is the universal constant then it can be considered that both the thrust and mass of a spacecraft will have the same value attached to them as well. This would be getting a little bit into rocket science. Then by directing thrust towards a higher or lower orbit then how the orbital velocity influences the movement of a satellite. And when you understand the basics like this then how can you improve the efficiency in the relationship between G and the source of propulsion? Of course, some people would throw out Newton's and Einstein's work because they have their own agenda to pursue. Yet when ignoring who contributed to their work, that hurts science itself. It's kind of like seeing just the tip of the iceberg. I'm aware of a lot of the work that really isn't made known, something about them and their work. G is not a universal constant. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
15-04-2024 22:57
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	Into the Night wrote: G is not a universal constant. It's close enough. In our solar system it will have one value but in another solar system it might have a different value (where are we in the universe?). It's like the heaviest stars in a spiral galaxy are considered to be away from the eye of the galaxy but not by much. Then as you move away from the eye the mass/density of its stars decreases. When the stars closest to the eye of a galaxy are lighter, that might be because the densest stars in a galaxy form where its gravity's moment of inertia is greatest. This is something overlooked with Newton's gravity, where the Earth has the most mass is where it's gravitational attraction comes from. This means the core of the Earth is acted upon differently than its surface. https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/scientists-discover-new-core-deep-earth-solid-ball-iron-nickel-rcna72194 With this, consider the gravity that exists between the Moon and the Earth meet (about 30,00km from the Moon's center), gravity is twice as great there because 2 bodies are acting on the same place in the space-time continuum. Again an inverse function. The gravity in the Earth's core is greater than what Newton's gravity allows for. Scientists need to listen to ITN and accept what science says and buy more thermometers. Edited on 15-04-2024 23:11
16-04-2024 12:28
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	With space, is that a black hole or a galaxy forming? What the image suggests is that the disc is acting on the center of the mass creating a type of wormhole or think hurricane/cyclone. If space were empty how could the galaxy (IMO) create the 2 plasma jets? If we say space is not empty then what do we know about it? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNhaRnTWGI4&t=2s p.s., It's yellow band might be its gravity's moment of inertia. That is where the (IMO) galaxy that is forming has the densest/most mass in the yellow band. And this you guys know acts on dark matter at the gravitational level. Things must be getting better for me. That's 2 pictures in maybe 1 week that show an aspect of science that might be overlooked. Attached image: Edited on 16-04-2024 12:36
16-04-2024 19:41
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	James_ wrote: When I prove that both Einstein and Newton got their math wrong and their work is incomplete, that will mean they were wrong and that they failed. You should have picked something a little more challenging. James_ wrote: I will use how I've been attacked for understanding math and science. Did you survive? James_ wrote: And in school, what happens when you turn in incomplete work with mistakes on it? Today, that gets you an "A" ... just like everything else.
16-04-2024 22:25
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	IBdaMann wrote: James_ wrote: When I prove that both Einstein and Newton got their math wrong and their work is incomplete, that will mean they were wrong and that they failed. You should have picked something a little more challenging. James_ wrote: I will use how I've been attacked for understanding math and science. Did you survive? James_ wrote: And in school, what happens when you turn in incomplete work with mistakes on it? Today, that gets you an "A" ... just like everything else. You should have picked something a little more challenging. Maybe I watched "too much" Star Trek? Did you survive? I don't think so.......I think I'm schizophrenic now. i is imaginary while Pi isn't rational and I'm still trying to make sense of it because it's driving me crazy!! Attached image: Edited on 16-04-2024 22:28
16-04-2024 23:24
One Punch Man★☆☆☆☆ (143)	'cause Earth is flat and there is no outer-space. There, I said it.

Join the debate Space travel is hoax:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Nukes are hoax	14	12-03-2024 16:06
Well space x blew up another starship, currently batting 0.0/nada/nothing/zero/zilch	0	18-11-2023 20:38
What is the most climate friendly way to travel the from Copenhagen to Atlanta?	37	26-04-2022 02:01
Well Space X aced another controlled landing. Will be using really low IQ astronuts	211	25-03-2022 01:05
Travel restrictions	16	29-11-2021 19:16