Agreed, they launch. They go up, then turn sideways, then go off over the ocean and land in the ocean. I meant it was fake in the sense that it doesn't go 17,500 mph into space.
Where is your evidence of that? I have seen zero reports from anyone saying they have seen this rocket come down and a LOT of people were there to witness the launch.
Just saying "holy crap, that's fast, how did they manage that?" is not evidence of fakery.

Quote
Answer the real question here: do you believe the rocket goes 17,500 mph into space?
I don't know how fast it is going but if that is the numbers quoted then yes, I believe them because they are in line with numbers I've heard about other spacecraft.
How is it accelerating to that speed? Well, basically: F=ma. Make the "F" big enough and you'll get enough "a". And the rockets SpaceX use are incredibly powerful.
They generate a LOT of thrust, that generates a lot of acceleration.
I've seen in another thread that some of that acceleration happened when the craft was outside of our atmosphere in which case there is no atmospheric drag so that makes it easier to accelerate an object. If you don't understand how all this works then look it up. It isn't rocket science. Well...OK, it is rocket science, but the high level "if you generate a lot of force it generates a lot of acceleration" isn't hard to understand.

An Airbus A380 is about 1.26 MILLION pounds when fully loaded. I struggle to understand how they get off the ground, they are absolutely massive. I do understand about lift but even so, they do look too big to fly. But they do. I've been one one a few times. Me not understanding exactly how it generates quite so much lift does not mean it isn't true.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

SylvanCyborg


I don't know how fast it is going but if that is the numbers quoted then yes, I believe them because they are in line with numbers I've heard about other spacecraft.
How is it accelerating to that speed? Well, basically: F=ma. Make the "F" big enough and you'll get enough "a". And the rockets SpaceX use are incredibly powerful.
They generate a LOT of thrust, that generates a lot of acceleration.
I've seen in another thread that some of that acceleration happened when the craft was outside of our atmosphere in which case there is no atmospheric drag so that makes it easier to accelerate an object. If you don't understand how all this works then look it up. It isn't rocket science. Well...OK, it is rocket science, but the high level "if you generate a lot of force it generates a lot of acceleration" isn't hard to understand.

An Airbus A380 is about 1.26 MILLION pounds when fully loaded. I struggle to understand how they get off the ground, they are absolutely massive. I do understand about lift but even so, they do look too big to fly. But they do. I've been one one a few times. Me not understanding exactly how it generates quite so much lift does not mean it isn't true.

Must be nice to reach that sweet spot when you have enough atmosphere to generate so much thrust, but not experience the friction that would pull the thing apart. Space is cool!

Must be nice to reach that sweet spot when you have enough atmosphere to generate so much thrust, but not experience the friction that would pull the thing apart. Space is cool!
I think you are being sarcastic but you seem to be claiming that rockets need atmosphere to work, something to push against? They don't. Again, I suggest you do some research on how rockets work and Newton's laws of physics.

And agreed, it is all very cool.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

SylvanCyborg


I think you are being sarcastic but you seem to be claiming that rockets need atmosphere to work, something to push against? They don't. Again, I suggest you do some research on how rockets work and Newton's laws of physics.

And agreed, it is all very cool.

Yes, I've heard that by 'throwing' out fuel, they gain momentum. Apparently this is so effective, they reach speeds of 86 football field lengths in a single second. Makes you wonder why they even burn the fuel while in atmosphere if throwing it is so effective.

But why stop there? If the vacuum of space provides no resistance, why not past light speed? In space, anything is possible.


I think you are being sarcastic but you seem to be claiming that rockets need atmosphere to work, something to push against? They don't. Again, I suggest you do some research on how rockets work and Newton's laws of physics.

And agreed, it is all very cool.

Yes, I've heard that by 'throwing' out fuel, they gain momentum. Apparently this is so effective, they reach speeds of 86 football field lengths in a single second. Makes you wonder why they even burn the fuel while in atmosphere if throwing it is so effective.

But why stop there? If the vacuum of space provides no resistance, why not past light speed? In space, anything is possible.
Because you must still obey F=MA. At the time of reaching orbit, most of the fuel has already been spent.

As an additional note, the shuttle doesn't reach the speed your arguing against from incredulity, while within atmo. https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/basics/launch.html

Yes, I've heard that by 'throwing' out fuel, they gain momentum. Apparently this is so effective, they reach speeds of 86 football field lengths in a single second. Makes you wonder why they even burn the fuel while in atmosphere if throwing it is so effective.
Well...how are they going to get off the ground much less into space if they don't burn fuel? But yes, it is less efficient while in the lower part of the atmosphere.

Quote
But why stop there? If the vacuum of space provides no resistance, why not past light speed? In space, anything is possible.

Correct, up to a point. Why not past light speed - I suggest you go and read some stuff about Relativity.
But the amount of fuel is finite which is why the amount of acceleration is finite. A lot of fuel is required to get into space in the first place and the more fuel you carry the heavier the whole thing becomes - this is why the Shuttle and Falcon Heavy both had rockets which detached at a certain point.

With respect, you are showing a lot of ignorance about how all this works, I suggest you go do some research about it all.
But take a step back a minute, forget whether you understand how this works, and think about whether you have any actual evidence that any of this was faked.
You not understanding it is not evidence. If I took someone from a remote tribe and showed them Siri they would think I am talking to someone. If I tried to explain that I was actually talking to a machine they probably wouldn't understand that, but that doesn't mean I'm faking it all.

What evidence do you actually have that any of this was faked.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"


I think you are being sarcastic but you seem to be claiming that rockets need atmosphere to work, something to push against? They don't. Again, I suggest you do some research on how rockets work and Newton's laws of physics.

And agreed, it is all very cool.

Yes, I've heard that by 'throwing' out fuel, they gain momentum. Apparently this is so effective, they reach speeds of 86 football field lengths in a single second. Makes you wonder why they even burn the fuel while in atmosphere if throwing it is so effective.

But why stop there? If the vacuum of space provides no resistance, why not past light speed? In space, anything is possible.
We must first understand how a rocket basically works. A rocket burns a lot of fuel and expels it with a  lot of force. The same force is hence applied on the rocket which provides it a lot of acceleration. That is pretty much the basic.
As for throwing fuel to gain momentum, ever heard about law of conservation of linear momentum? If not, then you really have no argument, and I can't teach you 12 years worth of education.

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile

I think you are being sarcastic but you seem to be claiming that rockets need atmosphere to work, something to push against? They don't. Again, I suggest you do some research on how rockets work and Newton's laws of physics.

And agreed, it is all very cool.

Yes, I've heard that by 'throwing' out fuel, they gain momentum. Apparently this is so effective, they reach speeds of 86 football field lengths in a single second. Makes you wonder why they even burn the fuel while in atmosphere if throwing it is so effective.

But why stop there? If the vacuum of space provides no resistance, why not past light speed? In space, anything is possible.

I sense that you don't understand the physics involved.

Go educate yourself on newton's third law.

Rockets "tip over" because they are going into orbit. That means they are going around the Earth in a circle. Gravity is still pulling on them, so they have to go fast enough to literally fall over the horizon.

We've built jets that could travel over 2000 mph through the atmosphere using a tiny fraction of the amount of thrust available in a large rocket.

Last thing - google max Q. You should learn how rockets don't pull themselves apart while in the atmosphere.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2018, 01:24:24 PM by StinkyOne »
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

I mean, really? Who would care to hide something like that? I don't buy the hiding God theory that many espouse. It doesn't make sense.

That's the rub, isn't it? "Why?" All these arguments about science needing to save face, bowing to social norms and pressures and the like I might be able to buy for the short term, but not for the generations and generations we're talking about here. If for no other reason than there's no money in it, no real money, anyway. The only reason to stage such a huge cover-up, the only way to motivate the large and diverse number of people necessary to pull such a thing off in this day and age, is greed or fear. If there's a massive RE hoax being staged by every government on earth, it's because they've discovered what's on the other side of the "Ice Wall", and they've decided that it's so wonderful/dangerous that only a select few should have access to it. Which is ridiculous. Seriously. We're talking about the human race here. Some nation would have tried to claim it by now, in bloody battle most likely, either to have the wonderfulness all to themselves or to weaponize the horror.

There are a few, simple ways to verify the accuracy of the RE model over FE that can be done with simple observation. One of the easiest, real-world examples has to do with distances. The flat projection of the FE world causes huge distortions in distances between given points when compared to what can be observed and measured in the real world. The RE model puts the diameter of earth at 7926 miles at the equator. The FE model puts the diameter of "the known world" at 28,769 miles. This would result in a FE diameter at the equator (if you place the equator midway through the known world, an assumption on my part) of 14,384 miles, which is nearly double that of which has been directly observed and measured. The further south you travel, the larger the distances become. So what should be a 4265-ish mile (observed) trip between Buenos Aires and Cape Town suddenly becomes an epic 10,304 mile journey!

I welcome all corrections to any erroneous assumptions or calculations I have made.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2018, 03:55:49 PM by spoonbow »
Spherical Earth makes sense to me.
Educate me with sound, repeatable science and observations.

Your argument basically seems to be "I don't understand how rockets work, therefore they don't".
That really isn't an argument.
The SpaceX launch is all on video, there are numerous witnesses to the launch and lots of amateur footage.
Someone did some excellent analysis on another thread comparing weather patterns from weather satellites compared with the SpaceX live stream.
While we are here, I've seen a Shuttle launch with my own eyes one time I happened to be on holiday in Florida at the right time.
If you have any evidence that the launch was faked then please present it. You not understanding how rockets work isn't evidence.

Agreed, they launch. They go up, then turn sideways, then go off over the ocean and land in the ocean. I meant it was fake in the sense that it doesn't go 17,500 mph into space.

Your response basically ignored the point I was making, and just attempts to shut down the conversation. Answer the real question here: do you believe the rocket goes 17,500 mph into space?

Why is that so crazy to believe that the rocket can reach speeds of 17,500 mph? Is that for some reason some magical thing that humans can't hope to achieve?

If you believe a rocket can travel the length of 86 football fields each second, I guess there's nothing more to say. We are just not going to agree, so I guess I'll just leave it as agree to disagree.

But just want to be clear, this is something that you believe if you accept the official story. We can only get the SR71 jet plane to a speed of 3,540 km/h (2199.654mph). At that speed, the thermal expansion starts to pull the thing apart. But rockets? Oh they can go 17, 500 mph, no problem of course. I must be stupid to question that right?

Anyway, agree to disagree.

Liqued fuel rockets are much more powerful than jets, because of how they work and what fuel they use.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3109
    • View Profile
Yes, I've heard that by 'throwing' out fuel, they gain momentum. Apparently this is so effective, they reach speeds of 86 football field lengths in a single second. Makes you wonder why they even burn the fuel while in atmosphere if throwing it is so effective.

They burn the fuel because ignition generates more energy than merely moving the fuel from point A to point B.

Which is a more effective explosive? The stick of dynamite that you throw at the enemy without igniting, or the one that explodes under them?

These two videos should give some impression of the energy gained by ignition

"Epic Documentaries | BBC Explosions How We Shook the World - Must Watch!!!"


(If you're short of time, go straight to 27m30s and watch the Nitro-Glycerine sequence)

and

"Hypergolic Fuels – The Chemistry of a Rocket Launch"


(This one is 5mins or so)
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?