Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Time lapse images of rocket launches , including spacehoax and nasa . All lovely trajectories dictated by the loss of thrust as altitude increases . Link here .

https://www.google.com/search?biw=1175&bih=638&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=k6v4XYy9G-2mrgTilqZg&q=time+lapse+images++of++rocket+launches&oq=time+lapse+images++of++rocket+launches&gs_l=img.12...33453.65691..78612...0.0..0.268.4857.14j20j6......0....1..gws-wiz-img.......0i7i30j0i24.fjRNyi-yAJY&ved=0ahUKEwjM0qrAurzmAhVtk4sKHWKLCQwQ4dUDCAY

All for show .
first off, I didn't even consider long exposure rocket launches were a thing so thank you for these beautiful images.

Second, it's kinda funny how some flat earthers try to explain away how the sun visually sinks below the horizon because of 'perspective' or 'bendy light' but when a rocket vanishes into the distance in the sky (like the sun should on a flat earth) it's 'definitely falling back to earth'.

https://www.mnealon.eosc.edu/RocketSciencePage5.htm

Scroll down to the bottom of this page - it's about the saturn v5 flight path . At the end you will see the graph of altitude against range .

It's rocket science .

totallackey

Now, it's controlled explosions...
LMMFAO!

Yes...
What do you think happens in your car?
https://www.explainthatstuff.com/carengines.html
That is called an INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE...(i.e, takes place in an INTERNAL ENVIRONMENT!)

No such process can take place in a ROCKET!

You do know the difference, correct?

The result of the operation of an INTERNAL COMBUSTION engine is transferred to the front, rear, or all four wheels of my car, causing the front, rear, or all four wheels of my car to spin. When they spin, the rubber encompassing those wheels and making contact with the pavement, results in friction, causing forward motion, or rearward motion, depending on transmission gear.

Please, stop pretending you have any sensible explanation.

You don't.

You are clearly tying yourself into a mental pretzel over this and have no logical explanation. No one is going to join you in your specious argumentation.
Quote
The spark ignites the fuel-air mixture causing a mini explosion. The fuel burns immediately, giving off hot gas that pushes the piston back down. The energy released by the fuel is now powering the crankshaft.

The other things you mention no, those are not controlled explosions. Stop straw manning.
You are correct.

They are not controlled explosions, and that is the point.

However, according to the renowned rocket surgeons and space experts, they are the real true nature of how rockets work.

In fact, ask any rocket surgeon....it is simply the MASS of the propellant being ejected out of the rear of the rocket that is causing the rocket to move in the opposite direction. Please note, it is not necessary for the MASS of the propellant to be on FIRE...

Got it?
Quote
Actually, no...multiple videos have been posted showing rockets work in the atmosphere...

Well no, they've been shown working in vacuum chambers. That demonstrates the principle that they can work in a vacuum, rockets aren't pushing against an atmosphere, they don't need to push against anything, that's not how they work.
Well, no...First, anything introduced to a vacuum? Like gas from these these rockets?

Right...results in no vacuum.
Quote
You haven't even addressed your bogus video with the sticky gauge...

Again, I don't know what there is to address. I've explained why he was tapping it but you can clearly see in the video the gauge is working and records the lowering pressure when he turns the pump on


No, you didn't explain why he was tapping it.

I explained why he was tapping it.

The explanation? The gauge wasn't working properly.

So the whole video is bogus.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2019, 03:59:15 PM by totallackey »

Finally, tech is available to military and government FAR IN ADVANCE of general populace (i.e. DARPA).
This bit is probably true, but the whole logistics of faking 9/11 with holographic airplanes is stupid.

Look, the point here is this. Let's say the technology does exist. So how we determine the nature of reality then? How do we know anything is true?
If you're determined to believe that everything NASA and SpaceX does is a lie and you're going to call all the evidence which shows that they really are launching rockets into space as lies/hoax/fake/holograms or whatever then it's not a very productive discussion.

We are both entrenched in our views, the difference is I am entrenched because of the evidence, you are entrenched despite it.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

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

it is simply the MASS of the propellant being ejected out of the rear of the rocket that is causing the rocket to move in the opposite direction. Please note, it is not necessary for the MASS of the propellant to be on FIRE...
But it is necessary for the mass of the propellant to be ejected at very high speed if you're going to move a sodding great rocket, as opposed to a small balloon. What's one way of eject stuff at very high speed? How about if you ignite some fuel in a chamber and leave a hole in one end? What happens? Effectively you get an explosion in the chamber which creates a lot of heat and pressure, you get a very high speed jet coming out of the hole so the chamber moves quickly in the other direction.
I'm simplifying but that's basically how rockets work.

Quote
Well, no...First, anything introduced to a vacuum? Like gas from these these rockets?
Right...results in no vacuum.

A little bit of gas will go into the chamber, yes. But look at the pressure gauge after the rocket has gone off. The needle barely moves.
The chamber is big compared to the amount of gas the rocket will produce, it's still effectively a vacuum.

Quote
No, you didn't explain why he was tapping it.

I posted a link explaining why people do that. I also posted stills from the video after her turned the pump on which clearly show the gauge is working and shows the pressure lowering when he turns the pump on.
You can watch the video yourself. And I look forward to the results of your experiment.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

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

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 912
    • View Profile
Time lapse images of rocket launches , including spacehoax and nasa . All lovely trajectories dictated by the loss of thrust as altitude increases . Link here .

https://www.google.com/search?biw=1175&bih=638&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=k6v4XYy9G-2mrgTilqZg&q=time+lapse+images++of++rocket+launches&oq=time+lapse+images++of++rocket+launches&gs_l=img.12...33453.65691..78612...0.0..0.268.4857.14j20j6......0....1..gws-wiz-img.......0i7i30j0i24.fjRNyi-yAJY&ved=0ahUKEwjM0qrAurzmAhVtk4sKHWKLCQwQ4dUDCAY

All for show .
first off, I didn't even consider long exposure rocket launches were a thing so thank you for these beautiful images.

Second, it's kinda funny how some flat earthers try to explain away how the sun visually sinks below the horizon because of 'perspective' or 'bendy light' but when a rocket vanishes into the distance in the sky (like the sun should on a flat earth) it's 'definitely falling back to earth'.

https://www.mnealon.eosc.edu/RocketSciencePage5.htm

Scroll down to the bottom of this page - it's about the saturn v5 flight path . At the end you will see the graph of altitude against range .

It's rocket science .
Thanks, I skimmed over it briefly for now and plan to go back to it later when I have time. Since I'm of the side of the fence that says rockets/moon landings are possible is there a point you were making with this link? I don't want to assume one.
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 1097
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
A man, sitting on a rolling office chair, pushing against the medicine ball while at the same time tossing it (it is actually the force of pushing against the medicine ball, giving rise to the reactionary force of rolling away from that point) is now an explosion.


How can someone be so dense?  Did you ever attend a science class?   On one hand, you say that rockets are fake but think the evil shadow government has holograms that can fake a launch.

LOL
Nothing Guest has ever said should be taken as representative of anything other than Guest's own delusions opinions.

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9194
    • View Profile
A man, sitting on a rolling office chair, pushing against the medicine ball while at the same time tossing it (it is actually the force of pushing against the medicine ball, giving rise to the reactionary force of rolling away from that point) is now an explosion.


How can someone be so dense?  Did you ever attend a science class?   On one hand, you say that rockets are fake but think the evil shadow government has holograms that can fake a launch.

LOL

Refrain from personal attacks in the upper fora. Warned.

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Time lapse images of rocket launches , including spacehoax and nasa . All lovely trajectories dictated by the loss of thrust as altitude increases . Link here .

https://www.google.com/search?biw=1175&bih=638&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=k6v4XYy9G-2mrgTilqZg&q=time+lapse+images++of++rocket+launches&oq=time+lapse+images++of++rocket+launches&gs_l=img.12...33453.65691..78612...0.0..0.268.4857.14j20j6......0....1..gws-wiz-img.......0i7i30j0i24.fjRNyi-yAJY&ved=0ahUKEwjM0qrAurzmAhVtk4sKHWKLCQwQ4dUDCAY

All for show .
first off, I didn't even consider long exposure rocket launches were a thing so thank you for these beautiful images.

Second, it's kinda funny how some flat earthers try to explain away how the sun visually sinks below the horizon because of 'perspective' or 'bendy light' but when a rocket vanishes into the distance in the sky (like the sun should on a flat earth) it's 'definitely falling back to earth'.

https://www.mnealon.eosc.edu/RocketSciencePage5.htm

Scroll down to the bottom of this page - it's about the saturn v5 flight path . At the end you will see the graph of altitude against range .

It's rocket science .
Thanks, I skimmed over it briefly for now and plan to go back to it later when I have time. Since I'm of the side of the fence that says rockets/moon landings are possible is there a point you were making with this link? I don't want to assume one.

totallackey

Finally, tech is available to military and government FAR IN ADVANCE of general populace (i.e. DARPA).
This bit is probably true, but the whole logistics of faking 9/11 with holographic airplanes is stupid.

Look, the point here is this. Let's say the technology does exist. So how we determine the nature of reality then? How do we know anything is true?
If you're determined to believe that everything NASA and SpaceX does is a lie and you're going to call all the evidence which shows that they really are launching rockets into space as lies/hoax/fake/holograms or whatever then it's not a very productive discussion.

We are both entrenched in our views, the difference is I am entrenched because of the evidence, you are entrenched despite it.
Good thing I have never claimed 9/11 was faked using holographic imagery.

Why are you attributing that to me?

I have also never claimed that everything about NASA/SpaceX is based on a lie.

They are launching rockets.

We disagree on the apex of the flight.

And you are entrenched due to what you determine to be factual evidence, while I question the validity of such evidence.

I find my criticisms of the evidence to be valid while you do not.

Fine.
it is simply the MASS of the propellant being ejected out of the rear of the rocket that is causing the rocket to move in the opposite direction. Please note, it is not necessary for the MASS of the propellant to be on FIRE...
But it is necessary for the mass of the propellant to be ejected at very high speed if you're going to move a sodding great rocket, as opposed to a small balloon. What's one way of eject stuff at very high speed? How about if you ignite some fuel in a chamber and leave a hole in one end? What happens? Effectively you get an explosion in the chamber which creates a lot of heat and pressure, you get a very high speed jet coming out of the hole so the chamber moves quickly in the other direction.
I'm simplifying but that's basically how rockets work.
Extreme simplification, and regrettably for you, fails to account for the hole.

If you have a hole in a chamber, whatever is in the chamber is simply going to exhaust out the chamber, especially in an environment with no resisting pressure outside of said hole.
Quote
Well, no...First, anything introduced to a vacuum? Like gas from these these rockets?
Right...results in no vacuum.

A little bit of gas will go into the chamber, yes. But look at the pressure gauge after the rocket has gone off. The needle barely moves.
The chamber is big compared to the amount of gas the rocket will produce, it's still effectively a vacuum.
Err, no...

Essentially your science is revealed to be a charade, and your definition of a vacuum is actually no longer a vacuum.

Good to know.
Quote
No, you didn't explain why he was tapping it.

I posted a link explaining why people do that. I also posted stills from the video after her turned the pump on which clearly show the gauge is working and shows the pressure lowering when he turns the pump on.
You can watch the video yourself. And I look forward to the results of your experiment.
Unfortunately, your link doesn't offer a scientifically tested protocol for the process of gauge tapping.

Why tap on a working gauge?

I look forward to your concession on these points.
A man, sitting on a rolling office chair, pushing against the medicine ball while at the same time tossing it (it is actually the force of pushing against the medicine ball, giving rise to the reactionary force of rolling away from that point) is now an explosion.


How can someone be so dense?  Did you ever attend a science class?   On one hand, you say that rockets are fake but think the evil shadow government has holograms that can fake a launch.

LOL
Yeah, I am not dense.

Yeah, I have actually attended many science classes. Chemistry, Astronomy, Geology, Physics...

Nope, I never wrote rockets are fake.

Nope, I never claimed claimed the government is faking launches with holograms.

Further, I offered holograms as a possible explanation for the landing videos, but there are certainly more.

There is no verifiable information regarding ultimate apex of these flights and they could have simply been dropped from a point above the clouds, below which they then become visible.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2019, 01:19:46 PM by totallackey »

totallackey

Thanks, I skimmed over it briefly for now and plan to go back to it later when I have time. Since I'm of the side of the fence that says rockets/moon landings are possible is there a point you were making with this link? I don't want to assume one.
Have you got back to more than skimming?

This link puts an end to that whole moon landing thing...

More likely, you have not read it all or simply do not understand what you are reading.

Look forward to your in depth analysis of the material, regardless.

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 912
    • View Profile
Thanks, I skimmed over it briefly for now and plan to go back to it later when I have time. Since I'm of the side of the fence that says rockets/moon landings are possible is there a point you were making with this link? I don't want to assume one.
Have you got back to more than skimming?

This link puts an end to that whole moon landing thing...

More likely, you have not read it all or simply do not understand what you are reading.

Look forward to your in depth analysis of the material, regardless.
No I haven't, I'm in semi crunch time at work because it's nearing the holidays. Sorry about that but my spare time is sometimes quite precious.

Ok sure, I'll bite. How does this link shut down the moon landings? Do you fully understand it? I'm not a rocket scientist so I've not made any bold claims on any of the information on that website though maths is one of my strong suits so I do hope to make at least a little sense from it when it get to it, which I have yet to do.

You shouldn't make assumptions you know nothing about, you cannot tell me what I have and haven't done in my own time. Claiming I haven't read something as if you're sitting behind me at my desk is kinda delusional. For example, you don't see me claiming you haven't gone through higher education when you could well have for all I know (though it isn't very apparent if you have).

I don't plan on publishing anything, you have nothing to look forward to here. Sorry to disappoint. Though feel free to throw up your detailed analysis here for us to see, since you've made it clear you've not only read it but understand it, agree with it and concluded that the moon landings were faked.
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

I’ve come to understand that most people who believe the FE theory also believe the moon landing was faked. So, if NASA was willing to fake that big achievement, why is it that they haven’t done anything consequential, real or faked, in such a long time? Did they decide to stop faking it?

Sorry if this is in the wrong section, I’m new to the forum.
<<<<If they fake the moon landing, then they fake it for profit, absolutely.
The main tool of the various so-called space programs is the rocket. It takes money to research and manufacture them.
If the space industry is in disguise, to avoid condemnation. And the main body of money - rockets, its other most important role is to carry a variety of explosives, in the service of war.
That's possible today, less than 100 years after world war ii, and even more likely in the 1950s and '60s, just after world war ii.
So if it's a disguise, it's probably a war chest for countries to have a good reason to get funding.
If that were the case, it could invent any location that no one could actually explore, forbid anyone to find out, in the name of military secrets.
So to get back to your question, the reason for doing this is because it's the simplest, most complicated lie that can be easily found out.

totallackey

Thanks, I skimmed over it briefly for now and plan to go back to it later when I have time. Since I'm of the side of the fence that says rockets/moon landings are possible is there a point you were making with this link? I don't want to assume one.
Have you got back to more than skimming?

This link puts an end to that whole moon landing thing...

More likely, you have not read it all or simply do not understand what you are reading.

Look forward to your in depth analysis of the material, regardless.
No I haven't, I'm in semi crunch time at work because it's nearing the holidays. Sorry about that but my spare time is sometimes quite precious.

Ok sure, I'll bite. How does this link shut down the moon landings? Do you fully understand it? I'm not a rocket scientist so I've not made any bold claims on any of the information on that website though maths is one of my strong suits so I do hope to make at least a little sense from it when it get to it, which I have yet to do.

You shouldn't make assumptions you know nothing about, you cannot tell me what I have and haven't done in my own time. Claiming I haven't read something as if you're sitting behind me at my desk is kinda delusional. For example, you don't see me claiming you haven't gone through higher education when you could well have for all I know (though it isn't very apparent if you have).

I don't plan on publishing anything, you have nothing to look forward to here. Sorry to disappoint. Though feel free to throw up your detailed analysis here for us to see, since you've made it clear you've not only read it but understand it, agree with it and concluded that the moon landings were faked.
I understand the part where it shows the difference in calculations between those utilizing gravity in the process and those not.

Go ahead, take your time.

Because they didn't fake the moon landing. It is impossible with the technology they had at the time.

*

Online Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2140
    • View Profile
https://www.mnealon.eosc.edu/RocketSciencePage5.htm

Scroll down to the bottom of this page - it's about the saturn v5 flight path . At the end you will see the graph of altitude against range .

It's rocket science .

...and the point is ... what?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

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

Nearly?

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Flight path dictated by pressure change caused by altitude.

Because they didn't fake the moon landing. It is impossible with the technology they had at the time.
In terms of the actual footage - which is generally where people who believe it was all a hoax start - it was arguably possible.
The trouble is their "evidence" is usually based on ignorance or confirmation bias.
The things I've never seen them address is all the 3rd party evidence.
The Australians were relaying signals for the mission - were they "in on it" too?
In the UK Jodrell Bank were tracking the craft and a Russian one (Luna 15) which was trying to beat the Americans to a soft landing on the moon (albeit an unmanned one)
Some amateurs were tracking the craft too.

The idea that all these people were either "in on it" or were also tricked somehow is ludicrous.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

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

Offline gurnb

  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
I live in a town where there are going on 3 generations of people who have worked in the space program, including me.  How is it possible that all of these people are keeping this huge conspiracy a secret?

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1452
    • View Profile
Flight path dictated by pressure change caused by altitude.

You forgot about stages 2 & 3. The graph is for Stage 1 only.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

If Nasa Faked another moon landing in this generation, even 5 year old will be calling out 'photoshop'. If we can go to the moon... why not go again?