Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #80 on: November 16, 2020, 12:00:49 AM »

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with this, your definition of a system seems wrong: once the ball has been thrown, unless it is somehow tethered to the astronaut, it is no longer part of a system with him. Thank you for responding nevertheless.


Please don't be sorry, you can disagree all you like but my definition of the system, unlike yours, obeys all three of Newton's Laws of motion.

I watched the video and everything he said (except for the cause of the movement of the boat) was correct mathematically until 4:00. The discussion around the movement of the boat was completely wrong. The initial (miniscule) movement of the boat is caused by the ball pushing off the air. When he throws the ball outside the boat, the increased movement is caused by the force he gained from the air + the ripples caused by the ball landing in the water.

Everything he says after minute 4 is fundamentally flawed as he assumes (like you do) that the ball is external to the system. The ball simply cannot be considered external to the system and therefore would have to either use the surrounding air/water as a propellant or break Newton's first law. All the references to center of gravity are irrelevant when you consider velocity of the entire system. With the bowling ball example above the astronaut might spin around but it wouldn't make any difference to the velocity of his centre of gravity.



With much respect, I think part of the reason this is getting focused on is because rockets not working in space means that either space doesn’t exist or we can’t really get there even if it does, which in turn adds more fuel (no pun intended!) to the whole thing being one big conspiracy.
My position is that there is no space. And even if there was a space as it is described to us, we would not be able to get there with the technology we have. And if we somehow did get there, we would never get back. There does not need to be a big conspiracy.

Here’s a similar thought experiment.  You are in a spacesuit with a bowling ball in hand, with zero net velocity relative to Earth, i.e. stationary. 
I didn't use a stationary example as it is much harder to comprehend for those either side of the debate.

If you were to throw the bowling ball as hard as you could, 10 m/s using your numbers as reference, under your analogy, you would stay where you were and the bowling ball would travel away from you at 10m/s.  This cannot be the case though.  The bowling ball has mass, and when you throw it, you are pushing against it and so it will impart some force on you. 
Not exactly, I said it would travel away from you at 10m/s until it runs out of energy i.e. the ball will accelerate away from you then decelerate until it's relative velocity is zero. There is an internal force between you and the bowling ball but after the event has taken place both you and the ball will be stationary relative to the earth and to each other (albeit further apart). The only thing that can disrupt this system is a force external!

The ball might go 9m/s away from the point at which it was thrown, and you’ll go 1m/s away from the point at which it was thrown.  Energy is conserved, the total momentum is zero, and Newton’s laws are preserved.

It’s like firing a cannon here on Earth.  If the cannon is empty and you shoot it, you get little to no recoil, it isn’t going to move backwards at all as the cannon is so heavy.  However, when you shoot out a cannonball, the cannon recoils and moves in the opposite direction to the cannonball.  This has nothing to do with air displacement or having something to push against.  It’s for the same reason that if you throw a bowling ball when stood on a skateboard, you are pushed backwards.  Has nothing to do with pushing against air.
It has everything to do with air displacement!
I’ll have a watch of that video, but one guy saying NASA is Not A Space Agency doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true, no matter how senior they are.  Does it mean SpaceX is also bunk as well, and ESA...all part of a global conspiracy?  Ultimately it does seem to come down to what sounds more absurd.
They're all doing the same thing as I described a few posts above. There is no grand conspiracy. The very perception that there needs to be a grand conspiracy is enough keep people fooled. Even if someone did blow the whistle nobody would believe him and his mental stability would likely be questioned before being ushered out of the building.
Lex I: Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus a viribus impressis cogitur statum illum mutare.
-Hooke, Halley, Newton

Nos appropinquare

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1907
    • View Profile
Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #81 on: November 16, 2020, 12:02:39 AM »
I posted a video of an ex-CIA senior agent refer to NASA as "Not A Space Agency" and that "this is where the bulk of the mind control happens" and yet time and time again people ignore it and want to discuss my comment on the rockets. This is exactly why I didn't want to discuss it as all the useful and interesting information gets buried in a meaningless debate over whether rockets work in space. On a side note, I've been banned from two separate conspiracy themed forums because of this debate without breaking any of the forum rules, so I really have no interest in risking another ban by debating it further.

Just really quickly, you posted a :38 clip of an ex-CIA saying "Not a space force" and mind control bit. But there's zero context. How is anyone supposed to respond to it? What was the context of where he said what he said and why, in response to what? What's your interpretation of what he meant? What are you trying to convey with it?
I looked up Steele and he has a YouTube channel where he talks about a secret space force with underground bases on Mars and such. So if your interpretation that he backs up your notion that space flight is impossible, he's a bad reference to pick because he completely contradicts you. So why do you want to talk about him?

Side question, which forums were you banned from?
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Online Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 655
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #82 on: November 16, 2020, 01:03:21 AM »


This is a nice demo of force generation for  the rockets / Newton's third discussion.

*

Offline RhesusVX

  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • 1/137.03599913
    • View Profile
Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #83 on: November 16, 2020, 02:30:52 AM »
Not exactly, I said it would travel away from you at 10m/s until it runs out of energy i.e. the ball will accelerate away from you then decelerate until it's relative velocity is zero. There is an internal force between you and the bowling ball but after the event has taken place both you and the ball will be stationary relative to the earth and to each other (albeit further apart). The only thing that can disrupt this system is a force external!

Swap the bowling ball with a big heavy wall.  If you were to push against that wall, instead of the wall moving you would end up going backwards relative to the direction you pushed.  In space you would keep going for a very long time due to there being very little resistance.  If a new wall kept repeatedly appearing and you were able to keep pushing off each one, you’d end up going faster and faster. No atmosphere is needed to push against.

Ultimately jets need air to be sucked in to create thrust.  Rocket motors create their own thrust.  Neither work off the principle of pushing against air itself, same with recoil.  When a gun is fired, what do you think causes the gun to recoil in your hand?  It’s not air displacement.  You can fire a gun in a vacuum and you still get recoil.  Fire a gun in space and the gasses that propel the bullet forward will also push you back.

The video Iceman2020 linked to is a perfect illustration of how thrust works.  The key point is that the gases produced are not part of the rocket so can be considered an external force.
Quote from:  Earth, Solar System, Oort Cloud, LIC, Local Bubble, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Laniakea Supercluster, Universe
"Sometimes you need to take a step back to see the bigger picture, and sometimes you need to think outside the box dome"

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 1384
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #84 on: November 16, 2020, 05:11:42 AM »
Not exactly, I said it would travel away from you at 10m/s until it runs out of energy i.e. the ball will accelerate away from you then decelerate until it's relative velocity is zero. There is an internal force between you and the bowling ball but after the event has taken place both you and the ball will be stationary relative to the earth and to each other (albeit further apart). The only thing that can disrupt this system is a force external!
If a ball were thrown away from you in space it would stop accelerating immediately after it left your hand.  The reason for that would be, no force, no acceleration (F=MA).  After the ball left your hand it would continue forever in the direction thrown.  In order for it to slow down it would have to be influenced by a force external.  Energy can neither be created nor destroyed so in order for a ball to 'run out of energy' it would have to give that energy to some other mass, but in space there's no other mass to give it to.  There would be no force external.  The spaceman who threw the ball would be accelerated in the opposite direction assuming when the ball left his hand the velocity vector went opposite his center of mass.  Otherwise the spaceman would probably just mostly spin.  The spaceman would be accelerated less because his mass was greater (F=MA).  The spaceman would continue to move in the opposite direction forever. There couldn't be a force external applied because there's no other mass to run into. Since E=MV2 and energy can't be destroyed the velocity would be constant forever unless there was another force external which was available.  Maybe an asteroid could come by and modify the scenario.

PS: What might happen if the spaceman had a hand grenade?  There would be no 'force external' so would it blow up?  Would it kill the spaceman?

For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #85 on: November 16, 2020, 07:50:08 AM »
I think MarkAntony’s problem with physics is there’s no consideration of momentum, so there “has” to be “something” to push against.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2020, 09:25:11 AM by Longtitube »
Once again - you assume that the centre of the video is the centre of the camera's frame. We know that this isn't the case.

*

Offline RhesusVX

  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • 1/137.03599913
    • View Profile
Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #86 on: November 16, 2020, 01:19:42 PM »
I think MarkAntony’s problem with physics is there’s no consideration of momentum, so there “has” to be “something” to push against.

You might be right Longtitube, but wouldn't like to say.

For me, the reason why I honed in on the whole "rockets don't work in space thing" is (admittedly) firstly because of the stated reluctance to talk about it as that rings alarm bells somewhat, but largely because it is a misinterpretation of the consequences of the physical laws.  I understand why it would get claimed as it helps support the perceived absurdity of space, space travel and therefore any evidence from it.  I'm OK with the notion that something might seem ludicrous or even impossible (i.e. photos of Earth or videos on board the ISS), but less so when some of that notion is based on incorrect science.

In relation to what RonJ said at the end about a hand grenade, here's an interesting video about trying to ignite stuff in a vacuum:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Cx9mNnky2U

Contrary to what some people might (reasonably) think, something that is self-oxidising can burn inside a vacuum (which can only ever be partial)  Again, that video isn't perfect, but it does illustrate how things behave differently in the absence of an atmosphere.  In some cases, depending on what is being ignited and how, energy is dissipated so quickly that burning as we know it doesn't always happen, which does support what some people might think.  However, when confined to a binder or a casing, like in a hand-grenade for example, the explosion would happen in space, just looking very different.  The absence of anything around it means you wouldn't hear it, and there wouldn't be a shock wave.  The high-energy gases produced wouldn't form a fireball or plume of smoke as we see on Earth.  Instead everything would spread out somewhat evenly in all directions, forming a ball of gas.  That gas would very quickly dissipate, significantly reducing its effective "blast range" compared to here on Earth, and the resulting shrapnel would just keep going forever until acted on by an external force.

I completely agree with the statement that you cannot push off against yourself.  However, rockets don't push off against themselves, in simplistic terms they push off against the exhaust which is external to the system at an instance in time.  Imagine sitting in an office chair with wheels on a smooth surface.  You can flap your arms about but you won't propel yourself easily.  Now imagine if a friend was sat next to you on a similar chair.  If you push against them, you will both move away from your starting positions by the same distance.  The force you placed on him was met with an equal and opposite force from him on you.  In that sense, you're the rocket, he's the exhaust.  Now hold onto a fire extinguisher and release its contents - you'll move in the opposite direction to where you pointed the nozzle.  None of this has anything to do with air pressure or pushing against air, and everything to do with mass being ejected.  Far from not working in a vacuum/space, rockets can be more efficient in a vacuum/space because of the very absence of an atmosphere.

I found this to be interesting as well as it explains more about the forces at play:

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-osuniversityphysics/chapter/9-7-rocket-propulsion
Quote from:  Earth, Solar System, Oort Cloud, LIC, Local Bubble, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Laniakea Supercluster, Universe
"Sometimes you need to take a step back to see the bigger picture, and sometimes you need to think outside the box dome"

Offline jamball

  • *
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #87 on: November 16, 2020, 06:06:10 PM »

Not exactly, I said it would travel away from you at 10m/s until it runs out of energy i.e. the ball will accelerate away from you then decelerate until it's relative velocity is zero. There is an internal force between you and the bowling ball but after the event has taken place both you and the ball will be stationary relative to the earth and to each other (albeit further apart). The only thing that can disrupt this system is a force external!

This is not the case.
If we are in space, outside of LEO, frictional forces are minimal. If you are holding a heavy bowling ball that is 1/10th your mass and you push it away from you, you will accelerate in the opposite direction at 1/10 the rate. This is not a violation of any of Newton's Laws. His 3rd Law loosely states: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Most people get confused on this one because they think the action/reaction forces happen on the same object, but they don't. The Action here is you pushing on bowling ball with a Force. The Reaction is the bowling ball pushing on you with an equal sized force. Your acceleration and the bowling ball acceleration are not equal because you have 10x the mass, 10x the inertia. This also conserves momentum. If it is in space, the bowling ball when then keep its velocity, never speeding up or slowing down or turning until on 'outside' force acted on it. 

In your example, if the astronaut and bowling ball were drifting away from Earth at 60 m/s, after the push, the Astronaut may be only going now at 58.4 m/s and the bowling ball may be going at 71 m/s (remember, they have different masses, so different accelerations), but the center of the mass of the system continues to move at 60 m/s. You are correct in stating that the we can't accelerate the system without an outside force, the Center of Mass does continue to move at 60m/s away from Earth, un-accelerated). However, parts of that system just need to follow newton's laws, and they do.
You may be confused in the thinking the astronaut immediately would have a velocity back towards Earth of pushing the bowling ball, but that simply wouldn't happen.

That's how rockets work in space. The combustion of burning the fuel slams into the focused nozzle of the rocket. The nozzle pushes on the hot gas, putting a force on all that gas, directing it out the back of the rocket. The gas then returns the force but opposite direction on the rocket, accelerating the rocket forward.

I mean no offense, but you sound a little confused about how Newton's 3rd law works.

Here is a question to check your understanding: If a large dump truck and a small ford fiesta hit in a head-on collision, which vehicle has the greater impact force?    *hint: It's both. or neither. Their impact forces are the same.

*

Offline RhesusVX

  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • 1/137.03599913
    • View Profile
Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #88 on: November 17, 2020, 11:24:17 AM »
In your example, if the astronaut and bowling ball were drifting away from Earth at 60 m/s, after the push, the Astronaut may be only going now at 58.4 m/s and the bowling ball may be going at 71 m/s (remember, they have different masses, so different accelerations), but the center of the mass of the system continues to move at 60 m/s. You are correct in stating that the we can't accelerate the system without an outside force, the Center of Mass does continue to move at 60m/s away from Earth, un-accelerated). However, parts of that system just need to follow newton's laws, and they do.
You may be confused in the thinking the astronaut immediately would have a velocity back towards Earth of pushing the bowling ball, but that simply wouldn't happen.

That's a really good explanation, and per your latter point, exactly right - the act of pushing on one bowling ball wouldn't send them back towards Earth, it would simply reduce the velocity at which they are traveling away from it.  However, give the astronaut enough bowling balls to throw and eventually they would be able to reverse their direction, which is akin to gas being constantly ejected out of a rocket nozzle.

Hopefully this one can be amicably laid to rest as at least being considered plausible to everyone, as we can't just break physical laws.  In of itself though, it doesn't prove that space as defined exists or that we have been there, so those particular claims are still wide open for discussion, and on that note...  For those who claim NASA and other space agencies are basically just large movie studios with actors, what do you think of the recent dragon launches into space?  I don't think there can be any denying that a rocket was launched given the sheer number of witnesses, but is the rest of the footage considered fake, and did the rocket and contents simply fall back to Earth out at sea?

I know @james38 tried to bring some direction to the thread and focus it, and I'm as guilty as anybody for this little deviation, but I do think it was important to address the whole Newtons laws piece.  However, bringing it back around to where james38 was coming from, it basically came down to proving that NASA and other space agencies are not fake, and are in fact legitimate organisations doing what they say they are doing.  For them to be faking it, it's not just other space agencies that need to be in on it.  Pretty much all of academia needs to be too, plus thousands of other independent research institutions and even engineering companies who create things like radio equipment.  Even amateur backyard scientists are now able to use powerful telescopes to make observations and get cameras high enough up above the Earth along with equipment to measure atmospheric pressure, composition, temperature, altitude etc.  The notion that organisations like NASA and SpaceX can do a little bit better than that isn't so absurd, but the notion that we are all being lied to by millions of people around the world about space travel and, by some inference, the shape of the Earth sounds far more absurd to me.
Quote from:  Earth, Solar System, Oort Cloud, LIC, Local Bubble, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Laniakea Supercluster, Universe
"Sometimes you need to take a step back to see the bigger picture, and sometimes you need to think outside the box dome"

Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #89 on: November 18, 2020, 07:10:02 PM »
Gee it took a while, but I think I am finally caught up!

First, my (very late) response to james38's thread outline / summation post.

@james38

Quote
Of course, they aren't published science, but that doesn't mean we can't personally apply the scientific method in how we analyze them!

Videos cannot be subjected to the scientific method, only objective manifest reality can.  We can analyze, infer, estimate, sometimes even measure and arguably establish natural law (which is scientific, but not a part of the scientific method) But we can't experiment (or replicate in this case), which is required by the scientific method.

Quote
we are going to start sharing videos with each other?

Not me! Videos are poor evidence, but can be helpful at times.

Quote
Yeah, tv sucks. I don't even have cable.

It certainly does. It could be used for such good - perhaps one day.

Quote
So since we all agree that the whole thing hinges on NASA, let's get into it.

You may agree, but it is only because you have no doubt realized that, without nasa's "evidence", there exists no validation for the assumption of the sphericity of the world in all of human history.  It has merely been perpetually inferred and calculated.  Even if it were THEIR validation, it can never be ours and we can never replicate or validate any of it - this is not, and cannot be, science.  Surely demonstrating and determining the actual shape of the world shouldn't require abject appeal to authority (faith), right?

All this talk of nasa, fraud, and footage is red herring / tangential.  The existence or non-existence of any fraud is inconsequential to the shape of the earth and to ascertaining it with certainty.

Quote
1. Moon Rocks (just me so far)

I find, in my analysis, that the "moonrocks" are decidedly not from the moon nor do we have any evidence for their provenance.  In my view they were likely manufactured by the same untrustworthy source(s) they came from, but it is not impossible they come from the same actual location on earth, and are an odd sort of rock (we would expect it to be from a remote / deep / difficult to access location if this were the case).

Quote
2. "Bubbles and Harnesses"? (MarkAntony and Stack)

There are lots of compilations and footage analyses that exist showing both of these.  One astronot almost drowned on a "spacewalk".

Quote
3. Switching Views (MarkAntony)

Nasa has repeatedly violated the wonton trust that it originally had through hubris and nationalistic pride.  Nothing but rigorous and repeated independent oversight and replication of their "feats" will ever suffice.

Quote
4. Vacuum of Space (MarkAntony)

The natural laws we have established on earth are the best evidence that "space" does not and cannot exist.  The space suit rigidity concept is interesting, but there are many flaws about the suits to discuss.  The math is trivial, however I enjoy considering this example : A regulation basketball is inflated to 7.5 a 8.5 psi and is rock hard in air (15psi at sea level).  In a vacuum, there would be even less stress pushing against the pressure inside the ball and it would be even harder / more rigid.

Quote
5. The Conspiracy (MarkAntony and jack44556677)

Quote
The existence of a conspiracy has not been proven or disproven, simple as that.

Perhaps, in any case - it is irrelevant to the shape of the world.

Quote
6. Water Wringing Video and pre-CGI clips (Iceman2020 and Stack)

As markantony explained, the water wringing is likely pure cgi and prior to cgi a variety of techniques were used.  The skylab footage is likely a large converted airplane belly - but there are other ways to achieve the footage.

Quote
7. Antarctica (Mark Antony and jack44556677)

Also red herring and not relevant to the shape of the world.

Quote
8. Just some discussion

Quote
Rather, since the entire theory depends on the NASA conspiracy

Utterly incorrect. The shape of the earth, and its measurement, has nothing to do with any conspiracy or lack thereof.

Quote
And as we can see, that alone is a HUGE topic!

It's a distraction and a red herring.

Quote
since the NASA conspiracy does not logically depend on FET.

Nor vice versa, correct.

Quote
I don't anymore feel the need to contest the physics of FET at all in this thread.

Though contesting is rarely a good way to learn anything new, it is precisely the physics that we ought to be discussing.  It applies to both the shape of the world and the fantasy of "outer space".

@rhesusvx

Quote
Even if you take NASA and their “fake photos” out of the equation, there is still enough evidence to support the globe model

There damn well better be! Right?!

@james38

Quote
FET researchers are working hard to develop an alternate theory to describe our observations of reality based on the flat earth mode

Not really, no.  Models got us into this mess, and they won't be helping us to dig our way back out.  There is no flat earth model, nor is anyone out there looking to make observations consistent with it.  Zetetic (and actual/real) science is conducted in a different way than that.

Quote
FET would become more than just fun reading. It becomes an actual logical possibility.

I assure you, it is! Nasa has nothing to do with it, nor are they involved in the earnest analysis/evaluation of flat earth research products that, many of which, demonstrate the presumptive model is not consistent with observation.

Quote
I think we can both agree that you are merely explaining your version of how these videos could have been created but not providing any hard evidence that these videos are fake. [in your response to mark antony]

Explaining his analysis of the evidence is every bit as "hard", if not harder, as the evidence that these videos are real (which is none but abject appeal to authority, over the protests of the senses and natural law, mandated since childhood by conditioning through rote under the guise of education)

Quote
Argument 1: The pressures inside a spacesuit would be unrealistically high and render the spacesuit too rigid to be able to move. Although they eventually claimed to have hinges in the suit, this was only after the Apollo Era.

There are said to be MANY problems with the space suits.  The fact that they don't (and didn't) test them with human beings in them under vacuum is very telling.  The fact that the latest spacex ones were designed by a hollywood costume designer is equally telling - they were always costumes.

Quote
Argument 2: To avoid "the bends", NASA must have pumped hyperoxia-level amounts of oxygen into the astronaut's blood. Also, none of this was taken into account during the Apollo missions.

Apollo (and mercury before them) was breathing the straight 100% O2 with caution to the wind and very much 0 f*cks.  The "right stuff" people are cowboys - space monkeys and stick jockeys; they do stupid and reckless things by profession.  Yet more than one of them have felt, uncharacteristically for the profession AND the era, they had to publicly denounce the ability and competency of the apollo program.  It looked a bit too risky, even to hardened adrenaline addicted professional daredevils...
« Last Edit: November 19, 2020, 02:05:30 PM by jack44556677 »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1907
    • View Profile
Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #90 on: November 18, 2020, 08:24:22 PM »
Quote
So since we all agree that the whole thing hinges on NASA, let's get into it.

You may agree, but it is only because you have no doubt realized that, without nasa's "evidence", there exists no validation for the assumption of the sphericity of the world in all of human history.  It has merely been perpetually inferred and calculated.  Even if it were THEIR validation, it can never be ours and we can never replicate or validate any of it - this is not, and cannot be, science.  Surely demonstrating and determining the actual shape of the world shouldn't require abject appeal to authority (faith), right?

I suppose there are many things that "we can never replicate or validate." Does that make everything we cannot replicate and validate invalid?

Quote
1. Moon Rocks (just me so far)

I find, in my analysis, that the "moonrocks" are decidedly not from the moon nor do we have any evidence for their provenance.  In my view they were likely manufactured by the same untrustworthy source(s) they came from, but it is not impossible they come from the same actual location on earth, and are an odd sort of rock (we would expect it to be from a remote / deep / difficult to access location if this were the case).

What might your analysis be? I know of the case about a "moon rock" given to an ambassador (I think Denmark) that turned out to be petrified wood, or something like that. And I get there is certainly not an easy way to validate the provenance, but I wouldn't say we don't have "evidence" for said provenance. It's just that some believe that evidence is part of the conspiracy. Which is, of course, debatable unto itself.

Quote
2. "Bubbles and Harnesses"? (MarkAntony and Stack)

There are lots of compilations and footage analyses that exist showing both of these.  One astronot almost drowned on a "spacewalk".

I think I've seen all the compilations. Well, I'm sure not all, but dozens. And I have yet to come across anything that stands out as something that can't be explained. And yeah, the Italian who almost drowned in his suit, well, he almost drowned in his suit. That incident doesn't really speak to anything other than that fact. If you have a juicy, favorite compilation, incident, whathaveyou, pass it along. I always like reviewing those.

Quote
3. Switching Views (MarkAntony)

Nasa has repeatedly violated the wonton trust that it originally had through hubris and nationalistic pride.  Nothing but rigorous and repeated independent oversight and replication of their "feats" will ever suffice.

What government agency hasn't?

Quote
4. Vacuum of Space (MarkAntony)

The natural laws we have established on earth are the best evidence that "space" does not and cannot exist.  The space suit rigidity concept is interesting, but there are many flaws about the suits to discuss.  The math is trivial, however I enjoy considering this example : A regulation basketball is inflated to 7.5 a 8.5 psi and is rock hard in air (15psi at sea level).  In a vacuum, there would be even less stress pushing against the pressure inside the ball and it would be even harder / more rigid.

I know of no natural law that states "space" does not and cannot exist. What natural law are you referring to?

Quote
6. Water Wringing Video and pre-CGI clips (Iceman2020 and Stack)

As markantony explained, the water wringing is likely pure cgi and prior to cgi a variety of techniques were used.  The skylab footage is likely a large converted airplane belly - but there are other ways to achieve the footage.

The water wringing is just as likely, if not more so, actual water wringing and not CGI. Just because something could be convincingly replicated in a computer generated manner doesn't mean it was. There's no evidence that it wasn't a guy wringing water in a zero G environment inside the ISS.
As for sklylab, there are many clips that exceed the durational limitations of the Vomit Comet type simulations. So I would say the big bellied plane is not the answer. As for cables and such, there's no evidence of that either. Evidence of such is crucial, none to be found here.

Quote
Rather, since the entire theory depends on the NASA conspiracy
Utterly incorrect. The shape of the earth, and its measurement, has nothing to do with any conspiracy or lack thereof.

I don't really get this. If there is no NASA fraud/conspiracy, and all of the engineering, data, images, videos, launches, probes, landings, etc., that somehow relay the shape of the earth to us is real, then that's that. Earth is a globe. End of story. So for FET to remain viable it must discount all of the engineering, data, images, videos, launches, probes, landings, etc., as fakery and that would require a conspiracy. I'm not saying the entirety of FET, but I have yet to come across any NASA-believing FET proponents. So it does seem that FET is heavily reliant upon the conspiracy.

Quote
Argument 1: The pressures inside a spacesuit would be unrealistically high and render the spacesuit too rigid to be able to move. Although they eventually claimed to have hinges in the suit, this was only after the Apollo Era.

There are said to be MANY problems with the space suits.  The fact that they don't (and didn't) test them with human beings in them under vacuum is very telling.  The fact that the latest spacex ones were designed by a hollywood costume designer is equally telling - they were always costumes.

This is incorrect, they did test spacesuits with humans in a vacuum and in one instance almost killed a guy:

In 1966 Jim le Blanc was exposed to a near-vacuum with almost disastrous consequences
https://www.spaceanswers.com/space-exploration/incredible-footage-of-a-nasa-test-subject-being-exposed-to-a-space-like-vacuum/

Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #91 on: November 19, 2020, 08:04:06 AM »

Quote
What other kind of 'proof' is required?

There is only one way to determine the shape of the earth (or any physical objects) with certainty -  rigorous and repeated measurement of the earth. Sailors are busy doing other things, as I am sure you are well aware.
[/quote]

Of the current correspondents on this thread I think RonJ is probably the closest to a subject-matter expert and he may like to comment on my post, but can I suggest that bridge officers on a merchant ship have actually got nothing better to do than measure the size of the earth, rigorously and repeatedly? 

Pre- and post-GPS in the 20th/21st centuries they have been sailing both hemispheres using global charts, navigating by radio aids, astronomical sightings, physical landmarks, depth soundings, inertial navigation, and dead reckoning, on waters with known currents and in conditions of known and predicted windspeed.  They know the theoretical distance from Point A to Point B and, travelling at a planned speed, they generally get to Point B on schedule. 

And are you suggesting that, for instance, the crew of a scheduled flight from New Zealand to Chile don't know the distance of the intended journey?  How much fuel are they supposed to carry?  When should they expect to arrive? 

If you've travelled at a known speed for a known time, you've measured the distance. 


*

Offline RhesusVX

  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • 1/137.03599913
    • View Profile
Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #92 on: November 19, 2020, 09:38:10 AM »
I don't really get this. If there is no NASA fraud/conspiracy, and all of the engineering, data, images, videos, launches, probes, landings, etc., that somehow relay the shape of the earth to us is real, then that's that. Earth is a globe. End of story. So for FET to remain viable it must discount all of the engineering, data, images, videos, launches, probes, landings, etc., as fakery and that would require a conspiracy. I'm not saying the entirety of FET, but I have yet to come across any NASA-believing FET proponents. So it does seem that FET is heavily reliant upon the conspiracy.

I completely agree.  While jack44556677 is correct in saying that the actual shape of the Earth has nothing to do with NASA or any conspiracy directly, they have a lot to do with providing visual proof, which seems to be at the heart of every Zetetic inquirer - observe then conclude.  That such visual proof would basically be the end of FET as we know it, it's understandable that it just gets brushed under the carpet as a conspiracy, and a massive global one at that, not only including other space agencies, but requiring research facilities, educational establishments, engineers and scientists the world over to be in on the act.

Pre- and post-GPS in the 20th/21st centuries they have been sailing both hemispheres using global charts, navigating by radio aids, astronomical sightings, physical landmarks, depth soundings, inertial navigation, and dead reckoning, on waters with known currents and in conditions of known and predicted windspeed.  They know the theoretical distance from Point A to Point B and, travelling at a planned speed, they generally get to Point B on schedule. 

And are you suggesting that, for instance, the crew of a scheduled flight from New Zealand to Chile don't know the distance of the intended journey?  How much fuel are they supposed to carry?  When should they expect to arrive? 

If you've travelled at a known speed for a known time, you've measured the distance.

This is one of the key things for me, and it doesn't matter what the actual units are.  Whether it's miles and hours, or km and days, if you use the same units all of the time you will get pretty accurate distances between land masses and hence their relative positions with each other on the surface.  With the sheer amount of global navigation happening by land, sea and air, it's reasonable to take these things as agreed, known quantities.  Taking those, you simply cannot create a flat map of all of the continents and maintain those same relative distances.  It just doesn't work - something somewhere has to give.

If indeed the Earth were to be flat, that would mean that every single piece of navigation equipment, and hence anything related to do with measuring speed, distance, time, direction and location would have to be engineered in such a way that it gives the impression that we are traveling around a globe.  This is why any conspiracy goes way beyond just NASA and space travel, it includes all of the technology that we use in our daily lives.
Quote from:  Earth, Solar System, Oort Cloud, LIC, Local Bubble, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Laniakea Supercluster, Universe
"Sometimes you need to take a step back to see the bigger picture, and sometimes you need to think outside the box dome"

Offline james38

  • *
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #93 on: November 20, 2020, 05:36:39 PM »
(Part 1 of 2)

All caught up! Thanks, everyone for your interesting replies.

First, Some Meta Points

Firstly, I'm categorizing people here as FET proponents and RET proponents for practical purposes. I know what you are thinking Jack, no I don't mean this literally, I just need some way to categorize people! :)

I'm with Jack that we should all be "earnestly engaged in the pursuit of truth". We come here with many opposing views which means we all have a lot to learn from each other. But with opposing views, competitive language is inevitable.

Nobody here is "crazy". We all have human errors in our judgment. As Jack said, "rigorously attack the thoughts - just never the thinker".

I've found it helpful to admit publically when this conversation has helped change my view in any way. It fosters trust in each other. If you find your views haven't changed or grown at all, it might behoove you to ask yourself if you're here with an open mind.

One thing I think we should all start to ask ourselves is why every one of us seems to fall in a "belief camp". Why are there not many people who are in the middle, or unsure? We should all humbly admit our own bias before looking at anyone else. And we should find common ground.

Speaking of common ground, we all need to back up our claims. Citing references for as many of our claims as possible is critical for keeping this thread constructive. Everybody should take responsibility for backing up their own claims, with citations. @Jack I appreciate that you want people to develop their own research skills, but in a context such as this where there we both know there is a muk of disinformation, the best way we can communicate is to validate our own claims on the spot with sources. Ideally a URL to something that people can read or watch. Peer-reviewed published articles are highly dependable, but not the only acceptable sources. In rigorous scientific or technical writing, backing up pretty much every statement you make is a standard procedure and it prevents the spread of disinformation.

Approaches to discussing FET

There are many approaches to think about the shape of the Earth. Many fields of science, space flight, religion, history, philosophy, even rating and appeal to emotion just to name a few broad categories. It's counter-productive for anyone to call someone else's approach a red herring. And I may have been guilty of this in some form in the past, and I apologize for it. When we tell someone their approach is invalid, we are blatantly cherry-picking conversations that are in our comfort zone and succumbing to confirmation bias.

Space flight remains my favorite approach simply because from a quick google search (can't back this up), it looks like possibly 10-20% of Americans might believe the moon landings were faked. So at the very least, this might be the most relevant part of our discussion here to the general public. It also gives us the chance to share the burden of proof, since we can examine proposed evidence for the conspiracy right alongside evidence of space travel.

The Conspiracy

Mark, Jack, and the tfes wiki have been helpful for me to understand that the view of the conspiracy is that it can be very small. I think I speak for many RET proponents when I say that we view the conspiracy as necessarily large, and possibly global, involving multiple governments and 3rd party research institutions. This conversation doesn't need to end with us just "agreeing to disagree" in my opinion. Discussing evidence related to "how large or small the conspiracy would need to be" seems like a proper proxy conversation for discussing RET and FET in general, since it is such a critical part of both side's views. I recognize I need to research more into the list of evidence for the conspiracy in the tfes wiki page before I can delve deeper into this.

The Conspiracy: Thomas Baron
 
Quote from: jack44556677
I do agree that it could all be coincidence, and that thomas baron could have been killed for gambling debts (for all we know), but I don't believe in coincidences
Statistically speaking, coincidences are inevitable. That's why a single coincidence is not strong evidence. There are statistical methods to answer whether a pattern of events is coincidental or meaningful. Since we cannot quantify "the number of Thomas Baron incidents", we look at the other kinds of evidence that might exist. Again, I haven't seen it yet, but when I have the chance I'll read through the links in the wiki.

The Conspiracy: Mars Rat

Here's the picture

https://storiesbywilliams.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/mars_rat1.jpg?w=700&h=428

Quote from: jack44556677
[The evidence that the NASA's expeditions were faked] doesn't get any harder!  The only evidence that exists of "space" writ large is that footage.  Finding obvious and blatant fraud in it is the best that can be hoped for.
I hope we're miscommunicating here! After all of your talk about precise measurements, I can't believe that you would call a rock that looks vaguely like a rat "obvious and blatant fraud". I mean, don't get me wrong, that rock is mildly interesting for sure. But you do not know it is a rat.


Societal Opression

Jack and Mark have often made remarks about oppression in education, academia, and society in general. I'm afraid we aren't taking these points seriously enough. If I've only learned one thing here, it's that we as a society have not been welcoming enough to FET.

I want to hear and talk more about these concerns.

When it comes to education, I'm wondering if any FET proponents have put forward any sort of proposals for changes to curriculums?

When it comes to academia, I admit I may be missing something here but I don't personally see the issue. I am a scientific researcher, and I know first-hand that the scientific community has some of the most creative, open-minded, welcoming,  and "nutty" people you can imagine. Mark said, "no scientific journal or phd student would risk their livlehood researching [FET]". This couldn't be farther from the truth!

If a researcher in any scientific field could conduct an experiment that changed our understanding of the shape of our world, they would jump on that opportunity. Scientists LOVE to disprove old theories. There's no greater pleasure. And research institutions love to fund research that will get a lot of attention, even negative attention. Any attention at all can be profitable. If there was a technically feasible experiment that could challenge the theory the earth is a globe, someone would conduct it.

Look, I know I'm biased and many have more negative views about academia. But the bottom line is, you cannot claim that academia is acting oppressively against FET without evidence. Have there been any specific experiment proposals that have ever been rejected by a research institution, or any other evidence of oppression by academia? Or is it possible that we just don't have the technology yet to make the necessary measurements?

Lastly, Jack made statements like "Dissent/Disagreement was not an option.", and about you being "severely punished". Those are serious allegations since the 1st amendment (apologies if you aren't American) protects the freedom of speech. Would anyone mind sharing instances that this happened to you? How were you or other members of the community "severely punished"?

Offline james38

  • *
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #94 on: November 20, 2020, 05:36:58 PM »
(part 2 of 2)



"Moonrocks"

So to review, I'm claiming here that a 1973 experiment on supposed moon rocks (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0016703773901907) is an important consideration when questioning how large the conspiracy needs to be. This experiment was conducted by researchers at the Department of Chemistry and The Radiation Center, Oregon State University. In this experiment, it was found lunar rock samples provided by NASA and the Russian Luna programs are "nearly identical in chemical composition". The Luna samples were provided by Professor Alexander Vinogradox of the Soviet Academy of Sciences.

Because the rocks had nearly identical chemical compositions, they came from the same source. If that source was not the moon, then you must consider not only what it took for the conspirators to ensure this experiment had the fake results they needed, but also the considerable risk they would be taking by involving so many people. I could go on a huge speculative rant about how large this operation would need to be, but I don't want this to get too long. FET proponents, I hope when you see something like this, you can at least understand how RET proponents can see the conspiracy as being absurd.

Radiometric dating

To review, Jack shared an article with which is part of his claim that radiometric dating does not work: https://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html Apologies I cannot read through the entire thing, but I read the introduction and conclusion to get as much of an understanding as I could.

Jack, thank you for sharing this. It's interesting, but here are my problems with it:
1. It is not peer-reviewed and does not seem to be published in a journal
2. The author seems to be a creation scientist or at least references a creation scientist (Jon Covey, http://www.creationinthecrossfire.org/author/joncoveyhotmail-com/) for source material. Creationism is an overt pseudoscience. Presenting unfalsifiable claims from the bible, relying on confirmation bias, and still calling these claims science is the definition of pseudoscience.
3. At best, this article invalidates specific instances of radiometric dating. It is illogical to assume that when one instance of a piece of technology breaks that therefore it will break in all circumstances

All of this being said, I've honestly forgotten why dating is relevant! The "moonrocks" point I made is focused on a chemical comparison between specimens.

"Space"

@Jack, you gave me a lot to think about here, which I appreciate. So to review, your initial claim was that "space" violates natural laws. You elaborated that the natural laws that are violated are the natural behavior of gas and energy as well as the 2nd law of thermodynamics. In your explaination, you also invoked pascal's law and claimed gravity as we know it doesn't exist.

I'm not a physicist. So I'll probably botch this, but here goes!

We can start by thinking about a thermos cup. It's a partial vacuum that we can hold in our hands. The reason the air doesn't rush in, as you eloquently explained, is the barrier. So I can understand why "space" seems counterintuitive. Why doesn't the atmosphere rush into space since there is no barrier?

The short answer is the higher the altitude, the lower the pressure. You can think about this a couple of ways. One is mathematical, with the barometric formula (https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Barometric_formula). But even just by simple measurement, we know that air pressure changes with elevation. This is how pressure altimeters work (https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Altimeter), which planes depend on.

So the higher the elevation, the lower the pressure, the thinner the air, the fewer the particles, and eventually you can start calling it "space". There is no absolute cutoff between the atmosphere and "space". It's just a gradual decline in the number of particles. I don't think there's any formal definition or threshold for when we call it space, but I do know that it's technically a partial vacuum, not an absolute vacuum, of course.

So then you present this problem:
Quote from: jack44556677
To allow a partial vacuum (the only kind nature will allow) to persist against all the laws of nature takes a lot of work and continued effort
There is no continuous work being done to preserve our partial vacuum in our thermos cups. No energy is being expended. The pressure that the outer atmosphere exerts on the wall of the cup is equal and opposite to the pressure exerted from the rigid body of the thermos cup wall. The system is in equilibrium.

Likewise, the entire atmosphere is in a pressure equilibrium. If you imagine a single air particle, you may ask why it doesn't travel into the lower-pressure "space" above it. The answer is that the force of gravity pushes it downwards. This is why, on average, air particles are moving up as much as they are moving down, and the atmosphere as a whole doesn't fizzle out into space. And because the force of gravity decreases with elevation (https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation), the pressure does too.

So to respond to some more of your specific claims:

Quote from: jack44556677
The earth, where we study reality through science, has sustained positive gas pressure.
Pressure changes both vertically and horizontally, as measured by pressure altimeters and barometers.

Quote from: jack44556677
When considering the earth and the edge of "space" as a system, the second law of thermodynamics has a problem with the sustained concentration of matter/energy (most specifically gas) next to the absence of it.  That work/heat/energy must diffuse into the available area.  It's a law.  It can do so in varying amounts of time, and we will likely need to talk of that (briefly), however in general it takes less than the order of days for thermal and/or gas pressure equilibrium to be reached when there is no obstruction to doing so.
I think I am mostly with you with all of this. However, the 2nd law allows for entropy to remain constant when in equilibrium. And when we consider gravity, we do indeed have an equilibrium.

Quote from: jack44556677
This problem is compounded by the natural behavior of gas - gas law.  If you place a partial vacuum and put any volume of gas into it - that gas diffuses very quickly.  I recognize these words are imprecise, but I hope you can agree (with the sentiment at least) and/or follow anyhow.
Most of our small scale, in-hand experiments (like with a thermos cup) will not have a significant variation in gravity across the vertical plane. So we get to see a system where atmospheric pressure and the normal force of any rigid bodies are the only ones that matter, without any significant variation in the force of gravity across the "altitude" of a few inches.

Quote from: jack44556677
If the container is large enough, a pressure gradient will become more apparent (it was always there) as defined by pascals law. 
Pascal's law is about incompressible fluids. Air is compressible. I also am struggling to understand where Pascal's law fits here.

Quote from: jack44556677
This is as a result of the weight of the gas, which also does not hinder gas from its natural and readily demonstrable behavior - namely of always diffusing/expanding to fill a container as homogonously as possible (in accordance with pascals law, and for the same reasons). Weight, is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter - not "imbued" by magic "fields".
I don't know what you mean about Pascal's law having to do with the weight of the fluid. Pascal's law is defined as:

delta p = pg * delta h
p is pressure, g is acceleration due to gravity, h is the height of the fluid

Without going into detail here, we can already see the weight of the fluid is not involved. And again, Pascal's law is about incompressible fluids and air is compressible.

And just a side note, I would completely support an experiment that measures the force of gravity across altitudes.

Spacesuits

Quote from: jack44556677
Quote from: james38
Argument 1: The pressures inside a spacesuit would be unrealistically high and render the spacesuit too rigid to be able to move. Although they eventually claimed to have hinges in the suit, this was only after the Apollo Era.
There are said to be MANY problems with the space suits.  The fact that they don't (and didn't) test them with human beings in them under vacuum is very telling.  The fact that the latest spacex ones were designed by a hollywood costume designer is equally telling - they were always costumes.
1. What is your evidence that we didn't test spacesuits in vacuums? There are videos showing we did.
2. As of now, it looks like we debunked Mark Antony's claims about spacesuits. Here, Jack, it sounds like you are just saying "we have more spacesuit claims!". If you do, that's great! But first, can you acknowledge that we debunked the previous ones?

Quote from: jack44556677
Quote from: james38
Argument 2: To avoid "the bends", NASA must have pumped hyperoxia-level amounts of oxygen into the astronaut's blood. Also, none of this was taken into account during the Apollo missions.
Apollo (and mercury before them) was breathing the straight 100% O2 with caution to the wind and very much 0 f*cks.  The "right stuff" people are cowboys - space monkeys and stick jockeys; they do stupid and reckless things by profession.  Yet more than one of them have felt, uncharacteristically for the profession AND the era, they had to publicly denounce the ability and competency of the apollo program.  It looked a bit too risky, even to hardened adrenaline addicted professional daredevils...

Sorry, can you explain your point here like I'm 5? I can't tell if you are countering our debunk of Mark Antony's claim about the oxygen levels or if you are just making a joke xD

Relevent quote from @jack44556677:
Quote from: jack44556677
The natural laws we have established on earth are the best evidence that "space" does not and cannot exist.  The space suit rigidity concept is interesting, but there are many flaws about the suits to discuss.  The math is trivial, however I enjoy considering this example : A regulation basketball is inflated to 7.5 a 8.5 psi and is rock hard in air (15psi at sea level).  In a vacuum, there would be even less stress pushing against the pressure inside the ball and it would be even harder / more rigid.
Sorry, I followed your logic all the way through but I think I missed the part where "space" couldn't exist!

Spheres in Nature

Quote from: @RhesusVX
Something being round is one of natures most preferred forms, and is the lowest energy configuration for most systems, like bubbles in water, bubbles in air, or water droplets falling to the ground.  The Sun is round, the Moon is round, and all of the planets we observe are round.
I've been thinking about this too, and I think it's a really good point. Especially bubbles, which are not just round but spherical!

Quote from: jack44556677
Round-ish, possibly.  Spherical, essentially never.  But this whole approach is garbage.  The "elegance" of the platonic shapes has no bearing on reality, nor are aesthetics a good way to determine science from pseudoscience.

This is not at all a garbage approach. First of all, the Earth in RET is not a perfect sphere, nobody is talking about perfect spheres! Secondly, you're putting up a straw man when you say he is talking about aesthetics. You yourself recently said the vacuum of space doesn't exist because "nature abhors it", which turned out to be your way of introducing a much more detailed argument. Similarly, bringing up the existence of round objects such as raindrops, bubbles, and other planets/moons/stars is valid (but needs to be substantiated).

In a 3 dimensional space, a sphere is a shape in which all points are the same distance from the center point. Therefore, this shape has the lowest surface area to volume ratio possible. When soap bubbles form, they become spherical for this exact reason. Observing this principle with bubbles is a perfectly reasonable approach to understanding the shape of the world considering that a bunch of matter in space clumping together by the force of gravity will form a sphere due to the same principle of reducing surface area.

Misc.

Quote from: jack44556677
The tides are in no way caused by the moon. The frequency, timing, location, and amplitude all do not correspond causally (or otherwise in most all cases) to the moon nor any other light in the sky.
What is your source of this information?

Quote from: jack44556677
I know that water's surface does not curve at rest and this makes the vast majority of the water on earth (+70% by our estimates), essentially, flat.
Using your own rhetoric, you do not know this. You have not measured the curvature of the Earth's oceans, so you can not make this claim!

By the way Jack, I'm sorry I couldn't respond to everything but I fully support you in your experiments to directly measure the world's shape, and I think the ring "theory" is fun to think about and hope you keep us updated with these lines of research. And if there's anything important I missed in your responses, please feel free to let me know!

Quote from: jack44556677
Let's leave gps and "satellites" out of it for the time being, unless you insist.
I insist :)  I'm very curious about what you, Mark, and others think about them.

Quote from: Mark Antony
I posted a video of an ex-CIA senior agent refer to NASA as "Not A Space Agency" and that "this is where the bulk of the mind control happens" and yet time and time again people ignore it and want to discuss my comment on the rockets.
Thank you for saying this! I admit, I was going to miss this one and that's some serious bias on my part. So I did a quick search of him online and not a ton came up. I did find what seemed to be his personal website (https://robertdavidsteele.com/) as well as this: https://america-wake-up.com/2020/11/16/9471/, are these all the same guy? What was his position in the CIA? Is he just making claims, or has he brought any physical evidence to the table? I would gladly engage with you more about him, but I don't really know enough about him. For now, it just seems like a guy who claims to have worked in the CIA and saying things without any physical evidence. I'm not saying that's not worth considering, but is my description accurate?

Also, @Mark Antony, speaking of selective evidence and confirmation bias, I don't think you ever responded to my reply#47. (Though I know the conversation was getting a bit overwhelming at that point, so I can completely understand missing it). We were discussing your claim that space suits are evidence against NASA's expeditions, and I had compiled some counter-claims there. Stack and Longitube had also supported what I said in replies #48 and #50, and I unless I missed it, I don't think you have responded yet. You might have seen the section in this reply above where I responded to Jack's comments on that conversation. Do you think our debunk holds true? let us know :)

Quote from: @DuncanDoenitz
Of the current correspondents on this thread I think RonJ is probably the closest to a subject-matter expert and he may like to comment on my post, but can I suggest that bridge officers on a merchant ship have actually got nothing better to do than measure the size of the earth, rigorously and repeatedly?

Agreed. Also, airlines who fly around Antarctica measure the length between points in that region those distances are incompatible with Antarctica being a ring.

Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #95 on: November 21, 2020, 12:42:13 AM »
My, oh my where do I even begin. Maybe a mod could move this over to a dedicated thread?



This is a nice demo of force generation for  the rockets / Newton's third discussion.

There is clear bias in that experiment. He only flashes the fans on for a second when the panels are not connected but then powers them to full speed when they are connected. Regardless of this, it doesn't prove that rockets work in space as the car is propelled by the air pressure build up behind the panels, hence the car is still pushing off air.


I think MarkAntony’s problem with physics is there’s no consideration of momentum, so there “has” to be “something” to push against.

You might be right Longtitube, but wouldn't like to say.

For me, the reason why I honed in on the whole "rockets don't work in space thing" is (admittedly) firstly because of the stated reluctance to talk about it as that rings alarm bells somewhat, but largely because it is a misinterpretation of the consequences of the physical laws.  I understand why it would get claimed as it helps support the perceived absurdity of space, space travel and therefore any evidence from it.  I'm OK with the notion that something might seem ludicrous or even impossible (i.e. photos of Earth or videos on board the ISS), but less so when some of that notion is based on incorrect science.

Incorrect science? The cornerstone of your argument relies on the assumption that because Newton's 3rd law is satisfied, his other laws are redundant. Why even discuss momentum when you haven't resolved your forces at the point of contact? You and your comrades brought up magically appearing walls, gun recoil, grenades along with videos of crude experiments that, despite trying to illustrate a fundamental idea, couldn't do so without obvious and shameless bias. This is why I am reluctant to talk about it.

I do think it was important to address the whole Newtons laws piece
You didn't address Newton's laws at all, the inconvenient 1st law was violated on every turn!

Hopefully this one can be amicably laid to rest as at least being considered plausible to everyone, as we can't just break physical laws.
I was reluctant to start the debate (for the reasons above around Newton's 1st law) but you seem adamant on ending it, which says a lot about the respective comfort levels with the discussion.  I'm not here to convince you of anything either, you have clearly made up your mind. The lurkers and members in pursuit of knowledge need to see the holes in the logic of space flight. This debate is absolutely not over.


I completely agree with the statement that you cannot push off against yourself.  However, rockets don't push off against themselves, in simplistic terms they push off against the exhaust which is external to the system at an instance in time. 
How can you push off something that is moving away from you? That's a physical impossibility.

Now hold onto a fire extinguisher and release its contents - you'll move in the opposite direction to where you pointed the nozzle.  None of this has anything to do with air pressure or pushing against air, and everything to do with mass being ejected. 
How can you say so definitively that it has nothing to do with pushing off air? You are drawing assumptions based on opinion rather than conclusions based on experimentation.


If a ball were thrown away from you in space it would stop accelerating immediately after it left your hand.  The reason for that would be, no force, no acceleration (F=MA).  After the ball left your hand it would continue forever in the direction thrown.  In order for it to slow down it would have to be influenced by a force external.  Energy can neither be created nor destroyed so in order for a ball to 'run out of energy' it would have to give that energy to some other mass, but in space there's no other mass to give it to.  There would be no force external.
This paragraph serves to disprove the ability of a rocket to maneuver in space.


Not exactly, I said it would travel away from you at 10m/s until it runs out of energy i.e. the ball will accelerate away from you then decelerate until it's relative velocity is zero. There is an internal force between you and the bowling ball but after the event has taken place both you and the ball will be stationary relative to the earth and to each other (albeit further apart). The only thing that can disrupt this system is a force external!

This is not the case.
If we are in space, outside of LEO, frictional forces are minimal. If you are holding a heavy bowling ball that is 1/10th your mass and you push it away from you, you will accelerate in the opposite direction at 1/10 the rate. This is not a violation of any of Newton's Laws. His 3rd Law loosely states: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Most people get confused on this one because they think the action/reaction forces happen on the same object, but they don't. The Action here is you pushing on bowling ball with a Force. The Reaction is the bowling ball pushing on you with an equal sized force. Your acceleration and the bowling ball acceleration are not equal because you have 10x the mass, 10x the inertia. This also conserves momentum. If it is in space, the bowling ball when then keep its velocity, never speeding up or slowing down or turning until on 'outside' force acted on it. 
The relative movement between the spaceman and the bowling ball is irrelevant as it is internal. What do I mean when I say it's internal? The relative velocity between the spaceman and the ball is zero therefore the acceleration is zero, if the acceleration is zero then the net force on the system (spaceman and ball) is zero -> F=ma -> F=0. Therefore you simply cannot acquire an external force from something that forms part of your system.
Pushing off the ball achieves nothing other than creating a displacement between yourself and the ball. Your speed and direction relative to the earth remains unchanged. An unfortunate reality for the spaceman - he can throw it as hard as he wants, it changes nothing. The same applies to NASA's rocket.

In your example, if the astronaut and bowling ball were drifting away from Earth at 60 m/s, after the push, the Astronaut may be only going now at 58.4 m/s and the bowling ball may be going at 71 m/s (remember, they have different masses, so different accelerations), but the center of the mass of the system continues to move at 60 m/s. You are correct in stating that the we can't accelerate the system without an outside force, the Center of Mass does continue to move at 60m/s away from Earth, un-accelerated). However, parts of that system just need to follow newton's laws, and they do.
This assumes the ball is accelerating forever relative to the spaceman. To achieve this the spaceman would have to exert infinite work/energy on the ball (w=fs, e=w/t) which is physically impossible.

You may be confused in the thinking the astronaut immediately would have a velocity back towards Earth of pushing the bowling ball, but that simply wouldn't happen.

I mean no offense, but you sound a little confused about how Newton's 3rd law works.
I mean no offense either but I think it is you who is confused here.
Lex I: Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus a viribus impressis cogitur statum illum mutare.
-Hooke, Halley, Newton

Nos appropinquare

Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #96 on: November 21, 2020, 12:44:21 AM »
(part 2 of 2)

Spacesuits

1. What is your evidence that we didn't test spacesuits in vacuums? There are videos showing we did.
2. As of now, it looks like we debunked Mark Antony's claims about spacesuits. Here, Jack, it sounds like you are just saying "we have more spacesuit claims!". If you do, that's great! But first, can you acknowledge that we debunked the previous ones?
Whoa, hold your horses! Nothing about the spacesuits was debunked. As jack mentioned earlier in the thread, even at 5-6psi the pressure differential between the inside and outside would render the suit incredibly rigid and cumbersome to maneuver. There is no footage of apollo astronauts in the hinged suits that were linked, all the footage shows them in flexible fabric suits. And even though NASA claim modern era suits have hinges/bearings - none of the footage suggests this is so. See from 1:52 in this ISS repair video:



Her fluid hand and arm movements clearly indicate no hinges at the joints.


Sorry, can you explain your point here like I'm 5? I can't tell if you are countering our debunk of Mark Antony's claim about the oxygen levels or if you are just making a joke xD
The point I made on the hyperoxia I will wave the white flag on. Pure oxygen at atmospheric pressure would cause hyperoxia but not at lower pressures. Reading up on scuba diving science confirmed this satisfactorily for me.


Quote from: jack44556677
Let's leave gps and "satellites" out of it for the time being, unless you insist.
I insist :)  I'm very curious about what you, Mark, and others think about them.
All of these technologies use dishes and antennae that are firmly fixed on the ground. The convenience of the earth being flat means that aeroplanes have a direct line of sight to the dishes which is important for radio transmission. Antennae use different technology that manipulates the natural voltage differences at different altitudes. A technology created by the greatest inventor ever - Nikola Tesla.
Lex I: Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus a viribus impressis cogitur statum illum mutare.
-Hooke, Halley, Newton

Nos appropinquare

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1907
    • View Profile
Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #97 on: November 21, 2020, 01:03:21 AM »
Now hold onto a fire extinguisher and release its contents - you'll move in the opposite direction to where you pointed the nozzle.  None of this has anything to do with air pressure or pushing against air, and everything to do with mass being ejected. 
How can you say so definitively that it has nothing to do with pushing off air? You are drawing assumptions based on opinion rather than conclusions based on experimentation.

A quick little demo. Air has nothing to do with it. Based upon experimentation. Skip to :35.

Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #98 on: November 21, 2020, 01:08:17 AM »

A quick little demo. Air has nothing to do with it. Based upon experimentation. Skip to :35.

Air has everything to do with it. If he used a lighter beach ball of higher surface area, he would be pushed back further.
Lex I: Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus a viribus impressis cogitur statum illum mutare.
-Hooke, Halley, Newton

Nos appropinquare

*

Online Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 655
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« Reply #99 on: November 21, 2020, 01:09:11 AM »
My, oh my where do I even begin. Maybe a mod could move this over to a dedicated thread?



This is a nice demo of force generation for  the rockets / Newton's third discussion.

There is clear bias in that experiment. He only flashes the fans on for a second when the panels are not connected but then powers them to full speed when they are connected. Regardless of this, it doesn't prove that rockets work in space as the car is propelled by the air pressure build up behind the panels, hence the car is still pushing off air.

This response demonstrates nothing except your inability to understand the relations between Newtons third and rocketry.