[stack]

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.

How do you figure that? Have you invalidated Newton's Third?

The medicine ball in the experiment is about the size of a basketball. Would you expect that the individual would be pushed backward to the same extent with two equally sized surface area objects, one with the mass of a basketball and one with the mass of a medicine ball? Do you really think the air resistance between the two same area objects but with different masses would render the equal results?

I suggest you try it at home. You might find something interesting.

[james38]

I had to research and learn quite a bit for this reply!

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.

I think you're correct that the pressure differential between the inside and outside of the suit renders it rigid. So the conversation here comes down to the existence of hinges in the suits if I understand correctly.

There is no footage of apollo astronauts in the hinged suits that were linked, all the footage shows them in flexible fabric suits.

Do you mean like this, a the 1:00:00 mark?

And even though NASA claim modern era suits have hinges/bearings

They also explained the apollo era suits hinges(joints) in the 1971 Apollo Extravehicular Mobiity Unit. Volume 1: System Description (see here https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-EMU1.pdf)

The pages themselves aren't numbered, but it's the 33rd page in the pdf. It reads:

The torso, upper and lower arms, legs, boots, and restraint
cables are integrated to form the TLSA pressurizable vessel.
This vessel includes convoluted joints which permit low-torque
body movements and a near-constant-volume gas displacement
within the PGA during normal joint flexure.

- none of the footage suggests this is so [(that modern era suits have hinges/bearing)]. See from 1:52 in this ISS repair video:

[]

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

Peggy Whitson here must be wearing the Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) (https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Extravehicular_Mobility_Unit). This documentation here (https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/188963main_Extravehicular_Mobility_Unit.pdf) mentions that there is a wrist joint and an elbow joint. When it comes to fingers, it explains:

The two gloves have fingertips of silicone rubber that permit
some degree of sensitivity in handling tools and
other objects

This is in line with the video you shared, in which she is able to rotate her wrists as well as maneuver her fingers to a limited degree.

Do you think it's fair for me to call this one debunked now, or is there still a flaw in what I'm saying somewhere?

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.

Interesting. I didn't know much telecommunication tech before, so I'm reading up on it now. So my understanding is that cell towers and satellite dishes transmit to and receive from communication satellites.

So if what you are saying is that communications satellites aren't real, here a few problems we have to solve:

1. If you are working on installing a satellite dish, pointing it towards a geosynchronous communication satellite is a regular part of the process. Here's an app I found that helps people do it (https://www.dishpointer.com/).
2. Here is a satellite dish troubleshoot guide, in which realigning it point at the communications satellite is a part of the process (https://satgist.com/how-to-fix-satellite-dish-signal-no-signal/).
3. You can see satellites and the ISS yourself through telescopes (https://telescopebuddy.com/can-you-see-satellites-with-a-telescope/).

Very curious about how you think about these problems.

[Mark Antony]

I had to research and learn quite a bit for this reply!

The two gloves have fingertips of silicone rubber that permit
some degree of sensitivity in handling tools and
other objects

This is in line with the video you shared, in which she is able to rotate her wrists as well as maneuver her fingers to a limited degree.

Do you think it's fair for me to call this one debunked now, or is there still a flaw in what I'm saying somewhere?

You can draw whatever conclusions you want from your own research and if my arguments haven't convinced you of anything then that's fine. However, using the word "debunked" (a word I hate) assumes you have proven me wrong and that the space suits are feasible. I disagree with this. I tend to approach the space suit argument giving NASA the benefit of the doubt with the details they give us. But even so, I think the space suits are still very much implausible  i.e. a pressure differential of 5-6psi would still render the suit impractically rigid.

Putting NASA's science aside, my real opinion of how space suits and any vessel for that matter would perform in space is far different. Assuming there is only a 6psi pressure differential in the suits is a huge and unrealistic assumption in a practical sense (even for NASA's standards it's a bit of a joke). Just think about it, the vacuum that is purportedly in space has never been recreated on earth.  Vacuums don't just go from 1psi to 0psi there is a huge scale of vacuum strength, each level being exponentially more difficult to achieve. Just look at the different types of vacuum given by the Wikipedia page:



Here's the description for a high vacuum:

High vacuum is vacuum where the MFP of residual gases is longer than the size of the chamber or of the object under test. High vacuum usually requires multi-stage pumping and ion gauge measurement.

In outer space, we're talking about a vacuum that has only a few protons per meter cube. In my opinion any vessel, even a thick steel tank would violently explode if exposed to such a vacuum. I even think you would have an unusual chemical reaction as the protons strip the materials apart to create more stable states. Not to mention the effect such a vacuum would have on the temperature of objects that lie within it. These declared vacuums go way beyond anything we can comprehend on earth. Just saying (as NASA do) that "there is a low pressure differential therefore x and y works in the vaccum of space" is bizarre, but is clearly sufficient for the masses to accept.

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.

Interesting. I didn't know much telecommunication tech before, so I'm reading up on it now. So my understanding is that cell towers and satellite dishes transmit to and receive from communication satellites.

So if what you are saying is that communications satellites aren't real, here a few problems we have to solve:

1. If you are working on installing a satellite dish, pointing it towards a geosynchronous communication satellite is a regular part of the process. Here's an app I found that helps people do it (https://www.dishpointer.com/).
2. Here is a satellite dish troubleshoot guide, in which realigning it point at the communications satellite is a part of the process (https://satgist.com/how-to-fix-satellite-dish-signal-no-signal/).
3. You can see satellites and the ISS yourself through telescopes (https://telescopebuddy.com/can-you-see-satellites-with-a-telescope/).

Very curious about how you think about these problems.

I haven't looked into how these technologies work that much. Cell towers and dishes communicate with themselves, not with orbiting satellites. But thats just my own opinion. As I stated before I am only speaking on behalf of myself, I do not represent any flat earth organisation nor do I have any affiliation with the flat earth society. (I haven't even read a single page of the wiki, sorry guys  )

[stack]

In outer space, we're talking about a vacuum that has only a few protons per meter cube. In my opinion any vessel, even a thick steel tank would violently explode if exposed to such a vacuum.

Why do you think it would explode? I mean what has specifically led you to that conclusion? You're talking about a pressure differential. We have all kinds of things to handle from the extreme to mundane differentials - from a sub that can go down almost 11,000m into the Mariana Trench at 1,086 bars to the pressure cooker on my counter top at 1.8 bars to good old Earth at 1 bar. Space is at almost 0 bars. Why does space seem to be such an explosive environment?

I even think you would have an unusual chemical reaction as the protons strip the materials apart to create more stable states.

What has led you to this understanding? Why would there be an "unusual chemical reaction"?

Not to mention the effect such a vacuum would have on the temperature of objects that lie within it.

They maintain temperature control through insulation and essentially HVAC systems. What disastrous effect are you envisioning?

These declared vacuums go way beyond anything we can comprehend on earth. Just saying (as NASA do) that "there is a low pressure differential therefore x and y works in the vaccum of space" is bizarre, but is clearly sufficient for the masses to accept.

It's not like they don't test this stuff. Interesting article here:

Orion Spacesuits Put to a Vacuum Test at NASA
https://www.space.com/37518-orion-spacesuits-vacuum-test-nasa-photos.html

[james38]

You can draw whatever conclusions you want from your own research and if my arguments haven't convinced you of anything then that's fine. However, using the word "debunked" (a word I hate) assumes you have proven me wrong and that the spacesuits are feasible. I disagree with this. I tend to approach the space suit argument by giving NASA the benefit of the doubt with the details they give us.

You're right, debunk is a mean word to use. Thanks for letting me know, I hope I can do better.

I just hope that given all the evidence we bring to the table, we can come to an agreement on whether it is feasible for NASA's spacesuits to work in the vacuum of space or not. This stuff is a hard science, not a soft science or social science. So in my view, there's little room to leave things open for interpretation. If we both follow the evidence and logic through, we ought to be able to come to a joint conclusion of some sort.

I'll let you respond to Stack's questions before I respond to the rest of your reply.

[RhesusVX]

My, oh my where do I even begin. Maybe a mod could move this over to a dedicated thread?

...

This debate is absolutely not over.

I would agree, this is perhaps one to be split out because I also agree that the debate isn't over!  It's related for sure, but maybe it's conflating with the other debate around space suits etc, let's see what the mods think. I've also read your replies and the debate you've had with stack.  However, before I start I just want to acknowledge one thing, and that is that air has "something" to do with it, I'll grant you that much.  Here on Earth when people throw things we are doing so in an atmosphere and so that does have some effect.  Depending on surface area it can be negligible to significant.  Jets need air, rockets don't, but we'll get onto that. 

You seem to think though, that I'm basing everything on biased opinion and assumption rather than experimentation, but you couldn't be further from the truth.  You also have no idea what my background is or who I've worked with in the past.  As a result I do happen to have a reasonably good grasp of Newtons three laws of motion, and nowhere in anything I stated were any of them broken.  In my original thought experiment of a "stationary" astronaut (relative to the Earth, say) holding a bowling ball and then throwing it, the 3rd law results in the astronaut moving backwards and the bowling ball moving forwards with motion in accordance with values governed by his 2nd law.  The very fact that you have one system at rest, with two opposing forces acting against each other when thrown, imparting motion to both is what also preserves the 1st law.  I'm not sure why you think in such a case the astronaut would stay still and only the ball would go forwards - that would indeed be breaking Newton's laws.

I would recommend trying out the experiment that stack suggested.  Back at school in physics class we carried our our own tests to show that air only has "something" to do with it, and also "nothing" to do with it.  Back then it was done with 3 similarly sized aluminium balls (baking hemispheres taped together!) filled with different things to create different weights (air, water and lead).  The base was a long board covered with ball-bearings upon which another board was placed on top which you sat on.  This gave a very low rolling resistance.  Based on your understanding that "air is everything", you would expect that you would move back an equal amount with each ball thrown.  Each group carried out 10 throws of each ball, and guess what?  The heavier the ball, the further back you were pushed.  Take it to the extreme - a ball so heavy you can't move it.  Push that and you will go backwards with maximum force.  Do the same with a ball of aerogel and you are hardly going to move backwards at all.  We also carried out a similar experiment with two objects of similar weight but vastly different surface areas.  Based on your understanding, the one with the larger surface area would push us back more.  Not the case.  Within experimental error, both pushed back the same amount.  In order for air resistance alone to cause you to be pushed back, you would need a significantly larger surface area in comparison.

To show that air had nothing to do with it, the teacher set up another experiment with a brass tube sealed at one end, a remotely triggerable spring, and a ball bearing. The ball was shot out of the brass tube at normal atmospheric pressure, and in a strong vacuum.  Remember, being a spring there are no expanding gasses at play here.  Again, based on your understanding there would be no recoil in the vacuum, but this was not the case.  Recoil happened in air and in a vacuum.  None of this is made up walls in space or whatever, it's just basic controlled experimentation.

With absolutely no disrespect intended, I don't think you understand the 3 laws correctly.  The reason why I didn't mention the 1st law is because the very fact that you had a system at rest being subject to two opposing forces, one causing motion upon the other just implies that it's not broken.

As for rockets working in space, the following is a good, if technical guide as to what thrust is and why it works.  In simple terms, pressure differences between the combustion chamber and the outside:

http://www.braeunig.us/space/propuls.htm

Again, rocket thrust has absolutely nothing to do with pushing against air, which in most cases makes rockets less efficient than they are in a vacuum (depending on their purpose).  As I said before, I know a guy who studied rocket science so I called him at the weekend and asked if rockets work in a vacuum.  His response?  A short laugh, followed by, "Of course they do, why?!".  Forgetting the complexities as shown in the site above, the basic theory is simple. The bigger the pressure differential, the faster the gasses accelerate out of the nozzle, the larger the force being thrown out of the back of the rocket, and so Newtons 3rd law results in forward motion of the rocket.  Exactly the same principles that caused us to be pushed backwards when we threw those balls in physics.

How can you push off something that is moving away from you? That's a physical impossibility.

The very fact that you have something moving away from you that you have ejected is exactly the reason why you move in the opposite direction. In this example, the rocket is the astronaut, the bowling ball is the exhaust, creating thrust.  Like the rocket and its accelerating exhaust, the astronaut is in contact with the accelerating ball until they let go.  It's that transition from being in contact to not being in contact that is "pushing off", and it applies equally to rockets ejecting exhaust gases.

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.

I think the original use of the word acceleration may have been slightly misleading, and as such you may be seemingly confusing acceleration with velocity.  The only time the astronaut and bowling ball are accelerated is while the astronaut is throwing it.  Once the ball has left the astronauts hands they are both going to be traveling at a constant velocity (m/s as shown) until acted upon by another force.  Constant velocity in a vacuum does not need an infinite amount of work/energy.

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.

In all fairness, based on what I've read, your understanding of the laws of motion are flawed, and this is why I wanted to address it because debating whether we've actually been into space or not to take photographs and video is one thing, but debating whether it's physically possible is quite another.  It might be a completely innocent misunderstanding, or it might be that you choose to interpret the laws differently so that it makes space travel impossible which itself has other implications on FET and related conspiracies.

[Longtitube]

Just think about it, the vacuum that is purportedly in space has never been recreated on earth.  Vacuums don't just go from 1psi to 0psi there is a huge scale of vacuum strength, each level being exponentially more difficult to achieve. Just look at the different types of vacuum given by the Wikipedia page:

@Mark Antony, I would like to take whoever taught you number systems and boil that person slowly in oil for doing such a rotten job. Vacuums don’t just go from 1psi to 0psi? Actually, that table from Wikipedia shows that vacuums do, but the numbers given could be easily misunderstood from the way they are expressed.

A extremely high vacuum, from that table, is < 1x10^-12 torr meaning less than a millionth of a millionth of a torr. But that’s still a higher pressure than zero. If it were < -1x10^-12 then that would be less than minus a millionth of a millionth of a torr - a negative pressure, less than zero - which doesn’t exist!

The very low pressures listed in that table are indeed extremely difficult to achieve on Earth, but all are larger, however slightly, than the bottom row of the table, the perfect vacuum, which is precisely zero pressure. If you already know and understand this, please feel free to ignore it and forgive my misunderstanding you.

[jack44556677]

@stack

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

Not by itself, no.  However the default position is best one of skepticism.  Until something is adequately proven (for, to, and by yourself), you should continue to remember that it is speculation at best.

Virtually all of the things in the "journal of irreproducible results" are fiction.  If it can't be demonstrated (and/or replicated), it is most likely fiction.

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

That (or something very much like it) did happen, yes. If you want to believe in sci-fi fantasy, it is easy enough to ignore all of reality to do so. Ignoring a few "outliers" like this hardly proves a challenge to the devout.

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

There is no way to validate it short of returning to the moon, repeatedly and independently.

There is no evidence of "space" writ large except for what we see on tv, and a few terrestrially composed "rocks" at least some of which are petrified wood.

It's just that some believe that evidence is part of the conspiracy. Which is, of course, debatable unto itself.

Some people choose to trust the untrustworthy government against all reason, history, and common sense.  It is those gullible and deluded people that choose to believe what is shown on the tv is reality.  We have a lot of evidence of the fraud/hoax, and certainly the petrified wood is a small part of that, but the real trouble is that people believe ("know" without validation/verification).  They believe instead of know.

And I have yet to come across anything that stands out as something that can't be explained.

And you are most unlikely to.  Do you know what cognitive dissonance is? There is a lot of confusion out there on what it is, so even if you do - your definition/understanding may not be correct... Cognitive dissonance essentially assures that you will always find the "proper explanation" even when one doesn't exist.  It's easy to "debunk" and not in any way objective analysis or competent/objective investigation.

If you have a juicy, favorite compilation, incident, whathaveyou, pass it along. I always like reviewing those.

Ugh, I feel the opposite way.  The most quintessential demonstration of the hoax is the rat on mars, which you should check out if you have not seen.  You are required to interpret the picture as "pareidolia", but objectively evaluated - it is in no way a rock.

What government agency hasn't?

Exactly! The MIC is not your friend, and lies routinely.  They are not to be trusted.

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

The law is ancient. It is often phrased "nequaquam vacuum" and roughly translates to "nature abhors a vacuum".

Many natural laws are violated by the fantasy/mythology of the "infinite sky vacuum of outer space" above our heads.  Chief among them, are the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the natural behavior of gas (gas law).

The water wringing is just as likely, if not more so, actual water wringing and not CGI.

I might agree with you, if the footage didn't look so fake and nothing remotely like it has ever been done in decades of the vomit comet...

Just because something could be convincingly replicated in a computer generated manner doesn't mean it was.

True, and vice versa!

There's no evidence that it wasn't a guy wringing water in a zero G environment inside the ISS.

Except that water wrung in "zero g" doesn't look like that (see vomit comet) and whatever we see as the iss in the sky is much too large (visible with the naked eye), most likely not inhabited/inhabitable, and certainly not weightless.

As for sklylab, there are many clips that exceed the durational limitations of the Vomit Comet type simulations

Not to my knowledge.  In any case, quality splicing is feasible - especially retroactively and some weightlessness is not faked using the vomit comet.  The "amazing"/hollywood-esque footage of free floating arial somersaults and the like are all short and most likely vomit comet.

Evidence of such is crucial, none to be found here.

Except of course for all the evidence, which is essentially solely the footage itself (and analysis thereof) - the only "evidence" of space writ large.

I don't really get this.

That's because you need the "evidence" and without it you have to recognize/accept that the assumption the earth is spherical is still unvalidated today - as it always was.

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.

Not really.  The shape of the world has nothing to do with a conspiracy or lack thereof.

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.

They certainly exist.  However, when you begin to objectively evaluate the "space program"/"space age"/"cold war" you find profound hoax and fraud - it is only the earnest, objective, and critical evaluation that is lacking in most "common" people.  The conspiracy of nasa, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with the shape of the world - nor determining it with certainty.

The abject (and foolish/gullible/credulous) appeal to authority required to consider the nasa footage evidence of anything is profound and unacceptable to any earnest researcher.  This is a discussion about science, and nasa footage isn't science.  Science must also be repeatable, which is another reason nothing is scientific about "space".

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

Interesting! Perhaps that's why they stopped!  If this were in any way real, there would be several manned tests in as powerful a vacuum as we could muster before field use.  We don't do that, and never have.

[RhesusVX]

@jack44556677

You repeatedly say things along the lines of "Until something is adequately proven (for, to, and by yourself), you should continue to remember that it is speculation at best.".  Now clearly there are things in this world that are easier to prove by yourself than others.  Some things are so trivial and have been proven so many times by countless others that it's safe to take those as solid fact.  Equally, there are things in this world that are almost impossible to prove by yourself with current technology and capabilities.  The thing is though, a constant questioning of anything you can't see or touch or otherwise prove to yourself just creates a world in which everything conforms to your own narrative and interpretation of physical laws.

The obvious one here is space travel and getting to the Moon.  You are unlikely in your lifetime to have the opportunity to adequately observe/experience this for yourself, so what would it take to give you adequate proof?  China have just launched a mission to retrieve lunar material and bring it back to Earth.  It's a man-made vehicle, travelling through the vacuum of space, using Newtons laws of motion to get it there and back.  If this mission succeeds, will it just be considered yet another science fiction movie created by China's space program?

Regarding the "infinite partial vacuum of space", are you able to explain to us, in simple terms, why the 2nd law of thermodynamics and gas law are broken?  What kind of system do you consider the universe that we live in?  Open, closed or isolated?  Some say it's neither because by definition the universe is everything.  Others talk about the entire universe being isolated, but our observable universe being open.  I'm intrigued as to your thoughts on this.

[stack]

@stack

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

Not by itself, no.  However the default position is best one of skepticism.  Until something is adequately proven (for, to, and by yourself), you should continue to remember that it is speculation at best.

Virtually all of the things in the "journal of irreproducible results" are fiction.  If it can't be demonstrated (and/or replicated), it is most likely fiction.

Nothing wrong with healthy skepticism. But not everything is so black & white as you would have it. There are many things that I can't prove for, to and by myself. For instance I can't perform, demonstrate, reproduce or even view in person a heart transplant operation, but I've read about them, seen videos about them, heard physicians talk about them and I'm sure they exist. I suppose I could enroll and train to become a heart transplant surgeon and experience it first hand. Seemingly as well I could train to be an astronaut and perhaps ride a rocket into space and experience that firsthand too. There's a lot of gray area in our world, not everything is binary.

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

That (or something very much like it) did happen, yes. If you want to believe in sci-fi fantasy, it is easy enough to ignore all of reality to do so. Ignoring a few "outliers" like this hardly proves a challenge to the devout.

I'm not sure what this particular outlier proves. That moon rocks don't exist? Or someone just decided to give a mock moon rock as a gift? So it's not a matter of ignoring an "outlier" it's just that the motive for the incident is unknown. It could be as grand as continuing to conceal the conceit of the "conspiracy" or something completely innocuous, if not disingenuous, as gifting someone a fake Rolex and saying it's real.

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

There is no way to validate it short of returning to the moon, repeatedly and independently.

There is no evidence of "space" writ large except for what we see on tv, and a few terrestrially composed "rocks" at least some of which are petrified wood.

As for moon rocks, Apollo brought back a bunch as well as the soviets with their unmanned probes. And some have been found here in Antarctica and I was just reading about a recent one found in the Sahara. To some, that would be considered repeatedly and independently verified. But obviously to those less inclined, it wouldn't. Pick your poison.

It's just that some believe that evidence is part of the conspiracy. Which is, of course, debatable unto itself.

Some people choose to trust the untrustworthy government against all reason, history, and common sense.  It is those gullible and deluded people that choose to believe what is shown on the tv is reality.  We have a lot of evidence of the fraud/hoax, and certainly the petrified wood is a small part of that, but the real trouble is that people believe ("know" without validation/verification).  They believe instead of know.

Again, with the all-or-nothing bit. Sure, some people choose to trust government unconditionally. Few and far between. And some with absolutely zero trust. However, there's a massive spectrum in between whether to trust all or trust nothing. To covid vax or to not covid vax is probably a good example. We're probably looking down the barrel of a governments distributed vaccine in the future. The level of willingness to partake will span that entire trust spectrum, no doubt, as folks make up their minds.

And I have yet to come across anything that stands out as something that can't be explained.

And you are most unlikely to.  Do you know what cognitive dissonance is? There is a lot of confusion out there on what it is, so even if you do - your definition/understanding may not be correct... Cognitive dissonance essentially assures that you will always find the "proper explanation" even when one doesn't exist.  It's easy to "debunk" and not in any way objective analysis or competent/objective investigation.

For one, you can spare the pedantry. Everyone here is familiar with the phrase and it's meaning. And obviously it's a two way street. A little further down you go headlong into finding what you think are "proper explanations" according to your world view that perhaps don't exist. As well as debunking in a similar manner. But I'll get into that in a second.

An aside, it would be super helpful if you actually used the quote function here like 95% of folks do. It's super helpful when you pluck out one sentence from someone's paragraph from a week ago, address it and the responder, me for example, can then just click on the quote link and zip right back to the full context of what was written. Instead I had to go hunting for it. In this case I was referring specifically to the many hoax compilation videos, and more specifically, the astronaut in a spacesuit test that went awry. Necessary context.

If you have a juicy, favorite compilation, incident, whathaveyou, pass it along. I always like reviewing those.

Ugh, I feel the opposite way.  The most quintessential demonstration of the hoax is the rat on mars, which you should check out if you have not seen.  You are required to interpret the picture as "pareidolia", but objectively evaluated - it is in no way a rock.

I am not required to interpret it as pareidolia. Where do you get that notion? And what makes your "objective evaluation" greater than mine? You've said over and over again that a lot of the evidence for space and space flight, manned or unmanned is not "repeatedly and independently verified". To use the rat on mars as an example, what's your repeated and independent verification that it is a rat? Perhaps you're required to believe it is a rat because your cognitive dissonance only allows for that explanation because you believe that it's impossible for a photograph on the surface of Mars to exist. Perhaps someone with your perspective automatically assumes the image is a fakery of some sort because it comes from NASA, part of the untrustworthy MIC, before you even see the rat and begin to apply your objective evaluation to it. That doesn't seem objective to me.

What government agency hasn't?

Exactly! The MIC is not your friend, and lies routinely.  They are not to be trusted.

Again, see the spectrum.

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

The law is ancient. It is often phrased "nequaquam vacuum" and roughly translates to "nature abhors a vacuum".

I believe the phrase you are looking for is not "nequaquam vacuum", but "Horror vacui". Which is "attributed to Aristotle, who articulated a belief, later criticized by the atomism of Epicurus and Lucretius, that nature contains no vacuums because the denser surrounding material continuum would immediately fill the rarity of an incipient void." And it is not a law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horror_vacui_(physics)

Many natural laws are violated by the fantasy/mythology of the "infinite sky vacuum of outer space" above our heads.  Chief among them, are the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the natural behavior of gas (gas law).

What specifically about the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the natural behavior of gas (gas law) makes space a fantasy/mythology. You can't just start throwing around laws and saying, "See? Can't happen. Laws."

The water wringing is just as likely, if not more so, actual water wringing and not CGI.

I might agree with you, if the footage didn't look so fake and nothing remotely like it has ever been done in decades of the vomit comet...

What's your objective criteria for how fake or not it looks?

Just because something could be convincingly replicated in a computer generated manner doesn't mean it was.

True, and vice versa!

The preponderance of evidence is that it's not CGI. If you can point to specifically what are the "tells" that's it's CGI, then maybe there's a conversation there.

There's no evidence that it wasn't a guy wringing water in a zero G environment inside the ISS.

Except that water wrung in "zero g" doesn't look like that (see vomit comet) and whatever we see as the iss in the sky is much too large (visible with the naked eye), most likely not inhabited/inhabitable, and certainly not weightless.

What should it look like? How is it different than other examples you have seen? How is the ISS too large? By what specific measurements lead you to that conclusion? Specificity is helpful here. Not just saying you think so. Your certainty isn't based upon anything other than your opinion. Which is fine, but unremarkable.

As for sklylab, there are many clips that exceed the durational limitations of the Vomit Comet type simulations

Not to my knowledge.  In any case, quality splicing is feasible - especially retroactively and some weightlessness is not faked using the vomit comet.  The "amazing"/hollywood-esque footage of free floating arial somersaults and the like are all short and most likely vomit comet.

Perhaps not to your knowledge.

Vomit Comet: Training Flights for Astronauts | Space
"Complete weightlessness lasts approximately 25 seconds. Passengers who experience a simulation of Martian gravity — about a third of Earth's gravity — last about 30 seconds, while those simulating lunar gravity — about a sixth of Earth's gravity — last about 40 seconds."
https://www.space.com/37942-vomit-comet.html

Evidence of such is crucial, none to be found here.

Except of course for all the evidence, which is essentially solely the footage itself (and analysis thereof) - the only "evidence" of space writ large.

There's evidence of space writ large that's even non-MIC based. The GoFast amateur rocket team set the record in 2004 at an altitude of 72 miles. It made it to "space" as we know it.

I don't really get this.

That's because you need the "evidence" and without it you have to recognize/accept that the assumption the earth is spherical is still unvalidated today - as it always was.

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.

Not really.  The shape of the world has nothing to do with a conspiracy or lack thereof.

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.

They certainly exist.  However, when you begin to objectively evaluate the "space program"/"space age"/"cold war" you find profound hoax and fraud - it is only the earnest, objective, and critical evaluation that is lacking in most "common" people.  The conspiracy of nasa, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with the shape of the world - nor determining it with certainty.

The abject (and foolish/gullible/credulous) appeal to authority required to consider the nasa footage evidence of anything is profound and unacceptable to any earnest researcher.  This is a discussion about science, and nasa footage isn't science.  Science must also be repeatable, which is another reason nothing is scientific about "space".

From a semantics perspective, yes, the conspiracy has nothing to do with what the actual shape of the world is. What the conspiracy does have to with is the concealing of what the true shape of the world may be. There's a definite distinction there. The non-conspiracy perspective depicts the shape of the earth as a Globe. Period. In order to dismiss all of the non-conspiracy perspective evidence and dismiss the globe depiction, there must be a conspiracy. Enter FET and the necessity for FET to dismiss space/space endeavors because they all depict the incorrect shape of the earth. In order to dismiss all of that, a conspiracy is required. Simple as that. You literally can't have FET without the conspiracy in the modern age. At least I've never come across a singe FET proponent that does not believe in the conspiracy.

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

Interesting! Perhaps that's why they stopped!  If this were in any way real, there would be several manned tests in as powerful a vacuum as we could muster before field use.  We don't do that, and never have.

First you thought they never started testing. Now you're saying they stopped testing. Both are wrong. They never stopped. They still do manned space suit vacuum testing today. Here's an article on it you may find interesting.

Orion Spacesuits Put to a Vacuum Test at NASA
"The participants are inside the NASA Johnson Space Center's 11-foot thermal vacuum chamber, which is commonly used for spacesuit testing. According to NASA, the chamber can include components such as a treadmill or systems for "crew weight relief" to simulate the microgravity astronauts encounter in space."
https://www.space.com/37518-orion-spacesuits-vacuum-test-nasa-photos.html

[james38]

Many natural laws are violated by the fantasy/mythology of the "infinite sky vacuum of outer space" above our heads.  Chief among them, are the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the natural behavior of gas (gas law).

What specifically about the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the natural behavior of gas (gas law) makes space a fantasy/mythology. You can't just start throwing around laws and saying, "See? Can't happen. Laws."

Just to avoid redundancy, Jack has already explained his position on this in this reply: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17051.msg225138#msg225138

In my rough estimation, his view here seems to boil down to that he is trying to imagine how physics would work if the force of gravity doesn't exist. But please check out his response for the full explanation in case I didn't do it justice.

I responded to his view here: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17051.msg225731#msg225731 (in the "space" section), and he still hasn't responded to this

I'm afraid this thread has split into multiple parallel conversations and one thing I've been thinking about is how to bring it all back together or organize it in some way.

[james38]

Sorry to be a broken record for the thousandth time but I want to keep this thread balanced and ideally the number of replies by both "sides" roughly even. I also want to make sure none of the side conversations are getting buried by new replies.

The majority of my last huge post with all the sections was directed towards Jack and he hasn't had the chance to respond to that yet, and we're also waiting for Mark Antony to respond to Stack's latest post about space suits so I can then jump in and respond about that. I'm honestly not keeping track of the conversation about rockets though it's interesting to read.

Let's let them both catch up at their own pace before we put more on their plates? It's a ton of information to get through, especially when you are debating, and we are in no rush.

[Mark Antony]

I'm breaking my policy of not posting on a work night but these responses will disrupt my sleep patterns if I don't 

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.

How do you figure that? Have you invalidated Newton's Third?

The medicine ball in the experiment is about the size of a basketball. Would you expect that the individual would be pushed backward to the same extent with two equally sized surface area objects, one with the mass of a basketball and one with the mass of a medicine ball? Do you really think the air resistance between the two same area objects but with different masses would render the equal results?

I suggest you try it at home. You might find something interesting.

 

In my original thought experiment of a "stationary" astronaut (relative to the Earth, say) holding a bowling ball and then throwing it, the 3rd law results in the astronaut moving backwards and the bowling ball moving forwards with motion in accordance with values governed by his 2nd law.  The very fact that you have one system at rest, with two opposing forces acting against each other when thrown, imparting motion to both is what also preserves the 1st law.  I'm not sure why you think in such a case the astronaut would stay still and only the ball would go forwards - that would indeed be breaking Newton's laws.

With absolutely no disrespect intended, I don't think you understand the 3 laws correctly.  The reason why I didn't mention the 1st law is because the very fact that you had a system at rest being subject to two opposing forces, one causing motion upon the other just implies that it's not broken.

The very fact that you have something moving away from you that you have ejected is exactly the reason why you move in the opposite direction. In this example, the rocket is the astronaut, the bowling ball is the exhaust, creating thrust.  Like the rocket and its accelerating exhaust, the astronaut is in contact with the accelerating ball until they let go.  It's that transition from being in contact to not being in contact that is "pushing off", and it applies equally to rockets ejecting exhaust gases.

I really dislike the bowling ball analogy, not just because it's so loosely related to rockets, but because the only reason NASA use it is because it manipulates the reader's logic and reasoning but in reality it is fundamentally flawed. It even fooled me initially until I really thought about it. NASA know that 99.9% of the population are not going to really think about it.

Lets use a slightly different analogy that follows the same principal in the laws of motion but doesn't skew the reader's logic and reasoning:

Imagine standing on a skateboard with a bow and arrow. You shoot the arrow as hard as you can but you simply will not move in the opposite direction, you will remain stationary. Don't you agree?

Let say you use an arrow that is the same weight as the bowling ball. You shoot it as hard as you can, but you still will not move in the opposite direction. The action force is in the arrow propelled by the potential of the string on the bow, the reaction force is in your hand on the grip. All the forces are contained internally therefore you will not move backwards.

It is no different with throwing the bowling ball - it's part of your system, part of your weight - the action is in the forward motion of the bowling ball caused by the potential of your muscles, the reaction force is in your hands. Newton's 3rd Law of motion is observed, but since his 1st Law is definitely not observed (neglecting pushing off air) you simply cannot move!

The reason you keep reverting back to the "stationary" case in space is because it serves to shroud reality even more and skew people's logic in the same way NASA do. The dynamic case that I gave where the spaceman is moving away from the earth really is no different but is easier for the reader to visualize.


It seems we also have fundamental differences around the question of work/energy and acceleration. You claim constant velocity in space (despite there being no observed body ever historically, that maintains a constant velocity, only in theory). If the ball is accelerating in your hands but then maintains a constant velocity when it leaves them- at some point it has to decelerate i.e. stop accelerating. At what point does this happen and what external phenomenon in space is preventing this acceleration?

There appears to be some conflict in your argument in how the rocket propels that I hope you can clarify. From my understanding of what you are saying above is that the rocket moves forward by the 3rd law action of ejecting mass in the opposite direction therefore propelling you in the correct direction? But you said previously on post #83 and #86 that it pushes itself off the external exhaust gases. .

The key point is that the gases produced are not part of the rocket so can be considered an external force.

they push off against the exhaust which is external to the system at an instance in time

But which is it? Newton's 3rd or 1st or both? Or just the 3rd? Maintaining Newton's 1st here is physically impossible, I will always maintain this until I get some miraculous explanation.

Again, rocket thrust has absolutely nothing to do with pushing against air, which in most cases makes rockets less efficient than they are in a vacuum (depending on their purpose).  As I said before, I know a guy who studied rocket science so I called him at the weekend and asked if rockets work in a vacuum.  His response?  A short laugh, followed by, "Of course they do, why?!".  Forgetting the complexities as shown in the site above, the basic theory is simple. The bigger the pressure differential, the faster the gasses accelerate out of the nozzle, the larger the force being thrown out of the back of the rocket, and so Newtons 3rd law results in forward motion of the rocket.  Exactly the same principles that caused us to be pushed backwards when we threw those balls in physics.

I'm not denying you know someone who studied rocket science - but you can't use this as way of cementing your argument as one that is more valid than mine. Either invite him to the debate or bring some of his justification that backs up your argument.

Just think about it, the vacuum that is purportedly in space has never been recreated on earth.  Vacuums don't just go from 1psi to 0psi there is a huge scale of vacuum strength, each level being exponentially more difficult to achieve. Just look at the different types of vacuum given by the Wikipedia page:

@Mark Antony, I would like to take whoever taught you number systems and boil that person slowly in oil for doing such a rotten job. Vacuums don’t just go from 1psi to 0psi? Actually, that table from Wikipedia shows that vacuums do, but the numbers given could be easily misunderstood from the way they are expressed.

A extremely high vacuum, from that table, is < 1x10^-12 torr meaning less than a millionth of a millionth of a torr. But that’s still a higher pressure than zero. If it were < -1x10^-12 then that would be less than minus a millionth of a millionth of a torr - a negative pressure, less than zero - which doesn’t exist!

The very low pressures listed in that table are indeed extremely difficult to achieve on Earth, but all are larger, however slightly, than the bottom row of the table, the perfect vacuum, which is precisely zero pressure. If you already know and understand this, please feel free to ignore it and forgive my misunderstanding you.

The point I was making around 1psi and 0psi is that it is not a binary thing as NASA imply by saying there is a low pressure differential if you have 5psi inside the space suit and 0psi outside. The reality is that there is a massive pressure differential - we just don't have any experience of the strength of these vacuums on earth. We can get vacuums down very low but only on an extremely small scale (not infinite like in space). Or if we do scale it up in size we have to use very thick concrete walls or thick steel vessels. But why? Isn't it just a small pressure differential 

[stack]

I'm breaking my policy of not posting on a work night but these responses will disrupt my sleep patterns if I don't 

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.

How do you figure that? Have you invalidated Newton's Third?

The medicine ball in the experiment is about the size of a basketball. Would you expect that the individual would be pushed backward to the same extent with two equally sized surface area objects, one with the mass of a basketball and one with the mass of a medicine ball? Do you really think the air resistance between the two same area objects but with different masses would render the equal results?

I suggest you try it at home. You might find something interesting.

 
In my original thought experiment of a "stationary" astronaut (relative to the Earth, say) holding a bowling ball and then throwing it, the 3rd law results in the astronaut moving backwards and the bowling ball moving forwards with motion in accordance with values governed by his 2nd law.  The very fact that you have one system at rest, with two opposing forces acting against each other when thrown, imparting motion to both is what also preserves the 1st law.  I'm not sure why you think in such a case the astronaut would stay still and only the ball would go forwards - that would indeed be breaking Newton's laws.

With absolutely no disrespect intended, I don't think you understand the 3 laws correctly.  The reason why I didn't mention the 1st law is because the very fact that you had a system at rest being subject to two opposing forces, one causing motion upon the other just implies that it's not broken.

The very fact that you have something moving away from you that you have ejected is exactly the reason why you move in the opposite direction. In this example, the rocket is the astronaut, the bowling ball is the exhaust, creating thrust.  Like the rocket and its accelerating exhaust, the astronaut is in contact with the accelerating ball until they let go.  It's that transition from being in contact to not being in contact that is "pushing off", and it applies equally to rockets ejecting exhaust gases.

I really dislike the bowling ball analogy, not just because it's so loosely related to rockets, but because the only reason NASA use it is because it manipulates the reader's logic and reasoning but in reality it is fundamentally flawed. It even fooled me initially until I really thought about it. NASA know that 99.9% of the population are not going to really think about it.

Lets use a slightly different analogy that follows the same principal in the laws of motion but doesn't skew the reader's logic and reasoning:

Imagine standing on a skateboard with a bow and arrow. You shoot the arrow as hard as you can but you simply will not move in the opposite direction, you will remain stationary. Don't you agree?

Let say you use an arrow that is the same weight as the bowling ball. You shoot it as hard as you can, but you still will not move in the opposite direction. The action force is in the arrow propelled by the potential of the string on the bow, the reaction force is in your hand on the grip. All the forces are contained internally therefore you will not move backwards.

It is no different with throwing the bowling ball - it's part of your system, part of your weight - the action is in the forward motion of the bowling ball caused by the potential of your muscles, the reaction force is in your hands. Newton's 3rd Law of motion is observed, but since his 1st Law is definitely not observed (neglecting pushing off air) you simply cannot move!

The reason you keep reverting back to the "stationary" case in space is because it serves to shroud reality even more and skew people's logic in the same way NASA do. The dynamic case that I gave where the spaceman is moving away from the earth really is no different but is easier for the reader to visualize.

Newton's 3rd along with experiments/demonstrations of it, using various objects, bowling balls included, existed long before NASA existed. So it's not a NASA thing.

The closest I could get to perhaps your arrow analogy is the newton sled:



Full video here:


The single bar being half the mass of the double bar would probably mean your arrow would have to be of considerable mass as you mentioned. And I'm not sure how much energy a bow would absorb. But in any case, as you can see from the sled demonstration, think of the single bar as the mass flow leaving the rocket chamber, the double bar sled being the rocket. No air resistance to "push off of" is required nor is there enough "resistance" to push off of even if it wanted to.

[Longtitube]

The point I was making around 1psi and 0psi is that it is not a binary thing as NASA imply by saying there is a low pressure differential if you have 5psi inside the space suit and 0psi outside. The reality is that there is a massive pressure differential - we just don't have any experience of the strength of these vacuums on earth. We can get vacuums down very low but only on an extremely small scale (not infinite like in space). Or if we do scale it up in size we have to use very thick concrete walls or thick steel vessels. But why? Isn't it just a small pressure differential 

Yes it is a small pressure differential, but applied over a large surface it amounts to a very large force. Let’s take a vacuum chamber with one flat wall 10 feet square and assume it’s air at 5psi outside and 0psi inside. That’s a wall of 14,400 square inches and it will be bearing a pressure load of 72,000 pounds force on that wall alone.

Both you and Jack refer to an infinite vacuum of space - but what are you talking about? Do you think there are pressures below zero?

Here’s a simple investigation you can do into vacuums. Get a long length (more than 50 feet) of clear plastic hose, fill it with water and have it dunked in a large bucket of water. Seal one end to prevent air getting back in (use a bung or maybe a strong clamp) and lift the sealed end above the water, way up, 40 feet above the water in the bucket but make sure the other end stays under the water. Amazingly, the water in the hose will only rise about 34 feet above the water in the bucket and any hose above that height will be empty. What’s in that empty length of pipe between water and bung? A vacuum.

Think about that before trying the same investigation up in the mountains (if it’s within reach) at something like 10,000ft. Now the water will not rise higher in the pipe than about 23 feet. What has changed? The pipe, bung, bucket and water are the same, but the vacuum can only support a 23ft column of water. What has changed is the air pressure. The water in the pipe is not supported by the strength of the vacuum, but by the outside air pressure; 14.7psi at sea level and about 10psi at 10,000ft above sea level.

Do try this at home!

[DuncanDoenitz]

@ Mark,

Can we just look at that vacuum thing.  You seem to think that at 0psi (perfect vacuum) something suddenly happens.  I think you have some grasp of it when you say, correctly, its not a "binary thing", but lets go a bit further. 

Vacuum has no temperature, and doesn't have any kind of "negative" pressure.  Its not inherently hazardous to inorganic things, its just a state of zero psi.  Is doesn't support life (as we understand it) because all terrestrial life requires an oxygen-rich environment and, if any gas exists, obviously there is no vacuum. 

Most terrestrial life thrives at a pressure of around 15 psi.  Start climbing mountains and you'll find alpine goats or whatever that are happy with lower pressures.  Humans can operate with reasonable ease at 10,000 feet.  Get to the top of Mount Everest (around 29,000 feet) and you are reaching the limit of human physical and mental capacity but trained and acclimatised mountaineers can survive.  The pressure up there is is around 5 psi. 

Go snorkelling, dive down around 12 feet and you are operating at 20 psi.  Dive a little further, to the bottom of the challenger deep and, whilst humans would struggle, creatures are existing at a pressure of around 8 tons per square inch, a thousand times sea level pressure. 

The point I am trying to make is that, in the big picture, at 15 psi,we are already operating at a pressure a thousand times closer to a vacuum than on some parts of the earth.  Its not a big deal. 

And as for the abiity of a vacuum to rip things to pieces?  Its just a matter of pressure differential.  15 psi.  The differential of the air in your car tyres is at least double that.  You can test the physical integrity of a space suit or spacecraft in a vacuum just by pressurising it to 15psi above ambient pressure in a workshop. 

[RhesusVX]

I'm breaking my policy of not posting on a work night but these responses will disrupt my sleep patterns if I don't 

We appreciate the commitment Mark

I really dislike the bowling ball analogy, not just because it's so loosely related to rockets, but because the only reason NASA use it is because it manipulates the reader's logic and reasoning but in reality it is fundamentally flawed. It even fooled me initially until I really thought about it. NASA know that 99.9% of the population are not going to really think about it.

I don't think it's really manipulating anything, and in principle has nothing to do with rockets either.  Newtons laws have been in force (pardon the pun!) since before they were discovered by Newton himself, and well before rockets were in use.  The effects of Newtons laws were observed when cannons were fired etc.  They may not have understood why the effect we call recoil happened, but it happened and they accounted for it.  The only reason we use an example of throwing something heavy like a bowling ball or medicine ball is because it's easy for people to grasp.

Lets use a slightly different analogy that follows the same principal in the laws of motion but doesn't skew the reader's logic and reasoning:

Imagine standing on a skateboard with a bow and arrow. You shoot the arrow as hard as you can but you simply will not move in the opposite direction, you will remain stationary. Don't you agree?

Let say you use an arrow that is the same weight as the bowling ball. You shoot it as hard as you can, but you still will not move in the opposite direction. The action force is in the arrow propelled by the potential of the string on the bow, the reaction force is in your hand on the grip. All the forces are contained internally therefore you will not move backwards.

It is no different with throwing the bowling ball - it's part of your system, part of your weight - the action is in the forward motion of the bowling ball caused by the potential of your muscles, the reaction force is in your hands. Newton's 3rd Law of motion is observed, but since his 1st Law is definitely not observed (neglecting pushing off air) you simply cannot move!

Excellent, a good example to discuss.  The thing here is the sheer complexity of forces and motion involved - I looked up a paper on this and there were reams of very long and complex formulas!  When the bow is released and the arrow is shot, there is forward motion of the limbs which ultimately vibrate backwards and forwards, and the arrow shoots forwards.  The string also vibrates and absorbs some of that energy, and yes, your hand holding the bow absorbs some of that energy.

The key thing here is the term "recoil", and while a bow or crossbow does experience recoil, it's mechanics are different and nowhere near as pronounced as you'd get with a gun (which is analogous to this example here - the gunpowder represents the stored energy of the bow, and the bullet represents the arrow).  With a very efficient bow like a compound bow, the effect of recoil is minimal.  With recurve bows and crossbows, you get more recoil.  The lighter the bow and the heavier the arrow, the more recoil you get.

With an empty bow you can even get "reverse recoil" where there is only forward motion due to the mechanics of the limbs and string.  So yes, if there is sufficient energy transfer to overcome rolling resistance on Earth, you absolutely can move on a skateboard by shooting an arrow of sufficient mass.  Remove the human element like in the experiment stack showed, you can clearly see that stored energy in the elastic launches the "arrow" forwards and the "bow" backwards.

The reason you keep reverting back to the "stationary" case in space is because it serves to shroud reality even more and skew people's logic in the same way NASA do. The dynamic case that I gave where the spaceman is moving away from the earth really is no different but is easier for the reader to visualize.

As you said, there really is no difference, it's just about frame of reference and Newton's laws don't care if you are stationary or moving.  I just find it much easier to visualise and actually observe the effects if you have a static system to start with and then see one part move backwards and one part move forwards, as opposed to a moving system where there is only a change in their relative velocities - much harder to see and quantify.

It seems we also have fundamental differences around the question of work/energy and acceleration. You claim constant velocity in space (despite there being no observed body ever historically, that maintains a constant velocity, only in theory). If the ball is accelerating in your hands but then maintains a constant velocity when it leaves them- at some point it has to decelerate i.e. stop accelerating. At what point does this happen and what external phenomenon in space is preventing this acceleration?

I said constant velocity unless acted on by another force, which in space could mean collisions with the few molecules and particles out there, asteroids, other planets, comets, stars etc.

To be clear in your question, are you asking at what point the ball stops accelerating when you throw it?  That answer to that - as soon as it leaves your hands.  This has nothing to do with space or a vacuum.  Here on Earth if you throw a ball, the only time it is being accelerated is while it is in your hands.  As soon as it leaves your hands it starts to slow down (decelerates) due to air resistance and eventually stops when it hits the ground a rolls to a halt due to friction.

Thow a ball in space and it's the same thing, it's only accelerating while it is in your hands.  However, unlike on Earth, in the vacuum of space there is no air resistance or gravity to cause it to significantly slow down, so it just keeps going at whatever speed/velocity it was going when it left your hands.  Yes it will slow down/decelerate eventually, but would take an extremely long time.

You asked at the end what is preventing this acceleration, which is what leads me to think you are getting things mixed up.  The answer to what is preventing any further acceleration once the ball has left my hands is Newton's laws.  It's not going to accelerate/move any faster unless something else causes it to.  It's either going to stay at the same speed or gradually slow down over an extremely long period of time.

There appears to be some conflict in your argument in how the rocket propels that I hope you can clarify. From my understanding of what you are saying above is that the rocket moves forward by the 3rd law action of ejecting mass in the opposite direction therefore propelling you in the correct direction? But you said previously on post #83 and #86 that it pushes itself off the external exhaust gases. .

In simple terms, correct, and unfortunately I'm going to go back to the "throwing a bowling ball on a chair" model.  When I'm sat on that chair holding the ball, the muscles in my arm and the mass of that bowling ball represent a store of energy, much like the fuel in a rocket.  You could say at this time, we are all part of one system.  When I throw the bowling ball, I accelerate it away from me and at some point it leaves my hands.  The ball thereafter is external to "me", but with respect to the system it's still part of the whole energy transfer that took place.  Make sense?  No energy was created or destroyed, and the laws of motion were respected. 

The key is Newton's 3rd law.  When I "push" onto the ball, the ball is also "pushing" back onto me with exactly the same force.  For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and my school experiment demonstrated that nicely.  I'm heavier than the ball so I don't move as far, which you can calculate using his 2nd law.

A rocket burning its fuel and creating a massive pressure difference to shoot exhaust gases out of the nozzle at high velocities is completely analogous.  The rocket "pushes" onto the exhaust gases with the same force that the exhaust "pushes" on the rocket, ultimately causing it to move in the opposite direction.  Those exhaust gases are external to the rocket body, but not the entire system, to be a bit more clear on things.

But which is it? Newton's 3rd or 1st or both? Or just the 3rd? Maintaining Newton's 1st here is physically impossible, I will always maintain this until I get some miraculous explanation.

Just like throwing a heavy ball sat on a chair, rockets in space respect all three of Newton's laws.  Why do you say maintaining his 1st law is physically impossible?  For now just forget space and vacuums and rockets then to keep things down to Earth, literally.  Have you actually done the experiment of throwing balls of differing weight but the same area, and observed the effects of motion (i.e. ball goes forwards, you go backwards?)  If not, then I strongly suggest you try it out to see for yourself that not only does air have nothing to do with it, but also all three laws are respected.

His 1st law basically states that an object in motion will remain in motion unless a resultant force acts upon it, and that an object at rest will remain at rest etc.  Agreed?  As I explained earlier, when it comes to throwing bowling balls and things like recoil and rockets, his 3rd law is what preserves the 1st.  "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."   Like I said, when you push against something, it is also effectively pushing back against you with the same force.  When I throw the ball, I push against it and it moves forward at a rate determined by the 2nd law.  At the same time the ball pushes back against me and I move backwards, again at a rate determined by the 2nd law.

You only have to look at the experiment stack showed to clearly see that to start with, the system was static. After the energy was release and the "arrow" shot forwards, the "bow" moved backwards - no laws broken.  The surface area of those things was very small, and they were relatively very heavy, so clearly they were not pushing off against air.

I'm not denying you know someone who studied rocket science - but you can't use this as way of cementing your argument as one that is more valid than mine. Either invite him to the debate or bring some of his justification that backs up your argument.

That's fair enough, but even here on Earth you don't seem to believe the experiments that are being performed are behaving exactly according to Newton's laws without saying air has everything to do with it.  Having done the experiments myself at school, under pretty well controlled conditions, I can confidently say that the only things that influenced the amount we moved back was the weight of the object being ejected and the rate at which it was ejected at (which was kept as constant as realistically possible being eager beavers!).

F = MA 

All air does is make things less efficient than they would be in a vacuum.

[Mark Antony]

The point I was making around 1psi and 0psi is that it is not a binary thing as NASA imply by saying there is a low pressure differential if you have 5psi inside the space suit and 0psi outside. The reality is that there is a massive pressure differential - we just don't have any experience of the strength of these vacuums on earth. We can get vacuums down very low but only on an extremely small scale (not infinite like in space). Or if we do scale it up in size we have to use very thick concrete walls or thick steel vessels. But why? Isn't it just a small pressure differential 

Yes it is a small pressure differential, but applied over a large surface it amounts to a very large force. Let’s take a vacuum chamber with one flat wall 10 feet square and assume it’s air at 5psi outside and 0psi inside. That’s a wall of 14,400 square inches and it will be bearing a pressure load of 72,000 pounds force on that wall alone.

Both you and Jack refer to an infinite vacuum of space - but what are you talking about? Do you think there are pressures below zero?


Do try this at home!

I appreciate the mathematical demonstration but you are making the very assumption I am saying is flawed, that there is a 5psi pressure differential no matter how powerful the vacuum. This is an absurd assumption with no disrespect. You really can't talk about these vacuums without taking energy or even wall stresses into account.

Lets say you have a syringe like below:



For arguments sake, the barrel is 20miles long and the plunger is pushed in as far as it can go so only a very small amount of air is in the tip. You plug the tip and get someone to pull the plunger as hard as they can. That person is only going to get so far before the strength of the vacuum is just too much to go any further. Lets say you then get a horse to pull it further. At some point the barrel will collapse so you will have to replace it with steel to withstand the vacuum. The horse can go no further so you get a 16 wheeler truck to pull the plunger. The truck pulls the plunger further but now the steel tube collapses so you have to replace it and reinforce with outer ribs for support. You then get an army tank that pulls the plunger further. Each foot of distance the plunger gets pulled will require an exponentially higher amount of energy to do so. It will get to a point where no vehicle or combination of vehicles will be powerful enough to pull the plunger further. You are also getting closer to material limitations where there simply won't be materials strong enough to maintain the volume of vacuum. There is still only 1atm outside but the differential is growing immensely.

Unlike the confined volume inside the syringe, space is sold to us as being a vacuum of immense magnitude but also at an infinite scale. There are no materials that exist that could cope with this vacuum, be it at 5psi, 1psi or 0.001psi inside - makes no difference. The wikipedia scale above tells us that a vacuum in outer space is 1000 to 1 000 0000+ times stronger than a "high vacuum". We have only ever recreated a high vacuum on a large scale on earth. These are unimaginably powerful vacuums we're dealing with, yet we have astronauts dancing around on the moon? I think not.

@ Mark,

Can we just look at that vacuum thing.  You seem to think that at 0psi (perfect vacuum) something suddenly happens.  I think you have some grasp of it when you say, correctly, its not a "binary thing", but lets go a bit further. 

Vacuum has no temperature, and doesn't have any kind of "negative" pressure.  Its not inherently hazardous to inorganic things, its just a state of zero psi.  Is doesn't support life (as we understand it) because all terrestrial life requires an oxygen-rich environment and, if any gas exists, obviously there is no vacuum. 

Most terrestrial life thrives at a pressure of around 15 psi.  Start climbing mountains and you'll find alpine goats or whatever that are happy with lower pressures.  Humans can operate with reasonable ease at 10,000 feet.  Get to the top of Mount Everest (around 29,000 feet) and you are reaching the limit of human physical and mental capacity but trained and acclimatised mountaineers can survive.  The pressure up there is is around 5 psi. 

Go snorkelling, dive down around 12 feet and you are operating at 20 psi.  Dive a little further, to the bottom of the challenger deep and, whilst humans would struggle, creatures are existing at a pressure of around 8 tons per square inch, a thousand times sea level pressure. 

The point I am trying to make is that, in the big picture, at 15 psi,we are already operating at a pressure a thousand times closer to a vacuum than on some parts of the earth.  Its not a big deal. 

And as for the abiity of a vacuum to rip things to pieces?  Its just a matter of pressure differential.  15 psi.  The differential of the air in your car tyres is at least double that.  You can test the physical integrity of a space suit or spacecraft in a vacuum just by pressurising it to 15psi above ambient pressure in a workshop.

What altitude/ambient pressure you are at has nothing to do with it, that's an oxygen supply problem. Snorkelling is different as you have to take a low pressure to an area of higher pressure. Organisms can survive deep down because they have no body cavities that can be crushed, they are more or less incompressible using nutrient exchange through fluids to survive.

You are trivialising the magnitude of these pressure differentials. They cannot be compared to everyday objects on earth.

[Mark Antony]

Newton's 3rd along with experiments/demonstrations of it, using various objects, bowling balls included, existed long before NASA existed. So it's not a NASA thing.

The closest I could get to perhaps your arrow analogy is the newton sled:



Full video here:


The single bar being half the mass of the double bar would probably mean your arrow would have to be of considerable mass as you mentioned. And I'm not sure how much energy a bow would absorb. But in any case, as you can see from the sled demonstration, think of the single bar as the mass flow leaving the rocket chamber, the double bar sled being the rocket. No air resistance to "push off of" is required nor is there enough "resistance" to push off of even if it wanted to.

I appreciate you taking the time to find these demonstrations, they are hard to find but interesting and I do enjoy seeing them. Don't get me wrong, I have a complete open mind about all of this, I will 100% hold my hands up if someone can show the fundamental principal that allows rockets to work in space.

While it's a convincing demonstration, it simply does not compare. As the driven component is in contact with the beads, the beads therefore are providing an external force as it is propelled forward. This is not comparable to the skateboard and bow analogy. It's equivalent to putting your foot down on the ground and pushing yourself off on the skateboard. If the driven component was not in contact with the beads underneath you would not get the same result.

[RhesusVX]

Unlike the confined volume inside the syringe, space is sold to us as being a vacuum of immense magnitude but also at an infinite scale. There are no materials that exist that could cope with this vacuum, be it at 5psi, 1psi or 0.001psi inside - makes no difference. The wikipedia scale above tells us that a vacuum in outer space is 1000 to 1 000 0000+ times stronger than a "high vacuum". We have only ever recreated a high vacuum on a large scale on earth. These are unimaginably powerful vacuums we're dealing with, yet we have astronauts dancing around on the moon? I think not.

Your use of space being 1000 to 1000000+ times stronger than a high vacuum on Earth is over-dramatising it.  It's like somebody trying to get close to absolute zero, one group getting to within 0.0001K and another group getting to within 0.0000001K and then saying one is 1000 times colder than the other.  In principle it is, but in reality they are hardly any different to each other compared to the scale of what 293K represents, which is a comfy room temperature.  Same with such high vacuums.  Yes, one might be 1000000 times "stronger", but compared to 1 atmosphere they are as near as damnit the same as each other (I know they aren't the same, but hope you understand what I'm trying to say). 

Besides, in space it's not about absolute pressures, just relative pressures, and the suits are pressurised accordingly.

While it's a convincing demonstration, it simply does not compare. As the driven component is in contact with the beads, the beads therefore are providing an external force as it is propelled forward. This is not comparable to the skateboard and bow analogy. It's equivalent to putting your foot down on the ground and pushing yourself off on the skateboard. If the driven component was not in contact with the beads underneath you would not get the same result.

How is that the same as pushing off the ground?  The only thing providing any propulsion is the elastic.  All those beads do is offer resistance to motion.  If that experiment were carried out with things suspended in air from strings, would you believe the results or claim that they were pushing off the strings?  Until you can accept how Newton's laws actually work, the whole rocket debate is moot - and that's kinda' what I'm driving at.