Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Rockets will not work in space and that is simple to understand
152 views
Skip to first unread message
Warhol
Mar 30, 2012, 4:53:25 AM3/30/12
to
Look at it this way. Let's suppose a rocket is floating... incorrect,
since things cannot "float" in space. Okay, let's say a rocket is
stationary in space. Nothing is acting on this rocket. It's weight is
null because it is in a vacuum. It has no resistance to anything. When
you stand and push something, you have all sorts of Resistances acting
on you and the object you push. Friction of your feet on the floor,
wind, weight, gravity. In space, none of these things exist. The
rocket cannot exert energy because there simply is nothing to exert it
against.
Now, this rocket starts spewing gas out its rear end. Why would that
gas propel it? The gas itself does not have more mass than the rocket
itself. The gas itself cannot generate force because there is simply
nothing to "receive" that energy. The energy would merely dissipate
into the vacuum. The gas pushing against the rocket itself would not
propel it in space. On Earth the gases from a rocket dispense that
energy and push against air, gravity etc. What do the gases push
against in space? Two forces that come from the same body cannot
create propulsion. There needs to be an outside force. Much like you
cannot blow your own sail (inb4 flawed Myth-busters experiment) or
lift yourself off the ground with your own arms. The gas pushes
against the rocket yes, the rocket against the gas, but the rocket
pushes against nothing, the gas pushes against nothing, only against
one another. How would that create propulsion? People assume that
physics on Earth pertain to physics in space, which they do not
because the very things that define physics on Earth (Inertia,
momentum, resistance, friction etc.) do not exists in space.
Here is another thing to think about. "An object in motion stays in
motion unless acted upon by an outside force" correct? If you throw a
ball on Earth is is acted upon by gravity, friction, wind resistance
etc. Throw a ball in space it is acted upon by nothing. It keeps going
indefinitely because nothing acts upon it in a vacuum. So then, when a
rocket accelerates in space, how do they stop it? How do the steer it?
How do they prevent it from exponential acceleration? None of it makes
sense. Even if you believe that rockets work in space and that the gas
causes propulsion, in a vacuum something would keep accelerating if
something keeps propelling it. To stop, you would need to exert
MASSIVE amounts of force in the opposite direction to stop it. Think
about that. Even so, there still remains nothing in space to even
create propulsion in the first place.
You have to question things to move forward.
since things cannot "float" in space. Okay, let's say a rocket is
stationary in space. Nothing is acting on this rocket. It's weight is
null because it is in a vacuum. It has no resistance to anything. When
you stand and push something, you have all sorts of Resistances acting
on you and the object you push. Friction of your feet on the floor,
wind, weight, gravity. In space, none of these things exist. The
rocket cannot exert energy because there simply is nothing to exert it
against.
Now, this rocket starts spewing gas out its rear end. Why would that
gas propel it? The gas itself does not have more mass than the rocket
itself. The gas itself cannot generate force because there is simply
nothing to "receive" that energy. The energy would merely dissipate
into the vacuum. The gas pushing against the rocket itself would not
propel it in space. On Earth the gases from a rocket dispense that
energy and push against air, gravity etc. What do the gases push
against in space? Two forces that come from the same body cannot
create propulsion. There needs to be an outside force. Much like you
cannot blow your own sail (inb4 flawed Myth-busters experiment) or
lift yourself off the ground with your own arms. The gas pushes
against the rocket yes, the rocket against the gas, but the rocket
pushes against nothing, the gas pushes against nothing, only against
one another. How would that create propulsion? People assume that
physics on Earth pertain to physics in space, which they do not
because the very things that define physics on Earth (Inertia,
momentum, resistance, friction etc.) do not exists in space.
Here is another thing to think about. "An object in motion stays in
motion unless acted upon by an outside force" correct? If you throw a
ball on Earth is is acted upon by gravity, friction, wind resistance
etc. Throw a ball in space it is acted upon by nothing. It keeps going
indefinitely because nothing acts upon it in a vacuum. So then, when a
rocket accelerates in space, how do they stop it? How do the steer it?
How do they prevent it from exponential acceleration? None of it makes
sense. Even if you believe that rockets work in space and that the gas
causes propulsion, in a vacuum something would keep accelerating if
something keeps propelling it. To stop, you would need to exert
MASSIVE amounts of force in the opposite direction to stop it. Think
about that. Even so, there still remains nothing in space to even
create propulsion in the first place.
You have to question things to move forward.
CUNTICA
Mar 30, 2012, 5:24:22 AM3/30/12
to
" Now, this rocket starts spewing gas out its rear end."
That sounds more like your muzzie/wog pig farts?
"Much like you cannot blow your own"
^
( )
I I
I I
I I
I I
O IO
"Gobble - gobble, gobble - gobble, slurp - slurp"
"Gulp - gulp, lick - lick!'
"Yum - yum!"
Dean
Mar 30, 2012, 5:44:10 AM3/30/12
to
Go away.
Guy
Mar 30, 2012, 5:42:30 AM3/30/12
to
with the vapour of your choice and release you. We could all watch if
you accelerated in any particular direction and for how long.
Guy
Moramarth
Mar 30, 2012, 5:58:42 AM3/30/12
to
> You have to question things to move forward.
To move forward you have to apply thrust.
Rockets can provide thrust.
Rockets work.
Your brain doesn't.
Mark Sieving
Mar 30, 2012, 10:01:27 AM3/30/12
to
On Friday, March 30, 2012 3:53:25 AM UTC-5, Warhol wrote:
> Now, this rocket starts spewing gas out its rear end. Why would that
> gas propel it?
If you really want to know (which I doubt) look up "conservation of momentum".
> Now, this rocket starts spewing gas out its rear end. Why would that
> gas propel it?
John Mianowski
Mar 30, 2012, 10:38:59 AM3/30/12
to
I'm sure it makes perfect sense, & seems totally logical, to somebody with a 2nd grade education.
Warhol
Mar 30, 2012, 2:51:04 PM3/30/12
to
On Mar 30, 11:58 am, Moramarth <Morama...@moramarth.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
ITS FAKE!
:)
prove it they can push against nothing... All what I ask... I thought
that would be easy for all the clever boys in 5 groups, to prove me my
conclusions wrong...
People's minds operate in a belief systems construct. (Religion is -
or can be - one of them). So basically it's an integrated (belief)
system of "religions"; some based on supernatural, and the rest on the
physical and political world.
Once formulated, 99.9% of people are unable (and unwilling) to change
their belief dogmas, be it religious, scientific or political, in the
face of ANY data or proof to the contrary.
This makes "science" just a form of religion with immutable tenets and
dogmas.
The 0.1% of us who constantly modify our world construct based on new
facts and information are essentially treated a pariahs.
I personally have been accused many times that "You have said and
believed this-or-that last year, or whenever; why do you profess a
different opinion/belief now?" When I try to explain that I have new
info and facts which puts that very subject in a very different light
and explanation, I'm sill(!) accused of "dishonesty"(!), because "you
said that then, and you you're saying this now".
Apparently, with most people (which I don't understand) once they lock
into a belief system, it becomes a dogma, from which deviation is
heresy, regardless of new info or (new) proof of its utter falsehood.
Basically people are robotic, intellectuallly dishonest, narrowminded
and literally stupid for the most - in spite of their education,
degrees, etc.
Scientists are worse than fundamentalist fanatics when it comes to
accepting
changes no matter how slight the changes may be,
No scientist wants to be seen as less fanatic than any of the others
in the flock. And the flock of bleating
sheep will viciously turn against any one of their own who utters an
unsanctioned word.
Some times the tables get turned on them and then they pretend to not
notice. Immanuel Velikovsky
comes to mind as an example of standing his ground and not caving in
to the naysayers.
As for the thick headed carved in stone types who cannot deal with new
circumstances or facts, we have
one on here who wants to be the Adolph Hitler of the groups and
enforce rigid thinking habits on everyone
else.
All he (she) is accomplishing is to chase people away. What will be
left after the PC cop gets the free thinkers weeded out?
wrote:
:)
prove it they can push against nothing... All what I ask... I thought
that would be easy for all the clever boys in 5 groups, to prove me my
conclusions wrong...
People's minds operate in a belief systems construct. (Religion is -
or can be - one of them). So basically it's an integrated (belief)
system of "religions"; some based on supernatural, and the rest on the
physical and political world.
Once formulated, 99.9% of people are unable (and unwilling) to change
their belief dogmas, be it religious, scientific or political, in the
face of ANY data or proof to the contrary.
This makes "science" just a form of religion with immutable tenets and
dogmas.
The 0.1% of us who constantly modify our world construct based on new
facts and information are essentially treated a pariahs.
I personally have been accused many times that "You have said and
believed this-or-that last year, or whenever; why do you profess a
different opinion/belief now?" When I try to explain that I have new
info and facts which puts that very subject in a very different light
and explanation, I'm sill(!) accused of "dishonesty"(!), because "you
said that then, and you you're saying this now".
Apparently, with most people (which I don't understand) once they lock
into a belief system, it becomes a dogma, from which deviation is
heresy, regardless of new info or (new) proof of its utter falsehood.
Basically people are robotic, intellectuallly dishonest, narrowminded
and literally stupid for the most - in spite of their education,
degrees, etc.
Scientists are worse than fundamentalist fanatics when it comes to
accepting
changes no matter how slight the changes may be,
No scientist wants to be seen as less fanatic than any of the others
in the flock. And the flock of bleating
sheep will viciously turn against any one of their own who utters an
unsanctioned word.
Some times the tables get turned on them and then they pretend to not
notice. Immanuel Velikovsky
comes to mind as an example of standing his ground and not caving in
to the naysayers.
As for the thick headed carved in stone types who cannot deal with new
circumstances or facts, we have
one on here who wants to be the Adolph Hitler of the groups and
enforce rigid thinking habits on everyone
else.
All he (she) is accomplishing is to chase people away. What will be
left after the PC cop gets the free thinkers weeded out?
Moramarth
Mar 30, 2012, 3:36:18 PM3/30/12
to
On Mar 30, 7:51 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 11:58 am, Moramarth <Morama...@moramarth.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 30, 9:53 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > You have to question things to move forward.
>
> > To move forward you have to apply thrust.
> > Rockets can provide thrust.
> > Rockets work.
> > Your brain doesn't.
>
> ITS FAKE!
Agreed. Your brain is a fake....
> On Mar 30, 11:58 am, Moramarth <Morama...@moramarth.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 30, 9:53 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > You have to question things to move forward.
>
> > To move forward you have to apply thrust.
> > Rockets can provide thrust.
> > Rockets work.
> > Your brain doesn't.
>
> ITS FAKE!
>
> :)
Warhol
Mar 30, 2012, 3:53:56 PM3/30/12
to
I want to know if cows fly... that will conservation of momentum... ha
ha ha.... Learn to understand what you read people... since thats is a
clear problem here...
Facts is in vacuum the laws of newton like they have learned you have
no effect... and you may try to defend the lie as much as you want,
but that won't never change the facts....,
My words are very simple words you known, Rockets can't fly in
vacuum....
And for the cowards who snip the groups... is that because you don't
have any answer to share? The same reason why they delete my reply s
and thread in any moderated forum...James Randi forum is another one
of those forums on which pro-NASA moderators use their power to
control the direction debates take. That was blatant censorship. The
moderators are trying to keep the discussions inside the box so people
will keep thinking inside the box.
But to give answer to question, that they can not... Let us hide the
truth and pretend as if it doesn't exist... well you ain't lucky I am
already following like a ghost you cowards with my remarks, 9 years
now and I don't even remember the quantity of topics on the many
subject... with no reply, than attacking the messenger... with words
of liars, and cowards, and collaborators and traitors... Are these the
words of the great of the nations, the all powerful boards and
syndicates of the Earth?
"Don't let them see us! Don't tell them what we are doing!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upD3fLvZCM8
Warhol
Mar 30, 2012, 4:14:43 PM3/30/12
to
would that be?
although in a round about way you have actually agreed with several
points raised why the rocket would not work in space.
ps yours is an old technique,
if you can't blind them with science, then baffle them with bullshit.
Newton's 3rd law...
that works fine on earth, think about how that works fine on earth
then you will see why it doesn't work in the vacuum of space.
we have been fed so many lies and they rely on our blind acceptance to
continue the lies (seems to be workin well too)...
Message has been deleted
Moramarth
Mar 30, 2012, 10:00:55 PM3/30/12
to
On Mar 30, 9:14 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 9:36 pm, Moramarth <Morama...@moramarth.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 30, 7:51 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:> On Mar 30, 11:58 am, Moramarth <Morama...@moramarth.demon.co.uk>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 30, 9:53 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > You have to question things to move forward.
>
> > > > To move forward you have to apply thrust.
> > > > Rockets can provide thrust.
> > > > Rockets work.
> > > > Your brain doesn't.
>
> > > ITS FAKE!
>
> > Agreed. Your brain is a fake....
>
> spent a bit of time there to debunk a 'idiotic theory' didn't you, why
> would that be?
Because your "reasoning" is so risable as to neither require nor
> On Mar 30, 9:36 pm, Moramarth <Morama...@moramarth.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 30, 7:51 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:> On Mar 30, 11:58 am, Moramarth <Morama...@moramarth.demon.co.uk>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 30, 9:53 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > You have to question things to move forward.
>
> > > > To move forward you have to apply thrust.
> > > > Rockets can provide thrust.
> > > > Rockets work.
> > > > Your brain doesn't.
>
> > > ITS FAKE!
>
> > Agreed. Your brain is a fake....
>
> spent a bit of time there to debunk a 'idiotic theory' didn't you, why
> would that be?
deserve detailed refutation - merely mockery, and then only when I
feel so inclined. Society has progressed to a state where it is
unacceptable to throw stale buns at drooling village idiots, but
fortunately usenet has provided those of us so inclined with an
equvalent...
Father Haskell
Mar 31, 2012, 2:49:24 AM3/31/12
to
On Mar 30, 4:53 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Earth the gases from a rocket dispense that
> energy and push against air, gravity etc. What do the gases push
> against in space?
Front of the engine.
> On Earth the gases from a rocket dispense that
> energy and push against air, gravity etc. What do the gases push
> against in space?
Warhol
Mar 31, 2012, 1:35:45 PM3/31/12
to
the vacuum would have on the situation, such as an expanding fuel/gas
would have nothing to push against. This is bogus science.
Read carefully, I don't want you to miss this.
First to begin, let me correct your comment.
1) We are dealing in space not earth.
2) There is a vacuum not an atmosphere.
3) The rocket is not throwing a heavy ball anywhere, it is exhausting
burnt fuel in the form of an expanding gas.
So we go on, the expanding gas is needed as a pressurised from of
propellant in order to propel the rocket forward as it tries to
relieve pressure by flowing through a designed nozzle (and the gas is
not forced out in the same essences as anybody throwing a heavy ball).
Because the section of the chamber facing the rocket is still
subjected to pressure, it will force the rocket forward.
A vacuum however, will aid (I don't like to say suck) the gas in it's
escape out of the chamber and increase expansion when gases exit the
chamber. This will rob the engine of force needed to thrust the rocket
forward. Hence the rocket concept will not work in the vacuum of space
and fall back down to earth.
lol
they're not in space!
same as the 'space' shuttle lol
and still nobody has presented a video of rocket providing thrust in a
vacuum? hmmm why is that?
lol, take here a deep breath sonny...
Until any of you tards put together a vacuum chamber and prove that a
small rocket will produce thrust in said vacuum chamber, STFU.
rocket on wheels on runway, lightweight huge vacuum chamber attached
to rocket exhaust, vacuum chamber doesn't blow up or cause any extra
resistance to the rocket, rocket is fired, does the rocket still move
forward? your science says YES, me says NO.
Firstly the rocket isn't throwing anything. It is the expansion of
gases in a chamber looking for a way out to further expand in order to
equalise in pressure with the outside environment in order to create
thrust.
All is done is the fuel is ignited and the rest takes place on it's
own. with the carefully calculated design of the nozzle thrust is
achieved. In the example you have drawn, it is the same as if we say
the rocket pushes the gas out but in fact the gas escapes through the
relatively small nozzle via it's own expansion in the chamber.
But in a vacuum this gas will be aided (again I don't like to say
suck) out of the chamber by the negative force (vacuum) acting on the
gas.
How ever you and every other person that backs this theory needs to
prove your claims that rockets will work in the vacuum of space. As
far as physics is concerned it will not work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haYhAibOoeA
Warhol
Mar 31, 2012, 1:42:37 PM3/31/12
to
have a belief that that is true.
sheep I suppose???
truth has become like a Ghost, never look at it with the eyes...
http://youtu.be/RJalKuRs0H4?t=1m16s
Warhol
Mar 31, 2012, 1:46:26 PM3/31/12
to
On Mar 30, 11:16 pm, "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com>
wrote:
> too.
>
> The gas will go out and push the other mass in the opposite direction,
> the same way a rifle will push against your shoulder when you fire a
> shot from it.
>
> The main thing about space is that aerodynamics don't apply in the
> vacuum. No wings needed, nor will they work as in an atmosphere.
> Control surfaces are out and thrust must be used to maneuver the
> craft.
imagine yourself farting in space...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXAWW0VJZ4A
wrote:
> On Mar 30, 3:53 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 30, 4:01 pm, Mark Sieving <mark_siev...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Friday, March 30, 2012 3:53:25 AM UTC-5, Warhol wrote:
> > > > Now, this rocket starts spewing gas out its rear end. Why would that
> > > > gas propel it?
>
> > > If you really want to know (which I doubt) look up "conservation of momentum".
>
> > years
> > I want to know if cows fly... that will conservation of momentum...
>
> Yes, fire enough gas out of a cow's rear end and it will fly in space
>
> > On Mar 30, 4:01 pm, Mark Sieving <mark_siev...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Friday, March 30, 2012 3:53:25 AM UTC-5, Warhol wrote:
> > > > Now, this rocket starts spewing gas out its rear end. Why would that
> > > > gas propel it?
>
> > > If you really want to know (which I doubt) look up "conservation of momentum".
>
> > years
> > I want to know if cows fly... that will conservation of momentum...
>
> too.
>
> The gas will go out and push the other mass in the opposite direction,
> the same way a rifle will push against your shoulder when you fire a
> shot from it.
>
> The main thing about space is that aerodynamics don't apply in the
> vacuum. No wings needed, nor will they work as in an atmosphere.
> Control surfaces are out and thrust must be used to maneuver the
> craft.
imagine yourself farting in space...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXAWW0VJZ4A
panamfloyd@hotmail.com rade
Mar 31, 2012, 2:04:32 PM3/31/12
to
On Mar 31, 1:35 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 31, 8:49 am, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 30, 4:53 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Earth the gases from a rocket dispense that
> > > energy and push against air, gravity etc. What do the gases push
> > > against in space?
>
> > Front of the engine.
>
> NO, this cannot work in a vacuum. You just ignored the effects that
You are a fucking idiot. How `bout we put you in a vacuum chamber,
> On Mar 31, 8:49 am, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 30, 4:53 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Earth the gases from a rocket dispense that
> > > energy and push against air, gravity etc. What do the gases push
> > > against in space?
>
> > Front of the engine.
>
> NO, this cannot work in a vacuum. You just ignored the effects that
shove an Estes D12-5 up your ass, and start it.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
Budikka666
Mar 31, 2012, 2:30:18 PM3/31/12
to
On Mar 30, 3:53 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Look at it this way. Let's suppose a rocket is floating... incorrect,
> since things cannot "float" in space. Okay, let's say a rocket is
> stationary in space. Nothing is acting on this rocket.
Never happens.
> Look at it this way. Let's suppose a rocket is floating... incorrect,
> since things cannot "float" in space. Okay, let's say a rocket is
> stationary in space. Nothing is acting on this rocket.
> It's weight is
> null because it is in a vacuum.
or lack thereof.
> It has no resistance to anything. When
> you stand and push something, you have all sorts of Resistances acting
> on you and the object you push. Friction of your feet on the floor,
> wind, weight, gravity. In space, none of these things exist. The
> rocket cannot exert energy because there simply is nothing to exert it
> against.
> Now, this rocket starts spewing gas out its rear end. Why would that
> gas propel it?
Go get an education, then think about posting your cluelessness in the
news groups - especially the atheist ones where our regulars are
sharper than usual.
[Rest snipped before i bust a gut laughing]
Budikka
Warhol
Mar 31, 2012, 3:58:32 PM3/31/12
to
On Mar 31, 8:04 pm, "panamfl...@hotmail.com rade"
Why? Because its takes physics to fly on earth?
What's the physics of orbit? Nothing?
You can't have physics in a vacuum.
You can't have an object interacting with nothing.
not wading through the pages of shill-fest (they come out of the
woodwork for anything nasa-related)
but did anyone come up with a video of rocket propulsion working in a
vacuum? that would be a worthwhile experiment to try and document,
wouldn't it?
Why is NASA even pretending to orbit SPACE? -- You can't fly or remain
aloft in a vacuum. Why? Why the pathetic comedy?
Vacuum is NASA Palestine... they get ejected by Hassan...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH4Ou6CnIuI
"NASA should not exist”
What's the physics of orbit? Nothing?
You can't have physics in a vacuum.
You can't have an object interacting with nothing.
not wading through the pages of shill-fest (they come out of the
woodwork for anything nasa-related)
but did anyone come up with a video of rocket propulsion working in a
vacuum? that would be a worthwhile experiment to try and document,
wouldn't it?
Why is NASA even pretending to orbit SPACE? -- You can't fly or remain
aloft in a vacuum. Why? Why the pathetic comedy?
Vacuum is NASA Palestine... they get ejected by Hassan...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH4Ou6CnIuI
"NASA should not exist”
Brad Guth
Mar 31, 2012, 5:41:04 PM3/31/12
to
but obviously self-taught. It's one of the main reasons why they've
never had to pay any taxes.
http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Moramarth
Mar 31, 2012, 6:46:58 PM3/31/12
to
They do. It's just that for anyone with rational thought processes,
they won't come up with anything like your "truth".
Your statement in your initial post that Inertia doesn't exist in
space proves attempting a reasoned arguement would be fruitless.
they won't come up with anything like your "truth".
Your statement in your initial post that Inertia doesn't exist in
space proves attempting a reasoned arguement would be fruitless.
Moramarth
Mar 31, 2012, 6:37:15 PM3/31/12
to
If he wants to fart into empty space, he only has to put his butt-
crack to your ear...
crack to your ear...
Father Haskell
Mar 31, 2012, 8:01:42 PM3/31/12
to
On Mar 31, 2:04 pm, "panamfl...@hotmail.com rade"
0 - 30 Newtons thrust in under 0.30 seconds. That's roughly
equivalent to kicking his ass with a 66 lb boot.
equivalent to kicking his ass with a 66 lb boot.
panam...@hotmail.com
Apr 1, 2012, 10:55:39 PM4/1/12
to
kick in the ass he deserves..but I'm lazy. I did qualify L1 on an H or
something here in the US, but that was with a reloadable. Had to
borrow a casing and assemble the motor (and do the math to determine
the delay/ejection charge) m'self! I've turned into one of those guys
who just builds clones of Estes/Centuri kits. Can't beat just walking
into the hobby shop & buying a motor to do the deed. Like Stein/Estes/
Carlisle said 60yrs ago, the model airplane guys don't have to build
their motors...<bfg>
-PF, Atl.
#2015/KoBAAWA!
Father Haskell
Apr 1, 2012, 11:10:53 PM4/1/12
to
On Apr 1, 10:55 pm, "panamfl...@hotmail.com" <panamfl...@hotmail.com>
The smell of a burnt out Estes motor was the smell of my childhood.
panamfloyd@hotmail.com rade
Apr 2, 2012, 12:01:06 AM4/2/12
to
flow over your!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqupfFjSJXw
-PF
panamfloyd@hotmail.com rade
Apr 2, 2012, 12:18:29 AM4/2/12
to
On Mar 31, 3:58 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
snip
I found your picture on the internet...
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20091111003919/uncyclopedia/images/8/80/Long-turd-big.jpg
snip
I found your picture on the internet...
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20091111003919/uncyclopedia/images/8/80/Long-turd-big.jpg
George152
Apr 2, 2012, 5:10:59 PM4/2/12
to
On 3/31/2012 3:38 AM, John Mianowski wrote:
> I'm sure it makes perfect sense,& seems totally logical, to somebody with a 2nd grade education.
So finding Warhol with his fifth rate education makes the 2nd grade
education look really good
> I'm sure it makes perfect sense,& seems totally logical, to somebody with a 2nd grade education.
So finding Warhol with his fifth rate education makes the 2nd grade
education look really good
Tony Dragon
Apr 2, 2012, 6:39:05 PM4/2/12
to
On 30/03/2012 09:53, Warhol wrote:
> Look at it this way. Let's suppose a rocket is floating... incorrect,
> since things cannot "float" in space. Okay, let's say a rocket is
> stationary in space. Nothing is acting on this rocket. It's weight is
> Look at it this way. Let's suppose a rocket is floating... incorrect,
> since things cannot "float" in space. Okay, let's say a rocket is
> null because it is in a vacuum. It has no resistance to anything. When
> you stand and push something, you have all sorts of Resistances acting
> on you and the object you push. Friction of your feet on the floor,
> wind, weight, gravity. In space, none of these things exist. The
> rocket cannot exert energy because there simply is nothing to exert it
> against.
Before I comment on the rest.
> on you and the object you push. Friction of your feet on the floor,
> wind, weight, gravity. In space, none of these things exist. The
> rocket cannot exert energy because there simply is nothing to exert it
> against.
Why would something weigh nothing because it is in a vacuum?
Warhol
Apr 2, 2012, 6:56:23 PM4/2/12
to
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/u6l4d.cfm
Now I await your comment on the rest...
panamfloyd@hotmail.com rade
Apr 2, 2012, 6:59:13 PM4/2/12
to
linuxgal
Apr 2, 2012, 9:11:22 PM4/2/12
to
Warhol wrote:
> On Apr 3, 12:39 am, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> Why would something weigh nothing because it is in a vacuum?
>
> Vacuum of space(heaven)... in free fall you are weightless...
>
So the Pringles inside a vacuum-packed can should be floating. Cool.
> On Apr 3, 12:39 am, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> Why would something weigh nothing because it is in a vacuum?
>
> Vacuum of space(heaven)... in free fall you are weightless...
>
Seth lePod
Apr 2, 2012, 9:39:30 PM4/2/12
to
On Mar 30, 11:51 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 11:58 am, Moramarth <Morama...@moramarth.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 30, 9:53 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > You have to question things to move forward.
>
> > To move forward you have to apply thrust.
> > Rockets can provide thrust.
> > Rockets work.
> > Your brain doesn't.
>
> ITS FAKE!
>
> :)
> On Mar 30, 11:58 am, Moramarth <Morama...@moramarth.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 30, 9:53 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > You have to question things to move forward.
>
> > To move forward you have to apply thrust.
> > Rockets can provide thrust.
> > Rockets work.
> > Your brain doesn't.
>
> ITS FAKE!
>
>
> prove it they can push against nothing... All what I ask... I thought
> that would be easy for all the clever boys in 5 groups, to prove me my
> conclusions wrong...
>
> People's minds operate in a belief systems construct. (Religion is -
> or can be - one of them). So basically it's an integrated (belief)
> system of "religions"; some based on supernatural, and the rest on the
> physical and political world.
>
//
> Once formulated, 99.9% of people are unable (and unwilling) to change
> their belief dogmas, be it religious, scientific or political, in the
> face of ANY data or proof to the contrary.
Oh. You have data or proof.
That changes everything. You should have said so in
the beginning.
But no mind, you can go ahead and present it now:
.
.
.
.
Seth
>
> This makes "science" just a form of religion with immutable tenets and
> dogmas.
>
> The 0.1% of us who constantly modify our world construct based on new
> facts and information are essentially treated a pariahs.
>
> I personally have been accused many times that "You have said and
> believed this-or-that last year, or whenever; why do you profess a
> different opinion/belief now?" When I try to explain that I have new
> info and facts which puts that very subject in a very different light
> and explanation, I'm sill(!) accused of "dishonesty"(!), because "you
> said that then, and you you're saying this now".
>
> Apparently, with most people (which I don't understand) once they lock
> into a belief system, it becomes a dogma, from which deviation is
> heresy, regardless of new info or (new) proof of its utter falsehood.
>
> Basically people are robotic, intellectuallly dishonest, narrowminded
> and literally stupid for the most - in spite of their education,
> degrees, etc.
>
> Scientists are worse than fundamentalist fanatics when it comes to
> accepting
>
> changes no matter how slight the changes may be,
>
> No scientist wants to be seen as less fanatic than any of the others
> in the flock. And the flock of bleating
>
> sheep will viciously turn against any one of their own who utters an
> unsanctioned word.
>
> Some times the tables get turned on them and then they pretend to not
> notice. Immanuel Velikovsky
>
> comes to mind as an example of standing his ground and not caving in
> to the naysayers.
>
> As for the thick headed carved in stone types who cannot deal with new
> circumstances or facts, we have
>
> one on here who wants to be the Adolph Hitler of the groups and
> enforce rigid thinking habits on everyone
>
> else.
>
> All he (she) is accomplishing is to chase people away. What will be
> left after the PC cop gets the free thinkers weeded out?
Seth lePod
Apr 2, 2012, 10:17:07 PM4/2/12
to
On Mar 31, 10:35 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 31, 8:49 am, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 30, 4:53 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Earth the gases from a rocket dispense that
> > > energy and push against air, gravity etc. What do the gases push
> > > against in space?
>
> > Front of the engine.
>
> NO, this cannot work in a vacuum. You just ignored the effects that
> the vacuum would have on the situation, such as an expanding fuel/gas
> would have nothing to push against. This is bogus science.
>
> Read carefully, I don't want you to miss this.
>
> First to begin, let me correct your comment.
> 1) We are dealing in space not earth.
> 2) There is a vacuum not an atmosphere.
> 3) The rocket is not throwing a heavy ball anywhere, it is exhausting
> burnt fuel in the form of an expanding gas.
>
> So we go on, the expanding gas is needed as a pressurised from of
> propellant in order to propel the rocket forward as it tries to
> relieve pressure by flowing through a designed nozzle (and the gas is
> not forced out in the same essences as anybody throwing a heavy ball).
> Because the section of the chamber facing the rocket is still
> subjected to pressure, it will force the rocket forward.
>
//
> On Mar 31, 8:49 am, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 30, 4:53 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Earth the gases from a rocket dispense that
> > > energy and push against air, gravity etc. What do the gases push
> > > against in space?
>
> > Front of the engine.
>
> NO, this cannot work in a vacuum. You just ignored the effects that
> the vacuum would have on the situation, such as an expanding fuel/gas
> would have nothing to push against. This is bogus science.
>
> Read carefully, I don't want you to miss this.
>
> First to begin, let me correct your comment.
> 1) We are dealing in space not earth.
> 2) There is a vacuum not an atmosphere.
> 3) The rocket is not throwing a heavy ball anywhere, it is exhausting
> burnt fuel in the form of an expanding gas.
>
> So we go on, the expanding gas is needed as a pressurised from of
> propellant in order to propel the rocket forward as it tries to
> relieve pressure by flowing through a designed nozzle (and the gas is
> not forced out in the same essences as anybody throwing a heavy ball).
> Because the section of the chamber facing the rocket is still
> subjected to pressure, it will force the rocket forward.
>
> A vacuum however, will aid (I don't like to say suck) the gas in it's
> escape out of the chamber and increase expansion when gases exit the
> chamber. This will rob the engine of force needed to thrust the rocket
> forward. Hence the rocket concept will not work in the vacuum of space
> and fall back down to earth.
Zero understanding of -- take your pick -- the kinetic theory of gases
> escape out of the chamber and increase expansion when gases exit the
> chamber. This will rob the engine of force needed to thrust the rocket
> forward. Hence the rocket concept will not work in the vacuum of space
> and fall back down to earth.
or statistical mechanics
(correct answer: both)
Seth
Seth lePod
Apr 2, 2012, 10:21:47 PM4/2/12
to
On Mar 30, 11:49 pm, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 4:53 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Earth the gases from a rocket dispense that
> > energy and push against air, gravity etc. What do the gases push
> > against in space?
>
//
> On Mar 30, 4:53 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Earth the gases from a rocket dispense that
> > energy and push against air, gravity etc. What do the gases push
> > against in space?
>
> Front of the engine.
Give it up, father -- you're dealing with a boy who
seems to think that if your released a party balloon
in a vacuum chamber, it would just sit there on the
floor.
He's of a type with Ramesch's "Nobody can explain
rainbows".
Seth
Warhol
Apr 2, 2012, 10:40:11 PM4/2/12
to
things cannot "float" in space since the mass is in free fall...
No popcorn for you...how much fuel is there in the small
satellites(Space Rocket/ spaceships?) like Voyager that are still out
there flying FORWARD?
Big deal, it's not the Space Rocket, Space Ship or Voyager from Star
Trek.
Voyager 2 is currently located about 9 billion miles (14 billion
kilometers) from Earth in the heliosphere. To reach there it needed 34
years (say again? - Thirty four years).
Oh what a powerful engine must be there to fly that fast ROFL
I haven't seen Russians or Americans out there on Mars.
If you did and know something others don't - please share that info
with others. I really would like to see those guys Walking down the
valleys of Mars.
Instead they play with the toys...
Course correlation LOL is the Correction FORCE, strong enough to push
against nothing the object throuh the space?
OH BOY!
Father Haskell
Apr 2, 2012, 10:56:38 PM4/2/12
to
On Apr 2, 10:40 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> No popcorn for you...how much fuel is there in the small
> satellites(Space Rocket/ spaceships?) like Voyager that are still out
> there flying FORWARD?
For a craft set to escape the solar system, momentum, in a
>
> No popcorn for you...how much fuel is there in the small
> satellites(Space Rocket/ spaceships?) like Voyager that are still out
> there flying FORWARD?
hyperbolic path which orbits the sun, is sufficient to maintain
orbit without thrust. Pretty much the same principle that
keeps the Earth from falling into the Sun.
Warhol
Apr 2, 2012, 11:02:48 PM4/2/12
to
if you knew only 10% of the real truth, you would be shocked...
you also didn't explain why people CAN NOT travel to the nearest
planet, or even to the Moon - when it's so easy to push the space
"crafts" "ships", motherboards or whatever through the Space.
44 fucking years since the famous moonkey bussines.
I'll tell you why - because Humans CAN NOT leave this planet. This is
our only Mother (Ship) that carry us through the Space. very Low Earth
Orbit at the edge of space is the only place we could go and return
safe but that's all. Deal with that folks, and you will be just fine.
Do you all think that the whole world is invited and works on LHC just
for a fun, spending millions of dollars, daily?
Some, thanks God, finally came to that same conclusion that Earth is
the "cage" and now searching for the only way to "escape" and "travel"
away, without using rockets that needs "whoknowswhatfuel" to bring Man
to the nearest planet.
First evidence for string theory at the Large Hadron Collider is just
beginning. More to follow, stay tuned!
chibiabos
Apr 2, 2012, 11:32:45 PM4/2/12
to
In article
<167c29c1-6c3c-435b...@i18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion
You're just fucking stupid. Doubly so for posting this bullshit on
Usenet, where no bad idea and its moron owner goes unpunished.
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
<167c29c1-6c3c-435b...@i18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 11:58 am, Moramarth <Morama...@moramarth.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > On Mar 30, 9:53 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > You have to question things to move forward.
> >
> > To move forward you have to apply thrust.
> > Rockets can provide thrust.
> > Rockets work.
> > Your brain doesn't.
>
>
> ITS FAKE!
>
> :)
>
> prove it they can push against nothing... All what I ask... I thought
> that would be easy for all the clever boys in 5 groups, to prove me my
> conclusions wrong...
Why should we waste our time? Isaac Newton proved you wrong 400 years
> On Mar 30, 11:58 am, Moramarth <Morama...@moramarth.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > On Mar 30, 9:53 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > You have to question things to move forward.
> >
> > To move forward you have to apply thrust.
> > Rockets can provide thrust.
> > Rockets work.
> > Your brain doesn't.
>
>
> ITS FAKE!
>
> :)
>
> prove it they can push against nothing... All what I ask... I thought
> that would be easy for all the clever boys in 5 groups, to prove me my
> conclusions wrong...
ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion
You're just fucking stupid. Doubly so for posting this bullshit on
Usenet, where no bad idea and its moron owner goes unpunished.
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
Warhol
Apr 3, 2012, 12:01:02 AM4/3/12
to
Op 3-4-2012 5:32, chibiabos schreef:
Common Misconceptions... Newton ain't the father of the theory rockets
can travel in space, ... it was Robert H. Goddard who theorized rockets
could voyage in space... So please to all those who come here shouting
newton laws...
> In a research paper in 1919, entitled ''A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes,'' Dr. Goddard described his concepts for rocket propulsion and concluded that it was possible to build a rocket that could reach the moon. The New York Times printed an editorial-page article suggesting that Dr. Goddard was either playing a joke or was ignorant of elementary physics if he thought that a rocket could work in the vacuum of space.
http://www.nytimes.com/1982/10/05/science/a-salute-to-long-neglected-father-of-american-rocketry.html
So do you read what is said in the article???? Dr. Goddard was either
playing a joke or was ignorant of elementary physics if he thought that
a rocket could work in the vacuum of space.
Newton would have laughed if he knew what the 20th & 21th century did
with his laws of physics.
And must I ad that in vacuum of space the laws of Newton ain't
correct... is that really so hard to understand that there is no action
when you push against nothing????
I don't care what they show on Star Trek or Star Wars, I don't care what
they show on Star Trek or Star Wars, space is not an ocean or
atmospheric environment.
can travel in space, ... it was Robert H. Goddard who theorized rockets
could voyage in space... So please to all those who come here shouting
newton laws...
> In a research paper in 1919, entitled ''A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes,'' Dr. Goddard described his concepts for rocket propulsion and concluded that it was possible to build a rocket that could reach the moon. The New York Times printed an editorial-page article suggesting that Dr. Goddard was either playing a joke or was ignorant of elementary physics if he thought that a rocket could work in the vacuum of space.
http://www.nytimes.com/1982/10/05/science/a-salute-to-long-neglected-father-of-american-rocketry.html
So do you read what is said in the article???? Dr. Goddard was either
playing a joke or was ignorant of elementary physics if he thought that
a rocket could work in the vacuum of space.
Newton would have laughed if he knew what the 20th & 21th century did
with his laws of physics.
And must I ad that in vacuum of space the laws of Newton ain't
correct... is that really so hard to understand that there is no action
when you push against nothing????
I don't care what they show on Star Trek or Star Wars, I don't care what
they show on Star Trek or Star Wars, space is not an ocean or
atmospheric environment.
Warhol
Apr 3, 2012, 1:26:13 AM4/3/12
to
You're a troll, nothing more, nothing less.
You're not interested in science, not interested in finding things
out, and not actually interested at all in whether rockets would work
in a vacuum. You're just here to post crap, and stir people up...
Eugene Griessel
Apr 3, 2012, 2:25:36 AM4/3/12
to
On Mon, 2 Apr 2012 19:40:11 -0700 (PDT), Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Then let not winter's ragged hand deface,
In thee thy summer ere thou be distilled:
Make sweet some vial; treasure thou some place,
With beauty's treasure ere it be self-killed:
That use is not forbidden usury,
Which happies those that pay the willing loan;
That's for thy self to breed another thee,
Or ten times happier be it ten for one,
Ten times thy self were happier than thou art,
If ten of thine ten times refigured thee:
Then what could death do if thou shouldst depart,
Leaving thee living in posterity?
Be not self-willed for thou art much too fair,
To be death's conquest and make worms thine heir.
wrote:
Then let not winter's ragged hand deface,
In thee thy summer ere thou be distilled:
Make sweet some vial; treasure thou some place,
With beauty's treasure ere it be self-killed:
That use is not forbidden usury,
Which happies those that pay the willing loan;
That's for thy self to breed another thee,
Or ten times happier be it ten for one,
Ten times thy self were happier than thou art,
If ten of thine ten times refigured thee:
Then what could death do if thou shouldst depart,
Leaving thee living in posterity?
Be not self-willed for thou art much too fair,
To be death's conquest and make worms thine heir.
Eugene Griessel
Apr 3, 2012, 2:25:56 AM4/3/12
to
On Mon, 2 Apr 2012 20:02:48 -0700 (PDT), Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Lo in the orient when the gracious light
Lifts up his burning head, each under eye
Doth homage to his new-appearing sight,
Serving with looks his sacred majesty,
And having climbed the steep-up heavenly hill,
Resembling strong youth in his middle age,
Yet mortal looks adore his beauty still,
Attending on his golden pilgrimage:
But when from highmost pitch with weary car,
Like feeble age he reeleth from the day,
The eyes (fore duteous) now converted are
From his low tract and look another way:
So thou, thy self out-going in thy noon:
Unlooked on diest unless thou get a son.
wrote:
Lo in the orient when the gracious light
Lifts up his burning head, each under eye
Doth homage to his new-appearing sight,
Serving with looks his sacred majesty,
And having climbed the steep-up heavenly hill,
Resembling strong youth in his middle age,
Yet mortal looks adore his beauty still,
Attending on his golden pilgrimage:
But when from highmost pitch with weary car,
Like feeble age he reeleth from the day,
The eyes (fore duteous) now converted are
From his low tract and look another way:
So thou, thy self out-going in thy noon:
Unlooked on diest unless thou get a son.
Eugene Griessel
Apr 3, 2012, 2:26:16 AM4/3/12
to
On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 06:01:02 +0200, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Music to hear, why hear'st thou music sadly?
Sweets with sweets war not, joy delights in joy:
Why lov'st thou that which thou receiv'st not gladly,
Or else receiv'st with pleasure thine annoy?
If the true concord of well-tuned sounds,
By unions married do offend thine ear,
They do but sweetly chide thee, who confounds
In singleness the parts that thou shouldst bear:
Mark how one string sweet husband to another,
Strikes each in each by mutual ordering;
Resembling sire, and child, and happy mother,
Who all in one, one pleasing note do sing:
Whose speechless song being many, seeming one,
Sings this to thee, 'Thou single wilt prove none'.
Music to hear, why hear'st thou music sadly?
Sweets with sweets war not, joy delights in joy:
Why lov'st thou that which thou receiv'st not gladly,
Or else receiv'st with pleasure thine annoy?
If the true concord of well-tuned sounds,
By unions married do offend thine ear,
They do but sweetly chide thee, who confounds
In singleness the parts that thou shouldst bear:
Mark how one string sweet husband to another,
Strikes each in each by mutual ordering;
Resembling sire, and child, and happy mother,
Who all in one, one pleasing note do sing:
Whose speechless song being many, seeming one,
Sings this to thee, 'Thou single wilt prove none'.
Eugene Griessel
Apr 3, 2012, 2:26:31 AM4/3/12
to
On Mon, 2 Apr 2012 22:26:13 -0700 (PDT), Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Is it for fear to wet a widow's eye,
That thou consum'st thy self in single life?
Ah, if thou issueless shalt hap to die,
The world will wail thee like a makeless wife,
The world will be thy widow and still weep,
That thou no form of thee hast left behind,
When every private widow well may keep,
By children's eyes, her husband's shape in mind:
Look what an unthrift in the world doth spend
Shifts but his place, for still the world enjoys it;
But beauty's waste hath in the world an end,
And kept unused the user so destroys it:
No love toward others in that bosom sits
That on himself such murd'rous shame commits.
wrote:
Is it for fear to wet a widow's eye,
That thou consum'st thy self in single life?
Ah, if thou issueless shalt hap to die,
The world will wail thee like a makeless wife,
The world will be thy widow and still weep,
That thou no form of thee hast left behind,
When every private widow well may keep,
By children's eyes, her husband's shape in mind:
Look what an unthrift in the world doth spend
Shifts but his place, for still the world enjoys it;
But beauty's waste hath in the world an end,
And kept unused the user so destroys it:
No love toward others in that bosom sits
That on himself such murd'rous shame commits.
Warhol
Apr 3, 2012, 2:29:36 AM4/3/12
to
hey Kook,
what happened to the flag you left behind on the moon .....hmmmm... no
telescope can spot it ...
:)
Sometimes is reading bs what turns people ignorant. It's always a sign
of intelligence to try to explain things using common sense and logic
instead of reading the "user's manual"...
Note that these are questions which do not get deep into technical
details. They're just common sense and logic...
what happened to the flag you left behind on the moon .....hmmmm... no
telescope can spot it ...
:)
Sometimes is reading bs what turns people ignorant. It's always a sign
of intelligence to try to explain things using common sense and logic
instead of reading the "user's manual"...
Note that these are questions which do not get deep into technical
details. They're just common sense and logic...
Eugene Griessel
Apr 3, 2012, 2:48:12 AM4/3/12
to
On Mon, 2 Apr 2012 23:29:36 -0700 (PDT), Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
For shame deny that thou bear'st love to any
Who for thy self art so unprovident.
Grant if thou wilt, thou art beloved of many,
But that thou none lov'st is most evident:
For thou art so possessed with murd'rous hate,
That 'gainst thy self thou stick'st not to conspire,
Seeking that beauteous roof to ruinate
Which to repair should be thy chief desire:
O change thy thought, that I may change my mind,
Shall hate be fairer lodged than gentle love?
Be as thy presence is gracious and kind,
Or to thy self at least kind-hearted prove,
Make thee another self for love of me,
That beauty still may live in thine or thee.
wrote:
For shame deny that thou bear'st love to any
Who for thy self art so unprovident.
Grant if thou wilt, thou art beloved of many,
But that thou none lov'st is most evident:
For thou art so possessed with murd'rous hate,
That 'gainst thy self thou stick'st not to conspire,
Seeking that beauteous roof to ruinate
Which to repair should be thy chief desire:
O change thy thought, that I may change my mind,
Shall hate be fairer lodged than gentle love?
Be as thy presence is gracious and kind,
Or to thy self at least kind-hearted prove,
Make thee another self for love of me,
That beauty still may live in thine or thee.
Warhol
Apr 3, 2012, 3:08:12 AM4/3/12
to
isnt it funny how truth always surfaces ?
Eugene Griessel
Apr 3, 2012, 3:25:07 AM4/3/12
to
On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 00:08:12 -0700 (PDT), Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
As fast as thou shalt wane so fast thou grow'st,
In one of thine, from that which thou departest,
And that fresh blood which youngly thou bestow'st,
Thou mayst call thine, when thou from youth convertest,
Herein lives wisdom, beauty, and increase,
Without this folly, age, and cold decay,
If all were minded so, the times should cease,
And threescore year would make the world away:
Let those whom nature hath not made for store,
Harsh, featureless, and rude, barrenly perish:
Look whom she best endowed, she gave thee more;
Which bounteous gift thou shouldst in bounty cherish:
She carved thee for her seal, and meant thereby,
Thou shouldst print more, not let that copy die.
wrote:
As fast as thou shalt wane so fast thou grow'st,
In one of thine, from that which thou departest,
And that fresh blood which youngly thou bestow'st,
Thou mayst call thine, when thou from youth convertest,
Herein lives wisdom, beauty, and increase,
Without this folly, age, and cold decay,
If all were minded so, the times should cease,
And threescore year would make the world away:
Let those whom nature hath not made for store,
Harsh, featureless, and rude, barrenly perish:
Look whom she best endowed, she gave thee more;
Which bounteous gift thou shouldst in bounty cherish:
She carved thee for her seal, and meant thereby,
Thou shouldst print more, not let that copy die.
Eugene Griessel
Apr 3, 2012, 3:41:18 AM4/3/12
to
On Mon, 2 Apr 2012 23:29:36 -0700 (PDT), Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
http://www.howstuffworks.com/rocket.htm
O that you were your self, but love you are
No longer yours, than you your self here live,
Against this coming end you should prepare,
And your sweet semblance to some other give.
So should that beauty which you hold in lease
Find no determination, then you were
Your self again after your self's decease,
When your sweet issue your sweet form should bear.
Who lets so fair a house fall to decay,
Which husbandry in honour might uphold,
Against the stormy gusts of winter's day
And barren rage of death's eternal cold?
O none but unthrifts, dear my love you know,
You had a father, let your son say so.
wrote:
http://www.howstuffworks.com/rocket.htm
O that you were your self, but love you are
No longer yours, than you your self here live,
Against this coming end you should prepare,
And your sweet semblance to some other give.
So should that beauty which you hold in lease
Find no determination, then you were
Your self again after your self's decease,
When your sweet issue your sweet form should bear.
Who lets so fair a house fall to decay,
Which husbandry in honour might uphold,
Against the stormy gusts of winter's day
And barren rage of death's eternal cold?
O none but unthrifts, dear my love you know,
You had a father, let your son say so.
Tony Dragon
Apr 3, 2012, 4:05:42 AM4/3/12
to
rest wont be any better, if you can't even get the fundamentals right.
Tony Dragon
Apr 3, 2012, 4:16:23 AM4/3/12
to
scientific qualifications (if he had any they would be quoted).
Warhol
Apr 3, 2012, 4:15:24 AM4/3/12
to
believe in the most ridiculous theory and when you have no more
obsessively small detailed "facts" to throw up to prove your point you
fall back to the scoundrel's last resort in any debate...purile
ridicule of the person debating you. And since you have resorted to
this course then I will engage your in a similar fashion.
1/ You still have not answered the main point of my previous posts.
Eugene Griessel
Apr 3, 2012, 4:21:27 AM4/3/12
to
face. So I guess they are built that way. They eat with their
rectums and defaecate with their mouths. Which is why we have to
endure this endless pile of shit from them.
Eugene L Griessel
Whom the Gods wish to destroy they force to upgrade.
Warhol
Apr 3, 2012, 4:25:22 AM4/3/12
to
Op 3-4-2012 10:16, Tony Dragon schreef:
No this ain't no prove... right... ha ha ha poor little mind...
I suggest you look here, Tony. before you do you'll need to take the
glasses of ignorance away from your eyes. You might find this hard though.
Man it is sad when the sheeple refuse to look into things for themselves
and just believe like blind morons what the main stream media tells them
to believe. jesus said it best " A NATION OF SHEEP"
Sadder still when ignoramuses believe in fairy tales and intricate
obsessive facts that amount to....NOTHING. If you are inclined to
research for truth Tony, I will give you the benefit of the doubt
(though I won't hold my breath...).
Go and study that link I gave Tony thoroughly, huh. :)
I suggest you look here, Tony. before you do you'll need to take the
glasses of ignorance away from your eyes. You might find this hard though.
Man it is sad when the sheeple refuse to look into things for themselves
and just believe like blind morons what the main stream media tells them
to believe. jesus said it best " A NATION OF SHEEP"
Sadder still when ignoramuses believe in fairy tales and intricate
obsessive facts that amount to....NOTHING. If you are inclined to
research for truth Tony, I will give you the benefit of the doubt
(though I won't hold my breath...).
Go and study that link I gave Tony thoroughly, huh. :)
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Warhol
Apr 3, 2012, 5:33:56 AM4/3/12
to
Op 3-4-2012 11:14, Jeff schreef:
> the US's most eminent scientists who published a scientific paper on
> which he put his name and reputation, well before the practicalities of
> launching such a rocket had ever been worked out. Not to mention the
> fact that Goddard's paper would have been peer reviewed before it was
> published!!
>
> If rockets don't work please tell us how all those visible satellites
> are emulated, and don't say by aircraft, as we have proved that it is
> impossible to emulate even just one with an aircraft and have it visible
> in the correct place for widely spaced locations, as is the case. Of
> course that is not to mention the radio signals from those satellites
> which are not reproducible by ground stations if they are to have the
> correct azimuth and elevation and Doppler shift at different locations
> simultaneously.
>
> Jeff
show one prove there are satellites there above... even that you cant do
you inglorious bastard...
Very simple question with Never A Straight Answer....
>
>>> So your proof is a 93 year old article written by a reporter who had no
>>> scientific qualifications (if he had any they would be quoted).
>>
>>
>> No this ain't no prove... right... ha ha ha poor little mind...
>> I suggest you look here, Tony. before you do you'll need to take the
>> glasses of ignorance away from your eyes. You might find this hard
>> though.
>>
>> Man it is sad when the sheeple refuse to look into things for themselves
>> and just believe like blind morons what the main stream media tells them
>> to believe. jesus said it best " A NATION OF SHEEP"
>>
>> Sadder still when ignoramuses believe in fairy tales and intricate
>> obsessive facts that amount to....NOTHING. If you are inclined to
>> research for truth Tony, I will give you the benefit of the doubt
>> (though I won't hold my breath...).
>>
>> Go and study that link I gave Tony thoroughly, huh. :)
>
> So you would rather believe an ill informed reporter rather than one of
>>> So your proof is a 93 year old article written by a reporter who had no
>>> scientific qualifications (if he had any they would be quoted).
>>
>>
>> No this ain't no prove... right... ha ha ha poor little mind...
>> I suggest you look here, Tony. before you do you'll need to take the
>> glasses of ignorance away from your eyes. You might find this hard
>> though.
>>
>> Man it is sad when the sheeple refuse to look into things for themselves
>> and just believe like blind morons what the main stream media tells them
>> to believe. jesus said it best " A NATION OF SHEEP"
>>
>> Sadder still when ignoramuses believe in fairy tales and intricate
>> obsessive facts that amount to....NOTHING. If you are inclined to
>> research for truth Tony, I will give you the benefit of the doubt
>> (though I won't hold my breath...).
>>
>> Go and study that link I gave Tony thoroughly, huh. :)
>
> the US's most eminent scientists who published a scientific paper on
> which he put his name and reputation, well before the practicalities of
> launching such a rocket had ever been worked out. Not to mention the
> fact that Goddard's paper would have been peer reviewed before it was
> published!!
>
> If rockets don't work please tell us how all those visible satellites
> are emulated, and don't say by aircraft, as we have proved that it is
> impossible to emulate even just one with an aircraft and have it visible
> in the correct place for widely spaced locations, as is the case. Of
> course that is not to mention the radio signals from those satellites
> which are not reproducible by ground stations if they are to have the
> correct azimuth and elevation and Doppler shift at different locations
> simultaneously.
>
> Jeff
show one prove there are satellites there above... even that you cant do
you inglorious bastard...
Very simple question with Never A Straight Answer....
Tony Dragon
Apr 3, 2012, 6:05:56 AM4/3/12
to
Message has been deleted
chibiabos
Apr 3, 2012, 12:46:26 PM4/3/12
to
In article <jldslv$uiv$1...@dont-email.me>, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Where do you think Goddard (et al) got his science? Rockets have been
maneuvering successfully in outer space for more than half a century.
Your bleatings that it isn't possible doesn't change that
incontrovertible fact.
> > In a research paper in 1919, entitled ''A Method of Reaching Extreme
> > Altitudes,'' Dr. Goddard described his concepts for rocket propulsion and
> > concluded that it was possible to build a rocket that could reach the moon.
> > The New York Times printed an editorial-page article suggesting that Dr.
> > Goddard was either playing a joke or was ignorant of elementary physics if
> > he thought that a rocket could work in the vacuum of space.
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/1982/10/05/science/a-salute-to-long-neglected-father-of-
> american-rocketry.html
>
> So do you read what is said in the article????
My time is too precious to waste on mental masturbation, yours or a NY
Times editorial.
wrote:
maneuvering successfully in outer space for more than half a century.
Your bleatings that it isn't possible doesn't change that
incontrovertible fact.
> > In a research paper in 1919, entitled ''A Method of Reaching Extreme
> > Altitudes,'' Dr. Goddard described his concepts for rocket propulsion and
> > concluded that it was possible to build a rocket that could reach the moon.
> > The New York Times printed an editorial-page article suggesting that Dr.
> > Goddard was either playing a joke or was ignorant of elementary physics if
> > he thought that a rocket could work in the vacuum of space.
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/1982/10/05/science/a-salute-to-long-neglected-father-of-
> american-rocketry.html
>
> So do you read what is said in the article????
Times editorial.
Brad Guth
Apr 3, 2012, 2:22:46 PM4/3/12
to
incapable of connecting the dots. Moorish physics is restricted to
terrestrial matters and is fully incapable of considering anything off-
world as ever related to local history or any ongoing science.
Just pretend that you're communicating with a very primitive
individual that hasn't done any serious harm to himself or others.
Warhol likes to be a terrestrial captive kind of guy, and thinks all
others should follow suit.
http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
George152
Apr 3, 2012, 4:44:06 PM4/3/12
to
George152
Apr 3, 2012, 4:47:24 PM4/3/12
to
On 4/3/2012 10:51 PM, Jeff wrote:
> The fact that they can be seem from Earth passing over as predicted
> and heard by radio, is proof. It has been demonstrated beyond doubt
> that what is observed cannot be simulated by aircraft or ground radio
> stations; and you have not supplied any other credible answer.
>
Mainly because he can't ..
Whatever stupidity he subscribes to demands that he make such claims
> and heard by radio, is proof. It has been demonstrated beyond doubt
> that what is observed cannot be simulated by aircraft or ground radio
> stations; and you have not supplied any other credible answer.
>
Mainly because he can't ..
Whatever stupidity he subscribes to demands that he make such claims
WangoTango
Apr 3, 2012, 5:28:20 PM4/3/12
to
In article <x-idnWsSG8Mu0-fS...@giganews.com>,
linu...@cleanposts.com says...
>
How do you know they don't?
;)
linu...@cleanposts.com says...
> Warhol wrote:
> > On Apr 3, 12:39 am, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Why would something weigh nothing because it is in a vacuum?
> >
> > Vacuum of space(heaven)... in free fall you are weightless...
> >
>
> So the Pringles inside a vacuum-packed can should be floating. Cool.
> > On Apr 3, 12:39 am, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Why would something weigh nothing because it is in a vacuum?
> >
> > Vacuum of space(heaven)... in free fall you are weightless...
> >
>
>
How do you know they don't?
;)
WangoTango
Apr 3, 2012, 5:31:22 PM4/3/12
to
In article <020420122032459767%ch...@nospam.com>, ch...@nospam.com says...
satellites got up there.
Pretty big hoax, what with all those dishes pointed up and all...
> In article
> <167c29c1-6c3c-435b...@i18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
> Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 30, 11:58 am, Moramarth <Morama...@moramarth.demon.co.uk>
> <167c29c1-6c3c-435b...@i18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
> Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > wrote:
> > > On Mar 30, 9:53 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > You have to question things to move forward.
> > >
> > > To move forward you have to apply thrust.
> > > Rockets can provide thrust.
> > > Rockets work.
> > > Your brain doesn't.
> >
> >
> > ITS FAKE!
> >
> > :)
> >
> > prove it they can push against nothing... All what I ask... I thought
> > that would be easy for all the clever boys in 5 groups, to prove me my
> > conclusions wrong...
>
> Why should we waste our time? Isaac Newton proved you wrong 400 years
> ago.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion
>
> You're just fucking stupid. Doubly so for posting this bullshit on
> Usenet, where no bad idea and its moron owner goes unpunished.
>
> -chib
I guess he needs to explain how all those geostationary communication
> > > On Mar 30, 9:53 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > You have to question things to move forward.
> > >
> > > To move forward you have to apply thrust.
> > > Rockets can provide thrust.
> > > Rockets work.
> > > Your brain doesn't.
> >
> >
> > ITS FAKE!
> >
> > :)
> >
> > prove it they can push against nothing... All what I ask... I thought
> > that would be easy for all the clever boys in 5 groups, to prove me my
> > conclusions wrong...
>
> Why should we waste our time? Isaac Newton proved you wrong 400 years
> ago.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion
>
> You're just fucking stupid. Doubly so for posting this bullshit on
> Usenet, where no bad idea and its moron owner goes unpunished.
>
> -chib
satellites got up there.
Pretty big hoax, what with all those dishes pointed up and all...
Ivan I. Deer
Apr 3, 2012, 6:24:48 PM4/3/12
to
On Mon, 2 Apr 2012 15:59:13 -0700 (PDT), "panam...@hotmail.com rade"
<panam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 2, 6:56 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 3, 12:39 am, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>
>-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
>aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
>
The real problem I have with all this is, how do I get mass out of bed
in the morning?
<panam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 2, 6:56 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 3, 12:39 am, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On 30/03/2012 09:53, Warhol wrote:
>>
>> > > Look at it this way. Let's suppose a rocket is floating... incorrect,
>> > > since things cannot "float" in space. Okay, let's say a rocket is
>> > > stationary in space. Nothing is acting on this rocket. It's weight is
>> > > null because it is in a vacuum. It has no resistance to anything. When
>> > > you stand and push something, you have all sorts of Resistances acting
>> > > on you and the object you push. Friction of your feet on the floor,
>> > > wind, weight, gravity. In space, none of these things exist. The
>> > > rocket cannot exert energy because there simply is nothing to exert it
>> > > against.
>>
>> > Before I comment on the rest.
>>
>>
>> > > Look at it this way. Let's suppose a rocket is floating... incorrect,
>> > > since things cannot "float" in space. Okay, let's say a rocket is
>> > > stationary in space. Nothing is acting on this rocket. It's weight is
>> > > null because it is in a vacuum. It has no resistance to anything. When
>> > > you stand and push something, you have all sorts of Resistances acting
>> > > on you and the object you push. Friction of your feet on the floor,
>> > > wind, weight, gravity. In space, none of these things exist. The
>> > > rocket cannot exert energy because there simply is nothing to exert it
>> > > against.
>>
>> > Before I comment on the rest.
>>
>> > Why would something weigh nothing because it is in a vacuum?
>>
>> Vacuum of space(heaven)... in free fall you are weightless...
>>
>>
>> Vacuum of space(heaven)... in free fall you are weightless...
>>
>> http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/u6l4d.cfm
>>
>> Now I await your comment on the rest...
>
>You don't have `weight', but you still have *mass*, idiot.
>>
>> Now I await your comment on the rest...
>
>
>-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
>aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
>
The real problem I have with all this is, how do I get mass out of bed
in the morning?
Warhol
Apr 3, 2012, 6:43:56 PM4/3/12
to
On Apr 3, 12:51 pm, Jeff <j...@jsystems.com> wrote:
> On 03/04/2012 10:33, Warhol wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 03/04/2012 10:33, Warhol wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The fact that they can be seem from Earth passing over as predicted and
> heard by radio, is proof. It has been demonstrated beyond doubt that
> what is observed cannot be simulated by aircraft or ground radio
> stations; and you have not supplied any other credible answer.
>
> Jeff
> heard by radio, is proof. It has been demonstrated beyond doubt that
> what is observed cannot be simulated by aircraft or ground radio
> stations; and you have not supplied any other credible answer.
>
Really I have never seen any satellites... I only see one satellite
and that is the moon... why don't you simply show me a satellite...
there must be so many up there... but I see nothing, even when I send
my camera there above with a balloon, I still don't observe nothing
there up that looks like man made...
BTW didn't I already say that radio waves don't neither work in vacuum
since ther ain't no medium to carry the RF waves??? h ha ha the scam
of space travel and communication is simply against all known physic
laws... and now try to show something that I may see too, what you
claim, as a religion, it exist...
Since astron(a)uts, SCUD-missiles, rocket-bombs and TV-satellites
weight more than ONE kilogram..., it is all religion and fake(lore),
done with real airplanes.
Since an airplanes can only fall 1 minute, without touching the
ground, astron(a)uts can only be 'weightless' during that 1 minute in
that (parabolic) fall.
I will give all my money (and even my life) to the first person who
knows a scientific publication, f.i. in PHYSICAL REVIEW, that
contradicts the (current) 28.800km/hr-limit.
The cannonball approach to space travel
the relationship between mass and maximum velocity. In this connection
a table with data linking mass to maximum speed currently attained for
that mass.
Object Current Maximum Velocity
foton(0.0…1gram) 300.000 km/sec (speed of light)
elektron(-) 250.000 km/sec (20% error – electronmicroscopy)
proton(+) 200.000 km/sec (50% error – cyclotron)
0.01 gram 15,8 km/sec = 57.000 km/hr ( Physics News )
2 gram 24.000 km/hr (NASA )
10 gram 17.000 km/hr (T5 )
17 gram 13.000 km/hr (ARF )
1 kilogram 4.000 km/hr
Bye bye NASA...
“Since there is more energy and momentum lost during 1000 seconds (a
ballistic rocket), than in the case of 0.001 second (a bullet), and
since the laws of physics are the same, i.e. the conservation of
energy and momentum, the current maximum velocity of a rocket is LESS
than the current maximum velocity of a bullet in an airless tube.
Theoretically, it is possible to get any velocity by the use of multi-
stages, but experimentally, NOT one rocket has already had more speed
than the maximum velocity of a bullet in airless tube.”
Please do NOT react, unless you can proove that 28000km/hr is NOT
needed
for space-travel around the earth,
OR, unless you claim that you have found a scientific publication that
explains that an object of 1 kilogram has reached a velocity of
more then 28000km/hr in a vacuum-tube...
In both cases, I will give you all my mo(o)ney...
Warhol
Apr 3, 2012, 6:59:45 PM4/3/12
to
On Apr 3, 11:31 pm, WangoTango <Asgar...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> In article <020420122032459767%c...@nospam.com>, c...@nospam.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <167c29c1-6c3c-435b-971a-361839547...@i18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
there ain't no communication satellites or any other satellites up
there.... there is only fake(lore)
scroll down
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/msg/1fdca857e2d09778?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/msg/9aa937b352e96549?hl=en
> In article <020420122032459767%c...@nospam.com>, c...@nospam.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <167c29c1-6c3c-435b-971a-361839547...@i18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
there.... there is only fake(lore)
scroll down
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/msg/1fdca857e2d09778?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/msg/9aa937b352e96549?hl=en
Father Haskell
Apr 3, 2012, 7:13:01 PM4/3/12
to
On Apr 2, 11:02 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 3, 4:56 am, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 2, 10:40 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > No popcorn for you...how much fuel is there in the small
> > > satellites(Space Rocket/ spaceships?) like Voyager that are still out
> > > there flying FORWARD?
>
> > For a craft set to escape the solar system, momentum, in a
> > hyperbolic path which orbits the sun, is sufficient to maintain
> > orbit without thrust. Pretty much the same principle that
> > keeps the Earth from falling into the Sun.
>
> lol
> if you knew only 10% of the real truth, you would be shocked...
>
> you also didn't explain why people CAN NOT travel to the nearest
> planet, or even to the Moon -
Money.
> On Apr 3, 4:56 am, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 2, 10:40 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > No popcorn for you...how much fuel is there in the small
> > > satellites(Space Rocket/ spaceships?) like Voyager that are still out
> > > there flying FORWARD?
>
> > For a craft set to escape the solar system, momentum, in a
> > hyperbolic path which orbits the sun, is sufficient to maintain
> > orbit without thrust. Pretty much the same principle that
> > keeps the Earth from falling into the Sun.
>
> lol
> if you knew only 10% of the real truth, you would be shocked...
>
> you also didn't explain why people CAN NOT travel to the nearest
> planet, or even to the Moon -
Money.
Warhol
Apr 3, 2012, 7:31:22 PM4/3/12
to
Father Haskell
Apr 3, 2012, 7:37:22 PM4/3/12
to
that you can have anything you want so long as you have
enough money. Odd that every human on Earth understood
that lesson perfectly. Except you.
panamfloyd@hotmail.com rade
Apr 3, 2012, 7:49:27 PM4/3/12
to
On Apr 3, 6:24 pm, Ivan I. Deer <Iv...@swbell.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2012 15:59:13 -0700 (PDT), "panamfl...@hotmail.com rade"
Yeah, I have the same problem. There are some questions science may
never answer..<g>
-PF, Atl.
#2015/KoBAAWA!
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2012 15:59:13 -0700 (PDT), "panamfl...@hotmail.com rade"
never answer..<g>
-PF, Atl.
#2015/KoBAAWA!
linuxgal
Apr 3, 2012, 9:01:45 PM4/3/12
to
Seth lePod
Apr 3, 2012, 9:13:51 PM4/3/12
to
On Apr 2, 11:29 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
//
> hey Kook,
> what happened to the flag you left behind on the moon .....hmmmm... no
> telescope can spot it ...
> :)
Beg pardon? The LRO telescope took shots of
it over two and one half years ago.
//
> Sometimes is reading bs what turns people ignorant.
Well, if not reading makes you smarter, I
confess you to be my clear superior in this
regard.
//
> It's always a sign
> of intelligence to try to explain things using common sense and logic
> instead of reading the "user's manual"...
Again, if ignoring the work of centuries and
of thousands of others, and deciding you're the
only one smart enough to see -- and
from "common sense and logic" at that -- I
again confess you have me at a disadvantage.
Common sense and logic: the world is flat.
Of COURSE the world is flat; just look out
the damn window. Besides, if it were round,
people on the other side would be fallling
off into space. That's just common sense.
Common sense and logic: the sun goes around
the earth. Of COURSE the sun goes around the
earth, it's just common sense. I mean, if instead
we were going around the sun at 1,600,000 miles
per hour like those "scientists" say, you
don't think we'd FEEL that? You don't think
the wind would knock us flat? That's only
Common sense and logic: the Earth is
stationary. Of COURSE the Earth is
stationary -- common sense tells you if the
Earth were spinning at 1000 miles per hour at
the equator, EVERYTHING would be flung off
into space. You, me, dogs, cows, houses, the
entire atmosphere...Just common sense.
//
> Note that these are questions which do not get deep into technical
> details. They're just common sense and logic...
And now that I've shown you that I'm every
bit as good at "common sense and logic" as
you are, it's your turn: explain why you
don't think the kinetic theory of gases
provides an entirely satisfactory explanation
of why rockets work in a vacuum.
Here -- use this space:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Seth
>
//
> hey Kook,
> what happened to the flag you left behind on the moon .....hmmmm... no
> telescope can spot it ...
> :)
Beg pardon? The LRO telescope took shots of
it over two and one half years ago.
//
> Sometimes is reading bs what turns people ignorant.
Well, if not reading makes you smarter, I
confess you to be my clear superior in this
regard.
//
> It's always a sign
> of intelligence to try to explain things using common sense and logic
> instead of reading the "user's manual"...
Again, if ignoring the work of centuries and
of thousands of others, and deciding you're the
only one smart enough to see -- and
from "common sense and logic" at that -- I
again confess you have me at a disadvantage.
Common sense and logic: the world is flat.
Of COURSE the world is flat; just look out
the damn window. Besides, if it were round,
people on the other side would be fallling
off into space. That's just common sense.
Common sense and logic: the sun goes around
the earth. Of COURSE the sun goes around the
earth, it's just common sense. I mean, if instead
we were going around the sun at 1,600,000 miles
per hour like those "scientists" say, you
don't think we'd FEEL that? You don't think
the wind would knock us flat? That's only
Common sense and logic: the Earth is
stationary. Of COURSE the Earth is
stationary -- common sense tells you if the
Earth were spinning at 1000 miles per hour at
the equator, EVERYTHING would be flung off
into space. You, me, dogs, cows, houses, the
entire atmosphere...Just common sense.
//
> Note that these are questions which do not get deep into technical
> details. They're just common sense and logic...
And now that I've shown you that I'm every
bit as good at "common sense and logic" as
you are, it's your turn: explain why you
don't think the kinetic theory of gases
provides an entirely satisfactory explanation
of why rockets work in a vacuum.
Here -- use this space:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Seth
Seth lePod
Apr 3, 2012, 9:19:49 PM4/3/12
to
On Apr 2, 9:01 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Op 3-4-2012 5:32, chibiabos schreef:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Op 3-4-2012 5:32, chibiabos schreef:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <167c29c1-6c3c-435b-971a-361839547...@i18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
> > Warhol<mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Mar 30, 11:58 am, Moramarth<Morama...@moramarth.demon.co.uk>
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Mar 30, 9:53 am, Warhol<mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> You have to question things to move forward.
>
> >>> To move forward you have to apply thrust.
> >>> Rockets can provide thrust.
> >>> Rockets work.
> >>> Your brain doesn't.
>
> >> ITS FAKE!
>
> >> :)
>
> >> prove it they can push against nothing... All what I ask... I thought
> >> that would be easy for all the clever boys in 5 groups, to prove me my
> >> conclusions wrong...
>
> > Why should we waste our time? Isaac Newton proved you wrong 400 years
> > ago.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion
>
> > You're just fucking stupid. Doubly so for posting this bullshit on
> > Usenet, where no bad idea and its moron owner goes unpunished.
>
> > -chib
>
//
> > <167c29c1-6c3c-435b-971a-361839547...@i18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
> > Warhol<mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Mar 30, 11:58 am, Moramarth<Morama...@moramarth.demon.co.uk>
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Mar 30, 9:53 am, Warhol<mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> You have to question things to move forward.
>
> >>> To move forward you have to apply thrust.
> >>> Rockets can provide thrust.
> >>> Rockets work.
> >>> Your brain doesn't.
>
> >> ITS FAKE!
>
> >> :)
>
> >> prove it they can push against nothing... All what I ask... I thought
> >> that would be easy for all the clever boys in 5 groups, to prove me my
> >> conclusions wrong...
>
> > Why should we waste our time? Isaac Newton proved you wrong 400 years
> > ago.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion
>
> > You're just fucking stupid. Doubly so for posting this bullshit on
> > Usenet, where no bad idea and its moron owner goes unpunished.
>
> > -chib
>
> Common Misconceptions... Newton ain't the father of the theory rockets
> can travel in space, ...
<sigh> and no one has said anything like
> can travel in space, ...
Newton's being involved in rocketry.
What people HAVE said is that Newton's laws
of motion -- the conservation of linear momentum,
in particular -- provide a complete explanation of
why rockets do in fact work in space.
Do you really think that if I were to release
an inflated and opened party balloon into an
evacuated bell jar, it would just sit there
on the floor, motionless?
//
> it was Robert H. Goddard who theorized rockets
> could voyage in space...
Yes...several decades after Konstantin
> could voyage in space...
Tsiolkovsky and others had demonstrated
the physics behind it.
> So please to all those who come here shouting
> newton laws...
> In a research paper in 1919, entitled ''A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes,''
> Dr. Goddard described his concepts for rocket propulsion and concluded that
> it was possible to build a rocket that could reach the moon.
//
> Dr. Goddard described his concepts for rocket propulsion and concluded that
> it was possible to build a rocket that could reach the moon.
> The New York Times printed an edit
> orial-page article suggesting that Dr. Goddard was either playing a joke or was ignorant of elementary physics if he thought that a rocket could work in the vacuum of space.
> http://www.nytimes.com/1982/10/05/science/a-salute-to-long-neglected-father-of-american-rocketry.html
//
> orial-page article suggesting that Dr. Goddard was either playing a joke or was ignorant of elementary physics if he thought that a rocket could work in the vacuum of space.
> http://www.nytimes.com/1982/10/05/science/a-salute-to-long-neglected-father-of-american-rocketry.html
> So do you read what is said in the article????
What do I read? I continue reading there,
and elsewhere, and find that not only did
Goddard perform and publish experiments
demonstrating that rockets would work in a
vaccuum:
-- http://www.popsci.com/archive-viewer?id=DikDAAAAMBAJ&pg=38
I also read the New York Time's later
retraction of the earlier piece:
"Further investigation and
experimentation have confirmed the
findings of Isaac Newton in the 17th
Century and it is now definitely
established that a rocket can function in
a vacuum as well as in an atmosphere. The
Times regrets the error."
-- http://www.rfcafe.com/miscellany/factoids/ny-times-admits-moon-flight-possible.htm
> Dr. Goddard was either
> playing a joke or was ignorant of elementary physics if he thought that
> a rocket could work in the vacuum of space.
>
> Newton would have laughed if he knew what the 20th & 21th century did
> with his laws of physics.
//
> with his laws of physics.
> And must I ad that in vacuum of space the laws of Newton ain't
> correct... is that really so hard to understand that there is no action
> when you push against nothing????
So, you really think that if you could fire
> correct... is that really so hard to understand that there is no action
> when you push against nothing????
a large cannon in space, the cannon ball
would fly away ... but the cannon itself would
not twitch a millimeter?
But that's all a distraction, because:
S t i l l awaiting your discussion of why
the kinetic theory of gases does not
completely answer that objection...
Seth
Seth lePod
Apr 3, 2012, 9:24:00 PM4/3/12
to
On Apr 3, 2:31 pm, WangoTango <Asgar...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> In article <020420122032459767%c...@nospam.com>, c...@nospam.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <167c29c1-6c3c-435b-971a-361839547...@i18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
> In article <020420122032459767%c...@nospam.com>, c...@nospam.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 30, 11:58 am, Moramarth <Morama...@moramarth.demon.co.uk>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Mar 30, 9:53 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > You have to question things to move forward.
>
> > > > To move forward you have to apply thrust.
> > > > Rockets can provide thrust.
> > > > Rockets work.
> > > > Your brain doesn't.
>
> > > ITS FAKE!
>
> > > :)
>
> > > prove it they can push against nothing... All what I ask... I thought
> > > that would be easy for all the clever boys in 5 groups, to prove me my
> > > conclusions wrong...
>
> > Why should we waste our time? Isaac Newton proved you wrong 400 years
> > ago.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion
>
> > You're just fucking stupid. Doubly so for posting this bullshit on
> > Usenet, where no bad idea and its moron owner goes unpunished.
>
> > -chib
>
//
>
> > > On Mar 30, 11:58 am, Moramarth <Morama...@moramarth.demon.co.uk>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Mar 30, 9:53 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > You have to question things to move forward.
>
> > > > To move forward you have to apply thrust.
> > > > Rockets can provide thrust.
> > > > Rockets work.
> > > > Your brain doesn't.
>
> > > ITS FAKE!
>
> > > :)
>
> > > prove it they can push against nothing... All what I ask... I thought
> > > that would be easy for all the clever boys in 5 groups, to prove me my
> > > conclusions wrong...
>
> > Why should we waste our time? Isaac Newton proved you wrong 400 years
> > ago.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion
>
> > You're just fucking stupid. Doubly so for posting this bullshit on
> > Usenet, where no bad idea and its moron owner goes unpunished.
>
> > -chib
>
> I guess he needs to explain how all those geostationary communication=20
> satellites got up there.
> Pretty big hoax, what with all those dishes pointed up and all...
Oh, and after that he needs to start in on
> Pretty big hoax, what with all those dishes pointed up and all...
explaining how the hundreds of thousands of
scientists, engineers, technicians, programmers,
and others that worked for NASA could be made
to keep quiet about this dirty little secret.
And that's just for warm-up, of course:
Since 51 different countries, from Argentina
to the UAE now have satellites in space:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite#First_satellites_of_countries
this "Warhol" now needs to explain to us how,
out of the tens of millions of humans who have
been involved in putting objects into space, he,
and He, alone, knows THE REAL TRUTH.
(see: Unsinkable Rubber Duckie)
Seth
Message has been deleted
Doc Smartass
Apr 3, 2012, 9:45:52 PM4/3/12
to
Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:b87e964f-b517-4f5e-b28e-
aa822e...@fk28g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
> Now, this rocket starts spewing gas out its rear end.
That's all you're doing.
--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Heckling aa # 1939
Kooks! http://kookclearinghouse.blogspot.com/
Books! http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/
Proud to be everything the right wing hates.
aa822e...@fk28g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
> Now, this rocket starts spewing gas out its rear end.
That's all you're doing.
--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Heckling aa # 1939
Kooks! http://kookclearinghouse.blogspot.com/
Books! http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/
Proud to be everything the right wing hates.
Dennis
Apr 4, 2012, 12:22:52 AM4/4/12
to
Warhol wrote:
> Look at it this way. Let's suppose a rocket is floating... incorrect,
> since things cannot "float" in space. Okay, let's say a rocket is
> stationary in space. Nothing is acting on this rocket. It's weight is
> null because it is in a vacuum. It has no resistance to anything. When
> you stand and push something, you have all sorts of Resistances acting
> on you and the object you push. Friction of your feet on the floor,
> wind, weight, gravity. In space, none of these things exist. The
> rocket cannot exert energy because there simply is nothing to exert it
> against.
>
> Now, this rocket starts spewing gas out its rear end. Why would that
> Look at it this way. Let's suppose a rocket is floating... incorrect,
> since things cannot "float" in space. Okay, let's say a rocket is
> stationary in space. Nothing is acting on this rocket. It's weight is
> null because it is in a vacuum. It has no resistance to anything. When
> you stand and push something, you have all sorts of Resistances acting
> on you and the object you push. Friction of your feet on the floor,
> wind, weight, gravity. In space, none of these things exist. The
> rocket cannot exert energy because there simply is nothing to exert it
> against.
>
> gas propel it? The gas itself does not have more mass than the rocket
> itself. The gas itself cannot generate force because there is simply
> nothing to "receive" that energy. The energy would merely dissipate
> into the vacuum. The gas pushing against the rocket itself would not
> propel it in space. On Earth the gases from a rocket dispense that
> energy and push against air, gravity etc. What do the gases push
> against in space? Two forces that come from the same body cannot
> create propulsion. There needs to be an outside force. Much like you
> cannot blow your own sail (inb4 flawed Myth-busters experiment) or
> lift yourself off the ground with your own arms. The gas pushes
> against the rocket yes, the rocket against the gas, but the rocket
> pushes against nothing, the gas pushes against nothing, only against
> one another. How would that create propulsion? People assume that
> physics on Earth pertain to physics in space, which they do not
> because the very things that define physics on Earth (Inertia,
> momentum, resistance, friction etc.) do not exists in space.
>
> Here is another thing to think about. "An object in motion stays in
> motion unless acted upon by an outside force" correct? If you throw a
> ball on Earth is is acted upon by gravity, friction, wind resistance
> etc. Throw a ball in space it is acted upon by nothing. It keeps going
> indefinitely because nothing acts upon it in a vacuum. So then, when a
> rocket accelerates in space, how do they stop it? How do the steer it?
> How do they prevent it from exponential acceleration? None of it makes
> sense. Even if you believe that rockets work in space and that the gas
> causes propulsion, in a vacuum something would keep accelerating if
> something keeps propelling it. To stop, you would need to exert
> MASSIVE amounts of force in the opposite direction to stop it. Think
> about that. Even so, there still remains nothing in space to even
> create propulsion in the first place.
>
> You have to question things to move forward.
>
Haven't you heard of Newton's Third Law? <sheesh>
> You have to question things to move forward.
>
Warhol
Apr 4, 2012, 11:59:37 AM4/4/12
to
On Apr 3, 12:59 am, "panamfl...@hotmail.com rade"
<panamfl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<panamfl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 2, 6:56 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 3, 12:39 am, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 3, 12:39 am, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 30/03/2012 09:53, Warhol wrote:
>
> > > > Look at it this way. Let's suppose a rocket is floating... incorrect,
> > > > since things cannot "float" in space. Okay, let's say a rocket is
> > > > stationary in space. Nothing is acting on this rocket. It's weight is
> > > > null because it is in a vacuum. It has no resistance to anything. When
> > > > you stand and push something, you have all sorts of Resistances acting
> > > > on you and the object you push. Friction of your feet on the floor,
> > > > wind, weight, gravity. In space, none of these things exist. The
> > > > rocket cannot exert energy because there simply is nothing to exert it
> > > > against.
>
>
> > > > Look at it this way. Let's suppose a rocket is floating... incorrect,
> > > > since things cannot "float" in space. Okay, let's say a rocket is
> > > > stationary in space. Nothing is acting on this rocket. It's weight is
> > > > null because it is in a vacuum. It has no resistance to anything. When
> > > > you stand and push something, you have all sorts of Resistances acting
> > > > on you and the object you push. Friction of your feet on the floor,
> > > > wind, weight, gravity. In space, none of these things exist. The
> > > > rocket cannot exert energy because there simply is nothing to exert it
> > > > against.
>
> > > Before I comment on the rest.
>
>
> > > Why would something weigh nothing because it is in a vacuum?
>
> > Vacuum of space(heaven)... in free fall you are weightless...
>
>
> > Vacuum of space(heaven)... in free fall you are weightless...
>
Warhol
Apr 4, 2012, 12:02:33 PM4/4/12
to
Op 3-4-2012 0:59, panam...@hotmail.com rade schreef:
Everybody known that bears can't fly... ha ha ha... and they are always
in the honey.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHz5ZS3wf54
in the honey.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHz5ZS3wf54
WangoTango
Apr 4, 2012, 12:46:31 PM4/4/12
to
In article <9MednfziSPtyAObS...@giganews.com>,
linu...@cleanposts.com says...
Never happen, it would destroy the conspiracy.
linu...@cleanposts.com says...
Tony Dragon
Apr 4, 2012, 1:46:56 PM4/4/12
to
Dean
Apr 4, 2012, 3:20:34 PM4/4/12
to
On Apr 4, 12:02 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Op 3-4-2012 0:59, panamfl...@hotmail.com rade schreef:
http://youtu.be/luB4HLDfS0k
> Op 3-4-2012 0:59, panamfl...@hotmail.com rade schreef:
Message has been deleted
Eugene Griessel
Apr 5, 2012, 6:05:48 AM4/5/12
to
On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 09:44:35 +0100, Jeff <je...@jsystems.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> The fact that they can be seem from Earth passing over as predicted and
>>> heard by radio, is proof. It has been demonstrated beyond doubt that
>>> what is observed cannot be simulated by aircraft or ground radio
>>> stations; and you have not supplied any other credible answer.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>
>>
>> Really I have never seen any satellites... I only see one satellite
>> and that is the moon... why don't you simply show me a satellite...
>> there must be so many up there... but I see nothing, even when I send
>> my camera there above with a balloon, I still don't observe nothing
>> there up that looks like man made...
>
>You are a liar! In a previous post you claimed to have measured the
>
>>>
>>> The fact that they can be seem from Earth passing over as predicted and
>>> heard by radio, is proof. It has been demonstrated beyond doubt that
>>> what is observed cannot be simulated by aircraft or ground radio
>>> stations; and you have not supplied any other credible answer.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>
>>
>> Really I have never seen any satellites... I only see one satellite
>> and that is the moon... why don't you simply show me a satellite...
>> there must be so many up there... but I see nothing, even when I send
>> my camera there above with a balloon, I still don't observe nothing
>> there up that looks like man made...
>
>height of ISS with a friend, now you claim to never to have seen any
>artificial satellites. Which one is the lie?????
Bottom line - the Warhol clique is a bunch of trollers, nothing more
nothing less.
Eugene L Griessel
Virtue is its own punishment.
Message has been deleted
HVAC
Apr 5, 2012, 7:05:11 AM4/5/12
to
On 4/3/2012 6:43 PM, Warhol wrote:
>
>
>
> Really I have never seen any satellites... I only see one satellite
> and that is the moon... why don't you simply show me a satellite...
> there must be so many up there... but I see nothing, even when I send
> my camera there above with a balloon, I still don't observe nothing
> there up that looks like man made...
How can the moon orbit the Earth?
>
>
>
> Really I have never seen any satellites... I only see one satellite
> and that is the moon... why don't you simply show me a satellite...
> there must be so many up there... but I see nothing, even when I send
> my camera there above with a balloon, I still don't observe nothing
> there up that looks like man made...
What does it push against to stay up there?
--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo
HVAC
Apr 5, 2012, 7:09:36 AM4/5/12
to
On 4/3/2012 9:24 PM, Seth lePod wrote:
>
>
> this "Warhol" now needs to explain to us how,
> out of the tens of millions of humans who have
> been involved in putting objects into space, he,
> and He, alone, knows THE REAL TRUTH.
Not much different than other kooks that are 'in the know'.
>
>
> this "Warhol" now needs to explain to us how,
> out of the tens of millions of humans who have
> been involved in putting objects into space, he,
> and He, alone, knows THE REAL TRUTH.
UFO kooks, 9/11 kooks, religious kooks, all have inside
knowledge that we pee-ons are incapable of understanding.
Eugene Griessel
Apr 5, 2012, 7:34:02 AM4/5/12
to
On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 11:57:54 +0100, Jeff <je...@jsystems.com> wrote:
> Indeed but, it is fun making themselves look even more foolish!! They
>can't even lie consistently!!
I think they are supposed to read each other's posts so as to
facilitate the fiction that they are one person - but even they cannot
stomach the utter crap they generate. Hence the inconsistent lying.
Eugene L Griessel
A verbal contract is not worth the paper it's written on.
>can't even lie consistently!!
I think they are supposed to read each other's posts so as to
facilitate the fiction that they are one person - but even they cannot
stomach the utter crap they generate. Hence the inconsistent lying.
Eugene L Griessel
A verbal contract is not worth the paper it's written on.
Warhol
Apr 5, 2012, 9:48:01 AM4/5/12
to
Op 5-4-2012 10:44, Jeff schreef:
I can Not believe in something I do not see... That will be all.
>
>>>
>>> The fact that they can be seem from Earth passing over as predicted and
>>> heard by radio, is proof. It has been demonstrated beyond doubt that
>>> what is observed cannot be simulated by aircraft or ground radio
>>> stations; and you have not supplied any other credible answer.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>
>>
>> Really I have never seen any satellites... I only see one satellite
>> and that is the moon... why don't you simply show me a satellite...
>> there must be so many up there... but I see nothing, even when I send
>> my camera there above with a balloon, I still don't observe nothing
>> there up that looks like man made...
>
>>>
>>> The fact that they can be seem from Earth passing over as predicted and
>>> heard by radio, is proof. It has been demonstrated beyond doubt that
>>> what is observed cannot be simulated by aircraft or ground radio
>>> stations; and you have not supplied any other credible answer.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>
>>
>> Really I have never seen any satellites... I only see one satellite
>> and that is the moon... why don't you simply show me a satellite...
>> there must be so many up there... but I see nothing, even when I send
>> my camera there above with a balloon, I still don't observe nothing
>> there up that looks like man made...
>
> You are a liar! In a previous post you claimed to have measured the
> height of ISS with a friend, now you claim to never to have seen any
> artificial satellites. Which one is the lie?????
>
>
> Jeff
> height of ISS with a friend, now you claim to never to have seen any
> artificial satellites. Which one is the lie?????
>
>
I can Not believe in something I do not see... That will be all.
Warhol
Apr 5, 2012, 10:11:28 AM4/5/12
to
Op 5-4-2012 13:05, HVAC schreef:
continue its eternal fall around the earth, and that was 17700 years ago...
By stabilizing the moon orbit HE(Enoch) saved the world of certain doom
and so paralyzed all lying giants on earth...
Since was the moon's function as timepiece. The moon, together with the
other celestial bodies, was created "for signs and seasons and for days
and years" (Gen 1:14). Its cycle was the basis for the month...and
subject of widespread folklore in ancient times.
Key word is FALLING and STABILIZATION.
> On 4/3/2012 6:43 PM, Warhol wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Really I have never seen any satellites... I only see one satellite
>> and that is the moon... why don't you simply show me a satellite...
>> there must be so many up there... but I see nothing, even when I send
>> my camera there above with a balloon, I still don't observe nothing
>> there up that looks like man made...
>
>
> How can the moon orbit the Earth?
>
> What does it push against to stay up there?
>
>
>
simply because my Gran'Da'Dy stabilized the moon on that orbit to
>>
>>
>>
>> Really I have never seen any satellites... I only see one satellite
>> and that is the moon... why don't you simply show me a satellite...
>> there must be so many up there... but I see nothing, even when I send
>> my camera there above with a balloon, I still don't observe nothing
>> there up that looks like man made...
>
>
> How can the moon orbit the Earth?
>
> What does it push against to stay up there?
>
>
>
continue its eternal fall around the earth, and that was 17700 years ago...
By stabilizing the moon orbit HE(Enoch) saved the world of certain doom
and so paralyzed all lying giants on earth...
Since was the moon's function as timepiece. The moon, together with the
other celestial bodies, was created "for signs and seasons and for days
and years" (Gen 1:14). Its cycle was the basis for the month...and
subject of widespread folklore in ancient times.
Key word is FALLING and STABILIZATION.
Message has been deleted
Eugene Griessel
Apr 5, 2012, 10:33:47 AM4/5/12
to
On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 15:28:53 +0100, Jeff <je...@jsystems.com> wrote:
>> I can Not believe in something I do not see... That will be all.
>
>But you said that you saw it and measured its height!! You are a liar,
>> I can Not believe in something I do not see... That will be all.
>
>one way or the other. You also have not come up with an answer that you
>also said you would; another lie. How can anyone believe anything that
>you say when you post such lies and contradictions.
He should have rephrased that to: "I can Not believe in something I
refuse to see". We gave all the data he needed to see it in Brussels,
Paris and London simultaneously. Of course he did a careful bunk and
lay low at the time.
Trollers - they no more believes is the shit they posts than I do.
Two-faced hypocrites all.
Eugene L Griessel
In the beginning, there was nothing - but nothing is
unstable. And nothing borrowed nothing from nothing,
within the limits of uncertainty, and became something.
The rest is just math...
-- Paraphrased from Prof. Kim, Macalester College Physics Dept.
Warhol
Apr 5, 2012, 11:41:39 AM4/5/12
to
Op 5-4-2012 16:28, Jeff schreef:
>
"Blah blah blah you said blah blah..."
I never said i shaw the ISS and I never have seen the ISS or any other
space junk up there... I said I shaw a Light attached to an airplane...
like a serpent you are trying to turn my words... and btw where is the
rest you inglorious bastard snipped? don't have any reply to the content
of the post? just attacking the messenger, that is all you cowards do....
Here read again... and try to reply to the content of the message...
**
since ther ain't no medium to carry the RF waves??? h ha ha the scam
of space travel and communication is simply against all known physic
laws... and now try to show something that I may see too, what you
claim, as a religion, it exist...
Since astron(a)uts, SCUD-missiles, rocket-bombs and TV-satellites
weight more than ONE kilogram..., it is all religion and fake(lore),
done with real airplanes.
Since an airplanes can only fall 1 minute, without touching the
ground, astron(a)uts can only be 'weightless' during that 1 minute in
that (parabolic) fall.
I will give all my money (and even my life) to the first person who
knows a scientific publication, f.i. in PHYSICAL REVIEW, that
contradicts the (current) 28.800km/hr-limit.
The cannonball approach to space travel
the relationship between mass and maximum velocity. In this connection
a table with data linking mass to maximum speed currently attained for
that mass.
Object Current Maximum Velocity
foton(0.0…1gram) 300.000 km/sec (speed of light)
elektron(-) 250.000 km/sec (20% error – electronmicroscopy)
proton(+) 200.000 km/sec (50% error – cyclotron)
0.01 gram 15,8 km/sec = 57.000 km/hr ( Physics News )
2 gram 24.000 km/hr (NASA )
10 gram 17.000 km/hr (T5 )
17 gram 13.000 km/hr (ARF )
1 kilogram 4.000 km/hr
Bye bye NASA...
“Since there is more energy and momentum lost during 1000 seconds (a
ballistic rocket), than in the case of 0.001 second (a bullet), and
since the laws of physics are the same, i.e. the conservation of
energy and momentum, the current maximum velocity of a rocket is LESS
than the current maximum velocity of a bullet in an airless tube.
Theoretically, it is possible to get any velocity by the use of multi-
stages, but experimentally, NOT one rocket has already had more speed
than the maximum velocity of a bullet in airless tube.”
Please do NOT react, unless you can proove that 28000km/hr is NOT
needed
for space-travel around the earth,
OR, unless you claim that you have found a scientific publication that
explains that an object of 1 kilogram has reached a velocity of
more then 28000km/hr in a vacuum-tube...
In both cases, I will give you all my mo(o)ney...
**And this has absolutley what to do with Personal Attack threads Jef.
> But you said that you saw it and measured its height!! You are a liar,
> one way or the other. You also have not come up with an answer that you
> also said you would; another lie. How can anyone believe anything that
> you say when you post such lies and contradictions.
>
> Jeff
> one way or the other. You also have not come up with an answer that you
> also said you would; another lie. How can anyone believe anything that
> you say when you post such lies and contradictions.
>
>
"Blah blah blah you said blah blah..."
I never said i shaw the ISS and I never have seen the ISS or any other
space junk up there... I said I shaw a Light attached to an airplane...
like a serpent you are trying to turn my words... and btw where is the
rest you inglorious bastard snipped? don't have any reply to the content
of the post? just attacking the messenger, that is all you cowards do....
Here read again... and try to reply to the content of the message...
**
Really I have never seen any satellites... I only see one satellite
and that is the moon... why don't you simply show me a satellite...
there must be so many up there... but I see nothing, even when I send
my camera there above with a balloon, I still don't observe nothing
there up that looks like man made...
BTW didn't I already say that radio waves don't neither work in vacuum
and that is the moon... why don't you simply show me a satellite...
there must be so many up there... but I see nothing, even when I send
my camera there above with a balloon, I still don't observe nothing
there up that looks like man made...
since ther ain't no medium to carry the RF waves??? h ha ha the scam
of space travel and communication is simply against all known physic
laws... and now try to show something that I may see too, what you
claim, as a religion, it exist...
Since astron(a)uts, SCUD-missiles, rocket-bombs and TV-satellites
weight more than ONE kilogram..., it is all religion and fake(lore),
done with real airplanes.
Since an airplanes can only fall 1 minute, without touching the
ground, astron(a)uts can only be 'weightless' during that 1 minute in
that (parabolic) fall.
I will give all my money (and even my life) to the first person who
knows a scientific publication, f.i. in PHYSICAL REVIEW, that
contradicts the (current) 28.800km/hr-limit.
The cannonball approach to space travel
the relationship between mass and maximum velocity. In this connection
a table with data linking mass to maximum speed currently attained for
that mass.
Object Current Maximum Velocity
foton(0.0…1gram) 300.000 km/sec (speed of light)
elektron(-) 250.000 km/sec (20% error – electronmicroscopy)
proton(+) 200.000 km/sec (50% error – cyclotron)
0.01 gram 15,8 km/sec = 57.000 km/hr ( Physics News )
2 gram 24.000 km/hr (NASA )
10 gram 17.000 km/hr (T5 )
17 gram 13.000 km/hr (ARF )
1 kilogram 4.000 km/hr
Bye bye NASA...
“Since there is more energy and momentum lost during 1000 seconds (a
ballistic rocket), than in the case of 0.001 second (a bullet), and
since the laws of physics are the same, i.e. the conservation of
energy and momentum, the current maximum velocity of a rocket is LESS
than the current maximum velocity of a bullet in an airless tube.
Theoretically, it is possible to get any velocity by the use of multi-
stages, but experimentally, NOT one rocket has already had more speed
than the maximum velocity of a bullet in airless tube.”
Please do NOT react, unless you can proove that 28000km/hr is NOT
needed
for space-travel around the earth,
OR, unless you claim that you have found a scientific publication that
explains that an object of 1 kilogram has reached a velocity of
more then 28000km/hr in a vacuum-tube...
In both cases, I will give you all my mo(o)ney...
**And this has absolutley what to do with Personal Attack threads Jef.
Message has been deleted
Warhol
Apr 5, 2012, 3:28:58 PM4/5/12
to
Op 5-4-2012 20:36, Jeff schreef:
> aircraft.
>
> If you know different please tell us how an aircraft can simulate
> something at 200mi altitude that can be observed over something like 2
> million sq km *simultaneously* in the correct position in the sky!!!
>
> Jeff
>
>
It’s Still A Hoax, Folks!
prove first your rockets can fly in vacuum and tin air...
Sweating bullets, are you?
Put me on ignore and put yourself out of misery.
For all of you poor man's Sherlock Holmeses here is something to ponder:
No, I am not fidem.
Thank you for bumping up "my" thread.
HOLOJOKE: GIANT HOAX
NASA SPACE TRAVEL: LITTLE HOAX (You got that one on the knocker, baby!)
9/11-GATE: HUGE HOAX
TOULOUSE-GATE: SMALL HOAX
THE HOAXERS: MOSSAD
It's a shame that the US is such a totalitarian entity
with surveillance of forums in internet,
deleting people's posts and threads
if they do not conform to their official lies !
Thank goodness we have uSENET,
one of the last havens of free thought
and free speech ...
& thanks again for bumping this thread , it is "mother of all threads"
cheers
:)
>
>> "Blah blah blah you said blah blah..."
>>
>> I never said i shaw the ISS and I never have seen the ISS or any other
>> space junk up there... I said I shaw a Light attached to an airplane...
>
>
> .. and it has been shown beyond doubt that ISS cannot be simulated by an
>> "Blah blah blah you said blah blah..."
>>
>> I never said i shaw the ISS and I never have seen the ISS or any other
>> space junk up there... I said I shaw a Light attached to an airplane...
>
>
> aircraft.
>
> If you know different please tell us how an aircraft can simulate
> something at 200mi altitude that can be observed over something like 2
> million sq km *simultaneously* in the correct position in the sky!!!
>
> Jeff
>
>
It’s Still A Hoax, Folks!
prove first your rockets can fly in vacuum and tin air...
Sweating bullets, are you?
Put me on ignore and put yourself out of misery.
For all of you poor man's Sherlock Holmeses here is something to ponder:
No, I am not fidem.
Thank you for bumping up "my" thread.
HOLOJOKE: GIANT HOAX
NASA SPACE TRAVEL: LITTLE HOAX (You got that one on the knocker, baby!)
9/11-GATE: HUGE HOAX
TOULOUSE-GATE: SMALL HOAX
THE HOAXERS: MOSSAD
It's a shame that the US is such a totalitarian entity
with surveillance of forums in internet,
deleting people's posts and threads
if they do not conform to their official lies !
Thank goodness we have uSENET,
one of the last havens of free thought
and free speech ...
& thanks again for bumping this thread , it is "mother of all threads"
cheers
:)
George152
Apr 5, 2012, 4:40:45 PM4/5/12
to
On 4/5/2012 11:05 PM, HVAC wrote:
> On 4/3/2012 6:43 PM, Warhol wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Really I have never seen any satellites... I only see one satellite
>> and that is the moon... why don't you simply show me a satellite...
>> there must be so many up there... but I see nothing, even when I send
>> my camera there above with a balloon, I still don't observe nothing
>> there up that looks like man made...
>
>
> How can the moon orbit the Earth?
>
> What does it push against to stay up there?
>
Well, there's this veeeerryy long piece of string :)
> On 4/3/2012 6:43 PM, Warhol wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Really I have never seen any satellites... I only see one satellite
>> and that is the moon... why don't you simply show me a satellite...
>> there must be so many up there... but I see nothing, even when I send
>> my camera there above with a balloon, I still don't observe nothing
>> there up that looks like man made...
>
>
> How can the moon orbit the Earth?
>
> What does it push against to stay up there?
>
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages