Not working rockets!!! Fake Satellites!!! Fake Astronauts!!! Fake Moon Images!!!Fake Mars rover!!! Its all Fake fake fake

[Warhol]

Not working rockets!!! Fake Satellites!!! Fake Astronauts!!! Fake Moon
Images!!! Its all Fake fake fake

The Solution of theproblem;... just one image of a REAL satellite
orbiting the earth. It supposedly begins with SPUTNIK but all the photos
are fake.

Since l know that all of the space missions are hoaxes, that not even
GAGARIN ever orbited the earth..., there never were any space station
orbiting the earth, again it's all video simulation or miniatures
models, that all of the spacewalks were filmed in a giant water pool at
Johnson space center with a fake rotating plastic earth, that we see air
bubbles rising, going upwards...... Saliout, Skylab, apollo-soyouz, MIR,
ISS have never orbited the earth. So l said to myself it would be
reasonable to ask this simple question

Where is the evidence of the existence of man made Satellites in orbit
around planet Earth... really I see nothing up there and HDTV works with
Air waves and not with satellite waves...

I say if there satellites up there... It should a game play for you
clever big boys to silent me for ever and ever with hard facts... that
would be the End of Warhol claims...

I am awaiting your evidence with great curiosity...

BTW Right now I have only evidence of three satellites there above our
heads... but the problem is they are not man made... One is course our
Moon and two are unseen asteroids who are heading straight to
unbelievers heads... Cometh of Wormwood & the Cometh of the Second Son.

In meantime let me laugh with you guys... Since you never can show hard
evidence which I demanded so long ago... My words are over all the
boards & plazas, but not one could ever silent me... ha ha ha... and
there is a reason for that... because there ain't no man made satellites
in geostationary orbit or simply in orbit in vacuum space... its all a hoax

http://youtu.be/xhBbHtokymY

http://youtu.be/6PdcYoIuRS8

http://youtu.be/jz0DL5AKdmk

Not working rockets!!! Fake Satellites!!! Fake Astronauts!!! Fake Moon
Images!!! Its all Fake fake fake.

Once more, I will illustrates in simple language why rockets won�t work
in space... Very simple words... "An Object can't push against
nothing"... Vacuum is nothing or very thin air... ha ha ha... facts is
you can't get out of our atmosphere Prisoners.

There are 4 major ideas on presented on the Internet, including NASA web
sites, as to how rockets generate thrust in space
1. Newton�s 3rd Law : for every force there is an equal and opposite
2. Newtons�s 2nd Law : Force = Mass x Acceleration
3. Conservation of Momentum
4. The use of a specialized nozzle to accelerate the gas inside the
ship, concentrate and aim the gas jet

I will address each of these issues showing why they are invalid. In
addition I will review the results (and lack thereof) of the founders of
space rocketry Obereth (who designed most of the rocket science for the
Fritz Lang film Woman in the Moon), Goddard, who was the first to claim
an experimental result proving vacuum thrust and Clarke, a champion of
Newton�s 3rd law.

Warhol ake Greek demi God Perseus, Che'Riff of the Sarsar, Al Gharb, Al
Anjari, Al JahBallah, Al Alami at the Top of the world that falls on
you... Warning all unbelievers and believers... Surrender & confess Now
or else you fall in fire and burn for supporting lunatic lies and deceive...

http://youtu.be/39pesl6J6e0

PSS This topic was started due to our recent discussions � in multiple
threads � about the subject of rocketry, Airwaves and the Lies...

[Warhol]

joeturn schreef op 27-10-2013 20:12:

>> Warhol aka Greek demi God Perseus, Che'Riff of the Sarsar, Al Gharb, Al

>>
>> Anjari, Al JahBallah, Al Alami at the Top of the world that falls on
>>
>> you... Warning all unbelievers and believers... Surrender & confess Now
>>
>> or else you fall in fire and burn for supporting lunatic lies and deceive...
>>
>>
>>
>> http://youtu.be/39pesl6J6e0
>>
>>
>>
>> PSS This topic was started due to our recent discussions � in multiple
>>
>> threads � about the subject of rocketry, Airwaves and the Lies...
>

> I want to point out that the LRV was real as they have it in a museum.Now how they got it on the moon and back to Earth is a different story.
> You can see wiki is supporting its existence with full authority!
>
> http://www.fi.edu/pieces/schutte/LRV.html
>


Snipped Groups restored because I won't explain it all over again to
every individual in the different groups... Please people don't snip the
groups or I will not reply to any of your question or other input. Thank
you!

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fFrS-Oa1gf0/UkRZsGm0QaI/AAAAAAAACBI/uKJ0rI3P1-g/s1600/Bat-Cow_01.jpg


What you point out is BS... And what wiki points out is bigger Bullshit
and you should know that... They never flew any higher then 70 miles
altitude, its fact of the same degree as 911 was an inside job... The
Hard fact is and will remain that all space travel is a Hoax... what
ever you may believe...

Let me start to explain you all why...

There�s obviously too much to cover in one post so I�ll start by
addressing the most popular response to those who question how rockets
operate in the vacuum of space: Newton�s 3rd Law, that is to say that a
rocket when it exhausts propellant will be pushed in the opposite direction.

The problem with applying Newton�s 3rd is that the rocket�s propellant
does not generate force in a vacuum according to the laws of physics and
chemistry. If the force of the propellant is 0 then Newton�s 3rd states that
Force on Rocket=-Force of Gas.
If Force of Gas = 0 the rocket does not move.

Why doesn�t the propellant generate any force, it's expanding, right?
There is something known as �Free Expansion� or the �Joule-Thomson�
effect, named after James Prescott Joule and J.J. Thompson two of the
founders of the field of Physical Chemistry.

http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html

Free Expansion states that when a pressurized gas is exposed to a vacuum
the gas expanding into the vacuum without any work being done. The gas
is not �pulled� or �sucked� into the vacuum nor is it �pushed� out of
the high-pressure container. In other words no work is done, no heat or
energy is lost.

This result has been experimentally verified numerous times since its
discovery in the 1850�s.
[for example a paper in the Journal of Physical Chemistry from 1902:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/j150043a002?journalCode=jpchax.2 ]

As if Free Expansion wasn�t enough to invalidate the theory of rockets
producing a force in a vacuum there is also a result from thermodynamics:
Work = Pressure x Change_in_Volume
that is easily found searching for �W=PV�

http://sasc-specialists.ucdavis.edu/alicia/2B/Thermo.pdf

If the pressure of a system is 0 then the work done by the expanding gas
into that system is 0. Gas expanding in a vacuum doing no work agrees
with Free Expansion. This can also be understood as the gas meets no
resistance as it exits into the vacuum and thus transfers neither heat
nor energy to its surroundings. If the gas loses neither heat nor energy
then it has done no work.

At this point we have a rocket with high-pressure gas generated from
liquid fuel that can release the gas into a vacuum but has no way to
produce a force while doing so. As soon as the nozzle is opened the
gasses escape without doing any work. Therefore the 3rd Law is rendered
useless.

As it turns out NASA does not fall into the 3rd Law trap (nor does it go
around correcting all the sites who do) instead claiming that thrust of
a space rocket is generated using what I call The Wrong Formula, an
egregious farce of Newton's 2nd law which I will address in a later next
post.

To recap: Newton�s 3rd Law, the number one response on the Internet to
how a rocket generates thrust in space, is invalid in this context. NASA
itself avoids using Newton�s 3rd Law as the reason why their rockets
work so well in space choosing to use Newton�s 2nd Law instead. I will
show in a later post why NASA�s use the 2nd Law is equally invalid and
in fact a hideous misrepresentation of the laws of the laws of physics
that would give a freshman college student a failing grade yet earns
NASA an "A" thanks to its pretty pictures, dramatic story lines, and
gutsy champions, the astronauts.

Fakery in Orbit... in very simple words:

To try to put this in unnecessarily simple terms: because the vacuum is
just complete void, it can freely take on just about an infinite amount
of anything, at any rate, without actually anything significant
happening. Hence, we hold on to the idea that mass exiting a craft into
a vacuum would actually cause any motion in the craft only because we
are used to such behavior in a non-vacuum.

in addition to the gas leaving the ship for "free" (doing no work,
exerting no force) the change in the mass of the rocket due to the
escaped gas has nothing to do with rocket propulsion. In order for "lost
mass" to exert force the ship MUST be accelerating. The formula is:

Force = Mass x Acceleration

If Acceleration is 0 then force is 0 no matter what the mass or how it
is changes over time.

Put another way, if the force of the gas (force = 0) exiting the rocket
didn't do cause the rocket to move (the ropckey isn't accelerating) due
to free expansion then looking at the problem from the perspective of
the mass of the gas leaving the rocket won't magically cause the ship to
move all of a sudden.

NASA tries to pull this nonsense as well as some other ridiculous fake
science stunts to make it seem like their rockets have a chance to
function in a vacuum.

[Warhol]

qartl schreef op 28-10-2013 0:24:
> [froups trimmed for E-S limitation]
>
> Warhol aka The Mad Moor is no stranger to AUK, having quite a
> collection of kook awards on his mantlepiece, but the gem below
> deserves further recognition of this kook's strange posting habits:

>
>
> Warhol <Mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Not working rockets!!! Fake Satellites!!! Fake Astronauts!!! Fake Moon
>> Images!!! Its all Fake fake fake
>>
>> The Solution of theproblem;... just one image of a REAL satellite
>> orbiting the earth. It supposedly begins with SPUTNIK but all the photos
>> are fake.
>>
>> Since l know that all of the space missions are hoaxes, that not even
>> GAGARIN ever orbited the earth..., there never were any space station
>> orbiting the earth, again it's all video simulation or miniatures
>> models, that all of the spacewalks were filmed in a giant water pool at
>> Johnson space center with a fake rotating plastic earth, that we see air
>> bubbles rising, going upwards...... Saliout, Skylab, apollo-soyouz, MIR,
>> ISS have never orbited the earth. So l said to myself it would be
>> reasonable to ask this simple question
>

> Now this is quite a take-off from the usual manned moon mission hoax
> conspiracy theories -- Warhol has extrapolated them to claim that all
> space travel is a gigantic, hugh, big, enormous [insert extra
> additional stupendous adjectives here] hoax.
>
> I Like!

>
>> Where is the evidence of the existence of man made Satellites in orbit
>> around planet Earth... really I see nothing up there and HDTV works with
>> Air waves and not with satellite waves...
>>
>> I say if there satellites up there... It should a game play for you
>> clever big boys to silent me for ever and ever with hard facts... that
>> would be the End of Warhol claims...
>>
>> I am awaiting your evidence with great curiosity...
>

> The evidence, of course, is that all kinds of satellites are visible
> from the ground as they whiz through the night sky, especially those in
> polar orbits.

>>
>> BTW Right now I have only evidence of three satellites there above our
>> heads... but the problem is they are not man made... One is course our
>> Moon and two are unseen asteroids who are heading straight to
>> unbelievers heads... Cometh of Wormwood & the Cometh of the Second Son.
>

> Note that despite him claim at the beginning of this paragraph, no
> evidence is presented of these "unseen asteroids". His "Cometh of
> Wormwood" has been coming for many years now to smash the heads of
> those who dare to laugh at Warhol's antics. "Cometh" is Warhol-speak
> for "comet".

>>
>> In meantime let me laugh with you guys... Since you never can show hard
>> evidence which I demanded so long ago... My words are over all the
>> boards & plazas, but not one could ever silent me... ha ha ha... and
>> there is a reason for that... because there ain't no man made satellites
>> in geostationary orbit or simply in orbit in vacuum space... its all a hoax
>>
>> http://youtu.be/xhBbHtokymY
>>
>> http://youtu.be/6PdcYoIuRS8
>>
>> http://youtu.be/jz0DL5AKdmk
>>
>> Not working rockets!!! Fake Satellites!!! Fake Astronauts!!! Fake Moon
>> Images!!! Its all Fake fake fake.
>

> Warhol conveniently ignores the fact that the largest artificial
> satellite, the International Space Station, can easily be seen with the
> naked eye if you known when and where to look.

>
>> Once more, I will illustrates in simple language why rockets won�t work
>> in space... Very simple words... "An Object can't push against
>> nothing"... Vacuum is nothing or very thin air... ha ha ha... facts is
>> you can't get out of our atmosphere Prisoners.
>>
>> There are 4 major ideas on presented on the Internet, including NASA web
>> sites, as to how rockets generate thrust in space
>> 1. Newton�s 3rd Law : for every force there is an equal and opposite
>> 2. Newtons�s 2nd Law : Force = Mass x Acceleration
>> 3. Conservation of Momentum
>> 4. The use of a specialized nozzle to accelerate the gas inside the
>> ship, concentrate and aim the gas jet
>

> OOOH it gets better! Now Warhol uses a strawman to "prove" his claims
> that rocket propulsion doesn't work in space because it isn't possible
> to "push against nothing".
>
> The astute reader will recognize that Warhol must now assert that jet
> engines propel aircraft by "pushing against air" (total nonsense, for
> those without any technical background). Here's a question for which
> he won't be able to provide a coherent answer:
>
> "At what altitude is the air thin enough such that rocket and jet
> propulsion is no longer possible?"

>>
>> I will address each of these issues showing why they are invalid. In
>> addition I will review the results (and lack thereof) of the founders of
>> space rocketry Obereth (who designed most of the rocket science for the
>> Fritz Lang film Woman in the Moon), Goddard, who was the first to claim
>> an experimental result proving vacuum thrust and Clarke, a champion of
>> Newton�s 3rd law.
>

> Yes, I'm quite certain your "addresses" will be wholly inadequate to
> debunk all of space science and engineering.

>>
>> Warhol ake Greek demi God Perseus, Che'Riff of the Sarsar, Al Gharb, Al
>> Anjari, Al JahBallah, Al Alami at the Top of the world that falls on
>> you... Warning all unbelievers and believers... Surrender & confess Now
>> or else you fall in fire and burn for supporting lunatic lies and deceive...
>

> The religious cake icing and death threats are classic Warhol, of
> course.

>>
>> http://youtu.be/39pesl6J6e0
>>
>> PSS This topic was started due to our recent discussions � in multiple
>> threads � about the subject of rocketry, Airwaves and the Lies...
>

> For his "theory" that rocket propulsion is not possible outside of the
> atmosphere because there is nothing to "push against", I nominate
> Warhol for the Victor Von Frankenstein Weird Science Award.
>
> 2nds ==>
>
> Next, for his adjunct theory that no spacecraft has ever broken free of
> Earth's atmosphere, despite what he could learn with his own eyes, I
> nominate Warhol for the AFAB Angstrom Award and Medal for advances in
> hyperdelusional physics (in honor of Richard Hoagland).
>
> 2nds ==>
>


I really thought you guys would come with something, but this... man man
man... you are naked and everybody sees your nakedness...

I will begin to answer you questions: with one word;

Stall

See 7 & 8
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/stall

For the people who have no understanding of the physical laws I
explain... by bringing some well-documented common sense to debunk
NASA's outlandish claims of having rockets moving in a vacuum.

A quick way of teaching kids why rockets cannot proceed in a vacuum:
think of a man swimming in a pool. The man will move forwards. If this
man gets out of the pool and keeps flapping his arms as if swimming, he
won't move forwards, because the air simply doesn't produce enough
'thrust' (superior to the so-called forces of gravity which affect his
body) to propel him forwards.

Also, anyone with a modicum of aeronautical knowledge will now what a
'stall' means, that is when an airplane loses lift and, one could say,
'encounters thinner air or vacuum'. The plane will plunge
catastrophically to the ground - if aerodynamic support isn't quickly
re-established.


Stall
"(Engineering / Aeronautics) a condition of an aircraft in flight
in which a reduction in speed or an increase in the aircraft's angle of
attack causes a sudden loss of lift resulting in a downward plunge."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/stall



A third analogy would be that of a car moving up a mountain road - and
suddenly encountering a big icy patch. The car will keep spinning its
wheels - but it will stop moving forward.

Nasa or any space agency is in the impossibility of propelling a rocket
out of our planet's atmosphere, they knew it from the early stage of
space travel experiments. Any rocket reaching a certain, critical
altitude (70 miles - 110km, for which I surely won't pretend to provide/
specify any exact figure) simply stalls - due to the absence of air, and
plummets back into the atmosphere.

As for the I$$... its a trick... cheap tricks.

http://youtu.be/Dr8CnHjLcO8

:) yeah strange swimming creatures there above to... Ha ha ha give your
kook award to NASA asshole. :) :) :)

[Metspitzer]

On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 17:24:37 -0600, qartl <qa...@a51.mi1> wrote:

>[froups trimmed for E-S limitation]
>
>Warhol aka The Mad Moor is no stranger to AUK, having quite a
>collection of kook awards on his mantlepiece, but the gem below
>deserves further recognition of this kook's strange posting habits:
>
>
>Warhol <Mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>

>>Not working rockets!!! Fake Satellites!!! Fake Astronauts!!! Fake Moon
>>Images!!! Its all Fake fake fake
>>
>>The Solution of theproblem;... just one image of a REAL satellite
>>orbiting the earth. It supposedly begins with SPUTNIK but all the photos
>>are fake.
>>
>>Since l know that all of the space missions are hoaxes, that not even
>>GAGARIN ever orbited the earth..., there never were any space station
>>orbiting the earth, again it's all video simulation or miniatures
>>models, that all of the spacewalks were filmed in a giant water pool at
>>Johnson space center with a fake rotating plastic earth, that we see air
>>bubbles rising, going upwards...... Saliout, Skylab, apollo-soyouz, MIR,
>>ISS have never orbited the earth. So l said to myself it would be
>>reasonable to ask this simple question
>

>Now this is quite a take-off from the usual manned moon mission hoax
>conspiracy theories -- Warhol has extrapolated them to claim that all
>space travel is a gigantic, hugh, big, enormous [insert extra
>additional stupendous adjectives here] hoax.
>
>I Like!
>

>>Where is the evidence of the existence of man made Satellites in orbit
>>around planet Earth... really I see nothing up there and HDTV works with
>>Air waves and not with satellite waves...
>>
>>I say if there satellites up there... It should a game play for you
>>clever big boys to silent me for ever and ever with hard facts... that
>>would be the End of Warhol claims...
>>
>>I am awaiting your evidence with great curiosity...
>

>The evidence, of course, is that all kinds of satellites are visible
>from the ground as they whiz through the night sky, especially those in
>polar orbits.
>>

>>BTW Right now I have only evidence of three satellites there above our
>>heads... but the problem is they are not man made... One is course our
>>Moon and two are unseen asteroids who are heading straight to
>>unbelievers heads... Cometh of Wormwood & the Cometh of the Second Son.
>

>Note that despite him claim at the beginning of this paragraph, no
>evidence is presented of these "unseen asteroids". His "Cometh of
>Wormwood" has been coming for many years now to smash the heads of
>those who dare to laugh at Warhol's antics. "Cometh" is Warhol-speak
>for "comet".
>>

>>In meantime let me laugh with you guys... Since you never can show hard
>>evidence which I demanded so long ago... My words are over all the
>>boards & plazas, but not one could ever silent me... ha ha ha... and
>>there is a reason for that... because there ain't no man made satellites
>>in geostationary orbit or simply in orbit in vacuum space... its all a hoax
>>
>>http://youtu.be/xhBbHtokymY
>>
>>http://youtu.be/6PdcYoIuRS8
>>
>>http://youtu.be/jz0DL5AKdmk
>>
>>Not working rockets!!! Fake Satellites!!! Fake Astronauts!!! Fake Moon
>>Images!!! Its all Fake fake fake.
>

>Warhol conveniently ignores the fact that the largest artificial
>satellite, the International Space Station, can easily be seen with the
>naked eye if you known when and where to look.
>

>>Once more, I will illustrates in simple language why rockets won�t work

>>in space... Very simple words... "An Object can't push against
>>nothing"... Vacuum is nothing or very thin air... ha ha ha... facts is
>>you can't get out of our atmosphere Prisoners.
>>
>>There are 4 major ideas on presented on the Internet, including NASA web
>>sites, as to how rockets generate thrust in space

>>1. Newton�s 3rd Law : for every force there is an equal and opposite
>>2. Newtons�s 2nd Law : Force = Mass x Acceleration

>>3. Conservation of Momentum
>>4. The use of a specialized nozzle to accelerate the gas inside the
>>ship, concentrate and aim the gas jet
>

>OOOH it gets better! Now Warhol uses a strawman to "prove" his claims
>that rocket propulsion doesn't work in space because it isn't possible
>to "push against nothing".
>
>The astute reader will recognize that Warhol must now assert that jet
>engines propel aircraft by "pushing against air" (total nonsense, for
>those without any technical background). Here's a question for which
>he won't be able to provide a coherent answer:
>
>"At what altitude is the air thin enough such that rocket and jet
>propulsion is no longer possible?"
>>

>>I will address each of these issues showing why they are invalid. In
>>addition I will review the results (and lack thereof) of the founders of
>>space rocketry Obereth (who designed most of the rocket science for the
>>Fritz Lang film Woman in the Moon), Goddard, who was the first to claim
>>an experimental result proving vacuum thrust and Clarke, a champion of

>>Newton�s 3rd law.

>
>Yes, I'm quite certain your "addresses" will be wholly inadequate to
>debunk all of space science and engineering.
>>

>>Warhol ake Greek demi God Perseus, Che'Riff of the Sarsar, Al Gharb, Al
>>Anjari, Al JahBallah, Al Alami at the Top of the world that falls on
>>you... Warning all unbelievers and believers... Surrender & confess Now
>>or else you fall in fire and burn for supporting lunatic lies and deceive...
>

>The religious cake icing and death threats are classic Warhol, of
>course.
>>

>>http://youtu.be/39pesl6J6e0
>>
>>PSS This topic was started due to our recent discussions � in multiple
>>threads � about the subject of rocketry, Airwaves and the Lies...

>
>For his "theory" that rocket propulsion is not possible outside of the
>atmosphere because there is nothing to "push against", I nominate
>Warhol for the Victor Von Frankenstein Weird Science Award.
>
>2nds ==>
>
>Next, for his adjunct theory that no spacecraft has ever broken free of
>Earth's atmosphere, despite what he could learn with his own eyes, I
>nominate Warhol for the AFAB Angstrom Award and Medal for advances in
>hyperdelusional physics (in honor of Richard Hoagland).
>
>2nds ==>

Warhol is either suffering from dementia or he is a troll. I think he
truly believes what he is saying, which makes him mentally ill.

[george152]

On 28/10/13 12:24, qartl wrote:
> [froups trimmed for E-S limitation]
>
> Warhol aka The Mad Moor is no stranger to AUK, having quite a
> collection of kook awards on his mantlepiece, but the gem below
> deserves further recognition of this kook's strange posting habits:
>
>
> Warhol <Mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>

>> Not working rockets!!! Fake Satellites!!! Fake Astronauts!!! Fake Moon
>> Images!!! Its all Fake fake fake
>>
>> The Solution of theproblem;... just one image of a REAL satellite
>> orbiting the earth. It supposedly begins with SPUTNIK but all the photos
>> are fake.
>>
>> Since l know that all of the space missions are hoaxes, that not even
>> GAGARIN ever orbited the earth..., there never were any space station
>> orbiting the earth, again it's all video simulation or miniatures
>> models, that all of the spacewalks were filmed in a giant water pool at
>> Johnson space center with a fake rotating plastic earth, that we see air
>> bubbles rising, going upwards...... Saliout, Skylab, apollo-soyouz, MIR,
>> ISS have never orbited the earth. So l said to myself it would be
>> reasonable to ask this simple question
>

> Now this is quite a take-off from the usual manned moon mission hoax
> conspiracy theories -- Warhol has extrapolated them to claim that all
> space travel is a gigantic, hugh, big, enormous [insert extra
> additional stupendous adjectives here] hoax.
>
> I Like!
>

>> Where is the evidence of the existence of man made Satellites in orbit
>> around planet Earth... really I see nothing up there and HDTV works with
>> Air waves and not with satellite waves...
>>
>> I say if there satellites up there... It should a game play for you
>> clever big boys to silent me for ever and ever with hard facts... that
>> would be the End of Warhol claims...
>>
>> I am awaiting your evidence with great curiosity...
>

> The evidence, of course, is that all kinds of satellites are visible
> from the ground as they whiz through the night sky, especially those in
> polar orbits.
>>

>> BTW Right now I have only evidence of three satellites there above our
>> heads... but the problem is they are not man made... One is course our
>> Moon and two are unseen asteroids who are heading straight to
>> unbelievers heads... Cometh of Wormwood & the Cometh of the Second Son.
>

> Note that despite him claim at the beginning of this paragraph, no
> evidence is presented of these "unseen asteroids". His "Cometh of
> Wormwood" has been coming for many years now to smash the heads of
> those who dare to laugh at Warhol's antics. "Cometh" is Warhol-speak
> for "comet".
>>

>> In meantime let me laugh with you guys... Since you never can show hard
>> evidence which I demanded so long ago... My words are over all the
>> boards & plazas, but not one could ever silent me... ha ha ha... and
>> there is a reason for that... because there ain't no man made satellites
>> in geostationary orbit or simply in orbit in vacuum space... its all a hoax
>>
>> http://youtu.be/xhBbHtokymY
>>
>> http://youtu.be/6PdcYoIuRS8
>>
>> http://youtu.be/jz0DL5AKdmk
>>
>> Not working rockets!!! Fake Satellites!!! Fake Astronauts!!! Fake Moon
>> Images!!! Its all Fake fake fake.
>

> Warhol conveniently ignores the fact that the largest artificial
> satellite, the International Space Station, can easily be seen with the
> naked eye if you known when and where to look.
>

>> Once more, I will illustrates in simple language why rockets won�t work
>> in space... Very simple words... "An Object can't push against
>> nothing"... Vacuum is nothing or very thin air... ha ha ha... facts is
>> you can't get out of our atmosphere Prisoners.
>>
>> There are 4 major ideas on presented on the Internet, including NASA web
>> sites, as to how rockets generate thrust in space
>> 1. Newton�s 3rd Law : for every force there is an equal and opposite
>> 2. Newtons�s 2nd Law : Force = Mass x Acceleration
>> 3. Conservation of Momentum
>> 4. The use of a specialized nozzle to accelerate the gas inside the
>> ship, concentrate and aim the gas jet
>

> OOOH it gets better! Now Warhol uses a strawman to "prove" his claims
> that rocket propulsion doesn't work in space because it isn't possible
> to "push against nothing".
>
> The astute reader will recognize that Warhol must now assert that jet
> engines propel aircraft by "pushing against air" (total nonsense, for
> those without any technical background). Here's a question for which
> he won't be able to provide a coherent answer:
>
> "At what altitude is the air thin enough such that rocket and jet
> propulsion is no longer possible?"
>>

>> I will address each of these issues showing why they are invalid. In
>> addition I will review the results (and lack thereof) of the founders of
>> space rocketry Obereth (who designed most of the rocket science for the
>> Fritz Lang film Woman in the Moon), Goddard, who was the first to claim
>> an experimental result proving vacuum thrust and Clarke, a champion of
>> Newton�s 3rd law.
>

> Yes, I'm quite certain your "addresses" will be wholly inadequate to
> debunk all of space science and engineering.
>>

>> Warhol ake Greek demi God Perseus, Che'Riff of the Sarsar, Al Gharb, Al
>> Anjari, Al JahBallah, Al Alami at the Top of the world that falls on
>> you... Warning all unbelievers and believers... Surrender & confess Now
>> or else you fall in fire and burn for supporting lunatic lies and deceive...
>

> The religious cake icing and death threats are classic Warhol, of
> course.
>>

>> http://youtu.be/39pesl6J6e0
>>
>> PSS This topic was started due to our recent discussions � in multiple
>> threads � about the subject of rocketry, Airwaves and the Lies...
>

> For his "theory" that rocket propulsion is not possible outside of the
> atmosphere because there is nothing to "push against", I nominate
> Warhol for the Victor Von Frankenstein Weird Science Award.
>
> 2nds ==>
>
> Next, for his adjunct theory that no spacecraft has ever broken free of
> Earth's atmosphere, despite what he could learn with his own eyes, I
> nominate Warhol for the AFAB Angstrom Award and Medal for advances in
> hyperdelusional physics (in honor of Richard Hoagland).
>

I thought the Hoaxland meddle was something to do with his manipulation
of the detail inside single pixels

[Warhol]

Metspitzer schreef op 28-10-2013 1:30:

>>> Once more, I will illustrates in simple language why rockets won�t work

>>> in space... Very simple words... "An Object can't push against
>>> nothing"... Vacuum is nothing or very thin air... ha ha ha... facts is
>>> you can't get out of our atmosphere Prisoners.
>>>
>>> There are 4 major ideas on presented on the Internet, including NASA web
>>> sites, as to how rockets generate thrust in space

>>> 1. Newton�s 3rd Law : for every force there is an equal and opposite
>>> 2. Newtons�s 2nd Law : Force = Mass x Acceleration

>>> 3. Conservation of Momentum
>>> 4. The use of a specialized nozzle to accelerate the gas inside the
>>> ship, concentrate and aim the gas jet
>>
>> OOOH it gets better! Now Warhol uses a strawman to "prove" his claims
>> that rocket propulsion doesn't work in space because it isn't possible
>> to "push against nothing".
>>
>> The astute reader will recognize that Warhol must now assert that jet
>> engines propel aircraft by "pushing against air" (total nonsense, for
>> those without any technical background). Here's a question for which
>> he won't be able to provide a coherent answer:
>>
>> "At what altitude is the air thin enough such that rocket and jet
>> propulsion is no longer possible?"
>>>
>>> I will address each of these issues showing why they are invalid. In
>>> addition I will review the results (and lack thereof) of the founders of
>>> space rocketry Obereth (who designed most of the rocket science for the
>>> Fritz Lang film Woman in the Moon), Goddard, who was the first to claim
>>> an experimental result proving vacuum thrust and Clarke, a champion of

>>> Newton�s 3rd law.

>>
>> Yes, I'm quite certain your "addresses" will be wholly inadequate to
>> debunk all of space science and engineering.
>>>
>>> Warhol ake Greek demi God Perseus, Che'Riff of the Sarsar, Al Gharb, Al
>>> Anjari, Al JahBallah, Al Alami at the Top of the world that falls on
>>> you... Warning all unbelievers and believers... Surrender & confess Now
>>> or else you fall in fire and burn for supporting lunatic lies and deceive...
>>
>> The religious cake icing and death threats are classic Warhol, of
>> course.
>>>
>>> http://youtu.be/39pesl6J6e0
>>>

>>> PSS This topic was started due to our recent discussions � in multiple

>>> threads � about the subject of rocketry, Airwaves and the Lies...

>>
>> For his "theory" that rocket propulsion is not possible outside of the
>> atmosphere because there is nothing to "push against", I nominate
>> Warhol for the Victor Von Frankenstein Weird Science Award.
>>
>> 2nds ==>
>>
>> Next, for his adjunct theory that no spacecraft has ever broken free of
>> Earth's atmosphere, despite what he could learn with his own eyes, I
>> nominate Warhol for the AFAB Angstrom Award and Medal for advances in
>> hyperdelusional physics (in honor of Richard Hoagland).
>>
>> 2nds ==>
>
> Warhol is either suffering from dementia or he is a troll. I think he
> truly believes what he is saying, which makes him mentally ill.
>

says the kook...

But hard evidence is very difficult to find for this lunatic trolls...

In meantime I am sharpening my koumia for your ears.

http://images-01.delcampe-static.net/img_large/auction/000/192/097/497_001.jpg?v=1

As for the astronuts they admit the lie... Pool... Pulll

http://youtu.be/CHg-FL8F8NM

[Checkmate]

Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Checkmate!

On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 18:21:55 -0700, Siri Cruz put forth the notion that:

>
> In article <271020131724373566%qa...@a51.mi1>, qartl <qa...@a51.mi1> wrote:
>
> > >BTW Right now I have only evidence of three satellites there above our
> > >heads... but the problem is they are not man made... One is course our
> > >Moon and two are unseen asteroids who are heading straight to
> > >unbelievers heads... Cometh of Wormwood & the Cometh of the Second Son.
> >

> > Note that despite him claim at the beginning of this paragraph, no
> > evidence is presented of these "unseen asteroids". His "Cometh of
> > Wormwood" has been coming for many years now to smash the heads of
> > those who dare to laugh at Warhol's antics. "Cometh" is Warhol-speak
> > for "comet".
>

> At least he ties it altogether with an apopcalyptic colourred bow.

Stupidest Shit Posted on Usenet (TM) is still wide open for today, if
you'd care to take another shot at it...

--
Checkmate
KotAGoR XXXIV
AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012
co-winner, Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker award, May 2001
Copyright ￜ 2013
all rights reserved

My poor people skills??? You sir, are fucked in the head."
-Emmett Gulley

[%]

Checkmate wrote:
> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts
> by Checkmate!
>
> On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 18:21:55 -0700, Siri Cruz put forth the notion
> that:
>
>
>>
>> In article <271020131724373566%qa...@a51.mi1>, qartl <qa...@a51.mi1>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> BTW Right now I have only evidence of three satellites there above
>>>> our heads... but the problem is they are not man made... One is
>>>> course our Moon and two are unseen asteroids who are heading
>>>> straight to unbelievers heads... Cometh of Wormwood & the Cometh
>>>> of the Second Son.
>>>
>>> Note that despite him claim at the beginning of this paragraph, no
>>> evidence is presented of these "unseen asteroids". His "Cometh of
>>> Wormwood" has been coming for many years now to smash the heads of
>>> those who dare to laugh at Warhol's antics. "Cometh" is
>>> Warhol-speak for "comet".
>>
>> At least he ties it altogether with an apopcalyptic colourred bow.
>
> Stupidest Shit Posted on Usenet (TM) is still wide open for today, if
> you'd care to take another shot at it...

and the tit is up for grabs

[Checkmate]

Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Checkmate!

On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 18:57:57 -0700, % put forth the notion that:

honk! honk!

[Metspitzer]

I hope you don't really have a big knife like that.

[%]

wahooooga

[Warhol]

Siri Cruz schreef op 28-10-2013 2:43:
> In article <l4kati$m33$1...@dont-email.me>, Warhol <Mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Stall
>
> Which only applies to aerodynamic flight, not a ballistic flight. Ballistic
> flight (such as a Fourth of July rocket or a rock thrown at your head) doesn't
> use any lift generating surfaces such as wings, so it cannot have stalls.
>
> I believe the altitude limit for air breathing jets is something like 85000 for
> an SR-71. Rockets don't need air so they can burn at a higher altitude.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY-5nqCplg8
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhuGwQq7qZk
>


Tom Wolfe's book "The Right Stuff" documents high altitude flight tests
with rocket powered aircraft that would invariably fail in the thin air
and plummet back to earth. Chuck Yeager almost died in a NF-104A rocket
plane failure while attempting to set a height record. These planes were
liquid fuel rockets and not air-fed jets.

Why would NASA claim to be able to send rockets into space when the USAF
couldn't get the same technology into even the upper atmosphere?

Why did Chuck Yeager not join the space program? Did he know it was a hoax?


Part 2 of why NASA�s rockets can�t work in space

NASA claims that by pressurizing gas and shooting really fast out of the
back of a rocket they can create thrust in a vacuum.

Using only NASA web sites I can show that their equation for rocket
thrust is bunkum.

First, the NASA rocket thrust equation (written in lay language)

Force = Mass x Velocity + (Pressure Difference between inside the rocket
and the vacuum of space) x Nozzle Area

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/rockth.html

The first term says Force = Mass x Velocity whereas NASA web sites say
that Force = Mass x Acceleration (Newton�s 2nd law of motion)
NASA sites also say that Mass x Velocity = Momentum which is not a
force. Momentum is potential energy. If you throw a rock it has
momentum. If you throw it harder it has more momentum. No force is
generated until the rock hits something. Gas shot out of the back of a
rocket very fast does not create a force until it interacts with
something, which it never does in the vacuum of space or in thin air. It
remains high momentum gas streaking endlessly through space looking to
do work but never getting the chance.

The second term (Pressure Difference between inside the rocket and the
vacuum of space) x Nozzle Area violates the �free expansion� effect,
part of the first law of thermodynamics by which pressurized gas moves
into a vacuum without any work being done. It does not matter how highly
pressured the gas is inside the rocket nor how fast it comes out.
Because it is going into a vacuum the gas makes the trip �for free� and
does not do any work, does not expend any energy and does not create any
force or thrust.

The NASA space rocket equation has two terms the first of which is
incorrect and so is the second. As Linus Pauling would say, �not even
wrong�. How do rockets work in the vacuum space?

Free Expansion
http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/f.html

Force = Mass x Acceleration

http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/BottleRocket/journey_newtona2.htm

Momentum = Mass x Velocity
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/momntm.html

There is also a philosophical reason why NASA space rocketry is
impossible: gas, via rocket engine exhaust or otherwise, has no effect,
does no work, in a vacuum and cannot be used to move objects through
space (yes, that includes farts).

In 1852 scientist James Prescott Joule, for whom the unit of energy
Joule is named, discovered that gas does no work in a vacuum

http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html

If gas has an effect on objects in a vacuum I would expect to find an
example in nature. All forces that man has access to exist in nature
(including fission, fusion, chemical reactions, steam, etc...). We do
not create forces we only discover them.

Gas does no work in a vacuum. It is only a passive participant and not
an active force in space. We cannot use it as the basis for space
travel. Bottling up gas and shooting it out of a tiny nozzle won't
change its basic physical properties inside a vacuum, won't suddenly
invalidate the laws of thermodynamics.

The theory of space travel based on gas jets and/or liquid propellants
is a science fiction from end 19th century (Jules Verne et. al.) similar
to the philosopher's stone and other magical, mystical pursuits we now
look down upon. I have already addressed NASA's phony rocket thrust
equations (and will continue to do so as necessary). There is also the
matter of the faked/fraudulent results of rocket pioneers such as
Goddard which I will get to later.

If you ask why this is hoax is still going on it is because science has
become a religion and NASA it's church. Specifically space travel is one
of the Holiest of Holies. Try debunking a religion/cult and see how far
you get. Once someone has been indoctrinated, invested themselves in its
beliefs, it is nearly impossible for them to divest. For years when I
was kid I believed that space travel was the pinnacle of man's
achievement. Now I know that no rocket has ever been past as far as we
can throw it up from the ground... and thats 110 km / 70 miles altitude.

Yeah NASA's Rocket engines Marooned...

http://youtu.be/cyn7sfQT0NI

[Warhol]

Metspitzer schreef op 28-10-2013 3:00:

Yeah the combat knife of a Jedi Master in djellaba combat robe...

http://youtu.be/1FWJuFBZ5XQ

My Gran'Da'Dy left me my 16th century Koumia to collect ears of
unbelieving assholes, who don't want surrender to words of wisdom...

http://books.google.be/books?id=B6B-x7zxqDgC&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=goums+american&source=bl&ots=F883LS0OYT&sig=HMZgLVM-XbFhQfuvjxdLatVesXA&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=dtJtUqGBFI-o0AXcvIHADw&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=goums%20american&f=false

The Return of the Jedi: Special Edition

Surrender & confess or we come for your ears...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Goum_in_Yank.jpg

:) :) :)

[Warhol]

Siri Cruz schreef op 28-10-2013 4:47:

> In article <l4ki0f$ltv$1...@dont-email.me>, Warhol <Mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Tom Wolfe's book "The Right Stuff" documents high altitude flight tests
>> with rocket powered aircraft that would invariably fail in the thin air
>

> They were aerodynamic flights which used shaped surfaces to generate lift.
> Ballistic flight does not use lift and does not stall.

>
>> Force = Mass x Velocity + (Pressure Difference between inside the rocket
>> and the vacuum of space) x Nozzle Area
>

> That dot over m means it's dm/dt. You don't know how to read Newton's derivative
> notation. Congratulations, dingbat.
>
> F = dp/dt Newton.
> = d(mv)/dt Definition of momentum.
> = m dv/dt + dm/dt v Product rule.
> = 0 m + dm/dt v Assuming constant velocity.
> = dm/dt v
>
> Which is half of the sum. The other part, F/A = P, is the definition of pressure.

>
>> NASA sites also say that Mass x Velocity = Momentum which is not a
>> force. Momentum is potential energy. If you throw a rock it has
>

> No, momentum is vector quantity that is conserved. Energy is a scalar; potential
> energy alone is not conserved. Momentum increases linearly with velocity;
> kinetic energy increases quadratically.

>
>> momentum. If you throw it harder it has more momentum. No force is
>> generated until the rock hits something. Gas shot out of the back of a
>> rocket very fast does not create a force until it interacts with
>

> Why do gasses shoot out without some force applied to them?
>
>> vacuum of space) x Nozzle Area violates the �free expansion� effect,

>> part of the first law of thermodynamics by which pressurized gas moves
>> into a vacuum without any work being done. It does not matter how highly
>

> The generalised gas law is PV = kT, so as the pressure decreases, the
> temperature decreases. Temperature is energy (=work) within the gas. So, yes,
> work is being done.

>
>> does not do any work, does not expend any energy and does not create any
>> force or thrust.
>

> It does expend energy as slower gas particles and photon emissions as the gas
> cools.

>
>> Force = Mass x Acceleration
>

> That's only true for constant mass. The actual law is F = dp/dt.

>
>> In 1852 scientist James Prescott Joule, for whom the unit of energy
>> Joule is named, discovered that gas does no work in a vacuum
>

> When you considerred the entire system, rocket, exhaust, and photons, energy and
> momentum are conserved. When you consider just components, such as just the
> rocket, energy and momentum are not conserved. The exhaust from an earth launch
> is expected, and desired, to fall back to the earth.
>
> And you're still an idiot.
>


Rather than pull the quotes from Wolfe's book which I read many years
ago here are the details of his crash in the NF-104A aircraft which
failed at an altitude of 21 miles.

http://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites/NF-104A_crash_site.htm

Let me repeat... you are in the impossibility of movement in a vacuum.
thats what the law says...

Moving gas into a vacuum, such as from inside a rocket in space to
outside, is not a process that requires work. This is because free
expansion allows enters a vacuum "for free", no work is needed or done.
The gas does not push outward from inside the rocket and is not pulled
in by the vacuum of space. Natures seeks to being the two sides, high
pressure and zero pressure, into equilibrium and does so for "no
charge". Although this is a well-known result in Physical Chemistry and
Thermodynamics you almost never hear of it in the context of space
rocketry because it wreaks havoc on the NASA-led theories of thrust.

I have noted free expansion several times and produced various web sites
describing it. Do you not believe that it exists? It can be and has been
tested in vacuum chambers here on earth. I have yet to see a convincing
experiment describing how rockets produce thrust inside a vacuum
performed on earth. All the testing seems to be done up there in space.

Free Expansion
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html

http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/JouleExperimentOnFreeExpansion/

Also, just because a mass is moving does not mean it does any work. Mass
in motion has the property of momentum which is not the same as force.
In order for momentum to be turned into force it must interact with
something. A mass of gas moving at any speed through the infinite
vastness of space never encountering any other object, never speeding up
or slowing down does not exert any energy, does not do any work and thus
cannot be used to propel anything.

Converting Momentum into Force

http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae462.cfm

the "I throw something forward and thus I move backwards" example is one
that is often used to "explain" rocket thrust. It is a false analogy.

Gas isn't being thrown from the rocket. Gas isn't propelled into space.
Gas can only be propelled into an atmosphere where it encounters
resistance to its flow. If there is no resistance gas flows out into the
vacuum without being "thrown". This is the result known as free expansion.

For instance if you open a balloon at sea level the air seeps out
slowly, based on pressure difference. If you want to empty the balloon
faster you exert a force, press on the balloon and the air comes out
faster. If you try to same experiment inside a vacuum you cannot press
on the balloon to make the air come out faster, the air goes flying out
of the balloon without any force, because the nature of the vacuum has
already done all the work, for free, trying to equalize the pressure
inside the vacuum with that inside the balloon.

When high pressure gas enters a vacuum there is not even heat generated
from molecules bouncing off each other trying to leave the high pressure
area. The entire evacuation happens for free. No heat. No work. No muss.
No mess.

Part of the philosophy of science is determining what results are even
possible. For example, can you prove that all crows are black? In my
opinion it is a philosophical question to say that man does not create
new forces but only uncovers and harnesses existing ones. I could be
proven wrong when tomorrow someone invents some unheard of force. As per
my beliefs, if gas as it exists in nature cannot exert force upon
objects in while inside of a vacuum I cannot see how a rocket made to
operate in a vacuum, powered by gas, would work.

The idea that they can produce force outside of the atmosphere is a
fantasy/dream.

This feels a lot like trying to push the rocket from inside the rocket.
Lets say a pressure imbalance occurs against only one wall. There will
be a force generated but that energy goes into the hull of the ship
where is it turns into vibration, heat, etc... there is nowhere for the
energy of the hull to go because the ship is a closed system, insulated
by the vacuum of space.

There are "how does a rocket work" sites that realize this closed system
problem and use the nozzle / escaping gasses as a way to "open" the
system. However this is an error because free expansion means that no
work, energy or heat is transferred out via the escaping gasses and the
system remains closed just spread out over a larger distance. Think of
it like money. If I have $1 it doesn't matter if I break it into
nickels, dimes, pennies my net worth only changes when I spend it (or
earn more). So breaking my dollar has no affect my financial status.
Changing the energy of the ship from potential to kinetic won't move the
ship until that energy does work.

If the spaceship were a railway car on a track, as an open system
example, the force of a pressure imbalance would find its way to the
wheels which would start to turn, possibly the car would only rock back
and forth but at least it would move. As for a spaceship I don't believe
any motion would occur. There is no way for the ship to roll, slide,
rock, float (as on water), etc... the energy delivered to the hull
simply has nowhere to go hence no motion.

Closed systems

http://blowers.chee.arizona.edu/201project/EBclosedsys.pg1.HTML

This feels a lot like trying to push a car from inside the car.

of course you have pushed from within a car but that has nothing to do
with how rockets theoretically can move through space.

When you push from within a car some of the energy of the pushing goes
to the wheels which start to turn. A space ship is not analogous to a
wheeled vehicle. A spaceship does not move because of the physics of a
curved surface (wheel) interacting with a flat surface (ground).

These analogies of spaceships to cars, boats, etc... are all over the
Internet. I would say to you that attempts to connect motion in the
gravitational field and atmospheric conditions of earth to those in the
near-vacuum and near-zero gravity of space are tricks used to deceive
and mislead.

You have to go back to the basic physics of mass, velocity, momentum,
acceleration, force, energy and work and apply these to the space rocket
problem to see that the NASA and other apologists are faking all of the
science and fooling the public who seem pretty happy to be fooled by the
way.

Here is an article from the Journal of Physical Chemistry with
experimental results on Free Expansion

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/j150043a002?journalCode=jpchax.2

None of the analogies I have seen take into account that on earth
physics operates within a gravitational field and inside an atmosphere.
I consider "space" to be a near-vacuum with almost zero gravity. These
analogies always involve vehicles physically connected to and
interacting with the environment (planes->air, boats->water,
cars->ground, etc...) whereas a rocket in space is isolated. Forces are
not transferred between the vacuum and the ship in either direction. The
vacuum does not affect the ship nor the ship the vacuum.


Getting back to the original intention this thread....

It appears to me that NASA is using its reputation as the masters of all
that is science to pull the wool over the collective public eye,
misapplying physics, presenting fake formulas, much the same way they
present fake pictures, counting on apologists, shills and useful idiots
to discourage critical thinking (Newton's 3rd law, idiot!).

Earlier I proposed that the NASA equation for rocket propulsion is
invalid according to the laws of physics.

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/rockth.html

1. They use the formula "Force=MV" where "Force=MA" is the correct
version of Newton's 2nd law. "MV" = momentum which is not a force.

2. They incorrectly state that exhaust from a rocket exerts a force in a
vacuum. No force is generated in this case via the principle of free
expansion[i/]. If anyone thinks that I am inventing a term, [i]free
expansion appears in NASA's own glossary (under the first law of
thermodynamics) http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/f.html

Some people seem to believe that NASA/government hides "advanced
science" from the public when in fact they are better served hiding
basic science, principles known for over a hundred years, such as free
expansion or the correct form of Newton's 2nd law, if they want to
maintain their aura of technological superiority, doers miraculous feats
in space.

[BDK]

In article <l4kf2q$9ci$1...@dont-email.me>, Mol...@hotmail.com says...

> >>> Once more, I will illustrates in simple language why rockets won?t work

> >>> in space... Very simple words... "An Object can't push against
> >>> nothing"... Vacuum is nothing or very thin air... ha ha ha... facts is
> >>> you can't get out of our atmosphere Prisoners.
> >>>
> >>> There are 4 major ideas on presented on the Internet, including NASA web
> >>> sites, as to how rockets generate thrust in space

> >>> 1. Newton?s 3rd Law : for every force there is an equal and opposite
> >>> 2. Newtons?s 2nd Law : Force = Mass x Acceleration

> >>> 3. Conservation of Momentum
> >>> 4. The use of a specialized nozzle to accelerate the gas inside the
> >>> ship, concentrate and aim the gas jet
> >>
> >> OOOH it gets better! Now Warhol uses a strawman to "prove" his claims
> >> that rocket propulsion doesn't work in space because it isn't possible
> >> to "push against nothing".
> >>
> >> The astute reader will recognize that Warhol must now assert that jet
> >> engines propel aircraft by "pushing against air" (total nonsense, for
> >> those without any technical background). Here's a question for which
> >> he won't be able to provide a coherent answer:
> >>
> >> "At what altitude is the air thin enough such that rocket and jet
> >> propulsion is no longer possible?"
> >>>
> >>> I will address each of these issues showing why they are invalid. In
> >>> addition I will review the results (and lack thereof) of the founders of
> >>> space rocketry Obereth (who designed most of the rocket science for the
> >>> Fritz Lang film Woman in the Moon), Goddard, who was the first to claim
> >>> an experimental result proving vacuum thrust and Clarke, a champion of

> >>> Newton?s 3rd law.

> >>
> >> Yes, I'm quite certain your "addresses" will be wholly inadequate to
> >> debunk all of space science and engineering.
> >>>
> >>> Warhol ake Greek demi God Perseus, Che'Riff of the Sarsar, Al Gharb, Al
> >>> Anjari, Al JahBallah, Al Alami at the Top of the world that falls on
> >>> you... Warning all unbelievers and believers... Surrender & confess Now
> >>> or else you fall in fire and burn for supporting lunatic lies and deceive...
> >>
> >> The religious cake icing and death threats are classic Warhol, of
> >> course.
> >>>
> >>> http://youtu.be/39pesl6J6e0
> >>>

> >>> PSS This topic was started due to our recent discussions ? in multiple
> >>> threads ? about the subject of rocketry, Airwaves and the Lies...

> >>
> >> For his "theory" that rocket propulsion is not possible outside of the
> >> atmosphere because there is nothing to "push against", I nominate
> >> Warhol for the Victor Von Frankenstein Weird Science Award.
> >>
> >> 2nds ==>
> >>
> >> Next, for his adjunct theory that no spacecraft has ever broken free of
> >> Earth's atmosphere, despite what he could learn with his own eyes, I
> >> nominate Warhol for the AFAB Angstrom Award and Medal for advances in
> >> hyperdelusional physics (in honor of Richard Hoagland).
> >>
> >> 2nds ==>
> >
> > Warhol is either suffering from dementia or he is a troll. I think he
> > truly believes what he is saying, which makes him mentally ill.
> >
>
> says the kook...
>
> But hard evidence is very difficult to find for this lunatic trolls...
>
> In meantime I am sharpening my koumia for your ears.
>
> http://images-01.delcampe-static.net/img_large/auction/000/192/097/497_001.jpg?v=1
>
> As for the astronuts they admit the lie... Pool... Pulll
>
> http://youtu.be/CHg-FL8F8NM

You need a nice big dose of Thorazine, and then given a bigger dose of
education.

--
BDK- Head FUD-Master Blaster. Friend to all kOOkbashers.

[Warhol]

Warhol schreef op 28-10-2013 6:24:

... Ahoy! - "Hello!" Avast! -

http://youtu.be/cccWCsO-KIo

Here is what happens to a NASA style rocket powered by liquid propellant
when it turns on it's engines in the vacuum of space:

1) The gases inside the rocket do not to produce a force as they exit
In the vacuum of space the accelerated gases inside the ship's nozzle
are no longer pushed out of the ship. They enter the vacuum via the
principle of free expansion (without performing work) and thus do work
neither against the rocket itself nor the vacuum of space.
=>No work done by gases inside of the ship

2) The gasses that leave the rocket do not produce a force once they
have exited. In the vacuum of space the gasses that exit the rocket do
not accelerate, they move at a constant velocity forever. If an object
(including a molecule of gas) travels without accelerating it cannot
produce a force. Hence the rocket produces no force.
=>No work done by gases outside of the ship


I do not see where the force comes from that moves a NASA space rocket.

You have been asking me, I believe, to explain how rockets work in the
atmosphere and I continue to say that I do not feel it's worthwhile to
investigate the subtleties and nuances of atmospheric flight. The
question at hand is, do rockets produce thrust in space via NASA's
theories and equations or is it all part of the same great space hoax?

My research indicates the gases of a rocket cease to do work in the
vacuum of space. The gases will not produce force while either inside or
outside of the ship.

If I had been presented with a logical explanation of how a gas-based
rocket functions in space I would not have started this thread.

While looking for an answer to how rockets work in space, I found:

1. Internet boards making "Newton's 3rd Law is why" claims with the
rationale that even an idiot knows this is true. After some research I
found Newton's 3rd is inapplicable because gas is not propelled from a
rocket into a vacuum due to an effect known as free expansion.

2. The NASA rocket thrust equation based on Newton's 2nd Law which I
have shown to be in error as well because force is not equal to mass x
velocity (for starters).

3. People applying the properties of solids in a vacuum to gas in a
vacuum. Solids do work in a vacuum, when they collide with other solids
for example. Solids can have work done on them; you can throw a rock in
space. Gas in a vacuum, on the other hand, seems to be incapable of
either acting on an object or having an object act on it. For example,
you can punch someone in a vacuum but can you "blow them over"?

I also understand your frustration with not having something to show
that could demonstrate the evidence for it, though.

There is not much I can do about this. One issue is that there are no
zero-gravity vacuums here on earth so it will be difficult to find an
experiment that replicates the conditions in space. Also, you are not
going to find scientists openly challenging NASA. Science, as you may
have noticed, is a toe-the-line endeavor. Anyone who goes against
accepted science is called a kook, denied funding and ostracized. The
idea of a "maverick scientist challenging the status quo" is a fiction.

As such I have to build my case from scattered pieces of science and
theory. This kind of investigation is always difficult for others to
follow along. Thanks for sticking with me. I am happy, as always to
answer any and all questions.

BTW I've been thinking about this next question as well.

Space is a vacuum what does this mean for the Theory of Relativity which
makes a lot of noise about "the fabric of spacetime"? How can a fabric
be spun out of nothing (the contents of a vacuum)? How can space bend,
to create the effect of gravity for instance, if space is a vacuum
devoid of matter? You can't bend nothing.


Mountains of madness standing so tall...

Warhol the killer of Giants.

http://images-01.delcampe-static.net/img_large/auction/000/192/097/497_001.jpg?v=1

[Warhol]

Warhol schreef op 29-10-2013 1:19:

http://youtu.be/IGVI3ETKZdI

Here's some more info on the pioneering experiments of the good Doctor
Robert Goddard, one of the founders of rocketry:

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2012/03/this-day-in-history-robert-h-goddard-performs-the-first-flight-test-of-a-liquid-fueled-rocket/

March 16, 1926 Goddard conducts the first successful flight of a liquid
fueled rocket. The only problem is that he didn't film it. Even though
he brought along a film crew. The excuse is that they ran out of film
before the rocket took off.

Goddard was head of the Clark University Physics Department, head of
their Physics Laboratories and sponsored by the Smithsonian. And he
didn't have enough film in the camera to film a 3 second flight? What
were they there to film?

I went to youtube to see if I could find film of any of his flights and
there is a 2 hour video of Goddard's greatest moments and as far as I
can see in that incredibly boring 2+hour video that I haven't watched to
the end none of his rockets ever flew.

http://youtu.be/Pq7WmrTbi-Q

No wonder he said rockets would work better in space. His rockets worked
terribly on earth.

WHY ROCKETS WON'T WORK IN THE VACUUM OF SPACE

http://www.jbsystemsusa.com/VacuumPumps/images/rietschle1a.jpg

Having done some further homework on this matter, I will now expound
what is possibly the main reason why NASA is constantly lying to us
about their space exploits. No, I do not claim to be a rocket scientist
- far from it - but I have come to a personal conclusion that it is
physically impossible for any man-made rocket to be propelled in the
(near)vacuum of outer space.

Although I will intentionally illustrate this conclusion in very
simplified manner, hopefully accessible even to a 5th grader, I trust
that anyone with any higher degree of qualifications will at least
appreciate the sound logic of my layman's reasoning. To be sure, only
NASA has large enough vacuum chambers to perform any sort of
experimental verification of what I'm about to contend. So with no
further ado, let me start off by reminding everyone just what
tremendously powerful and seemingly 'magical' forces vacuum can
'produce' here in our Earth's atmosphere.


THE MAGDEBURG HEMISPHERES experiment (1654)

Back in 1654, Otto Von Guericke, the inventor of the air pump (to
simulate vacuum on Earth) performed a spectacular experiment. He had 16
horses trying to pull apart (in vain) two empty hemispheres held
together only by the force of vacuum:

http://www.epicmodularprocess.com/assets/content/images/Riehn%20added%20pictures/von%20guerick.jpg

QUOTE - from a scientific CERN article:

"By this experiment he demonstrated that it is impossible to pull the
two halves apart against the air pressure, even by using 2 X 8 horses
(the counter-pressure by air in the interior of the sphere is missing).
During this time, it became clear that we are living on the bottom of a
huge ocean of air and that the mass of the atmosphere corresponds to a
pressure of about 1kg per cm² or 10 tons on an area of 1m². The reason
why we don’t feel anything of this tremendous pressure is simply that
there is the same pressure inside our body."

http://www.cientificosaficionados.com/libros/CERN/vacio1-CERN.pdf

Indeed, folks: we are living on the bottom of a huge ocean of air - and
that is something we all tend to forget. Imagine that: "10 tons on an
area of 1m²". Pretty heavy stuff, huh? Draw a big breath of air and
you'll feel it! Of course, this air surrounding us (our atmosphere) has
a certain density. And so has, for instance, water.

Rockets have to push against (or pull on) something. Just like
everything else that moves.

A rocket pushing itself through the vacuum of space, totally isolated,
touching nothing, being touched by nothing, is a fantasy born of hope
and dreams, ignoring fundamental results in chemistry and physics.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Muenchhausen_Herrfurth_7_500x789.jpg

NASA is as like Baron Münchhausen pulling himself and his horse out of
water by his own hair... yeah its possible, the baron told this
fairytale to his public!!!

[Warhol]

Siri Cruz schreef op 31-10-2013 0:40:

> In article <l4rnmo$qi3$1...@dont-email.me>, Warhol <Mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Warhol schreef op 29-10-2013 1:19:
>>> Warhol schreef op 28-10-2013 6:24:
>

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUdkIn7C9f




This has nothing to do with how a rocket works. But I will answer the
question when you provide the evidence you can get in space...

So I guess that "virtualization" is the name of the game - the 'keyword'
to the phony space industry...

Movement is a result of something pressing against something else...

Just like everything else that moves.

A rocket pushing itself through the vacuum of space, totally isolated,
touching nothing, being touched by nothing, is a fantasy born of hope
and dreams, ignoring fundamental results in chemistry and physics.

"An object seemingly pushing against itself" in the vacuum of space is
no better than the story about Baron Münchhausen pulling himself and his
horse out of the mud!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Muenchhausen_Herrfurth_7_500x789.jpg

- A rocket rising through the atmosphere will nicely proceed upwards in
its escape from gravity - as long as certain conditions are maintained:
the relative pressures at the rocket's nozzle and the outside atmosphere
need to be as equal as possible, in order to obtain maximum 'mileage' /
efficiency from the rocket's fuel.

- In fact, NASA clearly states that the optimal running conditions of
their rockets occur only ONCE, at a certain unspecified (mid-range)
altitude, when the above-mentioned pressures are identical. This, in
perfect accordance with Newton's 3d law - what with its notion of "equal
and opposite forces". Clearly, these rockets are designed to work best
in our earthly atmosphere - and the atmospheric pressure IS in fact "the
equal and opposite force" which the rocket thrust pushes against. To
deny this fact is pure, outlandish and deceptive NASA hogwash-babble.
Ironically, it is NASA itself that claims that their rockets work BEST
when those two pressures are equal !

- Aerodynamic drag will of course be a factor in the equation, yet only
a minor one - given the pencil-shaped, streamlined vessel. As the
atmosphere pressure thins out with altitude, some more speed will
probably be gained (out of a given power output) - but this fact would,
obviously, have no incidence whatsoever in alleviating the forces needed
for the weight of the rocket to escape the pull of gravity.

- Now, as we shall seen, the atmospheric density range which our
spacebound rocket is supposed to operate in, spans from a pressure of
0,001 (the average air density in our atmosphere) to a staggeringly
inferior pressure of 0,000000000000000000000001 (the density of space
vacuum). Thus, as the rocket climbs ever higher, it will have to
exponentially increase its output/thrust (and, of course, its fuel
consumption), in order to keep going - and combating the pull of gravity
which, contrary to public belief, does NOT decrease exponentially with
altitude.

- The rocket (at a given, high altitude which I cannot pretend to
calculate precisely) will eventually be overpowered by the force of the
exponentially decreasing outside pressure, its fuel being sucked out
into the infinite 'vacuum of space' at stratospheric rate/speed - and
faster than you can say "Houston-we-have-a-prob...---". Much like a
champagne bottle popping its cork here on Earth (due to a minimal
pressure difference), the rocket fuel will flush out with explosive
force. Moreover, this force will expand in ALL directions (a bit like
the diffused spray of your garden waterhose nozzle set on 'broad, soft
mode') and provide little or no thrust. The rocket, from there on, will
be doomed - and plunge back to Earth.

And for those willing to argue that NASA may have found a way to 'pinch'
their rocket nozzles, so that the fuel doesn't get sucked out in a flash
: well, you can always open a champagne bottle with great care, making
the force inside it fizzle slowly out in the atmosphere. But such a
subdued, impotent fizzle would hardly provide the necessary energy to
propel a rocket away from Earth's gravity, would it?

Only a pinched fart would produce the same amount of 'power'(odor-power,
in this case) as a vigorously expelled bowel-gas sample. We all know
that much!

You can't eject gas into a vacuum. This is at the heart of the space
rocket fantasy. As soon as gas from the combustion chamber enters the
nozzle and comes in contact with the vacuum it is whisked away into the
void. Regard the equation for work done by a gas: Work = Pressure x
Volume. When pressure is 0 work is 0. Gas provides no force in a vacuum.

Problem is just not to run out of fuel, as you cannot top up in
space/vacuum. Evidently no rocket or space ship cannot carry enough fuel
to brake into Moon orbit, land on Moon, start again from Moon and
accelerate out of Moon orbit and try to get back to Earth (and brake
there) as explained at this not working anymore link

http://www.heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm

But the above link is still in the archives...
https://web.archive.org/web/20121019174201/http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm


But apart from that Baron Münchhausen pulling himself and his horse out
of the mud or riding canon balls!

Do you have any proof that rocketry works in a vacuum?

http://youtu.be/V0e5g13QB5U

[gooses...@gmail.com]

Let's say that we wanted a rocket ship to take us to a nearby star system. We'd have to use something like 1/10th light velocity, in order to actually realize getting there in about 50 or 75 years.

Of course we'd have to bring along with us enough supplies, so maybe we're talking about a Nimitz class aircraft carrier, weighing in at 100,000 metric tons. The kinetic energy of such a ship would equal, according to the physics involved,

1/2*m*v^2, which equals 1/2*100,000kg.*(2.99*10^9m/sec)^2, which equals 4.47*10^22 Joules.

The kinetic energy of 100,000 metric tons, moving at 0.1c is the above 4.47*10^22 Joules. The energy output from the ideal fusion of 2 deuterium nucleii can be calculated as follows:

1.66*10^-27 kg per atomic mass unit of deuterium mass = 2.014102U

4.028204_(2_deuterium) - 4.002602_(helium) = 0.025602U (mass defect)

1.66*10^-27kg. * 0.025602U = 4.25*10^-29kg.

Using Enrgy = mass*c^2, we get 4.25*10^-29kg * (2.99*10^8m/sec)^2 = 3.82*10^-12 Joules released per fusion of 2 deuterium nucleii into an alpha particle.

Divide this number into the total energy needed to get # reactions:

4.47*10^22Joules / 3.82*10^-12Joules * 1.17*10^34 = 2.34 * 10^34 deuterium nucleii required.

Now, if one deuterium mass equals 3.34*10^-27 kg., then (2.34 * 10^34)(3.34*10^-27) = 7.84*10^7 kg., or 782 metric tons of deuterium!

Notice that we have not yet began to deal with Tsiolkovsky's Rocket equation, which is this:

V_rocket / V_exhaust = loge (Mass_rocket_w_fuel) / (Mass_rocket_no_fuel)

Since in the beginning during acceleration, the rocket pushes off of the force of the exhaust opposite to the rocket mass, we have to recalculate the amount of fuel needed, based upon the equation. We need to know the velocity of the exhaust. Since we know the energy per fusion already, we can plug that into the kinetic energy equation, to see what the velocity of an Alpha particle could be.

1/2 m v^2 = 1/2 (6.6410e-27kg) v^2 -> v = square root of (3.82e-12 / (1/2)(6.64e-27kg.))

v = 3.39 * 10^7 meters/second. This equals 0.113 light velocity.

Sticking these numbers into an online java applet that uses Tsiolkovsky's Rocket equation, will result in outs of Full Mass, Dry Mass, V_ex (Velocity of Exhaust, or Isp (Specific Impulse)), and Delta-V. All of these values can be linked to Tsiolkovsky's equation, which is better off using the online calculator.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Tsiolkovsky+rocket+equation

It turns ou that we need 140,000 metric tons of deuterium to reach 1/10 lightspeed. That's more than the mass of the Nimitz-sized ship. Together the fuel payload and ship weigh in at 240,000 metric tons. But that would only bring the ship up to lightspeed. In order to come to a dead stop, the ship needs to turn around and provide thrust in the opposite direction.

Since the dead weight of the ship is 100,000 metric tons, the "multiplier" used is 2.4. This multiplier can be used to figure out the time it takes for the opposite thrust to slow the ship to zero. It is multiplied by the total weight of the fuel and ship at the beginning, or 240,000 metric tons, and yields a value of 576,000 metric tons, which equals both the ship's weight and the fuel together, or 576,000 metric tons = 100,000 metric tons + (deuterium in metric tons). So the deuterium required for the round trip equals = 476,000 metric tons!

This is not the end of the calculation. We still have to figure out the amount of thrust involved, which will be based upon the rate at which the deuterium burns. The first half of the trip burns 336,000,000 kilograms of deuterium, and we can calculate the time period of thrust used in 1/2 the trip.

In the original calculation, let's assume our travel time of 31,536,000 seconds (1 year) for 1/2 of the trip. Then we have to burn 336,000,000 kilograms of deuterium for 1/2 the trip. This means that the rate of burn is 336,000,000 / 31,536,000 seconds = 10.65 kilograms / second of deuterium. What would the energy release have to be? Well, the comparative mass rates over the 1/2 year period are:

10.65 kg. total / 3.34 x 10e-27kg. (deuterium nucleii) * 1/2 (trip) * 3.82e-12Joules (per fusion) =
6.09e15 Joules / second, which is equal to 6090 terrajoules per second. One Hiroshima bomb is equivalent to 63 Terrajoules per second, then the required energy release per second for the 1/2 trip would be:

6090 / 63 = 96 Hiroshima A-Bombs per second!

There is no doubt that an energy of this kind could be feasibile, let alone possible. We will have to backtrack a bit, and say that it would take perhaps 200 years for 1/2 the trip. If this were the case, then 336,000,000 / (31,536,000 seconds)(200) = 5.3272e-5 kilograms per second of deuterium. The energy release would then be 5.3272e-5 kilograms total / 3.34 x 10e-27kg. (deuterium nucleii) * 1/2 (trip) * 3.82e-12Joules (per fusion) = 3.04e10 Joules per second, which is equal to 0.03 / 63 = 0.000476 Hiroshima bombs per second, or about 5 ten thousanths of a Hiroshima bomb per second.

This seems to be a bit more feasible, even for interplanetary use.

[Warhol]

dmaster schreef op 31-10-2013 17:38:
> On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 2:46:32 PM UTC-5, Warhol wrote:
> ...

>> Having done some further homework on this matter, I will now expound
>> what is possibly the main reason why NASA is constantly lying to us
>> about their space exploits. No, I do not claim to be a rocket scientist
>> - far from it - but I have come to a personal conclusion that it is
>> physically impossible for any man-made rocket to be propelled in the
>> (near)vacuum of outer space.
>>

> ...
>
> NASA is lying. The European Space Agency is lying. The Soviet Union/Russians are lying. The Chinese are lying. The French are lying. All the participants in the International Space Station are lying. The private space flight ventures are lying. All the workers, contractors, sub-contractors, support staff, and news media are lying. All the teachers, Professors, and researchers are lying. For pretty much all of the 20th and 21st Centuries.
>
> Or Warhole is ignorant and wrong.
>
> Take your pick.
>
> Dan (Woj...)
>


All groups restored so everybody in the different groups can see how
dumb fucks you brain-dead lunatics are... with no answer to the real
questions... The point is lost when we start calling each other fools
for merely asking questions and challenging those questions.

Here I am, seemingly entertaining a heated debate - while we're all cool
and syntonized as to the fundamental implications of it: NO space travel
is possible.

It's a bit like a reverse situation of those funny scientists in "A Trip
To The Moon" (1902) who first quarreled vigorously with each other -
only to eventually nicely collaborate to build their Jules Verne
successful, moonbound spaceship...

http://youtu.be/ku8Cs-ux4UQ

not propelled by rockets but by a bullet shoot from earth by a giant
Canon, as proposed by Belgian engineer Charles Bulls before he was
murdered by the Mossad... but that is another topic!!!

How droll. Yes the agencies are group of evil deceiving liars who don't
consider them self to belong to any nation... while in reality they are
a group chameleon pretending been working for their nations, but in
reality they work to establish their lies to bring darkness over the
whole world. But its written in star they fail... The Hidden hand gets
them at the end of the tail.

Why don't you start to provide evidence they don't lie... is it so
difficult for you lunatic shills to provide only one evidence, that you
push against forward without touching nothing...

Friction is the frenemy (friend + enemy). We need friction to start
moving but then we want it to go away so we can keep moving. Space has
no friction so we can't start moving in space (nor can we change
direction, accelerate, etc...)

rockets simply cannot work in space - and certainly cannot perform the
way NASA portrays it beyond 30 miles altitude.

Would a waterjet ferry thrusting the jet above the waterline go as fast
as with the jet kept below the waterline?

See, I just called this company : http://www.jetserviceteam.com/contatti

I asked to talk with their in-house technician. The short convo went a
bit like this:

Me: Hello, I'd like to know if a water scooter would work if the jet was
directed above the sea surface.
Tech: Huh?? (brief pause) Why would you want to do that? You wanna make
a fire hydrant?
Me: Oh no, my question is only whether the scooter would still move forward.
Tech: (laughing) Of course not! The scooter wouldn't move but someone
would probably get very wet!
Me: (*blushing somewhat*) Oh, ok - that's what I figured... Well, thanks
a lot for your time, sir - bye!

The guy must have thought I was nuts. :P

[Warhol]

gooses...@gmail.com schreef op 31-10-2013 19:10:

Speed of light with a rocket??? ha ha ha how would you obtain that
energy??? I wouldn't know... first try to provide evidence you can get
away from our own atmosphere... that is the point of this thread... NASA
can't and no other space agency can escape our atmosphere... let stand
to get the speed needed for a successful escape from our prison world.
And IF they ever could do so, there would be no return possible. You
will be in for a drift straight into the sun... Because logic says they
would be attracted by the gravity of the sun which is holding the whole
solar system in its gravity grip.

Space rockets are designed to work only in fantasies presented to us by
production companies like NASA and Disney.

Science is against rockets working in space:
1. Gas can't push a rocket through space because:

i. Releasing gas into space does no work, creates no force.

ii. Gas ceases to exist once it enters the nozzle of a rocket in
space and is exposed to the vacuum. Without pressure gas becomes only
unrelated molecules swiftly dispersing into the void.

iii. A rocket can't push against something that doesn't exist nor
can it use scattered, unrelated molecules as a propulsive force.


2. A rocket in space can only transfer energy from engine to hull and
back again. No motion is generated. It is a giant battery connected to
nothing.

3. Everything that moves must make an energy exchange with an object
apart from itself (via a push or a pull). This is why a 90kg man can't
pull himself off the floor and into the air but he can lift a 90kg
weight off the same floor. A rocket cannot "push against itself" anymore
than you can "lift yourself off the floor".


Rockets, like cars, boats and airplanes only function on the earth and
in its atmosphere. Imaging them working anywhere else is science fiction.


Thus you have not exhaustively investigated whether or not rockets work
in a vacuum. You have not even addressed any of my concerns regarding
gas existing as a physical state of matter in a vacuum much less it
having the ability to impart a force.

Are there laws of gases that proves gas produces a force in a vacuum? Or
do gas laws become invalid when the pressure is 0?

Space flight is not a matter of "lighter rockets" or "more efficient
fuel". There are more fundamental problems to be solved before it is
possible.

The problem with accepting this simple and indisputable fact is that it
renders a lot of other discussions pointless, such as whether the
Curiosity Rover could have descended on Mars the way NASA says it did
and with the amount of fuel allotted. It´s not easy to give up all those
otherwise laudable efforts at physics and calculus.

Space flight is another one of those things presented as real that
simply doesn't exist.

There are people with a vested interest, either personally or
professionally, in keeping these types of myths alive.

Releasing gas into vacuum space does no work, creates no force... I've
put in the required info into the introductory.

First of all, I'm pleased that some of you have taken the time to look
into this rocketry in a vacuum, because I know 100% that it is impossible.

Basically it cannot work.

[george152]

On 01/11/13 10:39, Warhol wrote:

> The guy must have thought I was nuts. :P
>

Along with 99.9999% of the population

[Warhol]

Rocky schreef op 31-10-2013 19:25:
> "dmaster" <dan...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:a77fab1e-15a5-4f27...@googlegroups.com...

> On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 2:46:32 PM UTC-5, Warhol wrote:
> ...

>> Having done some further homework on this matter, I will now expound
>> what is possibly the main reason why NASA is constantly lying to us
>> about their space exploits. No, I do not claim to be a rocket scientist
>> - far from it - but I have come to a personal conclusion that it is
>> physically impossible for any man-made rocket to be propelled in the
>> (near)vacuum of outer space.
>>

> ...
>
> NASA is lying. The European Space Agency is lying. The Soviet
> Union/Russians are lying. The Chinese are lying. The French are lying. All
> the participants in the International Space Station are lying. The private
> space flight ventures are lying. All the workers, contractors,
> sub-contractors, support staff, and news media are lying. All the teachers,
> Professors, and researchers are lying. For pretty much all of the 20th and
> 21st Centuries.
>
> Or Warhole is ignorant and wrong.
>
> Take your pick.
>
> Dan (Woj...)
>

> ---------------------------------
>
> Given that you couldn't figure out that our media lied about 9/11 I'll have
> to vote for Warhol
>
> Rocky
>
>

They never will be able to win the debate with me... I win on all the
tables, since THE TRUTH is with me... The TRUTH, is my ally.

http://youtu.be/HMUKGTkiWik

Bear with my boring start but I feel it's best to add some of the boring
stuff in to get to the meat, if you like.

The problem a lot of people don't appear to grasp, is just how powerful
atmospheric pressure is, which is around 14.7 psi at sea level.
That doesn't mean a lot to most people, which is fine...yet, if we want
to try and solve a puzzle of fabrications, we need to (as in the case of
rockets not needing atmosphere)find out just how strong a force we are
dealing with, as in the psi of air on earth.

Forgive me if I go kid like here...but it's how I prefer to explain
things as I find more logical answers can come from simple experiments
and explanations.

So how strong is 14.7 psi?...not very strong right?...or so it appears,
because we can flap our arms about in it and we don't feel any real
effect from it, so it can't be that strong can it.

Anyone who has a suction cup, go and stick that suction cup to a window
pane and push most of the air from it.

You find that the suction cup appears to be sucking on that pane of
glass, because there is a little air left inside the cup, which is key
to it's sticking.

To a normal thinking person, it simply appears that it's there by..
"suction".. but it's not. It's air pressure "outside" of it that wants
to equalize the pressure inside of it but the seal that is perfectly
sealing on the window pane will not allow the 14.7 psi air pressure in.

Men have climbed up buildings using them, so we know we are dealing with
a huge force.

It's no different than an ocean acting upon a submarine just in reverse
order.

Ok, I know you may be bored and thinking, " he's just telling us what we
know but in a slightly different way."

Sorry for that... but I need to get to a point to show why rockets not
only use the atmosphere but also cannot, no matter what, even get to
space, never mind allegedly, orbit.

As has been said...a rocket cannot push against itself from inside, no
matter whether they mix any fuel in any chamber inside of it to expand.
A rockets fight into the sky is gas (rocket fuel) against air
(atmospheric pressure or psi)..

What gives a rocket it's vertical lift off and push... is expanded gases
or fuel into air, in massive proportions due to "hot" thrust.
The point is, the air fights back from being pushed out of the way and
creates the long fight up, until one gives in, which as we know, would
not be air pressure.

Ok so let's imagine a rocket full of fuel and oxygen (or half full,or
whatever, it makes no difference)..in space, in zero psi, against
whatever psi is in the craft... which ultimately also doesn't matter. It
can be whatever they tell us.

Now unlike earth, which is atmosphere attacking the vacuum, we have the
gases in a rocket just itching to fill that apparently endless vacuum...
and it "must" do this, no matter what. It has to equalize with the
pressure of space.

The way it does this, is... it expands it's gases which will expand the
inside of the craft, just like a balloon does inside a vacuum chamber...
and the more air taken out of that chamber, the more the balloon expands
to fill it, until it breaches that balloon at it's weakest point.

This is exactly what the rocket would do in a vacuum of zero psi. It
simply must fill it and "will" do it in a super nano second and I'm
being generous here.

The reason is... is because of the vastness of the vacuum against the
piddly little ship.

It simply "explodes" (quietly) at it's weakest point and empties it's
insides so fast that it would probably be peeled open like a sardine can
in super short order. Any liquid inside of it would be immediate gas as
well and would disappear because it would be still attempting to expand
into the vacuum, only this time the gases are scattered and cannot
expand against each other.

As for moving on earth. Anything with enough thrust to push against an
atmosphere to overcome the weight of any craft, will ultimately move it
and for that thrust needed for the ultimate atmospheric gain... hot
gases win, every time for efficiency and speed but atmospheric pressure
is 100% required.

I hope I haven't bored you all.

It's obvious that the shills on this groups are personally invested and
thoroughly indoctrinated in NASA's world view. Those kooks are not going
to debate you on the science behind rockets because their knowledge goes
only as far as NASA allows it to go. They read what NASA wants them to
read and ignore what NASA ignores.

The insults hurled from their decks are the kinds you get when you
challenge someone on a topic they believe to be true but they don't have
the ability to prove why. In other words the NASA-believer folk would
like to tell you that they are in favor of science but their comportment
in the face of a fundamental challenge is more like religious fervor
than scientific debate.

I could probably crack them with the Socratic method, or at least
scatter them until they regroup and trash talk my mother....

Welcome aboard Queen Ann Revenge aka the Flying Dutchman Von Sallee...

http://youtu.be/-QR8YqWL7Ow

[Warhol]

Siri Cruz schreef op 1-11-2013 0:09:

> In article <l4um6p$v9f$1...@dont-email.me>, Warhol <Mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Science is against rockets working in space:
>> 1. Gas can't push a rocket through space because:
>>
>> i. Releasing gas into space does no work, creates no force.
>>
>> ii. Gas ceases to exist once it enters the nozzle of a rocket in
>> space and is exposed to the vacuum. Without pressure gas becomes only
>> unrelated molecules swiftly dispersing into the void.
>>
>> iii. A rocket can't push against something that doesn't exist nor
>> can it use scattered, unrelated molecules as a propulsive force.
>

> Then why can a gun fire in a vacuum?
>



sorry but ... Gun fire is Not the topic of the thread as I said... a
rocket ain't a bullet. Bullets fall under the laws of Newton... The
bullet is pushed by the gases pushing against the bullet casing in the
gun... again there is no comparison with how rockets works as I
explained here in this thread... Maybe you can fool kids with that gun
argument, but this Warhol and I am not fooled by fairytale anymore!!!

Having said that, and addressing now any members of USENET which might
peek into our discussion here, I truly feel for honest folks who have
invested their enthusiasm in NASA's fairy tales. It must be very hard
for anyone to get over the shock of having been duped so deeply and so
unashamedly for all these years. A good analogy to their predicament -
and to cite a personal, traumatizing experience, is when I found out
(some time ago, now) that Santa Claus was nothing but a fictional
character invented by the adults to give the children something to look
up to - and be excited about.

To be sure, Santa has always been depicted as an airborne
'magician' who defied the laws of physics and gravity ...

http://youtu.be/O_oDUc9GDNk

Fear not gentle readers. We are on the right path. Don't be waylaid by
those who would tell you otherwise and lead you astray. Remember the
vacuum has no pressure so neither gas nor liquid can exist within it.
From that fact alone springs forth enough results and absurdities to
make space rockets as per the NASA model pure flights of fantasy.

The boys and girls believe if you can see it on video, it must be real,
and that is part of the problem. Anything that appears real can be
simulated via special effects and virtual reality, and it takes a sharp
eye and open mind to notice the fakery.

So here is a video of thrusters firing in a vacuum, just for the
Rockettes. :lol:

The Money Shots start at the 3:00 mark:

http://youtu.be/ESr9anxT_Bs?t=2m07s

"Distance to target now 20 on, 29 meters. ...You see the thrusters of
the Soyuz firing as it refines its approach." :O

3:32 "We see the changing colors as a sunset is in the offing" :blink:
:rolleyes:

B) Lovely maneuver! Those thrusters rock! The P.I.S.S. camera operator too!

And that sudden, 'strobo sunset' adds such a sensual, romantic touch to
the scene... :wub:

Tip: for extra bonus hilarity, turn on the CC auto-translation of the
audio (the way it 'hears' the Russian dialogue in English is priceless
too) ;)

http://youtu.be/ESr9anxT_Bs?t=13m42s

CC: "on the part of the pesticides congratulations unsuccessful docking"

[Female voice translating for the Russians actually says : "On the part
of the Russian's side, congratulations on a successful docking"]

its safe to assume that the ideas seeded by this debate on NASA/Disney
rocket propulsion and vacuum physics are germinating fast in the minds
of those rank-and-file members who follow the debate in silence, the
non-watch dogs and non-larryds who are sincere enough to digest a new
input before thoughtlessly joining in the jeering and sneering.

[Warhol]

george152 schreef op 31-10-2013 23:50:

> On 01/11/13 10:39, Warhol wrote:
>
>> The guy must have thought I was nuts. :P
>>
> Along with 99.9999% of the population

Here's where you rocketry guys lose me. Any Rocketry specialist feel
free to pipe in here:

1) What is the formula for work/force/thrust done by a rocket in a vacuum?

2) What about Free Expansion/the Joule-Thompson effect? How does that
affect rocket propulsion?

3) If the formula for work done by gas is W = P x V how does a gas do
work when pressure is 0?

4) Why do rocket types concentrate on Newtonian (solid body) physics and
ignore gases in a vacuum?

5) How does a rocket move if it never expends any energy? Liquid fuel =
potential energy. Accelerated gases = kinetic energy. Pressure against
ship = potential Energy. A rocket is like a euro/dollar you never get to
spend, you just keep turning nickels into dimes and back again while
someone steals the cents/pennies.

Now this we agree on. Every object with mass moving around in space is
doing so because it was pushed on by some unknown initial force (Big
Bang, Hand of God, Breath of the Dragon, etc...). These objects only
change speed or path because of gravitational field interaction or
collision with another solid object.

Why do you feel rockets are an exception to the above? Why should
exhaust gas affect rockets in space?

It's the Wizard of Oz effect. Just trust in NASA and do not look behind
the curtain. Do not investigate their claims with respect to the laws of
physics and chemistry. Investigation of NASA science is heresy. That's
why the people on all those forums are running after us and banning us
with burning torches and pitchforks.

NASA is science education for a large segment of the population. Even
though many people are aware of Newton and his laws they only know them
in practice via NASA's explanations/demonstrations. They don't realize
that Newton was working with solid bodies and not gases. The folks
working with gases like Boyle and Joule are ignored by NASA because
their results disagree with the official story.

Many people want to be a part of the exciting world of scientific
discovery, the development of new technologies, the opening of new
frontiers. The vast majority don't have the tools or the training to
participate at a meaningful level so they just follow along looking at
the pretty pictures, gasping at the bold exploits of space travelers and
sitting at the feet of the wise scientists while pearls of wisdom drop
from their lips.

Remember that some of the best and the brightest, like Chuck Yeager, who
could have done anything he wanted, stayed the hell away from NASA once
he saw what it like to fly a rocket in the upper atmosphere.

[Metspitzer]

On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 01:23:30 +0100, Warhol <Mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Siri Cruz schreef op 1-11-2013 0:09:
>> In article <l4um6p$v9f$1...@dont-email.me>, Warhol <Mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Science is against rockets working in space:
>>> 1. Gas can't push a rocket through space because:
>>>
>>> i. Releasing gas into space does no work, creates no force.
>>>
>>> ii. Gas ceases to exist once it enters the nozzle of a rocket in
>>> space and is exposed to the vacuum. Without pressure gas becomes only
>>> unrelated molecules swiftly dispersing into the void.
>>>
>>> iii. A rocket can't push against something that doesn't exist nor
>>> can it use scattered, unrelated molecules as a propulsive force.
>>
>> Then why can a gun fire in a vacuum?
>>
>
>
>
>sorry but ... Gun fire is Not the topic of the thread as I said... a
>rocket ain't a bullet. Bullets fall under the laws of Newton... The
>bullet is pushed by the gases pushing against the bullet casing in the
>gun... again there is no comparison with how rockets works as I
>explained here in this thread... Maybe you can fool kids with that gun
>argument, but this Warhol and I am not fooled by fairytale anymore!!!
>
>Having said that, and addressing now any members of USENET which might
>peek into our discussion here, I truly feel for honest folks who have
>invested their enthusiasm in NASA's fairy tales. It must be very hard

Really? NASA's fairy tales? What about all the other nations that
are involved in space exploration? Them too? How about private
companies? Them too?

You are just not going to accept anyone trying to confuse you with the
facts.

How often do these voices imbue you with the special knowledge of the
universe that only you possess?

[Warhol]

Government Shill #2 schreef op 31-10-2013 23:58:

> Only 3 people appear to think that Wornhole is not nuts.
>
> Brad Guth,
> Rockhead, and
> Slowjoe
>
> All of whom are nuttier than rat shit in a pistachio warehouse.
>
> And Brad Guth seems to have disappeared. I hope he's ok.
>

Why do you people keep associating slowjoe or goofy with me... and you
guys know very well my relation with those two or with other shills...

And as for Rocky... He has a physics argument, you guys failed to
address: The free fall of the towers... start to explain that point and
tell us then we have not provide material where you clearly can see the
explosives going off, thus bringing the three towers at the speed of
free fall... but 911 inside job isn't the topic of this thread... sorry
shills... you fail Again!

As for boy Goofy, He was initially against NASA but now finds himself on
their side because he doesn't want to see all of his years of Venus BS
go down the drain.

What we have here, I feel, is a "Bridge on the River Kwai" situation (a
classic film by David Lean). In it, David Niven's character leads a
group of POW's building a bridge for the Japanese during WWII that
British Special Forces are later sent to destroy. Niven's character is
so proud of the bridge he built that he is willing to rat out the
Special Forces, help the Japanese, rather than see his bridge destroyed.

Be careful lest your pride lead you to take up your enemy's cause.

Let's now use a ship and plane as an example of a rocket.

I know it's not a rocket scenario but the principles are essentially
similar.

A ship, uses it's propeller to propel it over the water as it floats and
naturally it has to overcome friction as everything does.
It's harder for the ship to actually get in to motion, due to its mass
against propulsion, so it basically needs a full speed ahead scenario to
force it into motion and create momentum.

Once that happens, it will glide along the water... cutting through it
like a heavy knife through chilled butter.

Basically it's mass overcomes the water friction.

The plane uses it's propellers or jet engines as simply propulsion, just
like the ship, except it uses air, instead of water to propel it.
It needs to gain enough thrust from those propellers to take off...and
as we all know...a plane uses maximum thrust on take off, then the wings
take over, because the speed of the plane creates a rush of air over and
under the wings.
Air rushes over the top of the wing faster than under it, due to the
wings shape, which creates low pressure above and high pressure below
it, which lifts the wings, so essentially, it's like the ship, as in,
it's gliding along the air, just as the ship is gliding through the water.
So we have the fuel inside the ship and the plane, which operates the
engines that turn the propellers , which are 'outside' of the ship and
the plane so they both have to do work in a liquid or atmosphere.

A rocket mixes fuel and oxygen in a chamber at high pressure, very
similar to a jet engine, only the jet engine grabs it's oxygen from the
air and compresses it, then mixes with the fuel in a combustion chamber
to turn turbine blades.
This is probably another thing why people get stumped, because they get
told that the rocket does not need air, as it carries it's own oxygen.
The problem here is...the oxygen and fuel mix are for one purpose and
one purpose only, which is to achieve high combustion in a chamber to
create massive 'thrust'.
Once that burning fuel thrusts out of that rocket nozzle, it immediately
consumes the oxygen in the atmosphere under it, creating a huge low
pressure void, that has to be filled by the higher pressure under and
around it and like the high pressure against low pressure under a planes
wing , it creates a action (burning fuel=low pressure atmosphere) and
reaction (high pressure atmosphere) creating the lift required.

I also like Newton. But NASA certainly do not like him, or else they
would respect his good'ol laws of physics.


NASA and NEWTON

See, NASA says that, in order to reach Earth Orbit their rockets need to
accelerate to approx 8km/s. That's pretty damn fast, if you ask me -
it's about 28.800km/h :

Rocketing into Orbit
"To reach Earth orbit, a rocket must accelerate to about 8
kilometers per second
—about 25 times faster than the cruising speed of a passenger jet."
http://howthingsfly.si.edu/propulsion/rocket-propulsion


I'm afraid I'll have to cite Newton's Third Law once again. Sorry, folks
- I know... you've heard this one before!
"When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body
simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in
direction to that of the first body."

Perhaps Newton's third law should have specified (and highlighted the
importance of) the relative masses of the two bodies involved. The
bodies need to be of equal mass in order for the "equal in magnitude"
part of this law to be true. Or perhaps Newton DID specify that - but
NASA has simply decided to ignore this crucial part and are happy to use
the above, less-than-accurate phrase in the hope of getting away with
their stratospheric lies. But let's get on.

Now, NASA denies that their rockets' propulsion has anything to do with
any sort of interaction between their rockets' exhaust-thrust and
air/atmosphere. Instead, they appeal to Newton's third law, saying that
the exhausts of their rockets push on their own fuel/tank itself - and
THAT is where and how the action/reaction occurs. They often compare
this with the recoil of a bullet being fired by a shotgun. Of course,
this is nonsense. A bullet has very little mass in comparison to a rifle
and the man holding the rifle. For example, a bullet fired from an M16
rifle has approx 1763 Joules of kinetic energy as it leaves the muzzle,
but the recoil energy exerted on the gun is less than 7 Joules. We may
intuitively - and without resorting to complex equations - imagine that
"recoil power" alone would not allow a given mass of rocket exhaust to
lift a 100.000kg vessel from the ground - let alone propel it at
supersonic speeds.

To attain the so-called escape velocity of 8km/s with "recoil power"
only, this is what NASA's rockets would have to do: they'd have to shoot
out from behind their rockets, all at once (like a bullet from a gun) a
mass equal to the mass of the vessel itself - at a velocity of 8km/s.
This means that, if this were to be the case (that rockets move due to
"recoil action/reaction")- more than half of any rocket's fuel mass
would have to be ejected at that speed - as illustrated in this link:
http://i43.tinypic.com/5nkrq0.gif

Of course, this is not the case - and would be quite impossible to do.
Yet, this is basically how NASA 'explains' how their spacecrafts are
propelled through air and vacuum. Please note that I have respectfully
observed Newton's Third Law. I think our poor friend Isaac is rolling
and howling in his grave - seeing how NASA is abusing / distorting his
laws in order to fool the world. Sadly, most people seem to keep buying
into their shameless skullduggery.

[Warhol]

Metspitzer schreef op 1-11-2013 1:58:

Ha ha ha ha really??? and what about all those dark organization who
work in darkness to install their NWO over our heads and nations... yeah
what about them??? Do you think they are telling you the truth... ain't
they operating like pigs in animal farm changing the laws... man man
man... I feel so sorry for you all who fell for the fairytale...

http://youtu.be/tdNwo7g5al0

They thought they could kill the almighty immortal creator with deceive
and change his holy laws... but his laws are getting them back on the
ground.

A rockets hot gases, thrust into the dense atmosphere, makes the heat
from them do an immediate about turn with the dense atmosphere under
them, in hot pursuit as the hot gases slide up and down the entire
rocket... all around it... which the dense atmosphere wants to equalize
so it pushes the rocket up by friction.

It's like sitting in your bath tub with slippery hands and trying to
grip the soap. Just think of the high pressure atmosphere as your hands
and the hot low pressure atmosphere as the slippery wetness... and the
soap as your rocket.

Now try and squeeze it. You can't squeeze it, because it keeps wanting
to jump out of your hands. Well, imagine grabbing it with the other, and
so on, one fist over the top, like one potato, two potato, three potato,
four. That's how your burning fuel rocket works.

I know I go on about atmospheric pressure but I feel the need to keep
mentioning it as it honestly requires people to scrutinize it, to
understand its important role in everything we do. From rockets to guns
and so on.

The low pressure atmosphere versus high pressure is the key when we are
talking about how rockets work, or even guns.

A gun barrel has close to 15 pounds per square inch of pressure inside
it. Now when fired...the gun goes through 'two' recoils... but a person
just feels one recoil due to the immense speed of the bullet.
The first recoil is obvious, which is the detonation of the bullet out
of the shell casing and you get action and reaction of the ignited
powder charge.
The second recoil happens, when the hot gases propel the bullet out of
the end of the gun barrel. The bullet has expelled most of the 15 psi
air inside of the barrel, so once it exits the barrel, the atmosphere
immediately wants to equalise the pressure, so it forces its 15 pound
psi pressure back inside, which produces the second and most telling recoil.

Now you would think that the pressure going back into the
barrel...causing the recoil would make sense as to how the rocket
works...but a rocket does not fire bullets.
A rocket BURNS its fuel. That's all it does.
It does not intermittently spit it out... creating a machine gun effect
recoil...it simply burns under immense pressure.
Unlike a gun which creates a low pressure environment inside its barrel
due to heat, which is immediately filled...a rocket creates 'continuous'
heat...but under it...and heat does not like to be thrust downwards...it
prefers up.

The thing is...the heat cannot go back up the rocket nozzle, because
it's going back up against an even lower pressure, so it deflects around
it and up the 'outside' of the rocket.
This is all happening in nano seconds or instantaneous.

Now, as the heat is going up the outer body of the rocket...it's cooling
and compressing, due to the denser atmosphere attempting to equalise the
pressure... and in doing so, it grips and pushes the rocket all the way
up with a friction grip push.

I wish I could find a better way to explain it but I promise you, this
is what happens.

Sometimes I look around the web to see how people are defusing the "do
rockets really work in space?" question. It's generally pretty easy to
debunk examples of how rockets work in space, that is after I filter out
the ad hominem attacks.

Take this example from The Straight Dope

The Straight Dope wrote:Wearing ice skates on a slippery ice rink
would be good, or maybe your office has a chair that rolls really well
on a hard surface. Next, you'll need a medicine ball. You are the rocket
and the medicine ball is your fuel. Toss the medicine ball. You'll
notice that as you shove the medicine ball forwards, you yourself lurch
backwards. Ta-da, the miracle of physics!

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1846/how-do-rockets-work-in-the-vacuum-of-space

A test you can do at home to check their results:
Grab the medicine ball and jump into the air. Right when you hit the
apex of your jump push the medicine ball away, just like you did when
sitting on the chair. How far backwards do you lurch?

When you're sitting, it's the wheels, which do an excellent/efficient
job of translating energy (from your push) into work, that cause you to
roll across the floor. Rockets don't have wheels. Rockets don't roll
across space.

If you jump into the air you lose this efficiency and basically you go
nowhere. When you throw the ball you absorb most of the force inside
your body and you just shake a little bit. So much for being able to say
the magic word Newton and rockets suddenly work in space.

The Straight Dope example is debunked without even mentioning that gas
(rocket exhaust) is not a solid (medicine ball).


It matters because gases can't exist without being under pressure. Same
goes for liquids. There is no gas floating around in outer space.

This is something the NASA apologists never talk about.

Newton, by the way, doesn't apply to imaginary objects such as gases in
space.

The first step towards believing in space rockets is to ignore basic
chemistry.

I think that NASA Lunatics and moonstruck apologists use the word Newton
as if it held some magic power such that once uttered all scientific
analysis and logical reasoning must cease and whatever the speaker wants
to be true is automatically so without further investigation. When all
fails, the shills call on Newton the solid body physicist who never
considered gases or liquids.


http://youtu.be/7KQMNlKvpxM

[Warhol]

Siri Cruz schreef op 1-11-2013 3:39:

> In article <l4usa5$41l$1...@dont-email.me>, Warhol <Mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Siri Cruz schreef op 1-11-2013 0:09:
>>> In article <l4um6p$v9f$1...@dont-email.me>, Warhol <Mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Science is against rockets working in space:
>>>> 1. Gas can't push a rocket through space because:
>>>>
>>>> i. Releasing gas into space does no work, creates no force.
>>>>
>>>> ii. Gas ceases to exist once it enters the nozzle of a rocket in
>>>> space and is exposed to the vacuum. Without pressure gas becomes only
>>>> unrelated molecules swiftly dispersing into the void.
>>>>
>>>> iii. A rocket can't push against something that doesn't exist nor
>>>> can it use scattered, unrelated molecules as a propulsive force.
>>>
>>> Then why can a gun fire in a vacuum?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> sorry but ... Gun fire is Not the topic of the thread as I said... a
>

> Yes, I understand. It proves that releasing high pressure gas into vaccuum can
> cause an object to accelerate. Thus it proves you are full of crap. So, yes, I
> do understand why you refuse to acknowledge this can happen.
>


No you release high pressured bullet out of the gun barrel which contain
the cartridge... so the bullet pushes against the gun cartridge... the
pressure is build up in the cartridge which pushes the bullet out of the
barrel.... In vacuum space the rocket gas has NOT a gun barrel or
cartridge to push itself against, only a vacuum which shall absorb all
the energy... you need a better example... as I said you can only fool a
kid with your gun theory example...

Fascinatingly mainstream web site which fails to debunk Warhols'
formulas, and which in my browser has disabled the copy-paste
functionality of a normal web site.

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

I would like to have a conversation with the braeunig folks. From their
site:

braeunig wrote:Consider a rocket drifting in gravity free space
[...]Assume there are no external forces, such as gravity or air
resistance.


These are the same preconditions I have been using for my analyses
although some people have argued that these assumptions are flawed...

braeunig wrote:This is called the principle of conservation of
linear momentum.[C of M]


They rely heavily on this principle to explain rocket propulsion in the
vacuum. C of M, however, is intended to explain systems where forces are
exchanged such as a cue ball striking the 8-ball, or a gun firing a bullet.

The problem with using C of M for rockets in space is that you end up
dividing by zero and so your results are invalid.
C of M requires that the momentum conserved is the result of an
equal/opposite force applied to two different objects.

To construct a proper C of M analysis you first set up two forces equal
and opposite then you re-write them in terms of change in momentum of
the objects involved.

In a space rocket one of the objects is exhaust gas entering the vacuum.
If it experiences no force then your C of M analysis ends there.

Force = 0, C of M = invalid.

Confirmation of my C of M analysis
Another critical problem I have with the NASA types is that they don't
check to see if their results agree with Newton's Law F=MA. Gases in
space do not experience acceleration. There is none due to gravity and
none due to air resistance. An object moving in space keeps moving with
constant velocity, acceleration = 0, until it's either struck by an
asteroid or falls into some other massive object's gravitational field.

A ship in space that is not moving can't get started using exhaust. A
ship that is moving can't speed up or slow down using exhaust. In both
cases, stopped or moving, acceleration will be 0 in for the space rocket.

So with acceleration = 0, force = 0 and without force there is no C of M.

braeunig wrote:A mass deltaM has been ejected from the rocket


This is a critical difference I have with the NASA types. A mass is not
ejected from the rocket.
Ejection requires force and you cannot force gas into a vacuum.

NB
If Newton's 2nd Law disagrees with Conservation of Momentum then there
is an error in the analysis.

Now go smack your head against a concrete wall and lets see if it turn
to puree or goes throe the wall...

but a rocket will never work like a bullet... the bullet is released by
the psi of the explosive charge inside the cartridge in the gun... NASA
Rockets don't shot bullets as they lift up... they just are throwing out
expansion gases which pushes against something until it reach very thin
air... and then stall back to the atmosphere

Cars have wheels.
Try and drive your car when it's sat on bricks.

The way to look at it in a simpler way, is to think of the super hot
thrusting exhaust gases 'consuming' the air directly underneath them.
At it's hottest...which would be the white hot part of the thrusting
flame , it is creating a close 'vacuum' and that vacuum has to be
filled, because the atmosphere wants to rectify the difference in
pressure to equalize it's normal atmospheric pressure...and will do so,
all the way up...or as long as the rocket fuel keeps attacking it.
If you look at any rocket exhaust, you will notice the different colors
of the hot gases coming from it.
Each color is an indication of the amount of oxygen that is pushing
against that thrust... meaning, there's virtually none pushing against
the white hot flame, because all of that oxygen is getting consumed and
is sprinting like hell, at it...like the charge of the light brigade.
Yet the wider cloud of exhaust, and the thick cotton wool density of its
span, shows you the volume fighting back.
The atmosphere has back up in stronger numbers than the heat can consume.
The higher the thrust, the further down into the dense atmosphere that
thrust can go but the faster the atmosphere will fight back basically
catching the gases and eventually stopping them in their tracks (cooling
them down).

Have you ever been carried out of an arena with the crowd?

No matter what happens on earth, you can only move something with an
action and equal and opposite reaction, no matter how it's dressed up.

What you 'cannot' do, (N.A.S.A's vacuum rocket version)is run faster
than a manual friction treadmill but you can expend all of your energy
trying.

The engine drives the wheels of a car on a surface of friction.
A jet car, or plane, works by sucking in air...compressing it with fuel
and expelling it out of the back, which creates a high pressure through
the front... and a low pressure out of the back, through burning thrust,
which forces the air to push back against that thrust... propelling the
jet, or jet car forward.

If rockets work how we are told they work, then we all should be able to
drive our vehicles by pressing our foot down on the accelerator and
racing along the road with the gear stick in NEUTRAL. B)

the below Lee De Forest interview. It is interesting to note that De
Forest, inventor of the Audion (a vacuum tube that takes relatively weak
electrical signals and amplifies them) was a space travel skeptic while,
on the other hand, firmly believed that transoceanic television would be
possible with "the skillful location of relay stations" and by taking
advantage of the waves reflected by the ionosphere. In other words -
without the need for launching costly telecommunication satellites into
orbit...

Worthy of Jules Verne...
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=KXhfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=my8MAAAAIBAJ&dq=all-that-constitutes-a-wild-dream-worthy-of-jules-verne&pg=3288%2C6595098

Perhaps unsurprisingly, for all his achievements and in spite of being
considered in his time as "the father of radio and television", De
Forest never rose to international fame and died relatively poor, with
just $1,250 in his bank account. Here's just how important his vacuum
tube invention was:

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/jpatos19&div=62&id=&page=

*****************

In his following post, 'hollycrap' also mentioned the sticky problem of
cold-welding in the vacuum of space:

hollycrap wrote:Think we have stumbled across one of the best kept
secrets about space :

Vacuum Welds

Drawing Bead On Space Peril
Boston Globe (1960-1979) - Boston, Mass.
Author: DONALD WHITE
Date: Sep 12, 1965
Start Page: A_44
Pages: 1
Text Word Count: 264

One of the hazards of space travel is a phenomenon known as cold
welding. The vacuum of space causes metal to stick together, a tendency
that could be catastrophic in a space craft.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/boston/doc/367188290.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Sep%2012,%201965&author=&pub=Boston%20Globe%20%281960-1979%29&edition=&startpage=&desc=Vacuum%20Welds


In truth, in the real world. It wouldn't even get out of the dense
atmosphere into thin air but lets say it did, by some magical way...then
it would 'realistically' fall back to earth, because a vacuum is
nothing...and nothing can float in a vacuum. It can only fall back into
the closest gaseous place, which would be, earth.

[Warhol]

Siri Cruz schreef op 1-11-2013 4:07:

> In article <l4v4si$9ps$1...@dont-email.me>, Warhol <Mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> work in darkness to install their NWO over our heads and nations... yeah
>

> Over our head where?
>

In the UN... ha ha ha yeah there!!!!

Siri Cruz, I do not think that question is warranted, given that I have
repeatedly and respectfully referred to Newton's laws throughout this
thread. You should know by now that I understand Newton's laws - and
that what I am questioning are not Newton's laws - but NASA's fraudulent
misuse of the same.

But since you asked me a question, and you have still not answered this
one - which I have presented twice already, please do so now:

Does this graphic respect Newton's laws? Yes - or no?

http://oi43.tinypic.com/5nkrq0.jpg
http://nl.tinypic.com/view.php?pic=5nkrq0&s=5#.UnMlOieBayl

If mass A (50.000kg) were ejected at 8km/s from a mass B+rocket body
(50.000kg) - would this not propel the rocket forward at 8km/s - as of
Newton's laws? And just like a man throwing a pumpkin of his own weight
away from him? If so, how is this very same result achieved in a vacuum
with a small, trickling flow/mass of a rocket's exhaust expelled at a
velocity of 4.4km/s - as claimed by NASA?

[Warhol]

Siri Cruz schreef op 1-11-2013 5:07:

> In article <l4v89c$ner$1...@dont-email.me>, Warhol <Mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> No you release high pressured bullet out of the gun barrel which contain
>> the cartridge... so the bullet pushes against the gun cartridge... the
>> pressure is build up in the cartridge which pushes the bullet out of the
>

> Gunpowder is low explosive: it continues to degenerate throughout the barrel.
> The bullet is only in contact with cartridge very briefly after detonation;
> after that it is only in contact with gasses and the rifling, and the rifling
> slows the bullet down. Also the firing chamber, the barrel, and the region
> outside the gun are all at a vacuum. So what in the vacuum in the barrel is the
> bullet pressing against while still accelerating?
>


Does NASA shot her rockets with a gun in the air??? ha ha ha
tell me, is a detonation is a magical forces or an explosion??? doesn't
an explosion create a pressure in the gun cartridge ?? A pressure that
shot the bullet out the barrel... But rocket isn't contained in any
barrel and can't push against a a gun in vacuum space......

Listen a bullet never will be rocket... and there is where your points
ends... I didn't bring the bullet in the thread and I neither want to
compare apples with oranges... or lose my time with an argument that
isn't one... go try that game with someone else..

I would like to make one more point that sometimes gets lost in the
sauce: a vacuum is an effect, not a force. A force moves matter. A
vacuum is the absence of matter and hence absence of pressure. I say
this because some NASA-friendly sites accuse us doubters of claiming
that space "sucks" the gas from the rocket, which is a misrepresentation
of our position.


Here's an analogy for using rockets in a vacuum:

If someone told you they have a ship that moves across the surface of
the Sun by shooting lots of ice cubes out of the back at very high speed
would you think this plausible?

Of course not. The ship isn't going to move even if the ice cube
generator can make a billion cubes a second. Every cube is instantly
absorbed by the sun and all of the cube making energy goes to naught, is
lost in the Sun.

That's essentially what would happen to liquid fueled space rocket. Gas
has no effect in open vacuum. In fact, gas cannot exist in the vacuum of
space any more than ice can on the surface of the Sun. NASA propaganda
about "space clouds" notwithstanding.


Getting back to rockets in the vacuum:

It is interesting to see how often NASA supporters claim those who
challenge rocket theory are Newton-confused, or worse, when in fact NASA
space science seems to forget that:

1. Newton did not consider gases, nor their effects, when developing his
laws. NASA believers need to address the fact that gas does not exist in
absence of pressure. As such Newton's Laws can't be applied to gas in
the vacuum.

2. Newton's 3rd Law only applies if an external force is present because

A system cannot "bootstrap" itself into motion with purely internal
forces - to achieve a net force and an acceleration, it must interact
with an object external to itself.


http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/newt.html

A rocket in space is a single system without an external force.

A rocket in space cannot interact with the vacuum.

A bullet shoots out of a gun because the gas pushing it is external to
the bullet. If the gas were inside the bullet and never left the bullet
wouldn't move.

Rocket exhaust in space isn't expelled or ejected. It simply ceases to
exist once it leaves the nozzle because gas can't exist in the vacuum(it
becomes unconnected molecules spread out across the universe).

The entire space industry is a massive and ongoing fraud.

It's kind of like a lie that was told that was so big that nobody can
untell it which is the way frauds like Bernie Madoff explain how they
ended up in so deep.

The space industry is marketed as science yet it's impossible for anyone
not involved in the industry to prove, repeat, observe or verify any of
their results. It's not science, it's a mystery religion.

[Warhol]

Siri Cruz schreef op 1-11-2013 5:24:

> In article <l4v9vr$v36$1...@dont-email.me>, Warhol <Mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Siri Cruz schreef op 1-11-2013 4:07:
>>> In article <l4v4si$9ps$1...@dont-email.me>, Warhol <Mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> work in darkness to install their NWO over our heads and nations... yeah
>>>
>>> Over our head where?
>>>
>>
>> In the UN... ha ha ha yeah there!!!!
>

> There are no UN buildings here.

>
>> Siri Cruz, I do not think that question is warranted, given that I have
>

> Because you don't like the answer. Maybe you actually answerred all these
> questions you dislike, you might better.

>
>> repeatedly and respectfully referred to Newton's laws throughout this
>

> Which has nothing to do with the UN.

>
>> If mass A (50.000kg) were ejected at 8km/s from a mass B+rocket body
>> (50.000kg) - would this not propel the rocket forward at 8km/s - as of
>> Newton's laws? And just like a man throwing a pumpkin of his own weight
>> away from him? If so, how is this very same result achieved in a vacuum
>> with a small, trickling flow/mass of a rocket's exhaust expelled at a
>> velocity of 4.4km/s - as claimed by NASA?
>

> The fastest baseball pitch is 105 mph which is 0.05 kps. So, yeah it's similar
> in that you have a moving object. The velocities however differ by a factor of
> 80. At that's for a hardball, not an awkward pumpkin. Anything else stupid you
> want to say?
>


No, thats Not the answer about the above graphic is or is not in respect
Newton's laws question I was awaiting... but it won't gone stop me to
explain it again until you become a scientific...

Newton's 3rd Law: action/reaction only works if you have two separate
objects, as you mention a hardball and a baseball. More specifically
these two objects have to be external to each other.

The reason you can't pull yourself off of the floor by your belt is that
you are one object even though you are made of many parts: internal
organs, muscles, arms, legs, clothes, etc...

You can pull a weight off the floor that weighs as much as you because
it is external to you.

The combustion chamber of a rocket in space is internal to the ship.
They are one object just like your arms are internal to your body and
are one object when it comes to Newton's 3rd Law.

If you want to lift yourself by your arms you have to pull or push on
something external to your body, like the floor or a rope, etc...

The rocket has to do the same thing if it wants to move. It has to push
or to pull on something external to the ship. There is nothing in space
to push against or to pull on.

You can exert as much energy as you want trying to lift yourself off the
floor but if you don't connect to an external system you're not going to
move. You may shake but you won't rise off the floor.

Same goes for a ship in space. You can burn and combust all the gases
you want. If you don't generate an external force you're not going
anywhere. People say "the ship is pressing on the gases" but the gases
don't exist outside the ship. Gas doesn't exist in the vacuum. So the
ship is left pressing against itself. A space ship is like a car with an
engine but no wheels.

Every machine that moves is mechanical: relies on friction, pressure,
exchanging energy with objects external to it. Everything except space
rockets, that is. NASA might as well scrap rockets and go straight to
saying we can teleport to the moon and other planets.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/newt.html

[Warhol]

Siri Cruz schreef op 1-11-2013 6:35:

> In article <l4vbnd$5kr$1...@dont-email.me>, Warhol <Mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Does NASA shot her rockets with a gun in the air??? ha ha ha
>> tell me, is a detonation is a magical forces or an explosion??? doesn't
>

> It's a combustion, not a detonation.

>
>> an explosion create a pressure in the gun cartridge ?? A pressure that
>> shot the bullet out the barrel... But rocket isn't contained in any
>> barrel and can't push against a a gun in vacuum space......
>

> And what about the pressure with rocket nozzle?

>
>> Listen a bullet never will be rocket... and there is where your points
>

> Sorry, kid, but combustion continues in the barrel, when the bullet is no longer
> in contact with the cartridge and only contacting the rifling which causes
> friction. And still accelerating. What is the bullet pushing against to
> accelerate?

>
>> I would like to make one more point that sometimes gets lost in the
>> sauce: a vacuum is an effect, not a force.
>

> Actually it's neither. You really are quite the idiot.
>


Sigh... calling names now too??? wow... thank you.

Is that another worn-out canard/parable relentlessly rehashed by NASA
nerds to 'explain' how rockets work in the void of space, much like the
"gun/bullet or firehouse recoil theory" and the "medicine ball thrown
from wheeled office chair" - we've heard them all before, thank you very
much. I'd rather not see further vapid NASA moonshine being posted and
diffused on this thread, Sera cruz. Please.

I am posting this video halfheartedly - with a Parental Advisory
warning: do not show this to your kids!

http://youtu.be/L0AMQ6kRNMA

Strawman coming: rockets do not use springs to eject solids. They propel
gases.

I hope you did understand / approve my graphics (THE POWER OF AIR) and
reasonings on the previous pages of this thread - all respectful of
Newton's laws, yet not addressed by the nerds. I dare trust you won't
wish to disprove the well-known aerodynamic fact that (the REACTION of)
air resistance increases exponentially with (the ACTION of)
speed/motion. See, the NASA boys claim that air/atmosphere has NO role
whatsoever in propelling their rockets. Is this your contention too? you
seem not to understand that this thread discussing whether or not
rockets may work in the vacuum of space, seems to be an annoyance to you
for some reason.

magic wordspeak = Newton

Let's evaluate your Calling on Newton

1. Newton didn't consider gases, only solids. The gas/chemistry pioneers
like Joule, Thompson, Boyle and others generated results which disagree
with rocketry. That's why NASA types keep going back to Newton in the
1600's instead of going forward to Joule in the 1800's.

2. Newton's 3rd Law, equal and opposite forces, action/reaction, only
applies if you have the necessary net external force. An object can't
move itself. Not understanding or ignoring this principle leads to a
misapplication of Newton.

3. Newton's 2nd Law, Force = Mass x Acceleration only applies if the
ship is already accelerating (changing velocity) when its mass is reduced.

4. You don't specify which Newton you are going for, 2nd Law, 3rd Law, both?

5. NASA folk only seem to know Newton as far as NASA wants them to. For
instance completely ignore the fact that gases are not solids and that a
different set of equations are used to evaluate the work done by and
forces generated by gases.

Continuing on with the Strawman
You've described a bullet that uses a solid propellant in a container
and now, of course, you'll switch it to using gases without any
consideration of the different physical properties of a gas or the fact
that gases are undefined in space. Nearly 200 years of gas/chemistry
research in the vacuum nullified by NASA without any reason given
except, trust us, we're scientists.


Strawman complete The difference between gas and solid is ignored.

Let's just say...this may be your blind spot in the analysis...

You cannot eject gases into space. Why not?

Because free expansion states that no work is done by a gas entering a
vacuum.

Ejecting something requires work.

If the gases do no work in space they cannot help move the ship once
they enter vacuum space ot thin air in the ionosphere.

So the only force available to move the rocket are the accelerated gases
in ship itself which cannot move it because it is not a net external
force (proper application of Newton's 3rd Law).

This is another misapplication of Newton
Force = Mass x Acceleration only works if you are already accelerating.
If Acceleration = 0 then Force = 0 no matter how much Mass you release.

In space, when you release exhaust gas, that gas is just going to drift
away. Yes, the gas will drift away very, very quickly, at many km/s but
it's still just drifting off. It's not pushing the rocket because it
imparts no force. Acceleration = 0, Force = 0.

[Warhol]

Government Shill #2 schreef op 1-11-2013 8:02:

> "Sigh... calling names now too???"
>

> If the dunce cap fits...
>

the high-flying tale...

Most fairy tales begin with 'once upon a time...' There Was a Rocket.

After all, on January 13, 1920, the New York Times editorialized, in a
reaction to a research paper published by Robert Goddard, that ”a
rocket will never be able to leave the Earth’s atmosphere.”

My key point?

Space rockets, among other things, are, indeed fantasy.

Why Rocketry Doesn't Work in the Vacuum.

... In any case, it should be obvious that when air/atmosphere gradually
thins out and eventually goes missing altogether(vacuum), no more
counter-force (as of Newton's laws)is available for the rocket to keep
ascending. Much like a dolphin jumping out of the sea - and briefly
flying before gravity brings it plunging back into its own, denser
ambient for which it was 'designed for'. Just like a rocket attempting
to leap into the void of space.

****
An interesting article about aerodynamic drag:

The Physics of Racing,
Part 6: Speed and Horsepower

http://phors.locost7.info/phors06.htm

This is the essence of science. You don't really know until you run the
experiment. Until then all you have are hypotheses.

As far as I can see nobody, not even NASA, has ever run a serious space
rocket experiment. Where are the zero-gravity vacuum chambers big enough
to fly rockets? There's a 17-mile long supercollider but the largest
vacuum chamber is 120 feet.

And nobody can ever go out and investigate NASA claims around rockets in
the vacuum independently of NASA.

Space science is like a cult run by ancient priests who speak to the
Gods in private. We're not supposed to think for ourselves. We only wait
until the NASA oracle tells us the great truths divulged only to them.
This is not how science, nor modern, information-based, educated society
is supposed to function. The goal of education is for us to learn how to
figure things out for ourselves; to examine, to evaluate and to reason
with the facts and data. What good is that training if, in the end, we
can only shut up and believe what we are told with no proof, no solid
theory behind it and no way to check the results or repeat their
experiments ourselves?

Rocketry is not unique in this regard. Pretty much all the big results
in science follow this pattern. Anyone who challenges the status quo is
labeled an "idiot" or a "religious nut" which is ironic because science
is behaving more and more like a religion based on faith and less and
less of a method based on observation.

Who was it who said : "The art of thinking and reasoning in strict
accordance with the limitations and incapacities of men misunderstanding." ?

A big problem with rockets in space continues to be
how does the gas expelled through the nozzle contribute any force to the
system?
when:

1. Free Expansion says gas does no work entering the vacuum

2. The Laws of Gases say gas can't exist in the vacuum

3. The Laws of Gases say gas can't do any work in the vacuum

(note that 1., 2. and 3. above all agree with and support each other)

If the gas expelled from the ship in space produces no force how does
the ship move?

First, there should be a theoretical reason why I am wrong/mistaken
about how gases work in the vacuum or how they are used by the ship.

Second, there should be reasonable experimental evidence that supports
the above theory. Pictures of the Space Shuttle don't count.

Come on Rocketry believers / NASA supporters. Show me how I have been
mistaken. Can you do this using science? Without strawmen and ad hominem
arguments? Let's stick to gases in the vacuum, please. That's where my
doubts stem from.

Why I don't think anyone can answer me: In my opinion, space rocketry is
unproven, unscientific conjecture. A fantasy world that has captured the
imagination of many and led otherwise rational and intelligent persons
to abandon logic and fall under its spell, which is pretty much the
story of "advances in science" in the 20th century. Engineering has done
pretty well for itself, but science seems to be going backwards.

I'm often finding that the 19th century was the last time experiments
were conducted which produced results going against our esteemed
priests' doctrines. They locked down science pretty well after that.

I feel like I am at the renaissance of 16th century reason. We're doing
a good job at calling out their bullshit. The next step is doing a few
experiments of our own perhaps.

around or just after the turn of the century, a number of scientific
disciplines were "locked down" through the adoption of paradigms to
which all future research would have to conform. Anthropology and
archeology are particularly gross examples. These paradigms have since
served as "knowledge filters", preventing alternative world views and a
lot of solid facts and findings from being evaluated, published and
discussed by researchers and laymen alike.

[Warhol]

Siri Cruz schreef op 1-11-2013 9:35:

> In article <l4voo3$nug$1...@dont-email.me>, Warhol <Mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> And nobody can ever go out and investigate NASA claims around rockets in
>> the vacuum independently of NASA.
>

> Except the USSR. And China. And Germany. And England. And Russia. And France.
> And Japan. And Brazil. And Iraq. And ....
>

Yeah they are all liars and deceivers who shall sink in the ground of
shame soon... very soon... their nakedness shall be seen by the whole
planet and beyond the galaxy... The nakedness of the frogs, yids,
chineese, russians, indians etc etc... Japan I don't know yet what to
think of them yet...

But I leave certainly Iraq out that evil list of lying space agencies
and even Germany to, both nations have been cowardly defeated by an
unjust war imposed on them... Saddam Hussein was working on a good
propulsion system to get men made object into vacuum space..

With The Super Gun... The Big Gun.
http://chrislejarzar.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/trip_to_the_moon1.jpg

In the late 1980s Iraq had a space program. Iraq even got so far as to
develop a 50-kilogram test satellite.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq is one of the great foreign policy
deadly mistakes the United States administration has made in the recent
past. But whereas historians will be asking questions about the war for
decades to come, it also offers the opportunity to answer some questions
as well. Among the big questions are: What happened to Iraq’s weapons of
mass destruction and why? Why was the CIA so bad at intelligence about
the weapons?

But there are also some questions with less immediate impact, but that
still retain historical significance. What exactly did supergun genius
Gerald Bull do for Iraq during the 1980s? And what was the Iraqi space
program?

The Man who made the Super Gun
http://youtu.be/T08LK3RHawo

The program operated under several names, including the declared name of
Al Abid as well as alternate names such as Bird (“Al Ta’ir” in Arabic)
and Comet.

The project was carried out under the overall direction of the Ministry
of Industry and Military Industrialization. In mid-1988 the Space
Research Corporation (SRC) began studying development of a launch
vehicle capable of placing a 100–300 kilogram payload into a 200–500
kilometer orbit.

Which made of Saddam had a much better formula then NASA's car driving
throe empty vacuum space...

http://media4.jimcarroll.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/FutureRocket.jpg

Saddam Hussein project would have endangered existing space agencies
lies & deceive ... why they invaded Iraq and destroyed its scientific
research of putting an object in orbit around the planet and they also
killed everybody who was working on the super gun project... Engineers,
technicians and scientific researchers... all got killed in one way or
another... and secret was gone from public view.

Now all guns point from Warhol in Brussels... And I decide to destroy
NASA or any other space agency claiming it can propulse rockets in
vacuum space... Yeah see it as a Moorish revenge against those who
killed my Grand Baptizer, Saddam Hussein and his genius engineers...

I will send the murderous scum to hell with all their lies & deceive
with my own propulsions system working with eternal hell fire...

the Plank...
http://www.jimmyholder.com/motor/data/media/2/pirate_plank.jpg

and a lot of people know this, yet billions don't, because it's the
classic magicians trick of people being employed to be the face of bull
shit.

Any rational thinking, clear minded, unbiased person who has the ability
to push aside peer pressure will know that a rocket can not kick itself
up its own arse and fly into the sky, which is what they are being told
to accept as gospel truth.

http://streetsofsalem.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/balloon-voyage-a-la-lune.jpg?w=490

If only space rockets were really hot air balloons with a basket full of
cannonballs around a man in a space suit, I could be more persuaded by
the arguments that it works and goes higher because the space man is
throwing cannon balls out of the basket, until his balloon folds up in
no atmosphere that is. :D

It would be akin to seeing Wile E Coyote trying to light a match and
blowing it back up as he's falling to his doom.

[Metspitzer]

On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 03:49:54 +0100, Warhol <Mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Ha ha ha ha really??? and what about all those dark organization who
>work in darkness to install their NWO over our heads and nations... yeah
>what about them??? Do you think they are telling you the truth... ain't
>they operating like pigs in animal farm changing the laws... man man
>man... I feel so sorry for you all who fell for the fairytale...
>

You should download Stellarium
http://www.stellarium.org/
Set it to your location and then press ctrl Z to turn on satellite
hints. Set the time to just after dark and see if you can explain
away all of the satellites you can see with a pair of binoculars.

Are you saying all those are planes deployed by NASA to fool the
public? Go to...well............anywhere on the planet and use that
for an excuse not to look at the sky.

[Warhol]

Op 1-11-2013 21:45, Metspitzer schreef:

Wrong... ha ha ha ha is that all you have... stellarium doesn't answer
the question... Try again... you need to do better your best, or you
will fail... we need evidence here with hard facts.

BTW the question is; Just HOW exactly do rockets work in space in a vacuum?

When there is nothing in space to push against to move the rocket forward?

I have been told that the propellant inside the rocket pushes the
rocket, and makes it move, but it doesn't make any logical sense... Am I
missing something?

Is it done by Coke and Mentos?

Is this how rockets work...kinda? I couldn't get why the rocket moves in
a vacuum with nothing to push against... Friction against nothingness
and vaccum???? That rocketship makes sense within our atmosphere... but
NOT in thin air or in vast emptiness of space.

[Metspitzer]

On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 22:26:54 +0100, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Op 1-11-2013 21:45, Metspitzer schreef:
>> On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 03:49:54 +0100, Warhol <Mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ha ha ha ha really??? and what about all those dark organization who
>>> work in darkness to install their NWO over our heads and nations... yeah
>>> what about them??? Do you think they are telling you the truth... ain't
>>> they operating like pigs in animal farm changing the laws... man man
>>> man... I feel so sorry for you all who fell for the fairytale...
>>>
>> You should download Stellarium
>> http://www.stellarium.org/
>> Set it to your location and then press ctrl Z to turn on satellite
>> hints. Set the time to just after dark and see if you can explain
>> away all of the satellites you can see with a pair of binoculars.
>>
>> Are you saying all those are planes deployed by NASA to fool the
>> public? Go to...well............anywhere on the planet and use that
>> for an excuse not to look at the sky.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>Wrong... ha ha ha ha is that all you have... stellarium doesn't answer
>the question... Try again... you need to do better your best, or you
>will fail... we need evidence here with hard facts.
>
>BTW the question is; Just HOW exactly do rockets work in space in a vacuum?
>

No the question is; How are the satellites up there if rockets do not
work in space? I can show them to you. You just won't look.

Do you have the program Stellarium? Just answer that question.

[Warhol]

Op 1-11-2013 22:58, Metspitzer schreef:

Don't try to the turn the question... I ask the questions here.. and you
are a suspect in this investigation...

I ask you again... Has NASA ever tested their rocket engines in an
artificial vacuum environment before actually sending rockets/shuttles
into space? thats the question... A very technical question!!!

I did used to have stellarium installed in my computer, when I was
seeking to find satellites... but I sought for years and I never found
one... Never!!!

I even send different times my Iphone into the highest level of the
ionosphere with a balloon to record if there is anything seen, there at
102,800ft feet above my head, to observe the thermosphere... and
guess... there is nothing there above... yes there is the Moon,
cometh's, the planets, the Sun, stars, the Galaxies but no man made
object to be observed... sorry people... nothing...

even on video of CNN there are no man made objects observed in thermosphere.

http://youtu.be/H5zSWQwpjPg
http://youtu.be/veqJART9XBA

Where are the 22,000+ Satellites in Space?

So if my Iphone can't record anything, how do you want me to observe
something which is hidden by clouds, you see... I live in Belgium and
its not so sunny here and clouds hide the stars & the sun...

Anyway rocket propulsion is based on Newton Law of action and reaction,
the rockets moves because of the opposite force applied to the
surrounding mass of air (atmosphere), but in the space there is nothing
(supposedly), Is there a Engineer or a scientific?

This a technical question... for this modern physics book BS and this is
more profound question... The action-reaction principle needs a point of
reference, for example; when a car moves , it does because the wheels
applies force coming from the engine, to the pavement on the street, the
friccion between the wheel and the road is what makes possible the
movement (see Icy road).

Surely NASA would have tested a small scale model of their rocket
engines in an artificial vacuum environment to see whether it will work
in space or not?


Or do they test them out in big swimming pools?


So please post the link or video showing whether NASA tests their
rockets or not in an artificial vacuum environment to see if they will
work in space.


It's not rocket science...

[Warhol]

Op 2-11-2013 4:46, joeturn schreef:

> Warhol is a firm believer in the vacuum.Until he is converted to not believe in mythology,he is a useless case.I once sent him this link http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/satellite.html and he said they were UAV spy planes.
> The US Government financed SETI out of the tax payers money for years trying to convert the noise from cosmic radiation into intelligible communication,so converting warhol into an intelligible being is an impossible task.
> The reason you cant teach an old dog new tricks is because its mind and body is worn out.Too many years believing in the here after,has taken its toll.
>

Warhol this... Warhol that... doesn't answer the question at hand joe...
So you say there is no vacuum there above. Is that correct???

You see, NASA claims that their rockets do NOT push against air ( "at
all!") - and this is why they can also operate in the vacuum of space.
They claim that their rockets are propelled by "recoil force" - the same
force which a bullet exerts on a gun as it gets ...

And since you didn't reply to my previous question I addressed you...
NASA has been lying about the vacuum in space... Right? Does the agency
have any credibility at all?

BUT if there is no vacuum or thin air, then it must be easy for you to
explain us why a balloon explode, when it reaches air poor zone of our
atmosphere...

Anyway It isn't NASA who discovered the Vacuum of space... In the 17th
century already they knew of the vacuum of heaven, since rocket weren't
at all discovered in 20th century as the current scientific world dare
claim Goddard as the father of space exploration...

Multi-stage rockets, from Artis Magn� Artilleri� pars prima

http://s2.blomedia.pl/figeneration.pl/files/2012/08/siemienowicz05-1917.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Siemenowicz_rocket.png

http://owni.pagesperso-orange.fr/OWNI%202006/Espace/Conquete/Imageconquete/chine5.gif

http://rocketry.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/ks-2.jpg

Already in the sixteen century men have send three stages rockets up...
and I should ad here that it were my direct ancestors who invented the
rockets principles...

And Now let this boy teach you a bit more... the satellites that NASA
claims to launch, are as fake as the rocket missions in vacuum space.

A couple things to consider, one the ones that NASA claims are placed in
the exosphere via missiles are subject to an array of various solar
radiations that would interrupt and interfere with transmission of
signals to the point of negating their being useful at all. Not to
mention they never bother to explain how or where the fuel is stored for
decades to do the necessary almost constant corrections to keep up with
the Earth's transit around the Sun. They are not attracted in any
meaningful way according to NASA to Earth's gravitational field.

Then the one's that would be supposedly geosynchronous at 300 to 500
miles up, have the same problem of needing constant corrections to keep
it from merely falling to Earth because of having to fight the
gravitational forces.

In essense, we are still using old fashioned ground radio waves to send
and receive signals off the ionosphere. I tested this myself by calling
a tech support group for a national cable system and asking them some
pointed questions, which after passing me around to several guys, never
could give me answers to my questions. Basically, I was asking if
'rabbit ears' and antennae still work, and if so why? I said, on the one
hand you are telling me your signal has to travel out to a relay
satellite a thousand miles up. How does the signal "know" that it
doesn't have to just bounce off the ionosphere anymore? Or how does it
know that some of it needs to bounce off the ionosphere and part of it
still needs to hit a relay a thousand miles out? They were stumped.

I finally got one to admit what the receiver box is REALLY for. It has a
broader frequency band so that it can hit 300 points on the range
instead of 13 that comes standard with your TV. The satellite is a scam.
If you will notice almost nobody's "dish" is pointing up into space but
outward to receive a slanted signal at a much lower altitude.

http://youtu.be/umgL9hP_Wl8
http://youtu.be/7npaW-UH9g0

[Warhol]

Op 2-11-2013 12:43, Siri Cruz schreef:

> In article <l52n66$8bd$2...@dont-email.me>, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Warhol this... Warhol that... doesn't answer the question at hand joe...
>> So you say there is no vacuum there above. Is that correct???
>

> I'm just wonderring how many days it would take you to differentiate e^x.
>

Wrong answer... try again!!!

Here more NASA lies for you boys...

From the Science Channel:

SPACESUIT TESTING
"The instantaneous effects on a human when exposed to near-vacuum
conditions"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KO8L9tKR4CY

This OSHA report of a death in a vacuum chamber seems to disagree with
the NASA video

OSHA GE Accident Report wrote:Employee #1 went into a vacuum
chamber testing area to look through the porthole opening in a
pressurized vacuum chamber and observe the condition of a nose cone that
was being tested. The 12 in. diameter glass in the porthole opening
imploded, causing Employee #1's head and one arm to be pulled into the
vacuum chamber. He died of crushing head injuries and asphyxia.


So, with the NASA vacuum chamber just open the door and run on in, no
wait, no fuss, no problem. Also, there doesn't seem to be any indication
of air flowing into the vacuum (re-pressurization), seen either in the
technician's clothing or on the hose dangling off to the side. So what
happened to the studies that say air flows into the vacuum at 2 km/s?
(Note that because of free expansion this fast moving air doesn't create
thrust).

With the GE chamber if there's a pressure failure and you're anywhere
near the vacuum, you're dead. I tend to think that NASA is more likely
to fake a vacuum chamber test than GE is to fake an employee death
(Peter Lanza notwithstanding... :P )

Good call on the Ridiculum Absurdum Siri Cruz.
https://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/accidentsearch.accident_detail?id=14321087

"ROCKETS DO NOT PUSH AGAINST AIR"

I would like to dedicate this post to those who still embrace the absurd
notion that "rockets do not push against air", a trite NASA-promoted
quackery - tediously parroted by their many 'apollogists'. As it is, it
appears to be the most audacious and aggressively-guarded fallacy ever
concocted - in order to uphold in our minds the very feasibility of
(outer) space travel. Here it is proclaimed once again, this time in an
'educational' article from major space contractor Northrop Grumman:

Does the rocket push down on the surrounding air?
A common misconception regarding rockets is that they push against
the air surrounding them. In fact, rockets work best [!] in a vacuum
like outer space. There�s no air or atmosphere in a vacuum. Fortunately
for us, we are surrounding by a breathable atmosphere. Unfortunately for
the rocket, our atmosphere pushes against its movement upwards.

http://www.northropgrumman.com/CorporateResponsibility/CorporateCitizenship/Education/Documents/pdfs/Rocketry_Guide.pdf



"Unfortunately for the rocket, our atmosphere pushes against its
movement upwards".

Well, yes - dear Northrop Grumman 'educators'... : this is, in fact,
what is commonly known as aerodynamic drag. It is air resistance exerted
on the frontal area of the rocket - PUSHING against it. It is a force -
and it increases exponentially with speed. And yes, this pesky force
unfortunately slows the rocket's progress through the air. Luckily
though, if a rocket is travelling at, say, 3000km/h in the atmosphere -
this exponentially increasing air drag will always be far inferior to
the formidable power of the rocket thrust (a massive "counter-drag", if
you will) which undoubtedly PUSHES against the air below it - with a
high-speed 'wall' of burning propellants ejected at 16.000km/h (4,4km/s).

http://i43.tinypic.com/2py1hkk.jpg

To acknowledge the existence of air drag in front of the rocket while,
at the same time, deny the existence of the opposite air displacement
exerted by the exhaust plume below it - is an utter contradiction in
terms and a crude offense to common sense. If this were to be true (that
"rockets do not push against air"), this would mean that the formidable,
explosive thrust of a rocket's exhaust plume does not encounter any air
resistance - a preposterous and outlandish contention, if there ever was
one. Instead, as the NASA quackery goes, we are asked to believe that
rockets are propelled solely by the "recoil force" generated by the
rapid expulsion of fuel mass from rocket tanks. If this were true, we
should all hover above our toilet seats when stricken with explosive
diarrhea - yet I doubt that anyone has ever had the (mixed) fortune of
experiencing such a thrill.

To be sure, if one were to supply propellant to a tankless rocket from a
container anchored on Earth (via a very, very long hose), the rocket
would take off just as well - and indeed, much better and faster - given
its considerably inferior weight. The truth is that, to uphold the idea
that rockets can be niftily propelled in the vacuum of outer space,
NASA's propaganda wizards have had no option but to hammer into our
brains the absurd notion that rocket jets "do not push against air"! It
is now time for this mainstay of NASA's hypnotic brainwashing machine to
be flushed out of our skulls.

"Does not push against air" (NASA claims):
http://youtu.be/uxgMhHOaUSY

http://youtu.be/sQw_C5KLhFM

Yeah it coast millions of ponds to catch images, amateur do for a few
dollars...

http://youtu.be/XAeKKofQvtc

looney toon physics comparisons:
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~gsparson/Physics/forces.html

[Metspitzer]

On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 10:50:21 +0100, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>I did used to have stellarium installed in my computer, when I was
>seeking to find satellites... but I sought for years and I never found
>one... Never!!!
>

Really? You sought for years (more than one) to find them? How often
did you look? So you are not trying to deny they are up there? You
are just saying you are not smart enough, or can't see well enough to
find them.

Try again. You should be able to see two or three tonight. Take
binoculars and someone with good eyesight with you. Stellarium will
tell you where to look. Maybe you should take a compass too. You may
have been looking in the wrong direction.

Or you could try to see NASA's big one once or twice a month. Sign up
for this:
http://spotthestation.nasa.gov/ and this:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.runar.issdetector&hl=en

If you just look, there is no way you can explain them all away like
you would like to. There are over 1000 operational satellites in
orbit today.
http://www.universetoday.com/42198/how-many-satellites-in-space/

[Warhol]

Op 2-11-2013 18:59, Metspitzer schreef:

Wrong answer... try again!!!

Are you playing stupid, or are you seriously stupid?

I don't see anything, I said and my question isn't about if you see
something or not... Please read the thread carefully.

My question is a very simple technical question;

Has NASA ever tested their rocket engines in an artificial vacuum
environment before actually sending rockets/shuttles into space?

push against vacuum = zero force

equal and opposite... remember these gases are expanding into a vacuum
or thin air, as quickly as it expands it is also being "SUCKED" out.
Cancels each other out.

Result is zero force in one direction.

physics comparisons:
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~gsparson/Physics/sp3.jpg

It is disheartening to see how dumb people have become. remember people,
physics classes only teach you to remember what you've been told and not
taught to think for yourselves.

I'll check back on you pioneers later.

be good if someone could find me that video I was asking for.

Warhol, Son of Atlas.
http://youtu.be/Wqr_cAxKEv8

[george152]

On 03/11/13 14:04, Warhol wrote:
> Op 2-11-2013 18:59, Metspitzer schreef:
>> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 10:50:21 +0100, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I did used to have stellarium installed in my computer, when I was
>>> seeking to find satellites... but I sought for years and I never found
>>> one... Never!!!
>>>
>> Really? You sought for years (more than one) to find them? How often
>> did you look? So you are not trying to deny they are up there? You
>> are just saying you are not smart enough, or can't see well enough to
>> find them.
>>
>> Try again. You should be able to see two or three tonight. Take
>> binoculars and someone with good eyesight with you. Stellarium will
>> tell you where to look. Maybe you should take a compass too. You may
>> have been looking in the wrong direction.
>>
>> Or you could try to see NASA's big one once or twice a month. Sign up
>> for this:
>> http://spotthestation.nasa.gov/ and this:
>> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.runar.issdetector&hl=en
>>
>> If you just look, there is no way you can explain them all away like
>> you would like to. There are over 1000 operational satellites in
>> orbit today.
>> http://www.universetoday.com/42198/how-many-satellites-in-space/
>>
>
> Wrong answer... try again!!!
>
> Are you playing stupid, or are you seriously stupid?

Oh you have the floor in the stupidity stakes.
And a couple of the walls.
Man is in space.
Build a bridge and get over it

[Warhol]

Op 3-11-2013 2:40, george152 schreef:

And who told you man is in space??? do you have evidence? Sorry you must
prove that they are in space...

Here's a short and simple question which I'd like to submit to ESA (if
they actually do take questions, that is) - but maybe you can help me
out and double-check my question's pertinence and validity, as I may
well just be missing something :

�����������

Dear ESA,

According to the pdf linked below (describing the specs of the ARIANE 5
rocket), I read that the main stage of the rocket burns for 535 seconds
(or almost 9 minutes):

"The main stage burns continuously for about 535s, and delivers the
essential part of the kinetic
energy required to place the payloads into orbit."
http://www.astrium.eads.net/media/document/flight-191.pdf



I have also read that the Ariane 5 ejects 2000kg of propellant every
second - and that each of the two boosters contains 240 tons solid
propellant - for a total of 480tons. Now, since 480tons of propellant
ejected at a rate of 2000kg/s will only last for 4 minutes, what keeps
the ARIANE 5 going for the remaining 5 minutes?

***********************

Again, George152, I may be missing something right now - but please let
me know exactly what!

I guess that their numbers are 'right' and that, most likely, this part
of the ongoing Space Scam would be well covered from a strictly
technical perspective. I should probably (and ideally, all of us
non-rocket scientists) stick to exposing the ridiculous imagery of these
rocket launches which, technically speaking, are way below any
acceptable / believable standard. The imagery seems to be the weakest
point of the Grand Space Hoax - so let us (mere observers) keep pointing
out this utterly laughable visual data.

I'm sorry but, at this point, NO technical 'evidence' of the feasibility
of launching rockets in space - as advertised by NASA and ESA - can
possibly convince me that their proposed rocket launches - and
subsequent space explorations - are in any manner real / truthful /
legit / authentic. Any number of people is of course free to believe
that NASA and ESA do what they say they do - but just count me out of
that number.

THE HOAX ABOVE THE HOAX

I'd almost forgotten about this - lol: the ultimate, most astronomically
phony 9/11 "amateur" video of the highest order!

"9/11 world trade center footage from space station"
http://youtu.be/mkx-Z28Mv4I

There really is no end to this bullcrap. Or maybe there is: IF WE ALL
START LAUGHING OUT LOUD ENOUGH! B)

9/11 HOAXERS - NASA HOAXERS - BANKER HOAXERS - GLOBAL WARMING HOAXERS -
WAR ADDICTS - ETC... - all intimately intertwined?

[Metspitzer]

On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 03:25:05 +0100, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>And who told you man is in space??? do you have evidence? Sorry you must
>prove that they are in space...
>

Call Frank De Winne and ask him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_De_Winne
Or call Dirk Frimout
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirk_Frimout
Or call Marianne Merchez
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marianne_Merchez

Or..........stick your head back in the sand.

[Warhol]

Op 3-11-2013 3:43, Metspitzer schreef:

I did ask Frank the question... but he did as if he didn't hear me or my
simple question. The coward turned his head and started to walk away
doing as if he was talking with someone... and gone he was.

So what exactly are they up to up there? Today, on the 9th day of the
VERY LAST SPACE SHUTTLE MISSION IN HISTORY, this is the sort of
information you get ...(if you live in Italy) :
BEYONCE' WAKE-UP CALL:

http://video.repubblica.it/tecno-e-scienze/beyonce-sveglia-gli-astronauti-dell-atlantis/72811?video=&ref=HREC2-1

Yes - because you see, as Wikipedia explains: "NASA began a tradition of
playing music to astronauts during the Gemini program, which was first
used to wake up a flight crew during Apollo 15. Each track is specially
chosen, often by their family, and usually has special meaning to an
individual member of the crew, or is applicable to their daily activities."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-118

It looks like those ...uh... families have a pretty quirky sense of humor.

Here's a selection of "Wake-Up calls" that were played, all during one
particular mission (STS118):

- "Mr. Blue Sky" by Electric Light Orchestra
- "Gravity" by John Mayer
- "Up!" by Shania Twain
- "Outa-Space" by Billy Preston
- "Learn to Fly" by Foo Fighters
- "Flying" by Long John Baldry Trio
- "Where My Heart Will Take Me" (theme song of the Star Trek: Enterprise
series).

Just a reminder...

The ISS (the International Space Station) is supposed to orbit at least
200 miles above Mother Earth.

Now, have you ever sat in a window seat of a commercial passenger plane
(max 7 miles altitude) - and looked down?

http://i40.tinypic.com/17340x.jpg

Here is a inside tour of the ISS (taken down on Earth?) + some music:

http://youtu.be/Uk9ptueTDwY

It may not be anything, but one thing that struck me about the 'tour' of
the ISS was that all of the Astro-naughts were in the same position
relative to up/down ie the Japanese guy was standing the same direction
relative to the Russians who were in a totally different part of the ISS.

It may be coincidence but as there should technically be no up or down
one would not expect the A-Ns to be in the same positions.
Also when the Cameram-A-N goes to the guitarist he seemingly puts on a
360 degree twist to the viewer almost to impart and accentuate the
'non-gravity' after which, when they both converse, they say they are
the 'highest people in the universe' as they are at the 'top' of the ISS
which is presumably the furthest part away from Earth.

I notice that objects float around ie his necklace and the strap to the
right of the picture but if this is furthest away from Earth surely
there would still be some exertion of gravity on objects [how else is it
held in orbit] and if so the objects would be floating 'downwards'
towards the Earth rather than trying to get away and float 'upwards'.
I am no Physics expert so please feel free to correct my ambiguous
observations.

But next time If I have a question I will ask it to Robonaut; if he
really went into orbit... ha ha ha.

http://youtu.be/Hkagxtiy1-M

Here's some more "gee, ain't we having fun!" videos from NASA from July
2011.

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2011/07/video-world.html


TAKE 1 - Action!
Hey Ronnie, whats a Soyeuz ?
Its this 'spaceship', idiot !
Oh ! sure ! sure it is, Ronnie !
We're 'in Space', dont forget !
Oh, Yeah! sure! sure you are !"

CUT !!! Idiots ! Read the script !
Stand by... and...

TAKE 2 - Action !
"Hey Ronnie, hey sorry, sorry to interrupt ya, i've been lookin' all
over the place for ya man!"
"I'm just ah, loosed up here man, just up here in my place..."
"You, you, you're 'in your Soyeuz' ?"
"I'm 'in my Soyeuz', right !"
"Well, what are you doin' up here ?"
"Well, this is, this is our spacecraft, this is our spacecraft that
we're gonna be, er,
going home,; we're going back to home in !"
"Well, yeah! sure! sure you are !"

Fantastic !

[Metspitzer]

On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 22:43:33 -0400, Metspitzer <Kilo...@charter.net>
wrote:

Here are a couple more.
Call or email these two and ask them why they are planning on building
a satellite that can never be deployed.
http://www.spacebel.be/contact/

Clear up one thing for us. Are you saying that there are no
artificial satellites or is it that the weather is too bad in Belgium
for you to find them?

Either they are up there are they are not. Which do you think it is?

BTW when you contact them, I wouldn't tell them about your space
program if you plan on getting a serious reply.

quote:

I even send different times my Iphone into the highest level of the
ionosphere with a balloon to record if there is anything seen, there
at
102,800ft feet above my head, to observe the thermosphere... and
guess... there is nothing there above... yes there is the Moon,
cometh's, the planets, the Sun, stars, the Galaxies but no man made
object to be observed... sorry people... nothing...

end quote:

Which is it? No satellites, or you can't find them?

Don't say rocket! We are focused on whether there are or there are
not satellites in space that can be seen with the naked eye (or
binoculars)

Don't say rocket.

[george152]

That's his copout. A change of word, a move of goalposts and his
deliberate ignorance of the world

[Warhol]

Metspitzer schreef op 3-11-2013 16:52:

So stupid asshole who eyes are you trying to turn from the facts...

Now go see your mama if she has any fishes for you idiot.

[Warhol]

Warhol schreef op 2-11-2013 13:40:

> like outer space. There’s no air or atmosphere in a vacuum. Fortunately

40 MILLION HP
The Wondrous Power of Air

I woke up this morning wondering: "how much horsepower would a Porsche
Carrera sports car (which is shaped a bit like a rocket plume) need to
reach a speed of *16.000km/h* (4.4km/s) in our atmosphere?" Remember,
that's the velocity at which hydrogen/oxygen propellant is ejected from
a rocket nozzle.

To my delight, I found a handy Drag Coefficient/to Horsepower
calculator. It basically calculates for you how much horsepower a given
car (with a given Cx /aerodynamic drag - and a given weight) would need
to reach a given speed. Wonderful! This calculator was just what I was
looking for:

http://www.wallaceracing.com/Calculate%20HP%20For%20Speed.php

I then looked up the drag coefficient of a Porsche, and found it here :

http://www.porsche.com/usa/models/911/911-carrera-s-cabriolet/featuresandspecs/

the Cx of a Porsche is 0.3. For the frontal area of the car, I used the
figure of 20 Sq/Ft - which I found here.

http://phors.locost7.info/phors06.htm

Ok, so it's that of a Chevrolet Corvette - but it should be pretty
similar to that of a Porsche. It also approximately matches the stated
area of a Space Shuttle main engine nozzle:

Image
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Main_Engine
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Shuttle_Main_Engine_Test_Firing.jpg

Then, I looked up the weight of a Porsche Carrera, and found that it is
3230lbs. But I decided to 'cheat' a little, and went with the weight of
the larger Porsche Cayenne
http://www.porsche.com/usa/models/cayenne/cayenne/featuresandspecs/

(4400lbs- or 2000kg) - since it perfectly matches the weight of the fuel
mass claimed to be released every second* by large rockets such as
Ariane and the Space Shuttle.

*°*(To be sure, a horsepower unit is defined as a force produced over
one second of time. One metric horsepower, for instance, is the power
needed to raise a mass of 75 kg against the earth's gravitational force
over a distance of one meter in one second).

So, these are the figures I inserted into my wonderful calculator:

Drag coefficient: 0.3 (Cx of Porsche Carrera)
Frontal area of car (think rocket nozzle area): 20Sq/Ft)
Weight of car (think fuel mass ejected per second): 4400Lbs(2000kg)
Velocity of car (rocket exhaust velocity of 4,4km/s): 9941mph (16.000km/h)

Here's what the calculator came up with:

http://i44.tinypic.com/a48rcn.jpg

40.239.275 HP - or roughly 40million HP ! Wow! it certainly looks like
the REACTIVE FORCE of air, fighting the ACTIVE POWER of a car traveling
at hypersonic speeds produces an awful lot of resistance/ counter-power!
I honestly didn't think it would amount to as much as 40million HP. But
then again, NO Porsche - nor any car - can go as fast as 16.000km/h...
^ NOTE that the rolling resistance (1,516) is absolutely negligible in
comparison to the colossal force of AIR. ^

http://i41.tinypic.com/kakc2q.jpg

So finally, I decided to look up how much horsepower NASA claims the
Space Shuttle engines produce...and... LO AND BEHOLD ! - it isn't far
off my above, approximated figure of "40million HP"! Here's from the
official NASA website:

"The engines' exhaust is primarily water vapor as the hydrogen and
oxygen combine. As they push the Shuttle toward orbit, the engines
consume liquid fuel at a rate that would drain an average family
swimming pool in under 25 seconds generating over 37 million horsepower."
http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/system/system_SSME.html


Or, if you prefer:

Standing about the same height as the Statue of Liberty but
weighing three times as much,
the two white Solid Rocket Boosters ignite in anger and push out a
combined 6.6 million pounds of thrust (equivalent to 44 million horsepower.)

http://www.roadandtrack.com/special-reports/space-shuttle-test-nasa-endeavour-ov-105



So I guess we can now tranquilly say - without fear of sounding stupid
or ignorant - that rockets do indeed push against air - or rather - air
pushes against the rockets to propel them up through our atmosphere.
Yet, one mystery remains: NASA claims that their rockets reach speeds of
8km/s - almost DOUBLE the 4.4km/s exhaust velocity. Yet, NASA clearly
states that their rockets LOSE efficiency as they reach higher
altitudes. They even have a name for it: "UNDEREXPANSION":

http://i44.tinypic.com/kcmlox.jpg

Source of original rocket nozzle over/under expansion diagram:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine

Oh well, that's NASA for you I guess... In any case, it should be

obvious that when air/atmosphere gradually thins out and eventually goes
missing altogether(vacuum), no more counter-force (as of Newton's
laws)is available for the rocket to keep ascending. Much like a dolphin
jumping out of the sea - and briefly flying before gravity brings it
plunging back into its own, denser ambient for which it was 'designed
for'. Just like a rocket attempting to leap into the void of space.

****
An interesting article about aerodynamic drag:

http://phors.locost7.info/phors06.htm

Space rockets, among other things, are indeed fantasy...

Therefore, in absence of water, air - or any other adequate reaction
force...

http://i39.tinypic.com/333yczd.jpg

[Metspitzer]

On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 07:24:14 +0100, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> Which is it? No satellites, or you can't find them?

Do you think that each and every planetarium and observatory on the
planet is in on the hoax? What do you think would happen if you just
called a few of them and asked them if they had seen artificial
satellites. Would that convince you that there are satellites up
there we can see with the naked eye?

Be sure to tell us how often you try to find them yourself. That way
we can know you are making an honest effort to locate them.

[Odd Bodkin]

Just last summer a year ago, I stood in my driveway with a pair of
decent binoculars and watched both the space station and the space
shuttle pass overhead. Both of them are very recognizable to the eye.

A few years ago, I was in a similar situation with a conspiracy nutjob
who was trying to tell me this was impossible. We had a cheap telescope
set up on a roof. When the shuttle came up over the horizon and we were
tracking it, he literally refused to bend down and look in the eyepiece.
He knew what his eyes would tell him, and he'd have to quickly come up
with an explanation about how the hoax had spread to our little rooftop
observation. He just stood there and stared at us, saying, "Why should I
look? I know it's not there." Of course, it was also visible to the
naked eye, a bright spot traversing the sky over the course of several
minutes. All he needed to do was look up. We invited him to look up. He
refused to look up in the sky. Our fingers were pointing to the bright
spot, and he refused to look up. Such is the rusty lock on the
perceptions of the closed-minded.

[Warhol]

Metspitzer schreef op 4-11-2013 16:21:

I hope the following answer is straightforward enough for you.

First of all... this thread isn't about if you can or not see
satellites... this thread is about rockets, can they fly in vacuum or
can't they fly... how does this sound in your empty ears now? ...Does
that sound as satellites?? or Rockets!!!

Second... I have started a new thread about other fakery and there I am
talking about the visibility of the ISS and who does see it fly and who
doesn't see it fly... so if you have any input you can join me in the
Fakery in Orbit thread!!!

Third... why are you trying so hard to change the subject of the thread?

How do rockets work in the vacuum of space?
"The truth is that the rocket have nothing to push against when they
reach the ionosphere"

I may be starting to wrap my head around the notion of free expansion.
Of course, I'm no rocket scientist and am only doing my best here to
grasp some basic rocket-propulsion principles, so please bear with me as
I think aloud - hopefully making some progress along the way. I've now
read a fair amount of literature concerning rocket nozzles - and
specifically as what concerns their primary design dilemma for operating
at various altitudes/air densities.

In other words, wouldn't the rocket plume eventually expand so much as
to simply nebulize in all directions, thus ceasing to provide the
necessary thrust/force to counter the pull of gravity? (This, of course,
unless you believe that beyond a 'certain altitude', gravity ceases to
be a force - and the spaceship gets 'flung' by its sheer momentum into
'free-fall' orbit...)

Lastly, you may ask, what type of rocket nozzle is used on modern
spacecraft? Amazingly, it seems that the old De Laval design (1888 !) is
still very much the (fixed)rocket nozzle widely used today... so much
for technical innovation, NASA!
"Very nearly all modern rocket engines that employ hot gas combustion
use de Laval nozzles." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Laval_nozzle

Links for reference:
"Rocket Nozzle Design: Optimizing Expansion for Maximum Thrust"
http://www.braeunig.us/space/sup1.htm
"ROCKET PROPULSION": http://www.braeunig.us/space/propuls.htm
"Rocket engine nozzle" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine_nozzle
"Rocket engine" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine
.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/4/2013 10:21 AM, Warhol wrote:

>
> First of all... this thread isn't about if you can or not see
> satellites... this thread is about rockets, can they fly in vacuum or
> can't they fly... how does this sound in your empty ears now? ...Does
> that sound as satellites?? or Rockets!!!

My understanding is that rockets work on the principle of conservation
of momentum.

If you were in space, holding a pistol and you fired the pistol, the
bullet would head in one direction, and you and the gun would head in
the other direction. Every amount of momentum transferred to the bullet
is transferred in the other direction to the gun and you. Fire again,
and the same would be true.

For that matter, if you were out in space with a bag full of baseballs
and you just threw the baseballs, then every bit of momentum transferred
to the baseballs as they left your hand would be reflected in a change
in momentum in you in the opposite direction. Throw another ball, and
the same would happen.

When a rocket is fired, it is simply throwing or firing mass in one
direction, giving it a certain amount of momentum, and an equal amount
of momentum is given to the thrower or firer in the opposite direction.

I don't think there is anything more complicated than that going on.

[Metspitzer]

On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 17:21:14 +0100, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Metspitzer schreef op 4-11-2013 16:21:
>> On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 07:24:14 +0100, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Which is it? No satellites, or you can't find them?
>>
>> Do you think that each and every planetarium and observatory on the
>> planet is in on the hoax? What do you think would happen if you just
>> called a few of them and asked them if they had seen artificial
>> satellites. Would that convince you that there are satellites up
>> there we can see with the naked eye?
>>
>> Be sure to tell us how often you try to find them yourself. That way
>> we can know you are making an honest effort to locate them.
>>
>
>I hope the following answer is straightforward enough for you.
>
>First of all... this thread isn't about if you can or not see
>satellites... this thread is about rockets, can they fly in vacuum or
>can't they fly... how does this sound in your empty ears now? ...Does
>that sound as satellites?? or Rockets!!!
>

Yeah well I am kind of bored this week. I am going to see if I can
just pin you down enough to answer the question you are trying so
desperately to avoid.

Do you think artificial satellites exist? You have said that you are
willing to look. Just let us know how often you look. Don't forget
to re install Stellarium. It is much easier than sending a camera
tied to a balloon into space. (Which you have admitted doing more
than once)

Do you think every planetarium and observatory in the world is lying
when they say satellites can be seen by the naked eye?

[Warhol]

Odd Bodkin schreef op 4-11-2013 16:47:

Amazing... you claim that you can see the ISS just fine... what I see is
perfect round light flying over me like an airplane, nothing that proves
that its the ISS... thats what is is seen... a light... a cheap ancient
trick...

yeah right!!!! what about this... astronomer who says that he sees "a
perfectly round object is revealed presenting no angular projections
whatsoever."

http://www.webspawner.com/users/shuttlehoax/

And let me ask you... is this the ISS seen through a telescope???
http://youtu.be/nsc80evqJ88

Now my question is does the ISS spin??? if anyone can answer this
question it would be kind... does she spin or doesn't she?

http://i.imgur.com/3LgQK.gif

[Odd Bodkin]

Try a pair of good binoculars. Not your naked eyes. Binoculars.

You can't of course do this with the space shuttle anymore, since there
are no more flights, but you can do this with the space station.
I could clearly see the wings and fuselage of the shuttle, and I could
clearly see the panels and chambers of the space station.

You can still try this. Getting a pair of binoculars and look at the
orbital pattern of the ISS to see when it's going overhead in your area.

Here's a picture from a rather cheap ground telescope in the hands of an
amateur.

>
> yeah right!!!! what about this... astronomer who says that he sees "a
> perfectly round object is revealed presenting no angular projections
> whatsoever."
>
> http://www.webspawner.com/users/shuttlehoax/
>
> And let me ask you... is this the ISS seen through a telescope???
> http://youtu.be/nsc80evqJ88
>
> Now my question is does the ISS spin??? if anyone can answer this
> question it would be kind... does she spin or doesn't she?

I didn't see the ISS spin when I looked at through binoculars for
several minutes as it passed overhead.

>
> http://i.imgur.com/3LgQK.gif

[Warhol]

Metspitzer schreef op 4-11-2013 17:55:

So you still don't want to believe me when I say there is nothing man
made in heaven...

In meantime its raining here so... no stars are visible right now... but
next spring I will do what you advised and even more... Me and a few
friends are gone triangulate the socalled ISS... then we shall see at
what altitude that light we observe really flies... you see, then I
shall share here the results... but can we get back to the subject of
the tread... Do rockets fly in vacuum??? do you have any input about
that part? or are you just trolling and trying to trash the threads
questions?

Are Rockets swimming through the air like fish?

So, these are rockets then?

http://youtu.be/vIJINiK9azc

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/4/2013 11:44 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:

Sorry, missed a couple links.

> You can still try this. Getting a pair of binoculars and look at the
> orbital pattern of the ISS to see when it's going overhead in your area.

http://spotthestation.nasa.gov/sightings/

>
> Here's a picture from a rather cheap ground telescope in the hands of an
> amateur.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/02/28/ridiculously-awesome-pic-of-discovery-and-the-iss-taken-from-the-ground/

[Warhol]

Odd Bodkin schreef op 4-11-2013 17:49:

Does a rocket throw bullets to fly??? or canon-balls maybe? is that the
principle?

ha ha ha I see... But, would it work?

first of all it is my understanding that liquid can't exist inside a
vacuum. Any liquid exposed to a vacuum is immediately converted to gas
and any gas is immediately spread out into the void. So any combustion
would have to take place in a sealed container and hence not in a vacuum
in the strict sense.

Secondly, you mention the possibility of opening one side of a
container, exposing it to the vacuum, while combustion gases inside the
container. In this case we have to consider that combustion can't occur
anywhere near the opening because any liquids in that area are being
instantly converted to gas by the vacuum and spread out into the void
via free expansion. When combustion occurs at the far side of the
container the force is going to push the remaining liquid out before it
can be combusted. This seems like a terribly inefficient use of fuel as
the combustion itself is forcing unspent fuel into space.

Another problem is that gas enters a vacuum at an average speed of about
2,000 meters a second. A 25 meter long Saturn 5 stage 2 fuel tank with
over 1,000,000 liters of fuel would have it's contents drained in about
1/100 of a second if exposed to the vacuum of space.

Speaking of Saturn V rockets, after looking at some data provided by the
Smithsonian I have some questions...

Times and distances traveled by a Saturn V

Stage 1: 912 mph (38 miles in 2.5 minutes)
Stage 2: 770 mph (77 miles in 6 minutes)
Stage 3: 17,500 mph (achieved in 2.75 minutes) an acceleration of
nearly 372,000 m/h^2


Questions:

1. Why does the rocket slow down between stages 1 and 2? I would expect
it to pick up speed if it were powered by thrust because

a. the thinner atmosphere reduces wind resistance
b. it is now lighter, having discarded stage 1
c. the pull of gravity against it's climb is reduced the higher it goes
d. ...what is the point of stage 2 if does not increase the speed
of the rocket?

2. How does stage 3 accelerate at such a tremendous rate without

a. killing the astronauts?
b. ripping apart the capsule?

http://airandspace.si.edu/explore-and-learn/topics/apollo/saturnv.htm

[george152]

Inability to answer the question noted

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/4/2013 12:28 PM, Warhol wrote:
> Does a rocket throw bullets to fly??? or canon-balls maybe? is that the
> principle?
>
> ha ha ha I see... But, would it work?

Well, yes. That's the principle and it does work. Any mass thrown
backwards at high momentum will impart the same momentum forward on the
thrower.

>
> first of all it is my understanding that liquid can't exist inside a
> vacuum. Any liquid exposed to a vacuum is immediately converted to gas
> and any gas is immediately spread out into the void.

I don't think that's accurate. Boiling commences once the pressure drops
below vapor pressure, but it's inaccurate to say that the conversion is
immediate.

It's academic anyway, because rocket fuel combustion isn't done in the
LIQUID state, any more than gasoline combustion in your car is done in
the liquid state. The fuel is CARRIED in liquid or solid state, but
liquid fuel is allowed to vaporize before ignition.

> So any combustion
> would have to take place in a sealed container and hence not in a vacuum
> in the strict sense.

And that's not what happens. The chamber where the ignition occurs is
filled full of the gases of fuel vapor. It's not a vacuum at all,
because of that.

>
> Secondly, you mention the possibility of opening one side of a
> container, exposing it to the vacuum, while combustion gases inside the
> container. In this case we have to consider that combustion can't occur
> anywhere near the opening because any liquids in that area are being
> instantly converted to gas by the vacuum and spread out into the void
> via free expansion.

Again your time scales are skewed. You think that vaporization of a
liquid is instantaneous in a vacuum. It's not. Secondly you think that
the dispersal of the gas at the opening is instantaneous. It's not. All
you have to worry about is that combustion occurs where the density of
the gases is sufficiently high to be complete, which means it has to
happen before expansion (which is slow compared to combustion) carries
unburnt fuel away.

> When combustion occurs at the far side of the
> container the force is going to push the remaining liquid out before it
> can be combusted.

And that's not what happens.

> This seems like a terribly inefficient use of fuel as
> the combustion itself is forcing unspent fuel into space.
>
> Another problem is that gas enters a vacuum at an average speed of about
> 2,000 meters a second. A 25 meter long Saturn 5 stage 2 fuel tank with
> over 1,000,000 liters of fuel would have it's contents drained in about
> 1/100 of a second if exposed to the vacuum of space.

You've not taken into account that the 1,000,000 liters of fuel are in
LIQUID form. When this is converted into gas, especially hot, dilute
gas, the volume of gas is literally millions of times larger than this.
I can't believe you're missing obvious facts like this.

Plus, your calculations are just full of shit. If the fuel were depleted
as you say in 1/100th of a second, this is a push rate of 100,000,000
liters PER SECOND. Even at 2000 meters per second, this would correspond
to a cross-section of of the pillar of fuel being 50,000 square meters
across. The aperture of the engine is not 50,000 square meters.

>
> Speaking of Saturn V rockets, after looking at some data provided by the
> Smithsonian I have some questions...
>
> Times and distances traveled by a Saturn V
>
> Stage 1: 912 mph (38 miles in 2.5 minutes)
> Stage 2: 770 mph (77 miles in 6 minutes)
> Stage 3: 17,500 mph (achieved in 2.75 minutes) an acceleration of
> nearly 372,000 m/h^2
>
>
> Questions:
>
> 1. Why does the rocket slow down between stages 1 and 2? I would expect
> it to pick up speed if it were powered by thrust because
>
> a. the thinner atmosphere reduces wind resistance
> b. it is now lighter, having discarded stage 1
> c. the pull of gravity against it's climb is reduced the higher it
> goes
> d. ...what is the point of stage 2 if does not increase the speed
> of the rocket?

The point of stage 2 is to continue the burn, after the fuel in stage 1
is exhausted. It is to get it even higher in the atmosphere, so the
final stage can get the rocket to orbital or escape velocity.

>
> 2. How does stage 3 accelerate at such a tremendous rate without
>
> a. killing the astronauts?
> b. ripping apart the capsule?

That's not such a huge acceleration. The acceleration we feel is 1g. 1g
is 9.8 m/s^2 = 36,000 m/h^2. The acceleration quoted is about 10 g's,
which is something that fighter pilots routinely do in sorties. Even
roller coasters regularly pull 6 g's. Nobody gets killed, and planes and
roller coasters don't get ripped apart.

It seems to me you are easily wow'ed by numbers without having any idea
how big they really are.

>
> http://airandspace.si.edu/explore-and-learn/topics/apollo/saturnv.htm

[Metspitzer]

It is OK that it is raining today. What are your best times to try to
see the ISS? Right before morning or right after dark?

Hard to predict what the weather is going to be like on the 14 of
November, but that will be a good time for Brussels to see the ISS.
One should go directly over your head starting at 7:20:57. Look WSW.
It goes from WSW to SSE. It will last over 6 min. MAG -3.1 (which
will be very bright if it is not cloudy) I have a reminder set on my
calendar to check the weather that day. I will do it for you. If you
would rather do evenings, let me know.

What happens then? Do you believe it is really the space station or
NASA trickery?

Remember, there are so many satellites that you can see them with
binoculars every hour or so. Are you prepared to explain all those
away? Here are the daily predictions for the brighter satellites
November 4, 2013 for Brussels. Let us know if the weather clears
before the 14th. I can show you some of the smaller ones.
http://www.heavens-above.com/AllSats.aspx?lat=50.8503&lng=4.3517&loc=Brussels&alt=27&tz=CET

[Warhol]

george152 schreef op 4-11-2013 19:46:

ha ha ha... really?

The SpaceX Dragon space vehicle returns to Earth from its rendezvous
with the ISS and splashes down. This momentous occasion is recorded in
crystal clarity with the best photo technology and equipment the media
can provide so that every detail of this complex operation is clearly
visible to the public:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es3ZYd85XbA

Isaiah66:1 Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth
is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is
the place of my rest?

Isaiah 27:1 In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong
sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that
crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.

Revelation 12:12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in
them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil
is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he
hath but a short time.

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first
heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

From what I remember studying, the sea is referring to the
non-believers (of the truth). Refer to the below verses.

Isaiah 57
20 But the wicked are like the tossing sea,
which cannot rest,
whose waves cast up mire and mud.
21 �There is no peace,� says my God, �for the wicked"

http://youtu.be/nXgboDb9ucE

[Warhol]

Odd Bodkin schreef op 4-11-2013 18:44:

>> that its the ISS... thats what is seen... a light... a cheap ancient

>> trick...
>
> Try a pair of good binoculars. Not your naked eyes. Binoculars.
>
> You can't of course do this with the space shuttle anymore, since there
> are no more flights, but you can do this with the space station.
> I could clearly see the wings and fuselage of the shuttle, and I could
> clearly see the panels and chambers of the space station.
>
> You can still try this. Getting a pair of binoculars and look at the
> orbital pattern of the ISS to see when it's going overhead in your area.
>
> Here's a picture from a rather cheap ground telescope in the hands of an
> amateur.
>
>
>>
>> yeah right!!!! what about this... astronomer who says that he sees "a
>> perfectly round object is revealed presenting no angular projections
>> whatsoever."
>>
>> http://www.webspawner.com/users/shuttlehoax/
>>
>> And let me ask you... is this the ISS seen through a telescope???
>> http://youtu.be/nsc80evqJ88
>>
>> Now my question is does the ISS spin??? if anyone can answer this
>> question it would be kind... does she spin or doesn't she?
>
> I didn't see the ISS spin when I looked at through binoculars for
> several minutes as it passed overhead.
>
>>
>> http://i.imgur.com/3LgQK.gif
>

Well if you so clearly could see the thing, why don't you document your
claims??? It's should be easy for you take pictures with your pair of
binoculars to show us... You know what? take some pictures and come than
here back so we can analyze what you have seen exactly... Until now I
have only seen a perfect round light at low altitude... not the altitude
the ISS is supposed to be...

ALL the ISS imagery is fraudulent garbage. Here's some more. Just watch
the solar panels flickering (poor digital rendering):

http://youtu.be/nsc80evqJ88

and does it spin???

Mickey Mouse is real too. I saw him at Disneyland. I shook his hand and
everything.

http://blogs.whatsontv.co.uk/movietalk/files/2010/11/Fantasia_Mickey_Mouse__Leopold_Stokowski.jpg

HOW TO BRUSH YOUR TEETH IN THE ISS

With this, I only wish to demonstrate the staged nature of these "LIFE
IN THE ISS" videos - and the level of editing/cutting/post-production
they betray. Needless to say, this toothbrushing-in-ISS lesson is
ridiculous in itself - a cynical mockery of the taxpayers' money. In
fact, we could stop right there (in our analysis & judgment of this
video) and call out NASA/ESA for the clowns that they are. But please
bear with me for a little longer. Now, some may think that the
cut/editing issue is not such a big deal : we all edit our home videos,
to make them look better. However, watch carefully this 30-second
segment (sped up at 2X speed) which is obviously meant to be a
continuous take of the Belgian Toothbrush Professor's speech :

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view2/4015135/toothbrushscene1-o.gif

We may observe that:
- The guy in the background is all over the place: sometimes hovering in
the air, sometimes facing towards the right, sometimes facing towards
the left. There is also a brief close-up of the Toothbrush Professor -
which either means that two cameras were used, or that the
cameraman/astronot decided to make an artsy job of this toothbrushing
demonstration... Also, the white wires (hanging behind the left shoulder
of the Toothbrush professor) suddenly take the shape of a noose - in the
close-up shot.

Each one of these observations, of course, betray as many cuts /
different takes in the filming of this little toothbrushing lesson. Now,
my point is: do these cinematic multiple takes and edits look more like
the work of NASA/ESA astronauts - or of a film crew, attempting/failing
to make it all look like a spontaneous video shooting ? Whatever your
opinion is of all this, I hope that this farcical "LIFE IN THE ISS"
video will make you laugh - or weep - a little!

FULL TOOTHBRUSHING (in-spinning-ISS) LESSON :

http://youtu.be/pSTp2KOxlOM

Btw I posted this Toothbrushing video because it begins with a spinning
ISS animation... So again I ask you the question does the ISS spin or
not? Because I have links of video where astronuts say the ISS spin 1
time every 91 minutes.

Funny how �donuts� & �coffee breaks� seems to be a common 'it-was-real'
narrative ploy with NASA gatekeepers, eh?

[benj]

And the way you KNOW it was the shuttle was? Oh that's right your
government told you that the bright light was the shuttle and that was
good enough for you! So you've got a great story there, but you need to
now tell the story of your OWN closed mind! So with your theory that
governments and politician never lie and ALWAYS tell the truth, you
simply close your eyes and refuse to look at the out and out nosense of
the "official" explanations for everything. You are a willing
participant in nonsense science that the gullible ignorant accept
because they know no better. Tim McVeigh's truck cut the reenforced
concrete supports. The Third 9/11 tower that wasn't struck fell out os
"sympathy" for it's compatriots. A fuel oil fire melts steel. And on and
on. If you are waiting for the guilty to admit their guilt you are going
to have a long wait!

So if I tell you that one can drive to the space station as easy as to
the corner carry-out you just turn your head and tell me that everybody
"knows" that ancient Russion rockets are being used for the job because
they are so high-tech and reliable. It's so funny that all the gullible
always accuse others of being like they are themselves. NEXT time I
suggest you play Sherlock Holmes and open your eyes and take a hard look
at the EVIDENCE and try to make sense of it. Calling others who are
acting like YOU "nutnobs" is just too easy a way out. Not to mention
unscientific.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/4/2013 2:21 PM, benj wrote:
> And the way you KNOW it was the shuttle was? Oh that's right your
> government told you that the bright light was the shuttle and that was
> good enough for you!

No, I knew it was the shuttle because I looked at it through binoculars,
and I could see the distinctive wings and the fuselage. It's easily
resolvable with decent binoculars.

Now, I suppose it could have been a star or a planet shaped like the
space shuttle, but, it was also traveling across the sky.

I suppose it could have been a plane, but it was much smaller than any
plane I've ever seen before. Seeing planes with binoculars is pretty
straightforward and you can even tell what kinds of planes they are, and
this didn't have any jet engines on its wings.

I suppose it could have just been a flying model of the space shuttle
traveling from horizon to horizon, but it would have seemed odd that it
was traveling right on the trajectory that the TV weatherman said it was
going to have. Do you suppose that someone arranges to fly little flying
models of the space shuttle at low altitude, at many places across the
country, just so that TV weathermen will all be party to the conspiracy?

[Warhol]

Odd Bodkin schreef op 4-11-2013 18:48:

Your link is CGI image... fake computer generated image... This is what
you claim to have seen, beyond our reasoning into how you have done so.

...And these ridiculous, supposed ISS "amateur videos" are getting more
and more stoopid :

http://youtu.be/e293HrP2gow

'Earth from I$$' the movie � disco balls & all

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=r7UfMq-b0Uo

Get off my planet. Give me my space.

Get real with Reel NASA.

Space travel always has been the stuff of science fiction movies. NASA,
however, has picked up where the likes of Jules Verne and Stanley
Kubrick left off--remaking the story of space exploration in fact.

NASA made its boots for walking on the moon. Those boots not only left
an impression on the moon's dusty surface but also on the minds of
millions of people.
The men and women of the space program are working hard to build upon
those historic steps. The once giant leap of mankind will now be the
stepping stone for even greater giant leaps as the moon one day becomes
a pit stop on the road to beyond.

Pink Floyd dared to ask: is anybody out there? NASA dares to answer this
question.

Roll cameras! These reels show the action behind the real story at NASA.
That's one small click.

[Warhol]

Odd Bodkin schreef op 4-11-2013 20:03:

In a vacuum water boils and then freezes as illustrated here:

http://youtu.be/pOYgdQp4euc

As you can see the water is not converted into a gas in a vacuum. As the
narrator notes ...

At atmospheric pressure water boils at 100 degrees Celsius. That's
because that is the point where water vapor pressure is equal to
atmospheric pressure and water begins to change phase from liquid to vapor.

Notice that he says "At atmospheric pressure ...at 100 degrees C ...
water begins to change phase from liquid to vapor" but as you can see
the vapor stage does not occur in a vacuum at lower temperatures.

The narrator says that in a vacuum water converts to a gas.

0:10 "by using a vacuum we're making water change from liquid to vapor"

The video shows that in a vacuum water converts to a gas.

I said that in a vacuum water converts to a gas.

You say water is not converted to a gas in a vacuum. Why?

I am interested in understanding how NASA's space rockets work
theoretically. As of now I have seen nothing that convinces me that
their liquid fueled rockets will work in space.

This thread has shown me that it is quite possible that the people who
believe NASA's stories about rockets in space don't even have an
understanding of the basic problems that need to be solved before a
rocket operates can a vacuum much less how they might be (or how they
are) solved.

[Warhol]

Metspitzer schreef op 4-11-2013 20:15:

The only thing I have seen until now of NASA is trickery and fakery...
fake fake fake... its all fake... even their control rooms are fake...
all illusion and deceive!!!

Suggest you film the ISS with a Soyuz rocket module docking or
un-docking. And show us your evidence here... That would be fabulous.

I've seen attempts to fake ISS tracking videos. They sucked. They made
several critical errors and failed to recreate all the aspects of a real
video accurately.

the fact that there are clowns out there who produce fake imagery and
pass it off for authentic. This is a very interesting development - and
I hope we can entertain a meaningful and constructive discourse from now on.

With this in mind (that fakery-clowns do exist) and assuming that you
are not one of them, as you claim - I have a few questions for you which
I hope you will respond to in due course. In the meanwhile, I will
kindly ask all forum members to refrain from accusing you of being a
fraud. Fair deal? Hoping you'll approve - here are my first few questions:

Q1: As a registered member of Cluesforum, would you assist us in
exposing any forged ISS imagery out there? Wouldn't this be in your best
interest, in order to preserve the credibility of your own endeavors?

Q2: In your opinion, would this be an authentic ISS shot? (I trust you
are familiar with this Mike Tyrrell?)

http://youtu.be/q8Wp-CuJksk

now does the ISS spin or not?

Q3: Here is a CGI attempt of simulating an ISS tracking video (by CGI
artist "Fakinghoaxer" - who openly states that this is CGI, btw.). Are
there any critical errors which betray that this is not an authentic
video? If so, could you point them out for us?

http://youtu.be/xjAR85LJAJM

Thanks in advance for taking time replying to the above questions.

**************
ps: I would also appreciate if you could provide us a link to what you
consider being your very best ISS tracking video. Thanks!

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/4/2013 2:15 PM, Warhol wrote:
> Well if you so clearly could see the thing, why don't you document your
> claims??? It's should be easy for you take pictures with your pair of
> binoculars to show us...

Why settle for a picture? It would seem better to me that you look
yourself through your own binoculars. This way you can rub your own
eyes, tell yourself that you're crazy and can't possibly be seeing what
you're seeing.

Like I said, I once watched a conspiracy nutjob simply REFUSE to look
through the eyepiece of a telescope because he did not want to see what
he feared.

> You know what? take some pictures and come than
> here back so we can analyze what you have seen exactly... Until now I
> have only seen a perfect round light at low altitude... not the altitude
> the ISS is supposed to be...
>

> Mickey Mouse is real too. I saw him at Disneyland. I shook his hand and
> everything.

So maybe there's a paper mache space shuttle floating up there at 200
miles altitude.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/4/2013 2:40 PM, Warhol wrote:
>
> Your link is CGI image... fake computer generated image... This is what
> you claim to have seen, beyond our reasoning into how you have done so.

My testimony is about what I saw with my own eyes through binoculars.
Any photo can be questioned as fake, so don't ask for something you'll
just dismiss. Look with your own eyes through binoculars or through a
telescope. That way, you'll have to either flat out deny that you see
what you see, or you'll have to extend your conspiracy idea to your own
eyes lying to you.

But I wouldn't be surprised if you balk. I once watched someone refuse
to look up in the sky. Stared at us right in the face and denied that
anything was moving across the sky at that moment. Same person was
standing right next to a telescope and he simply refused to look into
the telescope. He was nutso, of course.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/4/2013 2:54 PM, Warhol wrote:
>
> In a vacuum water boils and then freezes as illustrated here:
>
> http://youtu.be/pOYgdQp4euc
>
> As you can see the water is not converted into a gas in a vacuum. As the
> narrator notes ...
>
> At atmospheric pressure water boils at 100 degrees Celsius. That's
> because that is the point where water vapor pressure is equal to
> atmospheric pressure and water begins to change phase from liquid to vapor.
>
> Notice that he says "At atmospheric pressure ...at 100 degrees C ...
> water begins to change phase from liquid to vapor" but as you can see
> the vapor stage does not occur in a vacuum at lower temperatures.
>
> The narrator says that in a vacuum water converts to a gas.

Right. That's water. Not rocket fuel.
And the process for water took 90 seconds, notice.
How long does it take for combustion to take?

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/4/2013 3:04 PM, Warhol wrote:
> The only thing I have seen until now of NASA is trickery and fakery...
> fake fake fake... its all fake... even their control rooms are fake...
> all illusion and deceive!!!

So don't look at NASA materials. Don't look at anybody else's photos,
either. Check it out for yourself. With binoculars, looking up at the
night sky at the time they suggest you look.

Then tell yourself that your eyes are filled with trickery and fakery...
fake fake fake.

[Metspitzer]

On Mon, 04 Nov 2013 21:15:36 +0100, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>Well if you so clearly could see the thing, why don't you document your
>claims??? It's should be easy for you take pictures with your pair of
>binoculars to show us... You know what? take some pictures and come than
>here back so we can analyze what you have seen exactly... Until now I

Why would anyone want to furnish you photos? Is there any photo you
would not be able to dismiss as fake?

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/4/2013 2:15 PM, Warhol wrote:
>> Well if you so clearly could see the thing, why don't you document your
>> claims??? It's should be easy for you take pictures with your pair of
>> binoculars to show us...
>
> Why settle for a picture? It would seem better to me that you look
> yourself through your own binoculars. This way you can rub your own
> eyes, tell yourself that you're crazy and can't possibly be seeing what
> you're seeing.
>
> Like I said, I once watched a conspiracy nutjob simply REFUSE to look
> through the eyepiece of a telescope because he did not want to see what
> he feared.

You do realize that you are attempting to have a rational discussion with
a person that is obviously severely mentally unbalanced?



--
Jim Pennino

[Metspitzer]

Your logic has to extend to every planetarium and observatory on the
planet. Every professional and citizen astronomer as well. Are you
willing to include them in the grand hoax?

[Warhol]

Odd Bodkin schreef op 4-11-2013 22:06:

What a curious response... "Amazing! Lots of details visible, I just
got a blurry spot...."

However, it seems that this guy Dirk Ewers had rather better luck/or
equipment than you, back in 2007/2008:

http://youtu.be/EDlRm87fQaY

Now, regarding the colors of the solar panels. That's an interesting
question indeed... There are only suppositions and some hypotheses based
on the doctored images. We are just trying to figure out why there are
so many.

You demand respect but you give none. You claim the ISS is real but you
haven't acknowledged the fake pictures. You imply all of it is real by
failure to address this crucial question. That is why you are full of
bullshit.

By bullshit, I mean your fake attitude. You claim to have absolute proof
of something, but all you've demonstrated is that you stand by a story
you've produced. Did you even make a picture? We don't and can't know.
That is the freedom and limitation of Usenet. It is bullshit that you
claim to have earned any respect or trust by your attitude. That is the
bullshit you are being asked to stop peddling.

Finally, by bullshit, I mean the general feeling that the picture you
posted in that link is fake by virtue of your desperation, your apparent
(and unfounded) anger at the world, your fake character and your poorly
thought-out attitude. Nobody can fix the problems with your heart and
soul but yourself.

What sense would that make? You come on here, claiming to have some
truth. We doubt it. You are defaming yourself by even claiming our doubt
is somehow defamation. It's a joke - a laugh! Nobody here can, or has
the power to, "defame" you. By virtue of trying to stand up for your
apparent "beliefs", you are also defending what appears to be a massive
hoax.

The fact is you are promoting false information. And unless you can
disprove that, then the fact is you are supporting the false information.

It isn't so much that you are just presenting your information and it's
over. You are presenting your information and saying, "this is my proof
that the other information is legit and above critique." Since you do
not say you work for NASA, you are claiming expertise you don't have.
You may be better at operating some kind of equipment to produce the
picture you claim possible. Or you don't know.

[Odd Bodkin]

Possibly.
Given that he has the opportunity to look for himself through a pair of
binoculars, and given how that will compare with the behavior of an
obvious nutjob who refuses to look up in the sky to see what's there, he
has himself to be accountable to.

Marginally unbalanced people can come to the point where they say, "I'm
in trouble here, aren't I? I'm not all together, am I?"

[Metspitzer]

I suggest you get up and go outside and look at the sky. No film or
photo will ever convince you of anything. Furnishing you with either
would be a waste of time.

Just don't go back to sending your phone into the sky with balloons.
Tell us again how you managed that. How were you able to locate your
phone again? How often have you done this? Tell us more about your
attempts to photo the satellites. That will be an interesting story.
You often talk about Disney. That is about the biggest Mickey Mouse
astronomy I have ever heard of.

You have yet to tell us whether it is more convenient for you to do
your satellite viewing in the morning or at night.

[Metspitzer]

The only information I will be providing you with is times when you
can go out and look at the sky yourself. You have shown time and time
again that nothing else is proof.

Morning viewing or night?

[Warhol]

Metspitzer schreef op 4-11-2013 22:59:

Your are ridiculous:

You: "Here ye! Here ye! I made this picture. Believe this imagery is real."
Response: How can we do that? Show us how it was made.

You: "First, build the system I used from hints and clues and do what I
did to produce a picture."
Response: Okay, how did you do that? How does your system work? How did
a picture come out of this?

You: "First, buy these things."
Response: We're not buying anything until you explain the full system.
How does your system work?

You: "I'm not telling, and if you can't spend money on the equipment
I've listed thus far, figure it out and produce one yourself, then it's
defamation. Huzzah!"

HUH?!?!

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/4/2013 3:54 PM, Warhol wrote:

>
> You demand respect but you give none. You claim the ISS is real but you
> haven't acknowledged the fake pictures. You imply all of it is real by
> failure to address this crucial question. That is why you are full of
> bullshit.

I don't care one way or the other about the pictures. If we focused on
the pictures, we could spend an eternity yammering back and forth about
their fakery or their veracity. The purpose of showing you the picture
was only to convey visually what is available to be seen in person,
using your own eyes and a pair of binoculars on an appropriate night. I
do not offer it as proof of anything. No evidence will satisfy you
besides your own eyes.

Once you've looked with your own eyes, and you get done saying "Son of
gun, there it is," then we can talk about your mistrust of other
people's documents about something you just saw yourself.

I don't want you to take my word for it, either. I want you to look for
yourself. With your own eyes and with a pair of binoculars.

Now, if you're going to stand there and refuse to look and instead rant
at me about your mistrust of me, your mistrust of NASA, your mistrust of
your neighbor across the street, then I think we both know what that
says about you.

[Warhol]

Odd Bodkin schreef op 4-11-2013 22:24:

We're not going to beg you to comply for your amusement. You've just
failed to show real character. Go and be in your "safety" in numbers of
deluded individuals, but I'm happier seeking real knowledge. Thanks.

Let it go on record that the person or persons, trying to defend a
picture up for question, repeatedly refused to explain how the picture
was produced! and only offered to demonstrate their device, in a
controlled, riggable, limited environment in person rather than putting
their system to the test of the Internet public!

What else can we conclude but this person or persons is/are hucksters,
frauds and charlatans?

Look, fakers. Please. It's not that difficult.

Just set up one page on eHow, YahooAnswers, Instructables, WonderHowTo,
HowStuffWorks, HowToDoThings, HowCast, WikiHow, DoItYourself,
ExpertVillage, VideoJug, SoYouWanna or anywhere else that gives a full
Do-It-Yourself breakdown of how the average person can spot and film a
zoomed-in shot of the object alleged to be an International Space
Station flying high above the Earth.

Something like this only actually scientific and more than following a
NASA chart of rare sightings:

http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-Spot-the-International-Space-Station-Pass-B/

You hoaxers need to step up the media production game or your ISS is all
going to come crashing down on you, isn't it? :lol:

... on the other hand, you could start admitting your lies and come
clean with the world for the benefit of all humankind.

[Metspitzer]

Morning viewing or night?

[Odd Bodkin]

On 11/4/2013 4:19 PM, Warhol wrote:
> We're not going to beg you to comply for your amusement. You've just
> failed to show real character. Go and be in your "safety" in numbers of
> deluded individuals, but I'm happier seeking real knowledge. Thanks.

I want you to have real knowledge too. Real knowledge you get by looking
through binoculars with your own eyes.

>
> Let it go on record that the person or persons, trying to defend a
> picture up for question, repeatedly refused to explain how the picture
> was produced! and only offered to demonstrate their device, in a
> controlled, riggable, limited environment in person rather than putting
> their system to the test of the Internet public!
>
> What else can we conclude but this person or persons is/are hucksters,
> frauds and charlatans?
>
> Look, fakers. Please. It's not that difficult.
>
> Just set up one page on eHow, YahooAnswers, Instructables, WonderHowTo,
> HowStuffWorks, HowToDoThings, HowCast, WikiHow, DoItYourself,
> ExpertVillage, VideoJug, SoYouWanna or anywhere else that gives a full
> Do-It-Yourself breakdown of how the average person can spot and film a
> zoomed-in shot of the object alleged to be an International Space
> Station flying high above the Earth.

You don't have to do any of this.
1. You go here (http://spotthestation.nasa.gov/sightings/) to find out
when the ISS is going to pass overhead in your neighborhood.
2. You borrow a decent pair of binoculars.
3. When you see the bright light moving across the sky, you look at it
-- yourself -- through binoculars.

I would have similar advice to anyone that didn't believe that the
Washington Monument exists. My advice would be
1. Drive to Washington DC.
2. Look at it.