Rockets will not work in space and that is simple to understand

[Warhol]

Look at it this way. Let's suppose a rocket is floating... incorrect,
since things cannot "float" in space. Okay, let's say a rocket is
stationary in space. Nothing is acting on this rocket. It's weight is
null because it is in a vacuum. It has no resistance to anything. When
you stand and push something, you have all sorts of Resistances acting
on you and the object you push. Friction of your feet on the floor,
wind, weight, gravity. In space, none of these things exist. The
rocket cannot exert energy because there simply is nothing to exert it
against.

Now, this rocket starts spewing gas out its rear end. Why would that
gas propel it? The gas itself does not have more mass than the rocket
itself. The gas itself cannot generate force because there is simply
nothing to "receive" that energy. The energy would merely dissipate
into the vacuum. The gas pushing against the rocket itself would not
propel it in space. On Earth the gases from a rocket dispense that
energy and push against air, gravity etc. What do the gases push
against in space? Two forces that come from the same body cannot
create propulsion. There needs to be an outside force. Much like you
cannot blow your own sail (inb4 flawed Myth-busters experiment) or
lift yourself off the ground with your own arms. The gas pushes
against the rocket yes, the rocket against the gas, but the rocket
pushes against nothing, the gas pushes against nothing, only against
one another. How would that create propulsion? People assume that
physics on Earth pertain to physics in space, which they do not
because the very things that define physics on Earth (Inertia,
momentum, resistance, friction etc.) do not exists in space.

Here is another thing to think about. "An object in motion stays in
motion unless acted upon by an outside force" correct? If you throw a
ball on Earth is is acted upon by gravity, friction, wind resistance
etc. Throw a ball in space it is acted upon by nothing. It keeps going
indefinitely because nothing acts upon it in a vacuum. So then, when a
rocket accelerates in space, how do they stop it? How do the steer it?
How do they prevent it from exponential acceleration? None of it makes
sense. Even if you believe that rockets work in space and that the gas
causes propulsion, in a vacuum something would keep accelerating if
something keeps propelling it. To stop, you would need to exert
MASSIVE amounts of force in the opposite direction to stop it. Think
about that. Even so, there still remains nothing in space to even
create propulsion in the first place.

You have to question things to move forward.

[CUNTICA]

" Now, this rocket starts spewing gas out its rear end."

That sounds more like your muzzie/wog pig farts?

"Much like you cannot blow your own"

\\\\\\\\Y///////
^
( )
I I
I I
I I
I I
O IO


"Gobble - gobble, gobble - gobble, slurp - slurp"


"Gulp - gulp, lick - lick!'


"Yum - yum!"

[Dean]

Go away.

[Guy]

Tell you what, lets send you into space, fill your lungs up to the max
with the vapour of your choice and release you. We could all watch if
you accelerated in any particular direction and for how long.

Guy

[Moramarth]

On Mar 30, 9:53 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>

> You have to question things to move forward.

To move forward you have to apply thrust.
Rockets can provide thrust.
Rockets work.
Your brain doesn't.

[Warhol]

On Mar 30, 11:58 am, Moramarth <Morama...@moramarth.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

ITS FAKE!

:)

prove it they can push against nothing... All what I ask... I thought
that would be easy for all the clever boys in 5 groups, to prove me my
conclusions wrong...


People's minds operate in a belief systems construct. (Religion is -
or can be - one of them). So basically it's an integrated (belief)
system of "religions"; some based on supernatural, and the rest on the
physical and political world.

Once formulated, 99.9% of people are unable (and unwilling) to change
their belief dogmas, be it religious, scientific or political, in the
face of ANY data or proof to the contrary.

This makes "science" just a form of religion with immutable tenets and
dogmas.

The 0.1% of us who constantly modify our world construct based on new
facts and information are essentially treated a pariahs.

I personally have been accused many times that "You have said and
believed this-or-that last year, or whenever; why do you profess a
different opinion/belief now?" When I try to explain that I have new
info and facts which puts that very subject in a very different light
and explanation, I'm sill(!) accused of "dishonesty"(!), because "you
said that then, and you you're saying this now".

Apparently, with most people (which I don't understand) once they lock
into a belief system, it becomes a dogma, from which deviation is
heresy, regardless of new info or (new) proof of its utter falsehood.



Basically people are robotic, intellectuallly dishonest, narrowminded
and literally stupid for the most - in spite of their education,
degrees, etc.



Scientists are worse than fundamentalist fanatics when it comes to
accepting

changes no matter how slight the changes may be,

No scientist wants to be seen as less fanatic than any of the others
in the flock. And the flock of bleating

sheep will viciously turn against any one of their own who utters an
unsanctioned word.

Some times the tables get turned on them and then they pretend to not
notice. Immanuel Velikovsky

comes to mind as an example of standing his ground and not caving in
to the naysayers.

As for the thick headed carved in stone types who cannot deal with new
circumstances or facts, we have

one on here who wants to be the Adolph Hitler of the groups and
enforce rigid thinking habits on everyone

else.

All he (she) is accomplishing is to chase people away. What will be
left after the PC cop gets the free thinkers weeded out?

[Moramarth]

On Mar 30, 7:51 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 11:58 am, Moramarth <Morama...@moramarth.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 30, 9:53 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > You have to question things to move forward.
>
> > To move forward you have to apply thrust.
> > Rockets can provide thrust.
> > Rockets work.
> > Your brain doesn't.
>
> ITS FAKE!

Agreed. Your brain is a fake....
>
> :)

[Warhol]

On Mar 30, 4:01 pm, Mark Sieving <mark_siev...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Friday, March 30, 2012 3:53:25 AM UTC-5, Warhol wrote:
> > Now, this rocket starts spewing gas out its rear end. Why would that
> > gas propel it?
>

> If you really want to know (which I doubt) look up "conservation of momentum".

years
I want to know if cows fly... that will conservation of momentum... ha
ha ha.... Learn to understand what you read people... since thats is a
clear problem here...

Facts is in vacuum the laws of newton like they have learned you have
no effect... and you may try to defend the lie as much as you want,
but that won't never change the facts....,

My words are very simple words you known, Rockets can't fly in
vacuum....

And for the cowards who snip the groups... is that because you don't
have any answer to share? The same reason why they delete my reply s
and thread in any moderated forum...James Randi forum is another one
of those forums on which pro-NASA moderators use their power to
control the direction debates take. That was blatant censorship. The
moderators are trying to keep the discussions inside the box so people
will keep thinking inside the box.

But to give answer to question, that they can not... Let us hide the
truth and pretend as if it doesn't exist... well you ain't lucky I am
already following like a ghost you cowards with my remarks, 9 years
now and I don't even remember the quantity of topics on the many
subject... with no reply, than attacking the messenger... with words
of liars, and cowards, and collaborators and traitors... Are these the
words of the great of the nations, the all powerful boards and
syndicates of the Earth?

"Don't let them see us! Don't tell them what we are doing!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upD3fLvZCM8

[Warhol]

spent a bit of time there to debunk a 'idiotic theory' didn't you, why
would that be?

although in a round about way you have actually agreed with several
points raised why the rocket would not work in space.



ps yours is an old technique,

if you can't blind them with science, then baffle them with bullshit.

Newton's 3rd law...


that works fine on earth, think about how that works fine on earth
then you will see why it doesn't work in the vacuum of space.


we have been fed so many lies and they rely on our blind acceptance to
continue the lies (seems to be workin well too)...

[David E. Powell]

On Mar 30, 3:53 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 4:01 pm, Mark Sieving <mark_siev...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, March 30, 2012 3:53:25 AM UTC-5, Warhol wrote:
> > > Now, this rocket starts spewing gas out its rear end. Why would that
> > > gas propel it?
>
> > If you really want to know (which I doubt) look up "conservation of momentum".
>
>  years
> I want to know if cows fly... that will conservation of momentum...

Yes, fire enough gas out of a cow's rear end and it will fly in space
too.

The gas will go out and push the other mass in the opposite direction,
the same way a rifle will push against your shoulder when you fire a
shot from it.

The main thing about space is that aerodynamics don't apply in the
vacuum. No wings needed, nor will they work as in an atmosphere.
Control surfaces are out and thrust must be used to maneuver the
craft.

[Joe Bruno]

On Friday, March 30, 2012 11:51:04 AM UTC-7, Warhol wrote:
> On Mar 30, 11:58 am, Moramarth <Morama...@moramarth.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > On Mar 30, 9:53 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > You have to question things to move forward.
> >
> > To move forward you have to apply thrust.
> > Rockets can provide thrust.
> > Rockets work.
> > Your brain doesn't.
>
>
> ITS FAKE!
>
> :)
>
> prove it they can push against nothing... All what I ask... I thought

Rockets don't push against anything.

[Moramarth]

On Mar 30, 9:14 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 9:36 pm, Moramarth <Morama...@moramarth.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 30, 7:51 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:> On Mar 30, 11:58 am, Moramarth <Morama...@moramarth.demon.co.uk>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 30, 9:53 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > You have to question things to move forward.
>
> > > > To move forward you have to apply thrust.
> > > > Rockets can provide thrust.
> > > > Rockets work.
> > > > Your brain doesn't.
>
> > > ITS FAKE!
>
> > Agreed.  Your brain is a fake....
>
> spent a bit of time there to debunk a 'idiotic theory' didn't you, why
> would that be?

Because your "reasoning" is so risable as to neither require nor
deserve detailed refutation - merely mockery, and then only when I
feel so inclined. Society has progressed to a state where it is
unacceptable to throw stale buns at drooling village idiots, but
fortunately usenet has provided those of us so inclined with an
equvalent...

[Father Haskell]

On Mar 30, 4:53 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Earth the gases from a rocket dispense that
> energy and push against air, gravity etc. What do the gases push
> against in space?

Front of the engine.

[Warhol]

NO, this cannot work in a vacuum. You just ignored the effects that
the vacuum would have on the situation, such as an expanding fuel/gas
would have nothing to push against. This is bogus science.

Read carefully, I don't want you to miss this.

First to begin, let me correct your comment.
1) We are dealing in space not earth.
2) There is a vacuum not an atmosphere.
3) The rocket is not throwing a heavy ball anywhere, it is exhausting
burnt fuel in the form of an expanding gas.

So we go on, the expanding gas is needed as a pressurised from of
propellant in order to propel the rocket forward as it tries to
relieve pressure by flowing through a designed nozzle (and the gas is
not forced out in the same essences as anybody throwing a heavy ball).
Because the section of the chamber facing the rocket is still
subjected to pressure, it will force the rocket forward.

A vacuum however, will aid (I don't like to say suck) the gas in it's
escape out of the chamber and increase expansion when gases exit the
chamber. This will rob the engine of force needed to thrust the rocket
forward. Hence the rocket concept will not work in the vacuum of space
and fall back down to earth.

lol


they're not in space!

same as the 'space' shuttle lol

and still nobody has presented a video of rocket providing thrust in a
vacuum? hmmm why is that?

lol, take here a deep breath sonny...

Until any of you tards put together a vacuum chamber and prove that a
small rocket will produce thrust in said vacuum chamber, STFU.
rocket on wheels on runway, lightweight huge vacuum chamber attached
to rocket exhaust, vacuum chamber doesn't blow up or cause any extra
resistance to the rocket, rocket is fired, does the rocket still move
forward? your science says YES, me says NO.

Firstly the rocket isn't throwing anything. It is the expansion of
gases in a chamber looking for a way out to further expand in order to
equalise in pressure with the outside environment in order to create
thrust.
All is done is the fuel is ignited and the rest takes place on it's
own. with the carefully calculated design of the nozzle thrust is
achieved. In the example you have drawn, it is the same as if we say
the rocket pushes the gas out but in fact the gas escapes through the
relatively small nozzle via it's own expansion in the chamber.
But in a vacuum this gas will be aided (again I don't like to say
suck) out of the chamber by the negative force (vacuum) acting on the
gas.

How ever you and every other person that backs this theory needs to
prove your claims that rockets will work in the vacuum of space. As
far as physics is concerned it will not work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haYhAibOoeA

[Warhol]

why don't people think anymore? they just spout what they are told an
have a belief that that is true.

sheep I suppose???

truth has become like a Ghost, never look at it with the eyes...
http://youtu.be/RJalKuRs0H4?t=1m16s

[Warhol]

On Mar 30, 11:16 pm, "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com>
wrote:

imagine yourself farting in space...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXAWW0VJZ4A

[panamfloyd@hotmail.com rade]

On Mar 31, 1:35 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 31, 8:49 am, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 30, 4:53 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Earth the gases from a rocket dispense that
> > > energy and push against air, gravity etc. What do the gases push
> > > against in space?
>
> > Front of the engine.
>
> NO, this cannot work in a vacuum. You just ignored the effects that

You are a fucking idiot. How `bout we put you in a vacuum chamber,
shove an Estes D12-5 up your ass, and start it.

-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!

[Budikka666]

On Mar 30, 3:53 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Look at it this way. Let's suppose a rocket is floating... incorrect,
> since things cannot "float" in space. Okay, let's say a rocket is
> stationary in space. Nothing is acting on this rocket.

Never happens.

> It's weight is
> null because it is in a vacuum.

Lie. The "weightlessness" has nothing whatsoever to do with vacuums
or lack thereof.

> It has no resistance to anything. When
> you stand and push something, you have all sorts of Resistances acting
> on you and the object you push. Friction of your feet on the floor,
> wind, weight, gravity. In space, none of these things exist. The
> rocket cannot exert energy because there simply is nothing to exert it
> against.

Lie.

> Now, this rocket starts spewing gas out its rear end. Why would that
> gas propel it?

Newton's laws of motion.

Go get an education, then think about posting your cluelessness in the
news groups - especially the atheist ones where our regulars are
sharper than usual.
[Rest snipped before i bust a gut laughing]

Budikka

[Warhol]

On Mar 31, 8:04 pm, "panamfl...@hotmail.com rade"

Why? Because its takes physics to fly on earth?

What's the physics of orbit? Nothing?

You can't have physics in a vacuum.
You can't have an object interacting with nothing.

not wading through the pages of shill-fest (they come out of the
woodwork for anything nasa-related)

but did anyone come up with a video of rocket propulsion working in a
vacuum? that would be a worthwhile experiment to try and document,
wouldn't it?

Why is NASA even pretending to orbit SPACE? -- You can't fly or remain
aloft in a vacuum. Why? Why the pathetic comedy?

Vacuum is NASA Palestine... they get ejected by Hassan...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH4Ou6CnIuI

"NASA should not exist”

[Brad Guth]

Moors like Warhol were not only home-schooled or rather cave-schooled,
but obviously self-taught. It's one of the main reasons why they've
never had to pay any taxes.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

[Moramarth]

On Mar 31, 6:42 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> why don't people think anymore?

They do. It's just that for anyone with rational thought processes,
they won't come up with anything like your "truth".
Your statement in your initial post that Inertia doesn't exist in
space proves attempting a reasoned arguement would be fruitless.

[Moramarth]

On Mar 31, 6:46 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> imagine yourself farting in space...

If he wants to fart into empty space, he only has to put his butt-
crack to your ear...

[Father Haskell]

On Mar 31, 2:04 pm, "panamfl...@hotmail.com rade"

0 - 30 Newtons thrust in under 0.30 seconds. That's roughly
equivalent to kicking his ass with a 66 lb boot.

[panam...@hotmail.com]

That may not be big enough to give this little jailhouse bitch the
kick in the ass he deserves..but I'm lazy. I did qualify L1 on an H or
something here in the US, but that was with a reloadable. Had to
borrow a casing and assemble the motor (and do the math to determine
the delay/ejection charge) m'self! I've turned into one of those guys
who just builds clones of Estes/Centuri kits. Can't beat just walking
into the hobby shop & buying a motor to do the deed. Like Stein/Estes/
Carlisle said 60yrs ago, the model airplane guys don't have to build
their motors...<bfg>

-PF, Atl.
#2015/KoBAAWA!

[Father Haskell]

On Apr 1, 10:55 pm, "panamfl...@hotmail.com" <panamfl...@hotmail.com>

The smell of a burnt out Estes motor was the smell of my childhood.

[panamfloyd@hotmail.com rade]

Crazy old Estes promotional film from the `70s. Let the Shatnerism
flow over your!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqupfFjSJXw

-PF

[panamfloyd@hotmail.com rade]

On Mar 31, 3:58 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:

snip

I found your picture on the internet...

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20091111003919/uncyclopedia/images/8/80/Long-turd-big.jpg

[Tony Dragon]

On 30/03/2012 09:53, Warhol wrote:
> Look at it this way. Let's suppose a rocket is floating... incorrect,
> since things cannot "float" in space. Okay, let's say a rocket is

> stationary in space. Nothing is acting on this rocket. It's weight is
> null because it is in a vacuum. It has no resistance to anything. When

> you stand and push something, you have all sorts of Resistances acting
> on you and the object you push. Friction of your feet on the floor,
> wind, weight, gravity. In space, none of these things exist. The
> rocket cannot exert energy because there simply is nothing to exert it
> against.

Before I comment on the rest.

Why would something weigh nothing because it is in a vacuum?

[Warhol]

Vacuum of space(heaven)... in free fall you are weightless...

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/u6l4d.cfm

Now I await your comment on the rest...

[panamfloyd@hotmail.com rade]

You don't have `weight', but you still have *mass*, idiot.

[linuxgal]

Warhol wrote:
> On Apr 3, 12:39 am, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> Why would something weigh nothing because it is in a vacuum?
>
> Vacuum of space(heaven)... in free fall you are weightless...
>

So the Pringles inside a vacuum-packed can should be floating. Cool.

[Seth lePod]

On Mar 30, 11:51 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 11:58 am, Moramarth <Morama...@moramarth.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 30, 9:53 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > You have to question things to move forward.
>
> > To move forward you have to apply thrust.
> > Rockets can provide thrust.
> > Rockets work.
> > Your brain doesn't.
>
> ITS FAKE!
>

> :)
>
> prove it they can push against nothing... All what I ask... I thought

> that would be easy for all the clever boys in 5 groups, to prove me my
> conclusions wrong...
>
> People's minds operate in a belief systems construct. (Religion is -
> or can be - one of them). So basically it's an integrated (belief)
> system of "religions"; some based on supernatural, and the rest on the
> physical and political world.
>

//
> Once formulated, 99.9% of people are unable (and unwilling) to change
> their belief dogmas, be it religious, scientific or political, in the
> face of ANY data or proof to the contrary.

Oh. You have data or proof.

That changes everything. You should have said so in
the beginning.

But no mind, you can go ahead and present it now:
.
.
.
.

Seth



>
> This makes "science" just a form of religion with immutable tenets and
> dogmas.
>
> The 0.1% of us who constantly modify our world construct based on new
> facts and information are essentially treated a pariahs.
>
> I personally have been accused many times that "You have said and
> believed this-or-that last year, or whenever; why do you profess a
> different opinion/belief now?" When I try to explain that I have new
> info and facts which puts that very subject in a very different light
> and explanation, I'm sill(!) accused of "dishonesty"(!), because "you
> said that then, and you you're saying this now".
>
> Apparently, with most people (which I don't understand) once they lock
> into a belief system, it becomes a dogma, from which deviation is
> heresy, regardless of new info or (new) proof of its utter falsehood.
>
> Basically people are robotic, intellectuallly dishonest, narrowminded
> and literally stupid for the most - in spite of their education,
> degrees, etc.
>
> Scientists are worse than fundamentalist fanatics when it comes to
> accepting
>
> changes no matter how slight the changes may be,
>
> No scientist wants to be seen as less fanatic than any of the others
> in the flock. And the flock of bleating
>
> sheep will viciously turn against any one of their own who utters an
> unsanctioned word.
>
> Some times the tables get turned on them and then they pretend to not
> notice. Immanuel Velikovsky
>
> comes to mind as an example of standing his ground and not caving in
> to the naysayers.
>
> As for the thick headed carved in stone types who cannot deal with new
> circumstances or facts, we have
>
> one on here who wants to be the Adolph Hitler of the groups and
> enforce rigid thinking habits on everyone
>
> else.
>
> All he (she) is accomplishing is to chase people away. What will be
> left after the PC cop gets the free thinkers weeded out?

[Seth lePod]

On Mar 31, 10:35 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 31, 8:49 am, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 30, 4:53 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Earth the gases from a rocket dispense that
> > > energy and push against air, gravity etc. What do the gases push
> > > against in space?
>
> > Front of the engine.
>
> NO, this cannot work in a vacuum. You just ignored the effects that
> the vacuum would have on the situation, such as an expanding fuel/gas
> would have nothing to push against. This is bogus science.
>
> Read carefully, I don't want you to miss this.
>
> First to begin, let me correct your comment.
> 1) We are dealing in space not earth.
> 2) There is a vacuum not an atmosphere.
> 3) The rocket is not throwing a heavy ball anywhere, it is exhausting
> burnt fuel in the form of an expanding gas.
>
> So we go on, the expanding gas is needed as a pressurised from of
> propellant in order to propel the rocket forward as it tries to
> relieve pressure by flowing through a designed nozzle (and the gas is
> not forced out in the same essences as anybody throwing a heavy ball).
> Because the section of the chamber facing the rocket is still
> subjected to pressure, it will force the rocket forward.
>

//

> A vacuum however, will aid (I don't like to say suck) the gas in it's
> escape out of the chamber and increase expansion when gases exit the
> chamber. This will rob the engine of force needed to thrust the rocket
> forward. Hence the rocket concept will not work in the vacuum of space
> and fall back down to earth.

Zero understanding of -- take your pick -- the kinetic theory of gases
or statistical mechanics

(correct answer: both)

Seth

[Seth lePod]

On Mar 30, 11:49 pm, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 4:53 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Earth the gases from a rocket dispense that
> > energy and push against air, gravity etc. What do the gases push
> > against in space?
>

//
> Front of the engine.

Give it up, father -- you're dealing with a boy who
seems to think that if your released a party balloon
in a vacuum chamber, it would just sit there on the
floor.

He's of a type with Ramesch's "Nobody can explain
rainbows".

Seth

[Warhol]

incorrect...
things cannot "float" in space since the mass is in free fall...

No popcorn for you...how much fuel is there in the small
satellites(Space Rocket/ spaceships?) like Voyager that are still out
there flying FORWARD?

Big deal, it's not the Space Rocket, Space Ship or Voyager from Star
Trek.

Voyager 2 is currently located about 9 billion miles (14 billion
kilometers) from Earth in the heliosphere. To reach there it needed 34
years (say again? - Thirty four years).

Oh what a powerful engine must be there to fly that fast ROFL

I haven't seen Russians or Americans out there on Mars.
If you did and know something others don't - please share that info
with others. I really would like to see those guys Walking down the
valleys of Mars.

Instead they play with the toys...

Course correlation LOL is the Correction FORCE, strong enough to push
against nothing the object throuh the space?

OH BOY!

[Father Haskell]

On Apr 2, 10:40 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> No popcorn for you...how much fuel is there in the small
> satellites(Space Rocket/ spaceships?) like Voyager that are still out
> there flying FORWARD?

For a craft set to escape the solar system, momentum, in a
hyperbolic path which orbits the sun, is sufficient to maintain
orbit without thrust. Pretty much the same principle that
keeps the Earth from falling into the Sun.

[Warhol]

lol
if you knew only 10% of the real truth, you would be shocked...

you also didn't explain why people CAN NOT travel to the nearest
planet, or even to the Moon - when it's so easy to push the space
"crafts" "ships", motherboards or whatever through the Space.
44 fucking years since the famous moonkey bussines.

I'll tell you why - because Humans CAN NOT leave this planet. This is
our only Mother (Ship) that carry us through the Space. very Low Earth
Orbit at the edge of space is the only place we could go and return
safe but that's all. Deal with that folks, and you will be just fine.

Do you all think that the whole world is invited and works on LHC just
for a fun, spending millions of dollars, daily?
Some, thanks God, finally came to that same conclusion that Earth is
the "cage" and now searching for the only way to "escape" and "travel"
away, without using rockets that needs "whoknowswhatfuel" to bring Man
to the nearest planet.

First evidence for string theory at the Large Hadron Collider is just
beginning. More to follow, stay tuned!

[chibiabos]

In article
<167c29c1-6c3c-435b...@i18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,

Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 30, 11:58 am, Moramarth <Morama...@moramarth.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > On Mar 30, 9:53 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > You have to question things to move forward.
> >
> > To move forward you have to apply thrust.
> > Rockets can provide thrust.
> > Rockets work.
> > Your brain doesn't.
>
>
> ITS FAKE!
>
> :)
>
> prove it they can push against nothing... All what I ask... I thought
> that would be easy for all the clever boys in 5 groups, to prove me my
> conclusions wrong...

Why should we waste our time? Isaac Newton proved you wrong 400 years
ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion

You're just fucking stupid. Doubly so for posting this bullshit on
Usenet, where no bad idea and its moron owner goes unpunished.

-chib

--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor

[Warhol]

Op 3-4-2012 5:32, chibiabos schreef:

Common Misconceptions... Newton ain't the father of the theory rockets
can travel in space, ... it was Robert H. Goddard who theorized rockets
could voyage in space... So please to all those who come here shouting
newton laws...

> In a research paper in 1919, entitled ''A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes,'' Dr. Goddard described his concepts for rocket propulsion and concluded that it was possible to build a rocket that could reach the moon. The New York Times printed an editorial-page article suggesting that Dr. Goddard was either playing a joke or was ignorant of elementary physics if he thought that a rocket could work in the vacuum of space.

http://www.nytimes.com/1982/10/05/science/a-salute-to-long-neglected-father-of-american-rocketry.html

So do you read what is said in the article???? Dr. Goddard was either
playing a joke or was ignorant of elementary physics if he thought that
a rocket could work in the vacuum of space.

Newton would have laughed if he knew what the 20th & 21th century did
with his laws of physics.

And must I ad that in vacuum of space the laws of Newton ain't
correct... is that really so hard to understand that there is no action
when you push against nothing????

I don't care what they show on Star Trek or Star Wars, I don't care what
they show on Star Trek or Star Wars, space is not an ocean or
atmospheric environment.

[Warhol]

OK - I get it.

You're a troll, nothing more, nothing less.

You're not interested in science, not interested in finding things
out, and not actually interested at all in whether rockets would work
in a vacuum. You're just here to post crap, and stir people up...

[Warhol]

hey Kook,

what happened to the flag you left behind on the moon .....hmmmm... no
telescope can spot it ...

:)

Sometimes is reading bs what turns people ignorant. It's always a sign
of intelligence to try to explain things using common sense and logic
instead of reading the "user's manual"...

Note that these are questions which do not get deep into technical
details. They're just common sense and logic...

[Eugene Griessel]

On Mon, 2 Apr 2012 23:29:36 -0700 (PDT), Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

http://www.howstuffworks.com/rocket.htm




O that you were your self, but love you are
No longer yours, than you your self here live,
Against this coming end you should prepare,
And your sweet semblance to some other give.
So should that beauty which you hold in lease
Find no determination, then you were
Your self again after your self's decease,
When your sweet issue your sweet form should bear.
Who lets so fair a house fall to decay,
Which husbandry in honour might uphold,
Against the stormy gusts of winter's day
And barren rage of death's eternal cold?
O none but unthrifts, dear my love you know,
You had a father, let your son say so.

[Tony Dragon]

You've proved that you don't know about vacuum, weight & mass, so the
rest wont be any better, if you can't even get the fundamentals right.

[Tony Dragon]

So your proof is a 93 year old article written by a reporter who had no
scientific qualifications (if he had any they would be quoted).

[Warhol]

Tony...words fail me. You must be an incredibly sad person. You
believe in the most ridiculous theory and when you have no more
obsessively small detailed "facts" to throw up to prove your point you
fall back to the scoundrel's last resort in any debate...purile
ridicule of the person debating you. And since you have resorted to
this course then I will engage your in a similar fashion.

1/ You still have not answered the main point of my previous posts.

[Warhol]

Op 3-4-2012 10:16, Tony Dragon schreef:

No this ain't no prove... right... ha ha ha poor little mind...
I suggest you look here, Tony. before you do you'll need to take the
glasses of ignorance away from your eyes. You might find this hard though.

Man it is sad when the sheeple refuse to look into things for themselves
and just believe like blind morons what the main stream media tells them
to believe. jesus said it best " A NATION OF SHEEP"

Sadder still when ignoramuses believe in fairy tales and intricate
obsessive facts that amount to....NOTHING. If you are inclined to
research for truth Tony, I will give you the benefit of the doubt
(though I won't hold my breath...).

Go and study that link I gave Tony thoroughly, huh. :)

[Tony Dragon]

OK I studied it again & came to the same conclusion.

[chibiabos]

In article <jldslv$uiv$1...@dont-email.me>, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Where do you think Goddard (et al) got his science? Rockets have been
maneuvering successfully in outer space for more than half a century.
Your bleatings that it isn't possible doesn't change that
incontrovertible fact.

> > In a research paper in 1919, entitled ''A Method of Reaching Extreme
> > Altitudes,'' Dr. Goddard described his concepts for rocket propulsion and
> > concluded that it was possible to build a rocket that could reach the moon.
> > The New York Times printed an editorial-page article suggesting that Dr.
> > Goddard was either playing a joke or was ignorant of elementary physics if
> > he thought that a rocket could work in the vacuum of space.
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/1982/10/05/science/a-salute-to-long-neglected-father-of-
> american-rocketry.html
>
> So do you read what is said in the article????

My time is too precious to waste on mental masturbation, yours or a NY
Times editorial.

[Brad Guth]

Moors have a cave like era interpretation that is selectively
incapable of connecting the dots. Moorish physics is restricted to
terrestrial matters and is fully incapable of considering anything off-
world as ever related to local history or any ongoing science.

Just pretend that you're communicating with a very primitive
individual that hasn't done any serious harm to himself or others.
Warhol likes to be a terrestrial captive kind of guy, and thinks all
others should follow suit.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

[George152]

Pot, kettle, dark colour

[WangoTango]

In article <x-idnWsSG8Mu0-fS...@giganews.com>,
linu...@cleanposts.com says...

How do you know they don't?
;)

[WangoTango]

In article <020420122032459767%ch...@nospam.com>, ch...@nospam.com says...

I guess he needs to explain how all those geostationary communication
satellites got up there.
Pretty big hoax, what with all those dishes pointed up and all...

[Ivan I. Deer]

The real problem I have with all this is, how do I get mass out of bed
in the morning?

[Warhol]

On Apr 3, 11:31 pm, WangoTango <Asgar...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> In article <020420122032459767%c...@nospam.com>, c...@nospam.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <167c29c1-6c3c-435b-971a-361839547...@i18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,

there ain't no communication satellites or any other satellites up
there.... there is only fake(lore)

scroll down
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/msg/1fdca857e2d09778?hl=en

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/msg/9aa937b352e96549?hl=en

[Father Haskell]

On Apr 2, 11:02 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 3, 4:56 am, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 2, 10:40 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > No popcorn for you...how much fuel is there in the small
> > > satellites(Space Rocket/ spaceships?) like Voyager that are still out
> > > there flying FORWARD?
>
> > For a craft set to escape the solar system, momentum, in a
> > hyperbolic path which orbits the sun, is sufficient to maintain
> > orbit without thrust.  Pretty much the same principle that
> > keeps the Earth from falling into the Sun.
>
> lol
> if you knew only 10% of the real truth, you would be shocked...
>
> you also didn't explain why people CAN NOT travel to the nearest
> planet, or even to the Moon -

Money.

[Don Martin]

The tough part is keeping their attitudes correct with really long levers from
the equator.

>Pretty big hoax, what with all those dishes pointed up and all...

Scientists are working on really big magnets in those dishes to "stabilize" the
satellites.

--

aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/

[Warhol]

wrong...

[Father Haskell]

Then you missed the central lesson of the Apollo program,
that you can have anything you want so long as you have
enough money. Odd that every human on Earth understood
that lesson perfectly. Except you.

[panamfloyd@hotmail.com rade]

On Apr 3, 6:24 pm, Ivan I. Deer <Iv...@swbell.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2012 15:59:13 -0700 (PDT), "panamfl...@hotmail.com rade"

Yeah, I have the same problem. There are some questions science may
never answer..<g>

-PF, Atl.
#2015/KoBAAWA!

[linuxgal]

We should lobby for a clear plastic can.

[Seth lePod]

On Apr 2, 11:29 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
//

> hey Kook,

> what happened to the flag you left behind on the moon .....hmmmm... no
> telescope can spot it ...

> :)

Beg pardon? The LRO telescope took shots of
it over two and one half years ago.


//

> Sometimes is reading bs what turns people ignorant.

Well, if not reading makes you smarter, I
confess you to be my clear superior in this
regard.

//

> It's always a sign
> of intelligence to try to explain things using common sense and logic
> instead of reading the "user's manual"...

Again, if ignoring the work of centuries and
of thousands of others, and deciding you're the
only one smart enough to see -- and
from "common sense and logic" at that -- I
again confess you have me at a disadvantage.

Common sense and logic: the world is flat.
Of COURSE the world is flat; just look out
the damn window. Besides, if it were round,
people on the other side would be fallling
off into space. That's just common sense.

Common sense and logic: the sun goes around
the earth. Of COURSE the sun goes around the
earth, it's just common sense. I mean, if instead
we were going around the sun at 1,600,000 miles
per hour like those "scientists" say, you
don't think we'd FEEL that? You don't think
the wind would knock us flat? That's only

Common sense and logic: the Earth is
stationary. Of COURSE the Earth is
stationary -- common sense tells you if the
Earth were spinning at 1000 miles per hour at
the equator, EVERYTHING would be flung off
into space. You, me, dogs, cows, houses, the
entire atmosphere...Just common sense.

//

> Note that these are questions which do not get deep into technical
> details. They're just common sense and logic...

And now that I've shown you that I'm every
bit as good at "common sense and logic" as
you are, it's your turn: explain why you
don't think the kinetic theory of gases
provides an entirely satisfactory explanation
of why rockets work in a vacuum.

Here -- use this space:

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Seth

[Seth lePod]

On Apr 2, 9:01 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Op 3-4-2012 5:32, chibiabos schreef:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article

> > <167c29c1-6c3c-435b-971a-361839547...@i18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,

> > Warhol<mol...@hotmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >> On Mar 30, 11:58 am, Moramarth<Morama...@moramarth.demon.co.uk>
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Mar 30, 9:53 am, Warhol<mol...@hotmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >>>> You have to question things to move forward.
>
> >>> To move forward you have to apply thrust.
> >>> Rockets can provide thrust.
> >>> Rockets work.
> >>> Your brain doesn't.
>
> >> ITS FAKE!
>
> >> :)
>
> >> prove it they can push against nothing... All what I ask... I thought
> >> that would be easy for all the clever boys in 5 groups, to prove me my
> >> conclusions wrong...
>
> > Why should we waste our time? Isaac Newton proved you wrong 400 years
> > ago.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion
>

> > You're just fucking stupid. Doubly so for posting this bullshit on
> > Usenet, where no bad idea and its moron owner goes unpunished.
>
> > -chib
>

//

> Common Misconceptions... Newton ain't the father of the theory rockets
> can travel in space, ...

<sigh> and no one has said anything like
Newton's being involved in rocketry.

What people HAVE said is that Newton's laws
of motion -- the conservation of linear momentum,
in particular -- provide a complete explanation of
why rockets do in fact work in space.

Do you really think that if I were to release
an inflated and opened party balloon into an
evacuated bell jar, it would just sit there
on the floor, motionless?

//

> it was Robert H. Goddard who theorized rockets
> could voyage in space...

Yes...several decades after Konstantin
Tsiolkovsky and others had demonstrated
the physics behind it.

> So please to all those who come here shouting
> newton laws...

> In a research paper in 1919, entitled ''A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes,''
> Dr. Goddard described his concepts for rocket propulsion and concluded that
> it was possible to build a rocket that could reach the moon.

//

> The New York Times printed an edit
> orial-page article suggesting that Dr. Goddard was either playing a joke or was ignorant of elementary physics if he thought that a rocket could work in the vacuum of space.

> http://www.nytimes.com/1982/10/05/science/a-salute-to-long-neglected-father-of-american-rocketry.html

//

> So do you read what is said in the article????

What do I read? I continue reading there,
and elsewhere, and find that not only did
Goddard perform and publish experiments
demonstrating that rockets would work in a
vaccuum:

-- http://www.popsci.com/archive-viewer?id=DikDAAAAMBAJ&pg=38

I also read the New York Time's later
retraction of the earlier piece:

"Further investigation and
experimentation have confirmed the
findings of Isaac Newton in the 17th
Century and it is now definitely
established that a rocket can function in
a vacuum as well as in an atmosphere. The
Times regrets the error."

-- http://www.rfcafe.com/miscellany/factoids/ny-times-admits-moon-flight-possible.htm

> Dr. Goddard was either
> playing a joke or was ignorant of elementary physics if he thought that
> a rocket could work in the vacuum of space.
>
> Newton would have laughed if he knew what the 20th & 21th century did
> with his laws of physics.

//

> And must I ad that in vacuum of space the laws of Newton ain't
> correct... is that really so hard to understand that there is no action
> when you push against nothing????

So, you really think that if you could fire
a large cannon in space, the cannon ball
would fly away ... but the cannon itself would
not twitch a millimeter?

But that's all a distraction, because:

S t i l l awaiting your discussion of why
the kinetic theory of gases does not
completely answer that objection...

Seth

:

[Seth lePod]

On Apr 3, 2:31 pm, WangoTango <Asgar...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> In article <020420122032459767%c...@nospam.com>, c...@nospam.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article

> > <167c29c1-6c3c-435b-971a-361839547...@i18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,

> > Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 30, 11:58 am, Moramarth <Morama...@moramarth.demon.co.uk>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Mar 30, 9:53 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > You have to question things to move forward.
>
> > > > To move forward you have to apply thrust.
> > > > Rockets can provide thrust.
> > > > Rockets work.
> > > > Your brain doesn't.
>
> > > ITS FAKE!
>
> > > :)
>
> > > prove it they can push against nothing... All what I ask... I thought
> > > that would be easy for all the clever boys in 5 groups, to prove me my
> > > conclusions wrong...
>
> > Why should we waste our time? Isaac Newton proved you wrong 400 years
> > ago.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion
>
> > You're just fucking stupid. Doubly so for posting this bullshit on
> > Usenet, where no bad idea and its moron owner goes unpunished.
>
> > -chib
>

//
> I guess he needs to explain how all those geostationary communication=20

> satellites got up there.
> Pretty big hoax, what with all those dishes pointed up and all...

Oh, and after that he needs to start in on
explaining how the hundreds of thousands of
scientists, engineers, technicians, programmers,
and others that worked for NASA could be made
to keep quiet about this dirty little secret.

And that's just for warm-up, of course:
Since 51 different countries, from Argentina
to the UAE now have satellites in space:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite#First_satellites_of_countries


this "Warhol" now needs to explain to us how,
out of the tens of millions of humans who have
been involved in putting objects into space, he,
and He, alone, knows THE REAL TRUTH.


(see: Unsinkable Rubber Duckie)

Seth

[Doc Smartass]

Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:b87e964f-b517-4f5e-b28e-
aa822e...@fk28g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:

> Now, this rocket starts spewing gas out its rear end.

That's all you're doing.

--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Heckling aa # 1939

Kooks! http://kookclearinghouse.blogspot.com/

Books! http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/

Proud to be everything the right wing hates.

[panamfloyd@hotmail.com rade]

On Apr 3, 1:26 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:

(Israeli & Naval groups snecked)

Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://www.rationalist.com.au/archive/73/p20-27_paul_ar73_web.pdf

> On Apr 1, 12:37 am, Moramarth <Morama...@moramarth.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 31, 6:46 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > imagine yourself farting in space...
>
> > If he wants to fart into empty space, he only has to put his butt-
> > crack to your ear...
>
> OK - I get it.
>
> You're a troll, nothing more, nothing less.

Perhaps in alt.batshit.crazy, but shouldn't be considered so anywhere
else.

> You're not interested in science,

Sez the moron that claims basic physics end at the top of the Earth's
atmosphere.

snip whiny crap

-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain

Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://www.rationalist.com.au/archive/73/p20-27_paul_ar73_web.pdf

[Warhol]

On Apr 4, 4:06 am, "panamfl...@hotmail.com rade"

<panamfl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 3, 1:26 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> (Israeli & Naval groups snecked)
>
> Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:http://www.rationalist.com.au/archive/73/p20-27_paul_ar73_web.pdf
>
> > On Apr 1, 12:37 am, Moramarth <Morama...@moramarth.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 31, 6:46 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > imagine yourself farting in space...
>
> > > If he wants to fart into empty space, he only has to put his butt-
> > > crack to your ear...
>
> > OK - I get it.
>
> > You're a troll, nothing more, nothing less.
>
> Perhaps in alt.batshit.crazy, but shouldn't be considered so anywhere
> else.
>
> > You're not interested in science,
>
> Sez the moron that claims basic physics end at the top of the Earth's
> atmosphere.
>
> snip whiny crap
>

they said the same thing to him who invented so called theory, we
could go to the moon in 1919... you know they even burned people for
saying the world was round or not in the center of the universe...

Noah was laughed at why he warned people of cometh doom.... So there
is no shame there... the shame is you people who have no answers and
have to turn to attacking the messenger and not the message... you are
cowards who dare not look at the reality of things...

Physics law says rockets do not work in vacuum and you shills better
learn to live with that... and stop believing in false religion that
science has become... what you believe I do not believe and what I
believe you don't believe...

So that is proof your GOD is Not Mine and My GOD is not yours... and
there can be only one...

[Dennis]

Warhol wrote:

> Look at it this way. Let's suppose a rocket is floating... incorrect,
> since things cannot "float" in space. Okay, let's say a rocket is
> stationary in space. Nothing is acting on this rocket. It's weight is
> null because it is in a vacuum. It has no resistance to anything. When
> you stand and push something, you have all sorts of Resistances acting
> on you and the object you push. Friction of your feet on the floor,
> wind, weight, gravity. In space, none of these things exist. The
> rocket cannot exert energy because there simply is nothing to exert it
> against.
>

> Now, this rocket starts spewing gas out its rear end. Why would that
> gas propel it? The gas itself does not have more mass than the rocket
> itself. The gas itself cannot generate force because there is simply
> nothing to "receive" that energy. The energy would merely dissipate
> into the vacuum. The gas pushing against the rocket itself would not
> propel it in space. On Earth the gases from a rocket dispense that
> energy and push against air, gravity etc. What do the gases push
> against in space? Two forces that come from the same body cannot
> create propulsion. There needs to be an outside force. Much like you
> cannot blow your own sail (inb4 flawed Myth-busters experiment) or
> lift yourself off the ground with your own arms. The gas pushes
> against the rocket yes, the rocket against the gas, but the rocket
> pushes against nothing, the gas pushes against nothing, only against
> one another. How would that create propulsion? People assume that
> physics on Earth pertain to physics in space, which they do not
> because the very things that define physics on Earth (Inertia,
> momentum, resistance, friction etc.) do not exists in space.
>
> Here is another thing to think about. "An object in motion stays in
> motion unless acted upon by an outside force" correct? If you throw a
> ball on Earth is is acted upon by gravity, friction, wind resistance
> etc. Throw a ball in space it is acted upon by nothing. It keeps going
> indefinitely because nothing acts upon it in a vacuum. So then, when a
> rocket accelerates in space, how do they stop it? How do the steer it?
> How do they prevent it from exponential acceleration? None of it makes
> sense. Even if you believe that rockets work in space and that the gas
> causes propulsion, in a vacuum something would keep accelerating if
> something keeps propelling it. To stop, you would need to exert
> MASSIVE amounts of force in the opposite direction to stop it. Think
> about that. Even so, there still remains nothing in space to even
> create propulsion in the first place.

>
> You have to question things to move forward.
>

Haven't you heard of Newton's Third Law? <sheesh>

[Warhol]

On Apr 3, 12:59 am, "panamfl...@hotmail.com rade"
<panamfl...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 2, 6:56 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 3, 12:39 am, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>

> > > On 30/03/2012 09:53, Warhol wrote:
>
> > > > Look at it this way. Let's suppose a rocket is floating... incorrect,
> > > > since things cannot "float" in space. Okay, let's say a rocket is
> > > > stationary in space. Nothing is acting on this rocket. It's weight is
> > > > null because it is in a vacuum. It has no resistance to anything. When
> > > > you stand and push something, you have all sorts of Resistances acting
> > > > on you and the object you push. Friction of your feet on the floor,
> > > > wind, weight, gravity. In space, none of these things exist. The
> > > > rocket cannot exert energy because there simply is nothing to exert it
> > > > against.
>

> > > Before I comment on the rest.
>

> > > Why would something weigh nothing because it is in a vacuum?
>
> > Vacuum of space(heaven)... in free fall you are weightless...
>

[Warhol]

Op 3-4-2012 0:59, panam...@hotmail.com rade schreef:

Everybody known that bears can't fly... ha ha ha... and they are always
in the honey.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHz5ZS3wf54

[WangoTango]

In article <9MednfziSPtyAObS...@giganews.com>,
linu...@cleanposts.com says...

Never happen, it would destroy the conspiracy.

[Tony Dragon]

Enigma code required.

[Dean]

On Apr 4, 12:02 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Op 3-4-2012 0:59, panamfl...@hotmail.com rade schreef:

http://youtu.be/luB4HLDfS0k

[HVAC]

On 4/3/2012 9:24 PM, Seth lePod wrote:
>
>
> this "Warhol" now needs to explain to us how,
> out of the tens of millions of humans who have
> been involved in putting objects into space, he,
> and He, alone, knows THE REAL TRUTH.

Not much different than other kooks that are 'in the know'.

UFO kooks, 9/11 kooks, religious kooks, all have inside
knowledge that we pee-ons are incapable of understanding.










--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

[HVAC]

On 4/5/2012 9:17 AM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>
>>
>> Darla can't write you now because Painus is away.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>
> Painius is very clever,but Darla being so far ahead in time no one can match. She is the queen of the Milky Way. The Seans are the brain of the Milky Way. TreBert


While I agree that Painus is stupid, certainly the fact that he and
Darla posted from the same IP might be a hint-and-a-half for you.

[Warhol]

Op 5-4-2012 22:43, edrh...@hotmail.com schreef:
> On Saturday, March 31, 2012 1:35:45 PM UTC-4, Warhol wrote:
>> On Mar 31, 8:49 am, Father Haskell<fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>> On Mar 30, 4:53 am, Warhol<mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Earth the gases from a rocket dispense that
>>>> energy and push against air, gravity etc. What do the gases push
>>>> against in space?
>>>

>>> Front of the engine.
>>
>>
>> NO, this cannot work in a vacuum. You just ignored the effects that
>> the vacuum would have on the situation, such as an expanding fuel/gas
>> would have nothing to push against. This is bogus science.
>
> No, YOU do not understand that the rockets exhaust does not have to push against anything outside of the rocket. The power of the exhaust coming out pushes the rocket forward as per Newton's Third Law. For every action; the exhaust streaming out of the nozzle, there is an equal and opposite reaction; the rocket is moved in the opposite direction of the exhaust. There's nothing in there about having to push against something outside. As I've said, once in outer space, the rocket can actually work better because it doesn't have to fight gravity and it doesn't have the drag (however miniscule) of the atmosphere.


no its you who seems to have no understand of physics in vacuum
conditions of space... you can put as much pressure against nothing as
you want... your rocket fall automatically back to earth when it reach
the edge of space, and that is at an altitude of 110 km...

And if Newton still lived he would have told you the same thing... and
rocket technology already exited in those times... Rockets and missiles
is nothing new... The history of rocket vehicles goes back to two
centuries before the birth of Christ... and since then they told that
rockets need an atmosphere, *which is filled with air and other
gases*... to push against.

Rockets are not new. The fact that NASA have claimed rockets could be
used to traveling to space for a short time, does not mean that rockets
are a new invention. More than 2300 years ago, Archytas of Tarentum, a
Greek scientist constructed a bird from wood. Filling the hollow model
with water, he hung it from the ceiling, then, with a heat source,
Archytas brought the water to a boil, producing steam. The steam escaped
from a hole in the bird’s tail, making it fly around the room. This
crude rocket demonstrated what Sir Isaac Newton would 2000 years later
call his third law of motion, "For every action, there is an equal and
opposite reaction." but this law is not valid in vacuum of heaven...

Now we can do a test... you just have construct a vacuum chamber and put
a "Aeolipile" inside...

http://0.tqn.com/d/space/1/0/S/0/1/Aeolipile_illustration.jpg

If it starts to rotate then we will admit I have nounderstanding of
physic laws...

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "The aeolipile was a hollow
sphere mounted so that it could turn on a pair of hollow tubes that
provided steam to the sphere from a cauldron. The steam escaped from the
sphere from one or more bent tubes projecting from its equator, causing
the sphere to revolve. The aeolipile is the first known device to
transform steam into rotary motion."

NASA can do the test for me... I am certain they have all they need for
such a experiment... What do you think of my proposition????

we don't need to do the test is space to see who right and who is wrong...

[Warhol]

Op 6-4-2012 3:01, edrh...@hotmail.com schreef:

>> Now we can do a test... you just have construct a vacuum chamber and put
>> a "Aeolipile" inside...
>>
>> http://0.tqn.com/d/space/1/0/S/0/1/Aeolipile_illustration.jpg
>>

>> If it starts to rotate then I will admit, I have no understanding of

>> physic laws...
>>
>> According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "The aeolipile was a hollow
>> sphere mounted so that it could turn on a pair of hollow tubes that
>> provided steam to the sphere from a cauldron. The steam escaped from the
>> sphere from one or more bent tubes projecting from its equator, causing
>> the sphere to revolve. The aeolipile is the first known device to
>> transform steam into rotary motion."
>>
>> NASA can do the test for me... I am certain they have all they need for
>> such a experiment... What do you think of my proposition????
>>
>> we don't need to do the test is space to see who right and who is wrong...
>

> Since the device shown uses a fire, it would be difficult to utilize in a vacuum chamber. (More basic physics; a fire = fuel + heat + air) A small solid fuel rocket with an electrical igniter (sp) would be better. NASA isn't going to conduct this experiment for you, they already know rockets work in space and don't need your approval for one second. You might want to contact Mythbusters though, after they had a good laugh at your stupidity, they might set up the experiment just to show you up.


We can use an electrical heat element... that ain't a problem in vacuum...

You said Mythbusters ha ha ha... who believes those assholes??? Me
certainly not...

Anyway I am 100% sure I Win... so nobody to take the BET??? I promise I
admit than publicly i was wrong with everything I ever said... just one
experiment supervised by any university which grants the correct
execution of the experiment... thats all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHkB2trzMBA

Groups restored so everybody may know... I Warhol demand only one
experiment to remain silent for ever... Otherwise I will Roar like a
Lion King for ever...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y612uIsQ9HM

[Don Martin]

Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Op 5-4-2012 22:43, edrh...@hotmail.com schreef:

This crude rocket demonstrated what Sir Isaac Newton would 2000 years later
call his third law of motion, "For every action, there is an equal and
opposite reaction." but this law is not valid in vacuum of heaven...

Atheists have so long maintained that heaven exists only in the minds of
believers that it is no surprise to learn it consists of a vacuum.

[Father Haskell]

On Apr 5, 5:25 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> and since then they told that
> rockets need an atmosphere, *which is filled with air and other
> gases*... to push against.

Hold a running leaf blower exhaust over an empty back
yard. Now point it at a garage, or some other heavy,
immobile object. Does the machine's push against you
increase in the latter example?

[joeturn]

Warhol has been there and done that! He went into outer space and blew
up a condom like he would have a balloon,When he released the thingy
it just stood there swollen and still full of air.He had to peel the
comdom from around the air because there was nothing to make it come
out on its own%^@!

[Warhol]

Op 7-4-2012 6:27, joeturn schreef:

Hah... My ancestors have invented Rockets and Missiles and named all the
stars and constellations in heaven... so I can know what are the
possibilities or not... The last words; Rockets, radio waves, sound need
a Medium which is not found in vacuum space... the simple truth you have
to learn to live with... and I am open for a honest discussion.

Jesus used to say you have to be reborn again to see reality as it is...
current day knowledge is so altered, that we urgently need to revise
everything told the last 400 years. We have been victim of our current
day systems and Catholic church... they lied to you and to me... not me
lied ... I tell you simply the truth and i tell you attack those who
deceived you... and not the messenger.

if you don't agree with that which I post, why don't you simply filter
me out... or is it what I Say you don't like? but that is your problem,
we still live in world where man is free to say his opinion, even if it
hurt some, truth hurts... but still doesn't give anyone the right to
attack the messenger... attack the message if you can but don't insult
the author or threaten on his life... only cowards attack people who
they don't know for their word...

I read in the other thread(see below) some cowards say that is was good
to attack me more so that newbies of Usenet would kill fill me because
they would think i am a fool or something like that... Well people I
tell you all... you fail with every cowards game you want to play with
me...

I have never or never attacked anyone personally or treated with dead of
any man, since my faith forbids me to have any blood marks on my hands
or thong... even those who trash my threads with their lies and dis-info
or by simply by insulting me or threating me with dead...

it would be time you people start to see the facts and stop believing a
system that already has proven to be at war with us all... I am nobody's
enemy... but some certainly want me dead... and this they talk about it
openly in public... see here a example.

Op 6-4-2012 22:36, Eugene Griessel schreef:
> On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 08:25:20 +1200, George152<gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
>
>> On 4/6/2012 11:19 PM, dott.Piergiorgio wrote:
>>> a bullet in "warhol"'s head ? people as it kills s.m.n. with their
>>> flood of nonsense
>> His posts are enough to make him a laughing stock of any newbie
posters here
>
> I can just imagine him lying face down on the floor kicking his feet
> and beating his fists like fractious two-year old deprived of his
> lollipop in a screaming-tantrum. What a woes.
>
> Eugene L Griessel
>
> Smile, it's the second-best thing you can do with your lips.


and this people are attacking me simply because I say space travel is
Hoax.... what nerve did I hit so they must attack me day and night to
make me look like a *Laughing stock*... but I am telling them all they
are the laughing stock... And we all shall certainly see who will have
the last Laugh... Ha ha ha... here

Let me finish... with this... We(my tribe) is honored with a War
insignia in which it is written “Who Laughs Last Laughs Best” which
served as a reminder for all our enemies about the glorious victories
thru the ages...

http://inconitonito.free.fr/tabors/2eme%20GTM.jpg

And also... free world never forget the blood my people have given for
your liberties and the knowledge we have transmitted to you freely... we
even sacrificed our own freedom so the world would be a better place...
but that is not the case... and everything seems lost with the wind....

The Real Heroes of the second world war and all the wars since more than
17700 years we served man with our lives... fierce warriors with
unmatchable qualities...

http://www.universityessays.com/example-essays/international-relations/the-moroccan-goums-in-the-french-army.php

And this are my stars... The Star Of King Ahmed Al Mansour and Hassan El
Mesbahi.... the stars of the Sheriffs...

http://p1.la-img.com/1011/21617/7437645_2_l.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_zoA-ZomYOKQ/RvzWR0xmldI/AAAAAAAAA1U/XRxx8pfaIPs/s320/yigalmonnaiePUB.jpg
http://www.villagecraftsmen.com/mar_10f_1366_f%5B1%5D.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mojolicious/3516757010/

Just remember that my history is the oldest human history in the World
and when all this current day civilization are gone, we will be still
here... We have seen many civilization came and go... some none
remembers anymore or ever heard of them...

The last of the Sally Rovers, Hassan *X*...
http://www.sanandreasmusic.net/Modules/Templates/Default/Downloads/SAcrossBlack.gif

Last Defender of the US-B Republic and Kingdom of Fes
http://www.benersonlittle.com/images/Barbarossa-210.jpg

[HVAC]

On 4/7/2012 10:17 AM, Warhol wrote:
>
>
>
> Hah... My ancestors have invented Rockets and Missiles

You're a chinaman?

[Warhol]

Op 7-4-2012 16:29, HVAC schreef:

> On 4/7/2012 10:17 AM, Warhol wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hah... My ancestors have invented Rockets and Missiles
>
>
> You're a chinaman?
>

I am a Atlas Man... and Chinese never invented anything... since the
knowledge we shared with the world comes from Atlantis... and not from
china or any other place... The Rocket and the Missile are in current
day history books attributed to the Moorish Civilization of L'AndaLuz...
LUZ = LIGHT... Land Of Light.(Mesbah)...

and shall we discuss briefly the development of cannon in the thirteenth
and fourteenth centuries in Moorish Spain.

History of Science and Technology of the Moors.

Gunpowder Composition for Rockets and Cannon

in Moorish & Arabic Military Treatises

In Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries

A Gap in the history of gunpowder and cannon

Potassium nitrate

In a recent paper[2] it was shown that Moorish alchemists knew potassium
nitrate since the start of Moorish alchemy at the time of Khalid ibn
Yazid (d. c. 709). It was known under various names, was used as a flux
in metallurgical operations and for producing nitric acid and aqua
regia. Recipes for these uses are found in the works of Jabir ibn Hayyan
(Geber, d. 815), Abu Bakr al-Razi (Rhazes, d.932) and other alchemists.

Throughout the centuries potassium nitrates in Moorish was known by a
variety of names, and the most important of these was natrun. It was
called also: buraq; al-shiha that is found at the feet of walls; milh
al-ha’it (wall salt); flowers of asyus stone; salt of asyus stone; salt
of stone; shura; shuraj; suraj; milh al-dabbaghin (tanners salt); shabb
Yamani and lastly barud.

Purification of potassium nitrates

Before potassium nitrate can be used effectively in gunpowder it should
be purified. Two processes are found in Moorish literature:

1- The process of Ibn Bakhtawayh (early 11th Century)

Ibn Bakhtawayh, the physician, in his book Al-Muqaddimat (composed in
420/1029), described the freezing of water at any season by using
potassium nitrate calling it shabb Yamani (Yamani alum). (Google the
article on potassium nitrates ).

2- The process of Hasan al-Rammah (13th Century)

Hasan al-Rammah describes in his book al-furusiyya wa al-manasib
al-harbiyya (The Book of Military Horsemanship and Ingenious War
Devices) a complete process for the purification of potassium nitrate.
This same process became a standard one in Arabic sources and we find it
in various military treatises. It runs as follow:

“Take from white, clean and bright (or fiery) barud (saltpetre) as much
as you like and two new (earthen) jars. Put the saltpetre into one of
them and add water to submerge it. Put the jar on a gentle fire until
it gets warm. Skim off the scum that rises (and) throw it away. Make the
fire stronger until the liquid becomes quite clear. Then pour the clear
liquid into the other jar in such a way that no sediment or scum remains
attached to it. Place this jar on a low fire until the contents begin
to coagulate. Then take it off the fire and grind it finely.” [4]

The procedure is further continued using wood ashes, which would
precipitate calcium and magnesium salts:

“Take dry willow wood, burn it, bury it (smother it) as is with the
harraq (tinder). Take by weight two thirds of saltpetre and one third of
ashes of wood, which has been carefully pulverized, and put the mixture
into the jar, and if the jar is made from copper so much the better. Add
a little quantity of water and apply heat until the ashes and saltpetre
no longer adhere together. Beware of sparks”

In this method calcium salts are removed by adding potassium carbonate
in the form of wood ashes. Thus calcium carbonates are precipitated and
can be removed leaving the chemically equivalent amount of potassium
nitrate in solution. Saltpetre is obtained from this solution by
crystallization.

The method of al-Rammah is the first in which wood ashes were used in
the manufacture of saltpetre. Partington says that “the claim that Roger
Bacon used wood ashes is based on an arbitrary manipulation of a text,
and the first clear account of the process known to me is that of
al-Hasan al-Rammah.”

Use of potassium nitrates during the Crusades:

A subject that is still in its initial stages of investigation is the
early use of potassium nitrate during the Crusades. There are advocates
of the theory that potassium nitrates were used as a component of Greek
fire whether Byzantine or Hassani Arabic. We shall mention here few
cases that suggest the use of nitrates by the Berbers during the time of
the Crusades.

a- In the year 564 H/1168 AD the Firanja (the Franks or the Crusaders)
besieged al-Fustat (old Cairo). Shawar[7] decided to burn the city.
Al-Maqrizi says that 20000 pieces of karaz shami (ceramic Damascus
grenades) full of incendiary materials were used. Al-Fustat continued
burning for 54 days. Mercier obtained several grenades from the site and
their contents were analysed. The tests proved the existence of
potassium nitrates.

b- A military treatise that discusses military fires on a large scale is
entitled Treatise on Stratagems in Wars, the Capture of Towns, and the
Defence of Passes.This gives a large number of Greek fire recipes. It
describes Moorish military technology during the twelfth century. In one
recipe natrun is one of the combustible ingredients.

c-During the fifth Crusade that was directed against Egypt, Damietta was
besieged in 1218 and the besieged used Greek fire extensively in their
defences. Lalanne believes that the Arabic jars of fire contained
potassium nitrates.

d- The seventh Crusade was directed against Egypt also. Louis IX led a
well-prepared invasion and occupied Damietta in 1249. By this time
gunpowder was known in Syria and Egypt and in the battle of al-Mansura
in 1250, in which Louis IX was taken prisoner, the use of large pots
full of gunpowder and other combustibles was the key in the victory of
the Moorish Army. Joinville who was an officer and an eyewitness of the
battle described eloquently these projectiles and their effect on the
Turic Mongol army. His description left no doubt among some historians
that he was describing projectiles containing gunpowder. In their
history of rockets published on the internet NASA says “the Arabs
adopted the rocket into their own arms inventory and, during the Seventh
Crusade, used them against the French Army of King Louis IX “

e. Gunpowder was used extensively in 1291 at the very end of the
Crusades during the siege of Acre, in which the city capitulated. The
extensive mining of the city walls by gunpowder was described by Western
historians. Military fires using gunpowder were projected by a large
number of manjaniqs (trebuchets), and huge amounts of arrows carrying
gunpowder devices were thrown by archers. Thousands of engineers were
reported to have participated in the siege.

Gunpowder composition of al-Rammah’s rockets (1280 AD)

Al-Rammah (d 695 AH/1295 AD) deals extensively in his book with
gunpowder and its uses .The estimated date of writing this book is
between 1270 and 1280. The front page states that the book was written
as "instructions by the eminent master Najm al-Din Hasan Al-Rammah, as
handed down to him by his father and his forefathers, the masters in
this art and by those contemporary elders and masters who befriended
them, may God be pleased with them all ". It is unmistakable from this
statement that Al-Rammah compiled the inherited knowledge. The large
number of gunpowder recipes and the extensive types of weaponry using
gunpowder indicate that this information cannot be the invention of a
single person, and this supports the statement of the front piece in his
book. If we go back only to his grandfather's generation, as the first
of his forefathers, then we end up at the end of the twelfth century or
the beginning of the thirteenth as the date when gunpowder became
prevalent in Moorish and Arabic regions.

The book contains 107 recipes for gunpowder. There are 22 recipes for
rockets (tayyarat, sing. tayyar). Among the remaining compositions some
are for military uses and some are for fireworks. The gunpowder
composition of seventeen rockets is shown. Five rockets are not included
because their ingredients included other materials. We limited ourselves
for the sake of comparison to the three main ingredients.

unpowder composition of rockets from `Iyarat al-naft manuscript
13th-14th centuries

This manuscript contains a large number of gunpowder recipes, totalling
about 239. Its title is `Iyarat al-naft (Formulae of Gunpowder). Its
author is not known but the copy that we consulted was copied in
774/1372; the original should be much earlier. Al-Rammah’s book was
compiled in about 1270-80 and this one could be compiled on the first
decades of the fourteenth century. It gives recipes for fireworks as
well as for military purposes. We have selected all the rockets recipes
that contain only the three main ingredients of gunpowder.

Gunpowder composition for the earliest cannon (13th to early 14th c)

Four Moorish treatises describe or mention small portable cannon. All
these treatises report that cannon were used in the battle of `Ayn Jalut
in Palestine in 1260 between the Moorish Hassani & Arab Army and the
Mongols, in which the latter were defeated. It was used once more
against the Mongols in 1304. The purpose of the early cannon and other
gunpowder devices as we shall see was to frighten the enemy’s horses and
cavalry and cause disorder in their ranks. The St. Petersbugh MS is the
most renowned among the four manuscripts. Renaud and Fave attributed it
to Shams al-Din Muhammad. The only literary figure with this name at
this period is Shams al-Din Muhammad al-Ansari al-Dimashqi (d.1327) who,
like al-Rammah, was from Granada, and both were contemporaries.
Al-Dimashqi is well known for his cosmography in which he described the
use of fireworks. In the St. Petersburgh MS. the cannon is described as
follows:

“Description of the drug (dawa’) that you put in the cannon (midfa`)-
Its composition (`iyaruhu) is: potassium nitrate (barud) ten, charcoal
(fahm) two dirhams and sulphur (kibrit) one and a half dirhams. Grind it
finely and fill one third of the cannon (midfa`). Do not fill more
otherwise it will split. Then let the wood turner make a wooden plug
(midfa`) of the same size as the mouth of the cannon (midfa`). Ram (the
gunpowder) tightly and place on it the ball (bunduqa) or the arrow, and
give it fire at the ammunition (al-dhakhira). Measure the cannon
(midfa`) at the hole; if it (i.e. the midfa`) is deeper than the hole
then it is defective and it will punch the gunner (al-rami), so
understand this.”

The composition of 10 dirhams of saltpetre, one and a half dirhams of
sulphur and two dirhams of charcoal gives the percentages of 74.1
nitrates, 11.1 sulphur and 14.8 charcoal.

A other manuscript the description is as follows:

“The drug that you put in the cannon (midfa`): potassium nitrate (barud)
ten, charcoal (fahm) two dirhams, sulphur (kibrit) one dirham. Grind
finely, and fill one third of the cannon (midfa`), not more. Seal it
(i.e. the gunpowder) by the device after you have rammed it; then place
the ball (bunduq) or the arrow and give fire to the ammunition
(al-dhakhira)”.

In these cannon the percentages of gunpowder are 77 nitrates, 7.7
sulphur and 15.3 charcoal.

http://www.history-science-technology.com/images/Powder8.gif

St. Petersburgh MS., p. 159, Illustration of the faris (knight) who
frightens the horses of the enemy and the two foot soldiers accompanying
him. On the right, the foot soldier is carrying a hand-held midfa`
(cannon), and on the left the soldier is carrying a sprinkling club. The
mounted knight carries a lance to which gunpowder cartridges are
attached. The three men and the horse wear also fireproof clothing to
which gunpowder cartridges are attached.

“The kings of old times did not engage in war except by stratagem. The
Prophet said: war is trickery. This was the practice until the time of
Halawun (Hulaku or Hulegu) when the people of fatimide Caliphate used
this trick and defeated the Tatars (Mongols). Horses (of the enemy) dare
not face fire and the horse will run away with its rider. The way to do
it is to choose a number of cavaliers and furnish their lances from both
ends with gunpowder (barud). The cavalier will wear a garment (qarqal)
with its front face made of black thick woolen cloth (balas). It is
strewn with balls of linen fiber (mushaqq) that have metal wires at
their ends so that they are inserted into the garment and the helmet.
The horse is also draped with thick woolen cloth (balas). His hands will
be smeared with dissolved talc so that he is not burnt by fire. In front
of them will be whatever they choose from foot soldiers furnished with
sprinkler maces, crackers (sawarikh, explosive charges) and cannon
(madafi`). They (the cavalrty and the foot soldiers) will take their
place in front of the army.”

More detailed description of the attire of the cavalier, the horse and
the foot soldiers is given in the manuscript. There is a detailed
description on how to train the horses to get them used to the loud
explosive noise of the cannon and the gunpowder crackers. The method of
conducting the attack to frighten the enemy’s horses and causing them to
run away is also described.

This tactics of using the portable cannon continued throughout the
century and was the precursor of portable firearms. Muhammad Ibn Mankali
in one of his military treatises (written around 764-78/1362-70) [32]wrote:

“If the Franks who are facing us are cavalry then we shoot at them with
incendiary arrows and cannon since their horses will be frightened away
and when their mobilization is in disarray then they will be chased.”

The use of the portable cannon continued and it was used in celebrations
in addition to its use in warfare. The traveller, Ber trandon de la
Brocquiere, visited the midddle east in 1432 and wrote his book The
Voyage d’Outremer. When he was in Damascus he saw the celebrations on
the occasion of the return of pilgrims from Mecca after the hajj. He says:

“The day after my arrival I saw the caravan coming from Mecca. It was
said that there were more than three thousand camels. The lord and all
the notables of the city went out to meet the caravan.”

After he describes the mahmal. that preceded the caravan he says:

“There were also at least thirty men around the mahmal camel, some
carrying crossbows and others with unsheathed swords in their hands.
Some had little cannon which they fired from time to time”

The development of cannon in the fourteenth century in the Mamluk
Kingdom (Syria and Egypt)

In 1340 AD, Ibn Fadl Allah al-`Umari wrote a handbook for government
officials in which he described the main weapons that were used in the
attack or the defence of towns. He describes cannon that were used in
the attack of walled cities. “They throw balls that batter the tops of
parapets and break the columns of arches”. The cannon developed within
four decades into a siege engine along with the trebuchet. It is
reported by the historian Salih ibn Yahya that in 743/1342 the besieged
in al-Karak mounted on its walls five trebuchets (manjaniqs) and many
cannon.[37] It is also reported that in 753/1352 the governor of
Damascus fortified greatly the citadel by mounting on it gunpowder
cannon (al-makahil bi al-madafi`).

Al-Qalqashandi described in his encyclopaedia, Subh al-a`sha, the
prevailing siege engines in 767/1365. About cannon he says:

“Among them (i.e. the siege engines) is the gunpowder cannon (makahil
al-barud). These are the cannon (madafi`) that use gunpowder. They are
of different types. Some of them throw huge arrows that can almost
pierce stones. And some throw iron balls weighing from ten Egyptian
ratls ( about 4.53 kg) up to more than one hundred (45.3 kg). I saw in
Alexandria during the Ashrafiyya State, (of Sultan) Sha`ban ibn
Husayn[39], when Prince Salah al-Din ibn `Arram, God have mercy on him,
was governor, I saw a cannon made of copper and lead and bound by iron
ends. A huge heated iron ball was projected from it in the maydan
(parade square or hippodrome), and it fell into the Silsila Sea outside
Bab al-Bahr (Sea Gate), which is a faraway distance.” [40]

At this same period a military treatise called al-Aniq fi al-manajiq was
written by Ibn Aranbugha al-Zaradkash. The author presented the book to
the Atabik (chief commander of the army) Mankali Bugha al-Shamsi who was
in office between 769/1367 and 774/1372. The following illustration
shows cannon for shooting arrows, mounted on an adjustable stand for
pointing the gun at various angles of projection. The gunpowder
composition for these cannon is ten dirhams of potassium nitrate, 1.125
sulphur, and 2.5 charcoals. This gives the percentages of 73.4 potassium
nitrate, 8.26 sulphur and 18.34 charcoals.

http://www.history-science-technology.com/images/Powder9.gif

Development of cannon in al-Andalus and al-Maghrib in the 13th and 14th
centuries

We have no extant military treatises left to us from al-Andalus and
al-Maghrib regarding gunpowder. But since this symposium is taking place
in Granada, the seat of the last Moorish kingdom in al-Andalus, it
befits us to give a brief account of the history of cannon in this area.

Reports about the use of cannon by the Moors in Spain are given in the
works of Spanish and Frankish historians who were closer to the times of
the events or even have witnessed them. When they wrote their accounts
they did not have the same thinking that triggered the debate among
historians of gunpowder and firearms of the 19th and the first decades
of the 20th centuries. The question about the first nation to formulate
propulsive gunpowder or to use cannon was irrelevant to them. In the
last three decades of recent history some scholars adopted a more
balanced attitude and started to free themselves from the euro centric
way of looking at historical sources. In this brief survey, we shall
present the primary reports about the main events without trying to
confuse the reader with the disputations of the past two centuries.

Most of the argument arose when some historians tried to interpret the
Moorish(Hassani Arabic) word naft to denote naphtha or a mixture of
incendiary ingredients containing naphtha. A study of the titles of
treatises dealing with gunpowder composition given in this article will
make it clear that naft denoted in fact gunpowder. The term naft was
used originally for military fires of any composition, and as soon as
the new mixture of saltpeter-sulphur-charcoal was known, the word naft
was applied to it. So the treatise of `Iyarat al-naft mentioned above
means Formulations of Gunpowder as we have seen.

In the Vocabulista (a Latin-Spanish Moorish vocabulary compiled in the
region of Valencia, in the 13th century), one finds the word naft
opposite Ignis and Ignem excutere. In the later historical accounts this
word denoted gunpowder. In al-Andalus in the course of the second half
of the 15th century, gunpowder became barud, and saltpetre became milh
al-barud. Naft (pl. anfat) then denoted cannon, and naffat denoted
gunner. [43]

When we discuss the development of gunpowder and cannon in al-Andalus
and al-Maghrib countries, we must take into account their parallel
development in the Berbers namely the Kingdom of Fes.

Another factor that is relevant to our study is the fact that potassium
nitrates were abundant in Moorish Spain, and it was the only country in
Europe having these natural deposits. Watson says in his Chemical
Essays: “The lands of Spain, says the author of its Natural History, if
properly managed, would supply all Europe with saltpetre to the end of
the world.”

The Arabs are reported to have used rockets on the Iberian Peninsula in
1249; and in 1288 rockets attacked Valencia. This report needs to be
investigated further in order to determine the sources of information.

Peter, Bishop of Leon, reported the use of cannon by the Moors while
defending Seville in 646 AH/ 1248 AD. [47] Ferdinand III harassed
Seville increasingly and kept the town under siege for 17 months until
it surrendered. [48] At this same time, in the Kingdom of Fes, gunpowder
was already in use in warfare, and if the devices used in Seville were
not cannon, then they were most probably projectiles utilizing gunpowder
similar to those used by the Maghrebians in the battle of al-Mansura in
1250 against Louis IX.

In 660 / 1262, King Alfonso X of Castile succeeded in conquering the
city of Niebla. The siege was not easy either for the besiegers or for
the Berber inhabitants due to the strength of the town’s defences, so
the siege lasted nine months and a half. It is reported that Almohads in
defending the city used machines that resembled cannon, which projected
stones and fire accompanied by thundering noises. Some Spanish histories
consider that this was the first time that gunpowder had been used in
warfare in Spain.

Ibn Khaldun (8th/14th century) says that the Caliph Abu Yusuf
Yaqub(Jacob), when besieging the town of Sijilmasa in 672-3/1274:

“Brought into action against this town mangonels (majaniq) and ballistas
(`arradat), as well as a naft engine (hindam al-naft i.e. gunpowder
cannon) which discharged small iron balls (hasa al-hadid). These balls
are ejected from a chamber (khizana) placed in front of a kindling fire
of gunpowder. This happens by a strange property which attributes all
actions to the power of the Creator.” [50]

This precise information about the use of cannon came from a great
historian. However, western historians of firearms in the nineteenth and
the first part of the twentieth centuries questioned the report of Ibn
Kaldun. Historians in those days were bound by certain fixed historical
dates for gunpowder and cannon that could not be changed even if they go
to the extreme of discrediting a historian of the calibre of Ibn
Khaldun. We have seen above that portable cannon were used by the
Mamluks in 1260 in the battle of `Ayn Jalut. Indeed, we would advance
the view that in the Maghrib and al-Andalus, where petroleum was not
available whereas potassium nitrate was known to be abundant, cannon may
have developed into a siege engine somewhat earlier than in the Islamic
East, and that the appearance of cannon at Sijilmasa as described by Ibn
Khaldun was a natural development the veracity of which need not be doubted.

In the fourteenth century, the historic accounts regarding the use of
cannon by the Moorish kings of Granada, in defensive as well as
offensive operations had caused considerable debate among western
historians in the nineteenth and the first decades of the twentieth
centuries. After reviewing the position of some military historians in
Europe, Ada Bruhn de Hoffmeyer in her carefully focused survey, Arms and
Amour in Spain, concludes that:

“The old theories about the Arabs and the Moors and their importance in
regard to gunpowder and early artillery in the 14th century cannot be
rejected---on the contrary! Alchemy and chemical experiments flourished
among the Moors in the Mediterranean world not least in Andalusia, and
Saracen scientists and technicians were working at various courts of
occidental Europe.”

“The general opinion no doubt must be that gunpowder artillery was
introduced rather early to Spain through the Moors of Maroc and from
them to Andalusia. From the Hispano-Moors Christian Spain learned about
gunpowder artillery. The routes probably passed via the Granadine
kingdom, which at that time had very close contacts with the sultan of
Maroc in Fez, from which place Granada got military help against the
Catholics. Italy is represented with the Genoese navy supporting
Granadines and Moroccanes.” [51]

The facts depend upon the correct translation of certain words from
Moorish manuscripts. Hoffmeyer refers to the work of Kohler when she says:

“It is not impossible that G. Kohler in his work: Die Entwicklung des
Kriegswesens und der Kriegsfiihrung, Breslau 1887, was right in his
suppositions that the Arabs rather early introduced not only gunpowder
but even fire-arms to Spain, from whence they passed to Italy
(coincidence with the documentation from Florence) and from Spain and
Italy to France and Germany. (The routes from Hispano- Moorish
Andalusia, passing through Murcia, the Levantine coasts of Spain, Aragon
to Italy is nothing strange in the 14th century, when the Mediterranean
was a «Mar Aragones».) “ [52]

The main incidents we are concerned with in the following account had
taken place during the tenure of Sultan Abu al-Walid Isma`il ibn Nasr
(713 AH/ 1314 AD-725 AH/1325 AD), the Nasrid king of Granada who waged a
number of successful campaigns between the years 1324 and 1325. In
724/1324 he besieged the fort city of Huescar using cannon in his siege,
of which Lisan al-Din ibn al-Khatib (1313-1374) who was a youth at the
time, and who became later a minister in Granada, relates:

“He headed towards the enemy territory and challenged the fort of
Huescar that stands as a bone in the throat of Baza, which he besieged
and attacked. He struck the arch of the invincible tower with a red-hot
iron ball bombarded by the great engine that operates by naft
(gunpowder). “ [53]

To celebrate the occasion, the scientist and poet, Abu Zakariyya Yahya
ibn Hudhayl [54] whom Ibn al-Khatib highly praised, being his teacher,
had composed a poem complementing the sultan for the conquest of Huescar:

"They thought that the thunder and the lightning had come down from the
skies; whereas the thunder and lightning are all around them being
created by man.

These are things of wondrous shapes, sent high by Hermes[55] and
engineered to demolish mountains when they hit.

Yes, it is this world that always shows you miracles, since nature’s
innate powers are destined to appear “

Based on the reports of these eyewitnesses McJoynt concludes that:

“Granada must have been in the forefront of technical innovation in the
world at this time. The new weapon was a success, for Huescar hastened
to surrender”.[56]

Lomax concludes also that “The capture of Huescar had seen the first use
of gunpowder and cannon in European warfare.” [57]

After the conquest of Huescar, Sultan Isma`il waged a number of
campaigns in which he captured a number of cities and forts including
Baza and Martos in which he used cannon also.

In 732 /1331 Sultan Muhammad IV laid siege to the city of Alicante, of
which the Spanish historian Zurita (1512-1580) maintains that “when the
Moorish king of Granada besieged Alicante he used a new machine that
caused great terror. It threw iron balls with fire.” [58] Hoffmeyer
finds the report of Muslim gunpowder weapons at Alicante to be
“difficult to deny”, given obvious awareness of such weapons at the time.

In a confrontation, known as the battle of Tarifa or the battle of Rio
Salado in 1340, the Moors lost heavily to the Castillian armies and
their allies. The Spanish historian Conde relates that in the battle of
Tarifa the Moors had employed machines of thunder that launched iron
balls propelled by nafta, causing extensive damage to the towers and the
fortifications of the city.[59]

However, the main objective of the Spaniards was to occupy and hold on
to the strategic port city of Algeciras (al-Jazira), situated next to
the straight of Gibraltar. They had engaged the aid of their allies in
Europe in a crusade against the Arabs, to which France and England were
among respondents by sending army contingents. The siege of the city
lasted twenty months, from 1342 to 1344, during which time the Moors
defended the city courageously, using cannon profusely and engaging the
enemy in daring encounters.

The Spanish historian Juan de Mariana (1536-1623) described the use of
gunpowder and cannons during the capture of Algeciras. [60] He states:

“The besieged did great harm among the Christians with iron bullets they
shot. This is the first time we find any mention of gunpowder and ball
in our histories.”

De Mariana also relates that the English Earl of Derby and Earl of
Salisbury had both participated in this siege. Richard Watson[61] thinks
that the two earls had conceivably transferred the knowledge about
cannon and gunpowder and their use as effective firearms to England, and
that the English adopted this new weapon and used it in the battle of
Crecy in 1346. Furthermore, Prescott in his book Ferdinand and Isabella
[62] emphasizes that the Spaniards had adopted their knowledge of
gunpowder from the Moors of Granada who were familiar with its
utilization for a considerable time before their encounter with the
Spanish in this siege. Ada Bruhn Hoffmeyer finds it “fully trustworthy”
that King Alfonso XI of Castile and the Muslims used “gunpowder as
propulsor for projectiles” at Algeciras in 1342.[63]

The use of gunpowder and cannon spread quickly in Spain. The Spanish
kings at the initial stages enlisted the help of Moorish experts.
Hoffmeyer says:

“The first artillery-masters on the Peninsula probably were Moors in
Christian service. The king of Navarra had a Moor in his service in 1367
as «maestro de las guarniciones de artilleria. The Morisques of Tudela
at that time had fame for their capacity in reparaciones de artilleria.”
[64]

Fireworks, a brief note

The use of gunpowder in fireworks in festivities by the public in the
Moorish cities took place at the same time as it was used for military
purposes. This is evident from the titles of treatises giving the
composition of gunpowder. The majority of recipes given in the
thirteenth century by al-Rammah and in the Karshuni manuscript are for
fireworks. Similarly the gunpowder treatises of the fourteenth century
deal mostly with fireworks. There are a very large number of recipes for
fireworks. The names of the different kinds fireworks are varied to a
large extent and this will be the subject of a separate study.

Reports about the use of fireworks in Moorish & Arab cities can be found
in non-military treatises. Al-Dimashqi (d. 1327) who was contemporary
with al-Rammah describes in his cosmography (written second half of 13th
century) the joint use of fireworks by the Muslims and Christians of
Hama in central Syria on the eve of the birthday of Jesus.[65]

In a book on various trades and crafts, that was not noticed until
recently, dating from the same period of al-Rammah and al-Dimashqi, we
find a description of a gunpowder cracker and a gunpowder fireworks
device. This book was compiled by King al-Muzaffar Yusuf ibn `Umar ibn
Rasul (d. 694/1294) of Yemen. The title of the book is al-Mukhtara` fi
funun min al-suna` (Inventions from the Various Industrial Arts). The
description of the gunpowder cracker runs thus:

“Description of a furqa`a (cracker): fold a sheet of paper four or five
folds on a mould. The mould is a rod that is turned to the thickness of
a finger. Fold it very tightly, five or six plies. Take it off the
mould. Seal its head very tightly, and fill it with barud and the
charcoal of willow tree mixed together, and close its end very securely.
If you want to give it fire pierce the head with a small piercing iron
and insert a fuse that has been twisted very well. Glue the fuse to the
hole, give it fire and move away. It will crack and move with explosive
noise.” [66]

The use of fireworks by the Caliph's in public celebrations in the
fourteenth century and later is reported in the history books of that
period.[67] Fireworks were called in these reports harraqat al- naft or
harraqat al-barud.

When the French traveller Bertrandon de la Brocquiere arrived in Beirut
in 1432 the inhabitants were celebrating the `Id. He was surprised to
see the fireworks for the first time. He says:

“The Moors held a celebration, which is, I understand, an old custom. It
started at nightfall. There was a great crowd of people singing and
shouting. The men of the castle shot off the cannon and those of the
city shot some kind of fire very high and very far. It was bigger than
the biggest lantern I have ever seen. They say that they use it
sometimes on the sea, against enemies to burn the sails of a ship. It
would easily burn a house or a town with straw roofs, it seems to me. In
a cavalry engagement it would terrify the horses. It is easy and cheap
for someone who knows what they are doing. “ [68]

We infer from his story that fireworks were un-known in France at that
time (in 1432). Brocquiere says then that he was able, against a bribe,
to learn the secret of these fires and he took the information with him
to France.[69] The first recorded fireworks in England were at the
wedding of Henry VII in 1486. They became very popular during the reign
of Queen Elizabeth I.

The people of Granada and other cities in al-Andalus used fireworks in
their celebrations,[70] as was the custom in the cities of Syria and Egypt.

Arabic Manuscripts and References:

- Beshir Agha MS No. 441, Istanbul, Risala fi jarr al-athqal wa ghayriha
min al-`aja’ib, unknown author.

- al-Dimashqi, Shams al-Din Muhammad al-Ansari, Nukhbat al-dahr, edited
by Mehren, Leipzig, 1923.

- Enan, Muhammad Abdulla, al-athar al-andalusiyya al-baqiya, Cairo, 1961.

- Al-Hiyal fi-al-hurub wa fath al mada’in wa hifz al durub, ms. Ahmet
III, Serai No. 3469, Istanbul, author uncertain. Several other
manuscripts of this treatise exist in Istanbul, Leiden, and Ribat.
Sulayman al- Rahili, Saudi Arabia, published this MS in 1418/1997. He
attributed it by error to Ibn Mankali..

- Ibn Abi Usaybi`a, `Uyun al-Anba’ fi tabaqat al atibba’, ed. Nizar
Rida, Beirut, 1965

- Ibn Aranbugha al-Zaradkash, al-aniq fi al-manajiq, ed. Ihsan Hindi,
Aleppo, 1985.

- Ibn Iyas, Muhammad ibn Ahmad, al-mukhtar min bada’i` al-zuhur,vol. I,
Cairo,1960.

- Ibn Khaldun, Kitab al-`ibar ..., vol. VII, Beirut, 1971.

- Ibn al-Khatib, Lisan al-Din, al-ihata fi akhbar ghirnata, vol, I,
Cairo, 1319/1901.

- Ibn Mankali, Muhammad, al-adilla al-rasmiyya li al-ta`abi al-harbiyya,
Istabul, Aya Sophia MS 2875. It was edited by Mahmud Shith Kattab, and
published by the Iraqi Academy, Baghdad, 1988.

- Ibn Yahya, Salih, Tarikh Bayrut, ed. Kamal Salibi, Beirut, 1969.

- Istanbul MS. Revan Koshku 1933.

- `iyarat al-naft part of a collection of manuscripts (majmu`a) under
the title of al-aniq, Ahmet III 3469, Istanbul, pages 94-132.

- Al-Maqqari, Ahmad ibn Muhammad, Nafh al-tib min ghusn al-andalus
al-ratib, Bulaq, 1279/1862

- Al-Maqrizi, Al-Mawa`iz wa al-‘i`tibar, vol. I, Cairo, n.d.

- Paris Arabe 2826, Kitab al-makhzun li arbab al-funun

- Paris Arabe 2824, Kitsab al-makhzun jami` al-funun

- al-Qalqashandi, Ahmad ibn `Ali, Subh al-a`sha, vol. II, Cairo, 1963.

- Al-Rammah, Najm al-Din Hasan, Al-Furusiyya wa al-manasib al-harbiyya,
edited with analytical introductory chapters by Ahmad Y. al-Hassan,
Aleppo, 1998

- Rasul, al-Malik al-Muzaffar Yusuf ibn `Umar ibn `Ali ibn ,
al-mukhtara` fi funun min al-suna`, ed. Muhammad Isa Salhiyyeh, Kuwait,
1989.

- St. Petersburgh MS. Al-Makhzun jami` al-funun, uncertain author.

- al-`Umari ibn Fadl Allah, al-Ta`rif bi al-mustalah al-sharif, Cairo,
1312/1894.

Non-Arabic References

Atiya, Aziz S., Crusade, Commerce and Culture, Indiana University Press,
1962.

Berthelot, M. and R. Duval, La Chimie au Moyen Age, vol. II, Paris, 1893.

Conde J A, History of the Dominion of the Arabs in Spain, translated by
Mrs Jonathon Foster.3 volumes, London:, 1855

Brocquiere, Bertrandon de la, [Le] voyage d'Outremer, publ. et annote
par Ch. Schefer, Paris : E. Leroux, 1892.Reproduced at Gallica web pages
of Bibliothèque nationale de France, 2001. This book was translated into
English by Galen R. Kline, New York, 1988.

Dozy, R., Supplement aux dictionnares Arabes, vol. II, reprinted by
Libraire du Liban, 1968.

Hall, Bert S., Weapons, Warfare in Renaissance Europe, John Hopkins
University Press, 1997.

Al-Hassan, Ahmad Y., Potassium Nitrate in Arabic and Latin Sources,
paper presented to the XXI International Congress for the History of
Science, Mexico City, 2001. (Proceedings are under publication). See
this paper on the present Web site.

Joinville, The Life of Saint Louis, in Joinville and Villehardouin,
Chronicle of the Crusades, Penguin, 1963.

Lalanne, L., Recherches sur Ie feu gregeois et sur l’introduction de la
poudre a canon en Europe, Paris, 1845.

Lomax, Derek W., The Reconquest of Spain, London, 1978.

Mariana,.Juan de, Historia general de Espana, 2 vols., Madrid, 1608,
ii, 27; English tr. by Capt. John Stephens, The General History of
Spain, 2 pts., London, 1699.

Mercier, Maurice, Le Feu Greg/ois. Les Feu a Guerre depuis l'Antiquiti.
La Poudre a Canon, Paris, 1952

Partington, J. R., A History of Greek Fire and Gunpowder, reprint by
John Hopkins University Press,

Prescott, William H., History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,
ed. John Foster Kirk, 3 volumes, Philadelphia, 1880.

Prescott, William H., The Art of War in Spain- The Conquest of Granada,
edited by Albert D. McJoynt, London, 1995.

Reinaud , Joseph Toussaint and Ildephonse Fave, "Du feu gregeois, des
feux de guerre, et des origines de la poudre a canon chez les Arabes,
les Persans et les Chinois," in J. Asiatique, 1849, xiv, 257-327.

Runciman, Steven, A History of the Crusades, Vol. III, Penguin, 1978.

Watson, R., Chemical Essays, vol. I, London,1787, 1999.

[Mike Painter]

On 4/7/2012 7:17 AM, Warhol wrote:

>
>
> Hah... My ancestors have invented Rockets and Missiles and named all the
> stars and constellations in heaven... so I can know what are the
> possibilities or not... The last words; Rockets, radio waves, sound need
> a Medium which is not found in vacuum space... the simple truth you have
> to learn to live with... and I am open for a honest discussion.
>

If they could name all the stars they must know the truth and we know
sound does not travel.

Radio waves can't travel in space.
Therefore none of the EMF can.

Which explains why it is always dark and cold.
It also explains why we had to invent the transistor as vacuum tubes
never worked.

[Father Haskell]

On Apr 7, 11:40 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Op 7-4-2012 16:29, HVAC schreef:
>
> > On 4/7/2012 10:17 AM, Warhol wrote:
>
> >> Hah... My ancestors have invented Rockets and Missiles
>
> > You're a chinaman?
>
> I am a Atlas Man...

Ah, yes. The incident on the beach involving the sand-kicking
bully.

[linuxgal]

::Shrug::

[Warhol]

Op 7-4-2012 18:54, Mike Painter schreef:

The transistor or the processor was not invented... but copied from a
Time engine capsule that fell out the sky with inside it not aliens but
our descendants... Sons of Hassan... The Mystery of knowledge and the
cooperation of the Future with the past(Atlantis is still in
communication with the future Mount MoriaH(Current day Jebel Sarsar),
the technical center of Communications of the Future Atlantis, the true
Promised Land... knowledge was shared throe all ages since Adam and
Eve... but when the devil took control some important things where
hidden from him and his minions sight, they were kept very dumb...

But since The Lord, our God, is coming himself to visit our age, he
needed certain technology, why he send us the transistor and the
processor, just as Hercules the Owl(Google) from Heaven(Zeus)... just to
deal with evil yesterday in the Times of Moses as today in the Time of
the Cometh of the Promised Son... thats why the devil received the
Computer and software from GOD... of course all credit was stolen by
vermin who did hid the truth from your eyes... and claimed they invented
shit...

The symbol for the transistor is made up of three pieces: positive,
positive and negative; or negative, negative and positive...silicon
dioxide doped with arsenic and boron, in 1947. Now, in 1947, doping
things with boron was not easy. It required the sort of equipment that
even Bell Labs in 1946 did not possess. They had this type of equipment
at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories, but it would have taken thousands and
thousands and thousands of man-hours to invent the transistor.

[Mike Painter]

On 4/7/2012 10:59 AM, Warhol wrote:
> Op 7-4-2012 18:54, Mike Painter schreef:
>> On 4/7/2012 7:17 AM, Warhol wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hah... My ancestors have invented Rockets and Missiles and named all the
>>> stars and constellations in heaven... so I can know what are the
>>> possibilities or not... The last words; Rockets, radio waves, sound need
>>> a Medium which is not found in vacuum space... the simple truth you have
>>> to learn to live with... and I am open for a honest discussion.
>>>
>>
>> If they could name all the stars they must know the truth and we know
>> sound does not travel.
>>
>> Radio waves can't travel in space.
>> Therefore none of the EMF can.
>>
>> Which explains why it is always dark and cold.
>> It also explains why we had to invent the transistor as vacuum tubes
>> never worked.

<snip>

>
> The symbol for the transistor is made up of three pieces: positive,
> positive and negative; or negative, negative and positive...silicon
> dioxide doped with arsenic and boron, in 1947. Now, in 1947, doping
> things with boron was not easy. It required the sort of equipment that
> even Bell Labs in 1946 did not possess. They had this type of equipment
> at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories, but it would have taken thousands and
> thousands and thousands of man-hours to invent the transistor.

I realize that you are insane but you are right about the doping problem.

If, however, you were to actually search out the history of the
development you would find that the theory dates from the 1920's and
that a non working model existed in 1939. It looked pretty much like the
1947 version and doping probably was the problem.

If it fell out of the sky why didn't they copy what fell rather than
make a crude essentially useless device?

[Warhol]

Op 7-4-2012 21:38, Mike Painter schreef:

*Your shell is strong like a turtle's, but brittle.*

BACK ENGINEERED ALIEN TECHNOLOGY...

*REVERSE ENGINEERING*

Computer company chief Jack Shulman argues that the transistor could
never have been invented so suddenly atAT&T in late 1947 without input
from top secret Government projects, that some have identified to him as
being from alien spacecraft.

Hi, I’m Jack Shulman. I’m the head of the American Computer Company.



American Computer Company is part of the Technology International Group
and Bell North America group of companies. I’m also one of the owners of
the group of companies. I’ve been in the computer industry for about 28
or 29 years.



I’ve worked for IBM as a professional services management consultant. I
worked on the development of the personal computer in 1978 for FIT
[Fashion Institute of Technology] and Simplicity Patterns, later adopted
by IBM. I developed something called the *"pattern creator"*.



That’s where we got the term *"PC"*.

http://sites.google.com/site/alientechnologymkh/reverse-engineering

*Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom.*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QhqEoRvpEA

Korach and his group rebelled against the authority of Moses, against
the Torah. They thought they knew better. The result was that they were
all killed by GOD.

http://godssecret.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/battleoflosangeles.jpg

Those killed were not aliens, but ”time lock” travelers of the future
and knew too much and were killed ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5IsczJqaF8

Los Angeles means The Angels... named before time after the fallen of
time, who brought a new technology we use every moment of the day
today... a technology which will serve us to day to defeat evil
forever... *The Great Victory*

Now I don't know who you are, or what you want with me, but if any of
your men should lay a hand on me, I shall try with all the strength in
me to kill you, and with my last breath I shall curse you to God! GOD
WILL LISTEN!

The Lion and the Wind... Quotes... words from before time

Eden: [playing chess with Raisuli] You are in a lot of trouble! You
should never have moved that knight or kidnapped me - both will see you
undone.
Raisuli: It is not I who determine the outcome of these events - it is
the will of Allah.

[panamfloyd@hotmail.com rade]

On Apr 5, 5:25 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Op 5-4-2012 22:43, edrho...@hotmail.com schreef:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Saturday, March 31, 2012 1:35:45 PM UTC-4, Warhol wrote:
> >> On Mar 31, 8:49 am, Father Haskell<fatherhask...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
> >>> On Mar 30, 4:53 am, Warhol<mol...@hotmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >>>> On Earth the gases from a rocket dispense that
> >>>> energy and push against air, gravity etc. What do the gases push
> >>>> against in space?
>
> >>> Front of the engine.
>
> >> NO, this cannot work in a vacuum. You just ignored the effects that
> >> the vacuum would have on the situation, such as an expanding fuel/gas
> >> would have nothing to push against. This is bogus science.
>
> > No, YOU do not understand that the rockets exhaust does not have to push against anything outside of the rocket. The power of the exhaust coming out pushes the rocket forward as per Newton's Third Law. For every action; the exhaust streaming out of the nozzle, there is an equal and opposite reaction; the rocket is moved in the opposite direction of the exhaust. There's nothing in there about having to push against something outside. As I've said, once in outer space, the rocket can actually work better because it doesn't have to fight gravity and it doesn't have the drag (however miniscule) of the atmosphere.
>
> no its you who seems to have no understand of physics in vacuum
> conditions of space... you can put as much pressure against nothing as
> you want...

Except that the pressure isn't "against nothing", idiot. The pressure
is against the metal of the combustion chamber. Which is bolted to the
rest of the rocket. So, the thing moves.

-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain

[panamfloyd@hotmail.com rade]

On Apr 7, 11:40 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Op 7-4-2012 16:29, HVAC schreef:
>
> > On 4/7/2012 10:17 AM, Warhol wrote:
>
> >> Hah... My ancestors have invented Rockets and Missiles
>
> > You're a chinaman?
>
> I am a Atlas Man...

I thought you said rockets don't work in space?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_%28rocket_family%29

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POHqAnKDbDs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ka8w8qCoueA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg9PdW9yb3c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR7l4YBcTzo&feature=related

I'm more of a Titan fan, m'self..

http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675068227_Titan-IIIE-launched_Kennedy-Space-Center_rocket-ignites_rocket-lifts-off

[Warhol]

Op 8-4-2012 1:48, panam...@hotmail.com rade schreef:

> On Apr 5, 5:25 pm, Warhol<mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Op 5-4-2012 22:43, edrho...@hotmail.com schreef:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Saturday, March 31, 2012 1:35:45 PM UTC-4, Warhol wrote:
>>>> On Mar 31, 8:49 am, Father Haskell<fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 30, 4:53 am, Warhol<mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Earth the gases from a rocket dispense that
>>>>>> energy and push against air, gravity etc. What do the gases push
>>>>>> against in space?
>>
>>>>> Front of the engine.
>>
>>>> NO, this cannot work in a vacuum. You just ignored the effects that
>>>> the vacuum would have on the situation, such as an expanding fuel/gas
>>>> would have nothing to push against. This is bogus science.
>>
>>> No, YOU do not understand that the rockets exhaust does not have to push against anything outside of the rocket. The power of the exhaust coming out pushes the rocket forward as per Newton's Third Law. For every action; the exhaust streaming out of the nozzle, there is an equal and opposite reaction; the rocket is moved in the opposite direction of the exhaust. There's nothing in there about having to push against something outside. As I've said, once in outer space, the rocket can actually work better because it doesn't have to fight gravity and it doesn't have the drag (however miniscule) of the atmosphere.
>>
>> no its you who seems to have no understand of physics in vacuum
>> conditions of space... you can put as much pressure against nothing as
>> you want...
>
> Except that the pressure isn't "against nothing", idiot. The pressure
> is against the metal of the combustion chamber. Which is bolted to the
> rest of the rocket. So, the thing moves.
>
> -

are you certain? well prove it!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsC7yRBEiI0

[Warhol]

Op 8-4-2012 2:06, panam...@hotmail.com rade schreef:

there is no evidence those rockets even got in the vacuum... what see is
illusion and what they tell is bullshit... next.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MaIglr4kPs

[panamfloyd@hotmail.com rade]

On Apr 7, 8:40 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Op 8-4-2012 2:06, panamfl...@hotmail.com rade schreef:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 7, 11:40 am, Warhol<mol...@hotmail.com>  wrote:
> >> Op 7-4-2012 16:29, HVAC schreef:
>
> >>> On 4/7/2012 10:17 AM, Warhol wrote:
>
> >>>> Hah... My ancestors have invented Rockets and Missiles
>
> >>> You're a chinaman?
>
> >> I am a Atlas Man...
>
> > I thought you said rockets don't work in space?
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_%28rocket_family%29
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POHqAnKDbDs
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ka8w8qCoueA
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg9PdW9yb3c
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR7l4YBcTzo&feature=related
>
> > I'm more of a Titan fan, m'self..
>

> >http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675068227_Titan-IIIE-launched_Ken...

>
> > -Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
> > aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
> > "..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
> > -Mark Twain
>
> > Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
> >http://www.rationalist.com.au/archive/73/p20-27_paul_ar73_web.pdf
>
> there is no evidence those rockets even got in the vacuum...

And there's no evidence that you're anything other than a fucking
tinfoil hat idiot, either.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1113316/fly_me_to_the_moon_frank_sinatra/

-PF, Atl.
#2015/KoBAAWA!

[panamfloyd@hotmail.com rade]

On Apr 7, 8:21 pm, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Op 8-4-2012 1:48, panamfl...@hotmail.com rade schreef:

My offer to stick two Estes D12s up your ass still stands...

-PF, Atl.
#2015/KoBAAWA!

[Warhol]

Op 8-4-2012 2:50, panam...@hotmail.com rade schreef:

show your proof...I don"t believe in your false religion... I want to
see hard evidence or you shut your Parrot mouth forever...


here watch this how *the Moors baby* got the his blessing... he solved
an algebra problem to free the Tooth Fairy and ease the teething pains
of both Baby

http://www.trilulilu.ro/video-animatie/smurfs-3x34-the-moor-s-baby

[Warhol]

Op 8-4-2012 2:50, panam...@hotmail.com rade schreef:

CHELSEA HOTEL... Close by are the ruins of the town of Chellah....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAHDP-j5-dY

[Warhol]

Op 4-4-2012 1:49, panam...@hotmail.com rade schreef:
> On Apr 3, 6:24 pm, Ivan I. Deer<Iv...@swbell.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 Apr 2012 15:59:13 -0700 (PDT), "panamfl...@hotmail.com rade"

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <panamfl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Apr 2, 6:56 pm, Warhol<mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Apr 3, 12:39 am, Tony Dragon<tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 30/03/2012 09:53, Warhol wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Look at it this way. Let's suppose a rocket is floating... incorrect,
>>>>>> since things cannot "float" in space. Okay, let's say a rocket is
>>>>>> stationary in space. Nothing is acting on this rocket. It's weight is
>>>>>> null because it is in a vacuum. It has no resistance to anything. When
>>>>>> you stand and push something, you have all sorts of Resistances acting
>>>>>> on you and the object you push. Friction of your feet on the floor,
>>>>>> wind, weight, gravity. In space, none of these things exist. The
>>>>>> rocket cannot exert energy because there simply is nothing to exert it
>>>>>> against.
>>
>>>>> Before I comment on the rest.
>>
>>>>> Why would something weigh nothing because it is in a vacuum?
>>
>>>> Vacuum of space(heaven)... in free fall you are weightless...
>>
>>>> http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/u6l4d.cfm
>>
>>>> Now I await your comment on the rest...
>>
>>> You don't have `weight', but you still have *mass*, idiot.
>>
>>> -Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
>>> aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
>>

>> The real problem I have with all this is, how do I get mass out of bed
>> in the morning?
>
> Yeah, I have the same problem. There are some questions science may
> never answer..<g>
>
> -PF, Atl.
> #2015/KoBAAWA!



Why do you people sleep at the Wrong Wall???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8A9UeMOdyFQ

[Mike Painter]

And if you actually trace the development of the device and the theory
that it came from you will find it was man made.

[BDK]

In article <3bec73bc-4f80-4ab2-8c0e-9bb01901d009
@r9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, panam...@hotmail.com says...

Wormhole's "brain" doesn't work, anywhere.

--
BDK- Head FUD-Master Blaster.