ewerk 30370 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Hold on, I thought you'd gone to get all the telescopic evidence ? You're the one with the telescope, have a look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 That's what they will have you think. A rockets fuel in a vacuum is pushing against nothing, so therefore it stays where it is. The mass of the fuel itself is the counterforce if you read what I posted above. Need to up your game on this one bro.. You've come in half prepared... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 44498 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Space isn't a perfect vacuum though. Wolfy's head, on the other hand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4711 Posted July 31, 2012 Author Share Posted July 31, 2012 You're the one with the telescope, have a look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 CT only sees a big bit of cheese through his.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Many people dispute the moon landings. How does maths prove man went to the moon? Maths proves the physics behind it. Proves we have the ability to create the energy needed to propel a vehicle of that weight, that distance and back again without it falling apart and with it maintaing an internal temperature man can survive. You're either questioning those facts, or you're questioning our will to implement the theory, or you're questioning our ability to implement it successfully. Which? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 They don't Wolfy. They (I) dispute that men have walked on the moon from the Apollo missions back in the day. The mass of the fuel itself is the counterforce if you read what I posted above. Need to up your game on this one bro.. You've come in half prepared... In space, it can have any mass of fuel but that fuel still has to be released in a burn which is immediately absorbed into a vacuum as fast as it comes out therefore nullifying any effect, meaning it stays where it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Maths proves the physics behind it. Proves we have the ability to create the energy needed to propel a vehicle of that weight, that distance and back again without it falling apart and with it maintaing an internal temperature man can survive. You're either questioning those facts, or you're questioning our will to implement the theory, or you're questioning our ability to implement it successfully. Which? All of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 In space, it can have any mass of fuel but that fuel still has to be released in a burn which is immediately absorbed into a vacuum as fast as it comes out therefore nullifying any effect, meaning it stays where it is. The burn pushes against the mass of the tank of fuel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 The burn pushes against the mass of the tank of fuel. You cannot push against yourself. The fuel released from the exhaust nozzle is what propels a rocket on earthy, expanding gasses against the atmosphere is what makes them fly but in a vacuum, this would be pointless as the vacuum immediately takes it all away as fast as it comes out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I don't believe man can survive outside of low earth orbit (beyond the protection of earths magnetic field). Cosmic radiation is deadly. All the astronauts would be dead within months of their return. A 60's hasslebald camera could not have takes those pics under the conditions of the shade and sunexposed temperatures, it's impossible. It's why the got Kubrick in...To get the broadcast quality video and pics sorted on a set in Vegas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I don't believe man can survive outside of low earth orbit (beyond the protection of earths magnetic field). Cosmic radiation is deadly. All the astronauts would be dead within months of their return. A 60's hasslebald camera could not have takes those pics under the conditions of the shade and sunexposed temperatures, it's impossible. It's why the got Kubrick in...To get the broadcast quality video and pics sorted on a set in Vegas. Seems about as plausible as can be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 You cannot push against yourself. The fuel released from the exhaust nozzle is what propels a rocket on earthy, expanding gasses against the atmosphere is what makes them fly but in a vacuum, this would be pointless as the vacuum immediately takes it all away as fast as it comes out. Read the medicine ball experiment I posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Seems about as plausible as can be. It's also why the Russians never bothered with men moon landings. They knew it was impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 All of it. So, maths/physics proves your wrong on point one. And none of the hundreds of thousands of physicists that study the subject to expert standard have found any reason to disagree with the science of it, despite the massive worldwide acclaim that would surely come with such conclusive evidence. Only fucking idiots that barely got a GCSE are stupid enough to do that. You've not given any reason to doubt the will of man to venture into the unknown. Going back hundreds of thousands of years man has taken leaps into the unknown in the liklihood of certain death to discover unknown territories. Why do you think that desire ended? The third one is your best bet I think, it leaves the burden of proof on witnessing it or believing the huge volume of testimony from everyone involved. But then you're disrespecting some of the greatest human beings to have ever lived. You may as well dispute Columbus did any sailing until you've visited America yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Read the medicine ball experiment I posted. On Earth, that's fine...in space it doesn't won't work. Picture yourself in space sat on a chair, suspended and there is no up or down, so you are suspended. You can flap your arms and legs yet you go nowhere because you are flapping against nothing. If you have a medicine ball, it's also weighs nothing but you can push that medicine ball away from you into space yet you will stay where you are while you watch this ball float away into the distance. You could believe you are moving backwards if you wanted because you are in space where you don't know you are moving as you do not have air hitting you . You weight nothing in space and anything you hold, weighs nothing. On Earth, you can push the medicine ball but contrary to what scientists say, you are still propelling that ball against an atmosphere which means you push it forward and momentum pushes you back because you have pushed against a barrier. People just assume that rockets and stuff work against themselves without atmosphere and I can't understand why people believe this as tehre is a very easy experiment to do to prove other wise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 It's also why the Russians never bothered with men moon landings. They knew it was impossible. Yep, and also they were busy faking their own space flights with Yuri Gagarin and the likes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 So, maths/physics proves your wrong on point one. And none of the hundreds of thousands of physicists that study the subject to expert standard have found any reason to disagree with the science of it, despite the massive worldwide acclaim that would surely come with such conclusive evidence. Only fucking idiots that barely got a GCSE are stupid enough to do that. You've not given any reason to doubt the will of man to venture into the unknown. Going back hundreds of thousands of years man has taken leaps into the unknown in the liklihood of certain death to discover unknown territories. Why do you think that desire ended? The third one is your best bet I think, it leaves the burden of proof on witnessing it or believing the huge volume of testimony from everyone involved. But then you're disrespecting some of the greatest human beings to have ever lived. You may as well dispute Columbus did any sailing until you've visited America yourself. Am I disrespecting Armstrong and all the other Astronot's that say they went to the moon, or are they disrespecting all of their own people of their country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 On Earth, that's fine...in space it doesn't won't work. Picture yourself in space sat on a chair, suspended and there is no up or down, so you are suspended. You can flap your arms and legs yet you go nowhere because you are flapping against nothing. If you have a medicine ball, it's also weighs nothing but you can push that medicine ball away from you into space yet you will stay where you are while you watch this ball float away into the distance. You could believe you are moving backwards if you wanted because you are in space where you don't know you are moving as you do not have air hitting you . You weight nothing in space and anything you hold, weighs nothing. On Earth, you can push the medicine ball but contrary to what scientists say, you are still propelling that ball against an atmosphere which means you push it forward and momentum pushes you back because you have pushed against a barrier. People just assume that rockets and stuff work against themselves without atmosphere and I can't understand why people believe this as tehre is a very easy experiment to do to prove other wise. Ruler of the planet houston? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Am I disrespecting Armstrong and all the other Astronot's that say they went to the moon, or are they disrespecting all of their own people of their country? You're disrespecting them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4711 Posted July 31, 2012 Author Share Posted July 31, 2012 So, maths/physics proves your wrong on point one. And none of the hundreds of thousands of physicists that study the subject to expert standard have found any reason to disagree with the science of it, despite the massive worldwide acclaim that would surely come with such conclusive evidence. Only fucking idiots that barely got a GCSE are stupid enough to do that. You've not given any reason to doubt the will of man to venture into the unknown. Going back hundreds of thousands of years man has taken leaps into the unknown in the liklihood of certain death to discover unknown territories. Why do you think that desire ended? The third one is your best bet I think, it leaves the burden of proof on witnessing it or believing the huge volume of testimony from everyone involved. But then you're disrespecting some of the greatest human beings to have ever lived. You may as well dispute Columbus did any sailing until you've visited America yourself. They tried it with the Bible didnt they. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) You're disrespecting them. Says you!Well I'm not interested whether you think I'm disrespecting them with all due respect. As I believe they are living a mammoth lie and most of them probably cringe every morning when they get out of bed. Edited July 31, 2012 by wolfy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 15432 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. A sentiment shared by some of the world's greatest thinkers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 They tried it with the Bible didnt they. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Sorry? There's no science that suggests snakes can talk....or bushes...or that seas can be parted by man with a stick.....or that one fish can be made into thousands, or that a virgin can have a bairn. So you are an atheist then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4711 Posted July 31, 2012 Author Share Posted July 31, 2012 Sorry? There's no science that suggests snakes can talk....or bushes...or that seas can be parted by man with a stick.....or that one fish can be made into thousands, or that a virgin can have a bairn. So you are an atheist then? I am Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.png.403f4a475ac3bb53997c2626c09ef800.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now