The Conspiracy Theory
Comments
-
Just for the hell of it I'm going to humour you and we'll see if you're willing to return the favour...
I'll add my comments to your post in a nice purplish colour. I'd appreciate if you could respond by quoting it again and adding further comments in a third colour of your choice. Please leave the post intact and just add your comments so we can see the progression of the discussion without going around in circles. I doubt it'll work but what the heck:Manc33 wrote:People talk as though they personally sent rockets into space.
You "know" rockets get pushed along in space because some official sounding website says so.
I know rockets could propel themselves in space because I have studied how physics is used to understand and model the physical world and have conducted experiments demonstrating the veracity of the principles involved. I understand enough to know how much we don't know and how implausible it is that the principles of physics itself have been faked. I take virtually nothing on faith alone. I've been taught many things by teachers, lecturers, books and I don't store them away as discrete "facts" as you would have us believe. I attempt to understand how and why these things must be reasonable based on my existing knowledge, understanding and experience. This is how you understand the world. Not by taking someone's word for it. You can never understand something you haven't examined for yourself. I do the same in all aspects of life, as I hope do most people. I have rarely found errors in science simply because it's been so well examined already. On the other hand I regularly find what I consider major flaws in other areas such as economics, politics, religion, and social convention. The scientific method is designed for the very purpose of achieving rigor and consistency and to avoid bias or deception from distorting information.
You continually refer to the scientific community or it's overlords fabricating theories and doing gymnastics to make things appear to work the way they want us to believe. This is utterly unfeasible. If you don't see why you don't understand science.
But i digress.....So, why do you think rockets need something to push against?
What do you base this on. You haven't given a reason yet except to say there has to be something to push on. Please tell me why there has to be. Are you basing your assertion on intuition, experience, something someone told you, what?
You don't know but just choose to believe they can work.
That's all very well if you're completely oblivious to the dozens of other times NASA has been caught faking stuff. If you have no idea about that, you're never going to think a rocket couldn't work in space, you're hooked into the lie that it isn't all fakery.
What's NASA got to do with it? The physics far precede NASA. I'm not relying on seeing or being told although confirmation is always nice! If it didn't work i wouldn't be saying "Okay then, it doesn't work" because then physics wouldn't work. I'd be asking why not and looking for either the flaw inthe experiment or the flaw in our understanding in science. That's how it works, and I believe it does work.
Knowing it is being faked, being told a rocket can't push anywhere in space because there isn't anything to push against makes perfect sense. If you don't agree with that then other parts of science must be wrong, it contradicts itself because they tell us there is nothing there.
What contradiction are you referring to? There is no such contradiction. If there is and you are aware of it as you claim then please tell us what it is. Space is close to a vacuum. If you look it up I'm sure you'll find a figure for the number of molecules on average per unit volume of space in the vicinity of earth at a given altitude. The density is so low as to be pretty irrelevant to this conversation. There is almost nothing there and the rocket does not require anything to be there in order to operate. A rocket does not require to "push against" anything.
So you keep believing this stupid contradictory stuff if you want. Why do you think its alright for science on the one hand to say "there's nothing in space" but when it suits them there is something to push on?! Why would anyone carry on taking it seriously?
Because "science" isn't saying that. You are. there is no contradiction - see above.
Why doesn't anyone care if science makes mistakes, contradicts itself and turns concepts into absolute facts? Why would you carry on thinking that way when the thing is held together on a wing and a prayer?
They do. No-one cares more about this than scientists and engineers. Which is why the scientific community go to great lengths to avoid this. The scientific approach has been described to you previously in this thread. You chose to ignore it.
There's nothing in space when it suits, there something in space when it suits.
Completely untrue. See above
People actually get sucked into this crap lol. A soon as something contradicts itself in that way you should just walk away from it, not carry on defending it. Why would anyone do that? You're subscribing to a bunch of contradictions.
No contradictions here. When contradictions do turn up you know what they are? They're a research project waiting to happen. Contradictions are the basis of expanding our knowledge and understanding. no-one of any intellect whatsoever thinks they understand everything. Science is riddled with gaps in our knowledge. That doesn't make it worthless. On the contrary, it's willingness to admit what it doesn't know is why it's useful. Otherwise you have religion, mythology and the bad kind of conspiracy theorists.0 -
You're assuming physics (even down to the air mixture here on the ground) works the exact same way in space as it does on Earth.
The first bit of blue text above says you conducted experiments, but you'd have to be conducting them in space to claim anything like what you're claiming.
I'm not debating with someone if they are just going to start off by assuming "You can apply everything we know about physics here on Earth to space", which is a weightless vacuum containing nothing.
Most times anyone answers anything they throw in a bunch of stuff to make the answer work. Its not much use if you're just going to say everything out in space works just the same way as it does here on Earth.
That's like saying the environment in the ocean is the same as it is above the water, rockets could just fly underwater. Except the ocean probably has a lot more in common with whats above it than the air does with what's (purported to be) above that.
Thing is you can do experiments in water because we can access it. You can't access space, but talk as though you can to make the answer work. It all boils down to how trusting you are I guess. If you want to trust NASA that's fair enough, but it could just be treated as a "work of fiction" really because they never prove or need to prove anything, people just lap it up.0 -
Manc33 wrote:How can gas be "created" in space if nothing can be combusted up there?
who says nothing can be combusted in space?
They have magic "internal only" engines that take in nothing, but expel something?
Not magic, just rockets. They work exactly the same on earth. They take in nothing. they burn fuel and expel the exhaust gases at high velocity. Do you disagree?
So you're saying now space does have air and things can be combusted?
I'm not. If someone else is then they're wrong. However you can bring your own oxidiser which is exactly what a rocket engine does. That huge tank the space shuttle used to be attached to was filled with two things, not one. Hydrogen and oxygen. Solid fuel rockets use chemicals containing high levels of oxygen such as potassium nitrate. Hybrid rocket engines also exist which use liquid oxygen or nitrous oxide along with a solid fuel. Most explosives don't require air to burn. They contain their own oxygen. Otherwise they can't get enough quick enough to explode rather than burn at a pedestrian rate. Air pressure is too low and it's mostly nitrogen anyway.
Or aren't you saying that?
If you're not saying that, its back to the magic internal engine again isn't it. :roll:
Nope. I think you'll find my answers are consistent, logical and do not require the use of magic, religion or controlling overlords
You can't have it both ways - but always need to so the answers appear logical.
nothing I've said needs it both ways unless I've made a mistake somewhere. If I have please be so kind as to point it out and I'll remedy the situation ASAP. thanks0 -
Please respond in the manner requested.Manc33 wrote:You're assuming physics (even down to the air mixture here on the ground) works the exact same way in space as it does on Earth.
The first bit of blue text above says you conducted experiments, but you'd have to be conducting them in space to claim anything like what you're claiming.
I'm not debating with someone if they are just going to start off by assuming "You can apply everything we know about physics here on Earth to space", which is a weightless vacuum containing nothing.
Most times anyone answers anything they throw in a bunch of stuff to make the answer work. Its not much use if you're just going to say everything out in space works just the same way as it does here on Earth.
That's like saying the environment in the ocean is the same as it is above the water, rockets could just fly underwater. Except the ocean probably has a lot more in common with whats above it than the air does with what's (purported to be) above that.
Thing is you can do experiments in water because we can access it. You can't access space, but talk as though you can to make the answer work.
Your avoidance of same is a tactic to avoid the question asked:
Why do you think rockets need something to push against?0 -
You're not even addressing the fact that air needs to be sucked in from somewhere for a rocket to blast anything out the other end, so there isn't a debate. You're ignoring something obvious.
The above is true whether anything is being pushed against or not. Before explaining how it pushes against nothing and moves forward, don't we have to explain how the thing even stays burning in space to initiate any pushing?
You're only ever going to give an answer that doesn't involve testing it yourself out in space and relies on assumptions that space behaves the same way as our atmosphere does, which is absurd.0 -
Rockets have their own supply of liquid oxygen (or similar).Manc33 wrote:You're not even addressing the fact that air needs to be sucked in from somewhere for a rocket to blast anything out the other end, so there isn't a debate. You're ignoring something obvious.
The above is true whether anything is being pushed against or not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_propellant"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Ai_1 wrote:Please respond in the manner requested.
Your avoidance of same is a tactic to avoid the question asked
VBT (Very Basic Trolling). How did you get sucked in?0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
Rockets have their own supply of liquid oxygen (or similar).Manc33 wrote:You're not even addressing the fact that air needs to be sucked in from somewhere for a rocket to blast anything out the other end, so there isn't a debate. You're ignoring something obvious.
The above is true whether anything is being pushed against or not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_propellant
Is that just for fueling it, or for fueling the thing that pushes the air through, or both?
Its just too far fetched for me to believe it with all the other fakery going on.
All they have done is design a rocket that would "theoretically" work in space if space existed. Even if they can internally provide all the right air mixture it still doesn't explain how it pushes against nothing. The answer to that is "It doesn't need to push against something" which isn't even an answer. Also the answer always comes from either a space agency known to be faking stuff or someone that has not been up there to test it out.
Amateur astronomers are telling us more about whats on the surface of the moon than NASA does. Is that normal? If so then explain why please.
NASA has better things to do?
All NASA is supposedly there for is to study the cosmos, that is their ONE JOB.
Is it normal that people on a tight budget with their own telescope in their own back yard are now pointing out almost endless interesting stuff NASA never even mentions? :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:
Tell me again why we are trusting this organization set up with help from an ex-Nazi that now tells us sweet FA about the very thing they are supposed to be telling us about? Anyone can see NASA isn't there to explore space, they are there to give the impression that they are exploring space. Everything is covered, for example people say "Ha, look, you have underwater tanks, you're faking it" and they say "Oh bless, those are just our training tanks" and the lie is maintained that easily. :roll:
Talking to people like they are five years old isn't going to help, I think most people will then just study why other people have to do that all the time. Thats the real study, as I keep saying. Not even the NASA fakery or all the corruption, but how it goes on at all. How we can think we have integrity while having practically none at all. How we can assume we think we know the world we live in, all without seeing it for ourselves and trusting other people's stories.
You only have to see how the first astronauts act when they got back to Earth to see something is wrong. Instead of enthusiastically telling people about their space walk, they have very little details about it and hate being asked about it. Yep, because they were probably decent men that wanted to be part of the most heroic thing ever attempted, instead they just slid down the NASA emergency chute (as shown to exist years ago on a BBC documentary where the BBC guy even slid down it himself) and told to lie for the rest of their lives. It shows. Watch the astronauts in that conference they did when they got back to Earth. All are looking at the desk wondering how the hell can they keep quiet about something like that.
Armstrong gave away a few clues though once when he said (in one of his only interviews) we have to peel away the layers of secrecy or words to that effect. Those guys are heroes, for all the wrong reasons, but they are still heroes to me.0 -
Manc33, it is a recurring theme that you are simply trolling.
What is your response to this and what proof do you have that you are not?Statistically, 6 out of 7 dwarves are not happy.0 -
If someone is doubting that physical laws are the same in a vacuum as in Earth's atmosphere, you might as well 'debate' with a bowl of jelly.0
-
Manc33 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Rockets have their own supply of liquid oxygen (or similar).Manc33 wrote:You're not even addressing the fact that air needs to be sucked in from somewhere for a rocket to blast anything out the other end, so there isn't a debate. You're ignoring something obvious.
The above is true whether anything is being pushed against or not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_propellant
Is that just for fueling it, or for fueling the thing that pushes the air through, or both?
Its just too far fetched for me to believe it with all the other fakery going on.
All they have done is design a rocket that would "theoretically" work in space if space existed. Even if they can internally provide all the right air mixture it still doesn't explain how it pushes against nothing. The answer to that is "It doesn't need to push against something" which isn't even an answer. Also the answer always comes from either a space agency known to be faking stuff or someone that has not been up there to test it out.
Amateur astronomers are telling us more about whats on the surface of the moon than NASA does. Can you pretend that's normal?
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of rocket motors and how they work. They are not turbojets. The two are very different.0 -
briantrumpet wrote:If someone is doubting that physical laws are the same in a vacuum as in Earth's atmosphere, you might as well 'debate' with a bowl of jelly.
You've never been up there to know.0 -
You've never been up there to know, either. Just add it to the long list of things that you know fvck all about...Manc33 wrote:briantrumpet wrote:If someone is doubting that physical laws are the same in a vacuum as in Earth's atmosphere, you might as well 'debate' with a bowl of jelly.
You've never been up there to know.0 -
-
Including how to pay at a petrol stationImposter wrote:
You've never been up there to know, either. Just add it to the long list of things that you know fvck all about...Manc33 wrote:briantrumpet wrote:If someone is doubting that physical laws are the same in a vacuum as in Earth's atmosphere, you might as well 'debate' with a bowl of jelly.
You've never been up there to know. "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The two possibilities are that he doesn't have a clue about what is meant by the laws of physics and how they've been arrived at, and denies any universal laws exist, or he does, and uses series of English words in vaguely logical order to convince you that he is barking, when he's actually quite sane and realises what he is saying is barking. Either way, it's trolling, and I'm surprised the efforts going into this 'debate'. I'm reminded of those threads where people can't agree what 'strength' and 'power' mean: if even the basic terms being used in the debate aren't agreed on, you can replace Richard Feynman with my bowl of jelly.Imposter wrote:You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of rocket motors and how they work. They are not turbojets. The two are very different.0 -
You have to call it trolling because you can't imagine it being true, that's fair enough.
What's trolling anyway, do you think the 911 ball was trolling?
It came from NBC's live feed, where's the trolling?
Some of what I say is speculative brainstorming but not all of it.
Am I trolling when I say look at the astronauts body language?
Am I always trolling to you guys all the time?
You ignore just about everything I say but that doesn't mean its trolling, its just another silly tactic to avoid dealing with all this stuff.
Do you think NASA isn't faking anything? How can you if it can be shown to be the case? It sounds like you're just trolling yourself, if anything.
Like I have said, if only one thing can be proven to be faked by NASA, we can probably extrapolate from that, they are faking other stuff too.
Well a guy did prove with parallax shift that mountains on certain NASA images were a lot nearer to them than claimed, so there, the fakery is proven.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G15ogyslYlY&t=1m15s
People are so dumb they even say "It would all come out" even when it is all coming out. :? How stupid do people have to be to contort their mind in that way? Its utter garbage and all the avoiding looking into it won't do anything, except keep you in the dark.
There's endless points of contention. Ignoring that the point exists (or laughing it off) doesn't answer it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7pzg9xpAOE
Just the first point about no blast crater can't be explained lol. There's half an hour of such points.0 -
-
Is that because you have a great big helmet on?briantrumpet wrote:It's a good job one can't hear anything in space.
Or because you'd die without it?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
From the above documentary:
"NASA spent gigantic sums of money during the 1960's, but most of it was spent on the ground, not in space. Huge American corporations, many of which were manufacturing hardware for the military, made gigantic profits designing space vehicles and more importantly, life sized models of spaceships and even huge stage sets, resembling the lunar surface. Someone in NASA had realized that after taking billions of dollars from the American people, if they couldn't make it to the moon, they would fake it to the moon." - Chris Everard.0 -
Manc33 wrote:Also the answer always comes from either a space agency known to be faking stuff or someone that has not been up there to test it out.
What other types are there in your world?
Those who have not been up there but support your nonsense?
Where does your knowledge of space, rockets and physics come from?www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
Chris Bass wrote:Manc33 wrote:Also the answer always comes from either a space agency known to be faking stuff or someone that has not been up there to test it out.
What other types are there in your world?
Those who have not been up there but support your nonsense?
Where does your knowledge of space, rockets and physics come from?
YouTube university, duh!0 -
Imposter wrote:
You've never been up there to know, either. Just add it to the long list of things that you know fvck all about...Manc33 wrote:briantrumpet wrote:If someone is doubting that physical laws are the same in a vacuum as in Earth's atmosphere, you might as well 'debate' with a bowl of jelly.
You've never been up there to know.
Worth posting this again. I doubt I'll get a response.0 -
The laws of physics dictate that every force has an equal and opposite reaction.
How does a vacuum react?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
A vacuum isn't a force.0
-
I'm not claiming to "know" what is up there though, thats the difference.
I am disputing what we have been told is up there, due to there not being enough solid evidence and the fact that you can just fake that stuff, for example "2001 A Space Odyssey" (1968), "Star Wars" (1977) and "Gravity" (2013).
Other people are claiming they know what is up there and claiming it cannot be disputed, without really knowing, they are only judging that from the same group of people that I have heard say it and I don't believe it.
Why wouldn't I believe it?
Because they are faking other stuff.
I don't need to go up there to prove anything because I am not claiming to know what is up there, I am claiming what is up there is not what we have been told. The main contention is "They can't fake it" when they can. If they can't, Stanley Kubrick and George Lucas can't fake it either except of course, they managed it. You can't have it both ways.0 -
Precisely.Imposter wrote:A vacuum isn't a force.
I never said it was a force. But a force has to react against something.
So how does the spaceship move?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
You can't spend money in space, there are no shops or petrol stations up there. But they'd have to go to the kiosk if they wanted to pay cash.Manc33 wrote:From the above documentary:
"NASA spent gigantic sums of money during the 1960's, but most of it was spent on the ground, not in space.
Admit it you are too stupid to understand any of this, even though both of my kids and their hamsters would have understood by now that rockets and jets are not the same.0
