[XAP]Bob wrote:Er - how? It can be pointed towards the ground, it doesn't matter - the thrust is generated as the result of momentum exchange between the rocket motor and the fuel/exhaust.
On the ground in a vacuum a rocket could blast off, because the ground is there to push against. It would get to say a foot up in the air and just float there, still pushing on the ground, it can't just then start raising up more, because there's no air to push against.
It pushing against its own parts doesn't make any sense and thats just like saying I can lift you up then you can lift me up and we can both levitate upwards lifting each other up.
[XAP]Bob wrote:Who said anything about an electronic device. I can calculate orbital periods quite happily.
And I can see that they are satellites - I just point my 'scope in the correct direction and see them [url="https://www.google.ie/search?q=backyard+telescope+image+of+the+iss&espv=2&biw=1440&bih=808&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj73pzOr63MAhWqB8AKHYCXAQ0QsAQIIg"]like any of these[/url]
You can't physically know they are satellites though.
Also, why isn't there one single video of one coming out of the atmosphere and into space filmed from in space?
We would have thousands and thousands of videos of these events were they really happening.
When they launch a rocket up they curve it a great deal then turn off the booster to make it look (from the ground here on Earth) like it popped out into space, I have to say that is one hell of a magic trick, very convincing, so simple as well, just turn off the thrust and the rocket is so high up no one can see the bare rocket itself, only if it thrusts, it is ingenious.
All rockets curve because they fall back to Earth once they are out of sight. God knows how many rocket parts there must be in the ocean along the West coast of the United States.
If there's no video of exiting or entering the atmosphere then no, I don't believe it, I think they would be proud of these things and we would be seeing videos like that as a matter of course.
There's endless other facts like there's no real photo's of Earth as a full ball in space from in space, all are mock ups, CGI, composites and so on. NASA only claims two images are real photos - one from 1972 and one from 2015.
They even released the one in 2015 to coincide with all the scrutiny.
Gravity waves were only announced because people were quoting Neil DeGrasse Tyson as saying "We have yet to detect a gravity wave" lol. Pull the other one, this stuff is all scripted this way. People start scrutinizing something, they make a "counter move" for it.
In this respect people like you will always want to punch and laugh at people like me that point these things out.
I am after all though just the guy pointing it out, no one has to take my word for it and can check into anything I am saying.
What about the Challenger '86 "disaster" survivors? We got told 7 astronauts died, but 6 of them are still alive to this day. These people are distinctive looking enough to say it is them. Two of them claim it was their twin that died, what a coincidence!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RonQn0urPhgLike I said don't take my word for it, god forbid, right?
These people
are still alive, it can be verified that they still physically exist.
Some haven't even bothered to change their name, I can imagine their arrogance and thinking they are above being caught out, same reason any criminal gets caught, they get above themselves.
Most of them seem to be working in law, go figure... flitting between one occupation where lying is mandatory, to another profession where lying is mandatory. They are good at one thing - lying. Who knows maybe they are second hand car salesmen in their spare time, too.
[XAP]Bob wrote:[satallites] Put where?
In the sky.
[XAP]Bob wrote:If I pushed up and you pushed down then you would move up. If we were in water then you'd move up and I'd move down.
Water has molecules to it, it is an object.
[XAP]Bob wrote:No need for it to be solid - I could spray you with a fire extinguisher - it would just give me less pleasure.
The exhaust from a fire extinguisher has matter to it. It pushes out air too. There isn't air in space.
[XAP]Bob wrote:Does a sailing boat need to push against a solid to get thrust?
The air contains enough substance to push on the sails and move the boat.
In the "vacuum of space" there's no substance there apart from a few atoms per square meter.
In comparison to a vacuum, the air of Earth is so thick we might as well call it a liquid.
[XAP]Bob wrote:The rocket exhaust pushes on the rocket motor - meaning that one accelerates in one direction and the other in the opposite direction.
It does push on it but it wouldn't move it because the push force is all lost to the vacuum of space. The force is all there in the form of a cloud, not in the form of a rocket moving away from a cloud, it has no reason to in a weightless vacuum.
[XAP]Bob wrote:But you said there is no vacuum?
No there isn't, I am talking about the claimed heliocentric model which I think is a pack of bull because nothing shows why it is true, not physically anyway, which is what proves anything.
[XAP]Bob wrote:And how can I push a vacuum, I can't possibly apply any force, it isn't solid...
I don't know what you mean.
[XAP]Bob wrote:Whipple shields are really good:
This isn't anything mere mortals can verify, we just get told it, its all happening out in space.
[XAP]Bob wrote:Why can't you radiate heat...
Some heat might escape to a few millimeters away in space but thats about it.
Moving at 17,000 MPH doesn't create any wind to get rid of the heat.
Rotating fans don't work, no air can blow.
So heat can't be removed from an object in space, not without surrounding it with nearly freezing water or something like that, then how do you shield the water, then how do you shield the water shield... and so on. We don't have any known method to dump the heat. Everything would heat up faster than it could be cooled off again, the cooling equipment itself would also need its own way to throw off heat, it becomes absurd.
[XAP]Bob wrote:...it is after all how the energy from the sun reaches the earth - sorry you don't believe in either of those things.
Since heat cannot convect or conduct no, I don't believe a 93,000,000 mile wide vacuum could have any heat at all hitting us from a sun that far away.
One (sleight of mind magic trick) answer is that oh well erm light is radiation, heat is radiation, so both of them can travel here.
Really... so sound is a wave, the light spectrum is a wave... so you can "hear" colours? You can "see" noises?
Iron filings show patterns at different frequencies but then you're not seeing a noise, that isn't possible, it can only be heard as a noise, as a noise!
So while light waves can permeate a vacuum (actually it is having any matter there that would HINDER the light travelling) heat waves cannot do that because they need other particles to convect across to do that! If there's no particles there (there isn't, its a few atoms per square meter yada yada) then this proves heat shouldn't even be able to get here.
The real answer is the sun is a lot closer as proven by "crepuscular rays" (again a bogus answer is given where they claim it is perspective)
Sure it is... if light bent like that it would bend like that everywhere else, doh! So only the sun shining through the clouds and nothing else can give this effect... thought it might be the case.
No it isn't perspective with crepuscular rays, the sun is really where your own eyes and own brain are telling you the sun is, not that far above the clouds... just follow the angled lines up next time you see the sun doing that and thats where the sun is.
[XAP]Bob wrote:It's how the heat from my garage halogen radiator gets to me...
No part of your house is a vacuum.
[XAP]Bob wrote:So I did - but the observation doesn't rely on it - the atmosphere can be observed to be petering out. Of course it's just that it's heavier when it's nearer the earth - magically.
It doesn't need to be magic, it is just density or as I call it a "scale of density" where objects rise just as much as they fall, but where all anyone talks about is the falling part.
So things are also floating upwards, I could bang on and on about that if I wanted to, why would objects RISE up? All anyone ever talks about is stuff "falling" as we call it. No, it isn't even really falling at all, it is just "the other direction" to the other direction, it is all
one thing. One scale of density.
Right at the top, nothing. Right at the bottom... we don't know.
Even at the top (I mean above the stars) it could just be solid matter again, after all meteors have to come from somewhere. It seems then to be some sort of enclosed system.
[XAP]Bob wrote:OK - stop a tennis ball and then let it go - gravity will cause it to start moving. Better yet find a piano and a crane, then stand under the piano when the crane driver releases the piano. Since gravity can't cause the piano to move you'll be fine.
Gravity "can't cause anything to move" because it isn't there as a force.
What causes the movement is density differences.
[XAP]Bob wrote:No - you've been saying that a theory cannot be fact.
A fact is clearly the truth - because it is repeatable and physically demonstrable, forever. The physics of the known universe would have to alter, for a fact to suddenly become untrue again (ergo, a theory).
A theory is something written down or spoken that postulates about something
yet to be demonstrably proven (if that is at all possible).
Matt Boylan pointed out something funny about Newton's "principia" books... every other paragraph starts with the word "if".
If Earth is a ball... if if if if...
[XAP]Bob wrote:Because we don't generally operate within situations where the effects deviate significantly from Newtonian physics.
There are no Newtonian physics when it comes to "gravity".
Newton simply claimed the acceleration rate of falling objects "means" gravity is causing it without ever proving it. I think it is ingenious personally.
Whats really silly is the thing being dealt with isn't even a constant. It isn't just that gravity as a force isn't there, but the actual acceleration rate itself isn't even a ruddy constant anyway! We can drop a plastic ball in one water tank next to a steel ball in another water tank and prove that the rate of acceleration is not a constant, no way, no how.
So look at how bad of a contradiction that is, they actually try to claim objects fall at the same rate.
How if what I just said about dropping a plastic ball and a steel ball of equal size is also true?
Again I have heard endless BS to "answer" that like "Oh the water has to be pushed out of the way" lol. Yes thats why one tank is water and the other tank isn't treacle, the two tanks provide consistency and back each other up. Try again.
I get endless "answers" to these things oh don't worry about that, there's multiple answers to the same thing a lot of the time, but every single time there's a flaw with it.
I mean if objects provably do fall at different rates due to their density (they do, its proven with the water experiment even a child could do) why do we need gravity to be there?
We only "need" gravity to be there because we already think Earth is a spinning ball when it actually isn't.
Gravity is something you'd never even think could take hold... but did.
It is nonsense.
[XAP]Bob wrote:Er - of course they will, that'll be due to the other forces at work in the situation...
[youtube]5C5_dOEyAfk[/youtube]
There's no proof that feather didn't have a rod of lead going down the middle of it to make it fall like that.
[XAP]Bob wrote:Why would the air need to support you if there was no gravity?
I never said this. I said "there isn't any gravity" and the "air doesn't support me so I fall".
I didn't say air would support me if gravity was not there and I certainly don't think that.
[XAP]Bob wrote:Huh?
If we are assuming we are living on a spinning ball, then we also "need" there to be gravity in such a situation, it doesn't seem to matter that this "gravity" never gets proven in any way either, but because it is indeed a must in the heliocentric model, people just argue "for" it all the time.
I won't argue for gravity being there if I have never seen any demonstration of it being detected, measured or harnessed. No other forces are outside of that sort of requirement, all need proof, so then so does gravity.
Why should the rules be bent for gravity?
Why is it called "a law" if it doesn't have physical demonstrability?
This is why I say 99% of science is right, perfectly right... its the other 1% bunk I have a problem with.
Because 99% checks out it makes it easy to slip these things in like gravity then say "Aha, but this is science". Again its ingenious but, can be pointed out.
[XAP]Bob wrote:Science is always building on earlier theories - refining them and improving our understanding of the world around us.
It also uses lies like Erastostenes to claim the sticks and shadows experiment proves we are exclusively living on a ball shaped Earth, when in reality the same observation would be made with a sun encircling around above a flat Earth.
Carl Sagan did a Cosmos series actually claiming that the Eratosthenes experiment does prove the ball shape, it is a lie,
he is omitting data on purpose.
All the other so-called proofs are hoaxes like the pendulum thing and so on. When do you ever see five pendulums all swinging in one room? Never! You get to see one single pendulum, that is just moving the right way it needs to due to flaws at the pivot point.
The reality is on an Earth like we are told we live on that has the same mechanics as a waltzer - the speed changes caused from this would actually mean a still pendulum would end up moving slightly after a few hours, since the movement amounts to about 0.99 MPH of acceleration (or can be deceleration) in 22 seconds. This is detectable, if we couldn't feel it ourselves (which I think we would). None of that is happening and Earth isn't moving, that we know if, it is just parroted around and never gets proven.
We'll always be together, together on electric bikes.
Its as if the documentary simply never existed. It does, its on YouTube, please watch it.
