NASA Satellite stops on a dime!? WTF!!!

[seemslikeadream]

One in four Americans 'don't know the Earth orbits the Sun' and only half believe in evolution

Trump supporters ...

[82_28]

How to Teach Quantum Physics to Your Dog

When physics professor Chad Orzel went to the pound to adopt a dog, he never imagined Emmy. She wasn’t just a friendly mutt who needed a home. Soon she was trying to use the strange ideas of quantum mechanics for the really important things in her life: chasing critters, getting treats, and going for walks. She peppered Chad with questions: Could she use quantum tunneling to get through the neighbor’s fence and chase bunnies? What about quantum teleportation to catch squirrels before they climb out of reach? Where are all the universes in which Chad drops steak on the floor?

With great humor and clarity, Chad Orzel explains to Emmy, and to human readers, just what quantum mechanics is and how it works—and why, although you can’t use it to catch squirrels or eat steak, it’s still bizarre, amazing, and important to every dog and human

https://www.amazon.com/How-Teach-Quantu ... 1416572295

Never read it but that sprang to mind with your comment. I remember reading about it when it came out though.

[seemslikeadream]

so dogs are smarter than trump supporters...and nicer I would say

[norton ash]

And with the way so many of them feel about fireworks and thunder, they'd likely not be interested in arms production.

[82_28]

At least dogs let you give 'em a little "there there" on the head. Oh wait.

[seemslikeadream]

I propose an amendment to the constitution to give dogs the right to vote...it's time has come

but they will have to wait till age 3

[vanlose kid]

Three interesting and related threads at Cluesforum.info.

Does Rocketry Work in the Vacuum?

Postby Boethius on May 25th, 2013, 2:21 pm
[ADMIN: This topic was started due to our recent discussions — in multiple threads — about the subject of rocketry.

Specifically, there seems to be a growing skeptical understanding of the science of rocketry and just what is wrong with it, and why it doesn't work in the manner NASA says it does. (i.e.; bad physics used to back up their special effects publicity stunts like Apollo, "Mars missions", etc.)

In memory and honor of Bill Kaysing (or perhaps we'd better just say in honor of good sense) let's present the science here that shames the Wernher von Brauns of our world into coughing up the truth: their rocket programs are full of hot air. - hp]


I'm not sure if this is the right place for this post. feel free to move/edit as necessary.

After seeing the evidence of fakery in NASA pictures and videos in this forum I decided to investigate the theoretical basis of rockets in space. What I found on the Internet were mainly tricks, frauds and sleights of hand, name-calling and attacks used to confuse the issue and hide the facts. Bypassing all of that and doing original research I have come to the conclusion that rockets cannot function in space according the descriptions/formulas used by NASA and related parties.

With neither theory on its side nor reliable, verifiable, repeatable scientific experiments on its side the idea of rocket thrust in my estimation remains a fiction presented to the world as an achievement: a modern day Marco Polo story.

I will try to present my findings with a minimum of math and formulae as these are often used to drawn us into traps, causing us to argue the minutiae of red herrings or chase ghosts. These ruses remind me of the joke about on which side of the barn roof the rooster’s egg will fall. How often do people forget that rooster’s don’t lay eggs?

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

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

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

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

Why doesn’t the propellant generate any force, it's expanding, right?
There is something known as “Free Expansion” or the “Joule-Thomson” effect, named after James Prescott Joule and J.J. Thompson two of the founders of the field of Physical Chemistry.
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/site ... ound2.html
Free Expansion states that when a pressurized gas is exposed to a vacuum the gas expanding into the vacuum without any work being done. The gas is not “pulled” or “sucked” into the vacuum nor is it “pushed” out of the high-pressure container. In other words no work is done, no heat or energy is lost.
This result has been experimentally verified numerous times since its discovery in the 1850’s.
[for example a paper in the Journal of Physical Chemistry from 1902: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002]

As if Free Expansion wasn’t enough to invalidate the theory of rockets producing a force in a vacuum there is also a result from thermodynamics:
Work = Pressure x Change_in_Volume
that is easily found searching for “W=PV”
http://lsc.ucdavis.edu/~ahart/Alicia2B/Thermo.pdf
If the pressure of a system is 0 then the work done by the expanding gas into that system is 0. Gas expanding in a vacuum doing no work agrees with Free Expansion. This can also be understood as the gas meets no resistance as it exits into the vacuum and thus transfers neither heat nor energy to its surroundings. If the gas loses neither heat nor energy then it has done no work.

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

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

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

http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1632

Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Postby simonshack on June 11th, 2011, 2:50 am
*
Cluesforum's research of Nasa's fraudulent Space Shuttle program "ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts", initiated in May 2011, has naturally led us to question the very existence of the INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION which, of course, we are told was assembled piece by piece by the wondrous "Flying Bricks" (NASA's so-called 'Space Shuttles') - and the comical, midget Soyuz space modules.

It has emerged that NASA is, basically, nothing but a colossal "Hollywood" department financed by untold billions of taxpayers' monies - and has not ceased to deceive the public ever since its first major "blockbuster" - the grossly concocted Moon Hoax.

NASA, essentially, is science-fiction sold as truth. But don't take our word for it, verify our findings for yourself - then fasten your seat belts and enjoy your smooth landing back to Earth as we jettison into the void of space, one by one, all of NASA's astronomical lies.

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=720

ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Postby simonshack on May 21st, 2011, 8:56 pm
*
This research is dedicated to Bill Kaysing (July 31, 1922 – April 21, 2005) who once said:"I haven't done a great deal of research on the Shuttle, but several people have said that the Shuttle is actually faked, also."



ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA effortsImage

Good day everyone,

I read today in "La Repubblica" that the Pope has been chatting with the Italian astronauts who - reportedly - finally took off in the final Space Shuttle mission "Endeavour". So I decided to have a look at what had delayed their mission and found out that it had been some lightning strikes - beautiful ones at that !

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=935

*

[82_28]

The rocket gets the craft to escape velocity from Earth. After that it is inertia and propellants. Think a can of hairspray that doesn't have to deal with gravity being able to push incrementally on trajectories in order to get gravity assists along the way in order to get where the craft is going. In zero or micro gravity spraying a can of hairspray would send you across the ship.

[Iamwhomiam]

I thought we ironed out the flat earth theory and found it highly inflated and unable to hold water, and that in reality it is oblate spheroid, no?

[coffin_dodger]

VK - The ramifications, not even the fraud itself, is quite the most startling ramification.

It doesn't end there. Maintaining the reality as a coherent whole has become so complex, that a vanguard wave of those embedded (and cocooned) within it could not fail to become bewildered at the increasing contradictions. They are compelled to see that which others have not yet. The evolving realisation is a joy to experience and behold in others.

The future has to be handled very delicately.

The minds that have perpetrated these frauds are not to blame. They are ying to others yang. One cannot exist without the other. We are bound together.

As the pendulum swings back and forth across our binary reality, balance will be maintained across time as well as physical space. Things are starting to change and it's going to get very, very exciting.

[maco144]

@82_28 & @SLAD

Just bumping this thread in case you want to participate here with anything flat earth. I hope you two will stop shitting up other threads for other participants on topics that have no relation to flat earth just because you need to attack me to coddle yourself. Whenever I see you post about the globe in threads that have no relevance it's like finding a turd when flipping through a book. I cannot be the only one who thinks that off topic posts are annoying and rude. If you want to enter here and debate let's have a go.

[seemslikeadream]

when you stop dropping turds in everyone else's threads ...I'll think about it...remember you are the one that started this buddy

you were the rude one here

you were the one that was off topic coming in my thread and trying to school me on how I should be posting here...I do NOT need any suggestions from you

you brought this on yourself

[Belligerent Savant]

The rocket gets the craft to escape velocity from Earth. After that it is inertia and propellants. Think a can of hairspray that doesn't have to deal with gravity being able to push incrementally on trajectories in order to get gravity assists along the way in order to get where the craft is going. In zero or micro gravity spraying a can of hairspray would send you across the ship.

Given your explanation above, how would the lunar module (in the infamous '69 mission) escape lunar orbit back to the command module?

(assuming you aren't contesting the claim in that cluesforum excerpt -- posted by Vanlose Kid -- that rocket propulsion doesn't work in a vacuum)

[NeonLX]

Inertia and propellants. The lunar module took off from the moon with a rocket.

And forces still work in a vacuum. The propellants are internal to the "space ship", are ignited and thrust out the exhaust. Just like aforementioned can of hair spray.

So the globe earth hoax has been perpetuated for 1600 years because of "statism". Wouldn't the state also rule a flat earth?

[Belligerent Savant]

.

The focus of this particular inquiry is wholly unrelated to any 'flat earth' theory. 
‎
The 'spray can' analogy depicted a proposed action within (inside) a ship‎, where a vacuum wouldn't apply.

So: propellants and inertia‎ alone to escape moon's (albeit lesser) gravity and navigate precisely to the command module? The Rockets wouldn't work in a vacuum, no?  Or are we subscribing to the premise that Rockets operate in a vacuum?

This nugget here is interesting:‎

The fragile-looking lunar module was just tough enough to keep two astronauts alive and carry them to the surface of the moon. The top half of the vehicle had its own rocket engine, which was fired to lift the astronauts back into lunar orbit to rejoin the command module.‎
‎
..Eagle had only about 30 seconds’ worth of fuel left at touchdown.‎

From
http://www.space.com/17411-apollo-11-mo ... aphic.html

30 seconds of fuel remaining upon landing on lunar soil.