4 rockets on launch pads at the same time for 4 booms? Posts at 1:30 and 1:36 are pretty interesting to read. Links in comments.
(media.greatawakening.win)
💥 B- B- B- B O O O M 💥
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (62)
sorted by:
I'm not disputing Newton as much as saying you're misapplying it.
For every action is an equal and opposite reaction, if it's down to a few atoms per cubic centimeter, there's not enough action to maintain the reaction (thrust).
I remember when I was coming at people with the same condescension as people who would not "tRuSt tHe sCiEnCe" from NASA, I even engaged in some of the misapplications of principles that I didn't quite understand that you're doing (hopefully unintentionally). What you're demonstrating is that you've been indoctrinated to believe these things and never scrutinized them, I went through the same. Seeing some vacuum chamber experiments were something of a mind fuck initially.
Did you use the simple formula because you wanted to tag the extra insult in there, or did you avoid the full formula because you know the implications?
BTW, it's not "denying space", I was explaining the issues that arise with the thermodynamic problems that arise with the relative pressure systems. Don't worry, NASA will come up with some pretty images to keep justifying the 50 million dollars per day that they need to maintain.
tRuSt tHe sCiEnCe
Umm... you're actually the one that's taken on the positive claims where I've been making conditional claims (since I don't have a way to verify). Your claims rest on appeals to NASA's integrity (they spend 50 million per day and so have a motivation to justify that continued flow of cash, without getting into the various ways that they have been shown to have engaged in fakery), inferences (that, while logical, do have alternative explanations), and the rest was insults and using simplified equations that conveniently omitted the variables that I was mentioning.
Remember, NASA's claims are only observable in the context where they are not questioned. They are only repeatable with funding to the levels of a government organization like NASA, and when individuals have set out to validate in the best ways they were allowed, the outcomes were different from what NASA presented.
I'm also not questioning Newton, thermodynamics, or any scientific principle that I employ as an engineer. Remember that simplified equation you used as a bludgeon? That is only valid if Pe=Po, which is NOT the case for space travel (unless space has a greater density than the accepted 5 atoms per cm^3, and I mean by a significant amount), because that Po value becomes a far more complex equation in it's own right. Elsewhere in thread, I commented on the 2 potential outcomes, but the most likely is that as the back pressure dropping will require increased fuel expenditure to maintain thrust until it hits a limit. That's based on the equation that you thought I needed simplified.
Trust me, there was a LONG time where I had the same condescension, the same insults, the same "you don't understand science" points, accusing people of being shills or retards. All of it. Then I was confronted by evidence that challenged me to scrutinize the belief set and to be sure that I was vigilant in applying them rather than maintaining assumptions. Finally, as I've mentioned more than a few times, I'm not even claiming that humans haven't been to the moon or out in space, only that if it was actually accomplished that it was done using technologies or methods that are not what the public was presented, likely using a strategic manipulation of electromagnetism (the books treat magnetic attraction and repulsion as equal forces, but magnetic attraction is slightly stronger).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5q47JJJAww
(I'm guessing you'll ask about attraction vs repulsion)