Vacuum of Space

Most people don't understand the physics of vacuums and how matter reacts to that environment. The idea that a vacuum of space surrounds an open system of gases and water that are only held together by a weak force of gravity is impossible. We have never been able to replicate such an environment in any laboratory test, which is kinda how you prove things, by testing them and observing repeatable results.



Another property of a vacuum is the intense dispersion qualities. The use of jet propulsion or any type of gas/ignition based propulsion in a vacuum is impossible as the matter would have nothing to push against and it can't even push against itself as nothing would slow the initial matter down so the matter subsequently ejected would just fly forever behind it. The only way to propel yourself in a weightless vacuum is by following Newton's 3rd Law, and that means ejecting mass in the opposite direction you wish to propel yourself. The obvious problem with this is that you run out of mass pretty fast. There is also no way to steer outside of this method either so every time you wanted to turn or rotate or slow down you'd have to eject matter in the appropriate direction. Movies like gravity and the space walk theater would have us believe that little spritz of gas on their ships and suits allow them to propel and correct directions in a vacuum. It would have ZERO affect pushing against nothing.

The 'vacuum of space' that space agencies have sold us is completely science fiction. Even in theory they can't follow their own physical laws and do what they claim to do. Just do a bit of research on actual laboratory tests doing things like maneuvering in a vacuum, then watch how effortlessly they do things on their "spacewalks" it's a joke. You are being pulled in every direction if you're in a suit in a vacuum, every motion you make you're fighting that dispersion force. That's probably why they actually film all those under water.

Damn Nice :-) Good concise summary of the absurdities and fairy tales.

It looks like I need to take some physics classes.

Benjamin-L wrote:For observable evidence of this, look up some videos of model rockets. Look for some with both a monopropellant engine (called water rockets) and some with combustion engines (normal model rockets). They go pretty fast.

And you have evidence of these monopropellant engines working in a vacuum? What about evidence of them in space? NASA can't seem to offer anything but CGI when it comes to this - perhaps you can provide some beyond your standard text book response.

Hi there,

since i am not really a friend of forums and posting stuff online, it took me quite a while (at least over a year) to finally join this new IFERS-forum, but now i have to tell you about a thought i had over this week....

Everybody knows what happens when you tell a ball-earther about how ridicolous it is for the earth to spin faster than the speed of sound and how we absolutely feel nothing, because....well......"the atmosphere spins with the earth" Usually you get answers like "well, the reason why you don't feel any super-wind or you land on the same spot after you jumped is because over millions of years the gas-molecules of the atmosphere took up the rotation speed by the force of friction or they are pushed by the mountains" or whatever bullshit reason that a ball-earther brain can come up with.

But what about the moon? The moon doesn't have an atmosphere, but it still rotates on its own axis, just like the earth does (at least according to BS "science").
Of course it is just a "funny coincidence" that it rotates once around its own axis in just the right amount of time that it takes to orbit the earth, so that we always see the same side of the moon ("tidal locking"), but i digress.

So....let's make an experiment:

The radius of the moon is about 1.738 km (sorry folks, i'm from Germany so i use the metric system) on the equator --> circumference therefore is about 10.920 km. The orbit around earth or the rotation on its axis takes about 27,32 days or 655,68 hours.

10.920 km / 655,68 h = 16,65 km/h (or 10,34 mph) ----> that's the rotation speed of the moon on the equator if my math is correct.

And now let's take an example from the Apollo moon landings. In this case we take Apollo 15.



Google tells me that the Apollo 15 landing site was at 27°7 latitude. The cirumference on that latitude should be cos(26,7)*1738 km (radius at the equator)*2*pi = 9.755 km. Therefore the landing site of Apollo 15 was rotating at a speed of 9.755 km / 655,68 h = 14,88 km/h (or 9,25 mph)

And now for the very famous experiment tht astronot David Scott showed us on his Apollo 15 mission:



Hm.....so he drops the hammer and the feather....both take about one second to hit the ground, BUT they hit the ground right below, although the rotating moon underneath should already be about 4,13 meters or 13,55 feet further away.

I'm very interested what explanation the brains of ball-earther will cook up for this  

Welcome back Icedrink.

I'm gonna beat them to it :-)

Apparent Matter in Motion = Fairy Dust / Gravitons

in Units of (Tinkerballs) per (square metres of surface area)

The truth is more akin to this...

We define TWO different MEASURES for the SAME thing but we IDENTIFY its USE in ONE word.
That way we can prove the math whenever we need to but still tell fairy stories when we want to.

lol

I got one... Try and jump onto a treadmill going 10mph and see how that works out for you.

If you're a moon man bouncing around on a spinning surface going say 10mph. Then, well the footage below would probably be more realistic.

Icedrink58 wrote:
Usually you get answers like "well, the reason why you don't feel any super-wind or you land on the same spot after you jumped is because over millions of years the gas-molecules of the atmosphere took up the rotation speed by the force of friction or they are pushed by the mountains" or whatever bullshit reason that a ball-earther brain can come up with.

10.920 km / 655,68 h = 16,65 km/h (or 10,34 mph) ----> that's the rotation speed of the moon on the equator if my math is correct.

How did they even land??

Also LOVING how much proof there is of flat earth. It's undeniable. Once you go flat, you can't go back!

What is the general consensus on here as far as the dome and the cosmos. I was recently on the Baja in Mexico and i could see a ridiculous amount of stars! Are we all in agreement on here that they are connected to the dome/firmament and they are all fixed and rotating around Polaris.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

And where do they get the ideas of black holes, red dwarfs, white dwarfs, ect. Are these all just theories based on basic telescopic observations from earth.

I think I know the answer is yes but I just want to be sure. Thanks.

ackerm wrote:Are we all in agreement on here that they are connected to the dome/firmament and they are all fixed and rotating around Polaris.

We know they are rotating around Polaris yes, but we have no direct evidence of a physical firmament or dome - that is just pure speculation at the time being. What exactly the stars are, we cannot say with certainty.

ackerm wrote:And where do they get the ideas of black holes, red dwarfs, white dwarfs, ect. Are these all just theories based on basic telescopic observations from earth.  

Yes, these are terms used by science fiction actors promoting the fake construct of "space". While we can see visible differences in colors/light from certain stars and wandering stars, the mainstream uses this as "evidence" for their model.

csp wrote:
science fiction actors promoting the fake construct of "space".
While we can see visible differences in colors/light from certain stars and wandering stars, the mainstream uses this as "evidence" for their model.

1865
Jules Verne publishes, "From the Earth to the Moon"

1883
Konstantin Tsiolkovsky writes, "Free Space", on use of jet propulsion in vacuum of space

1903
Konstantin Tsiolkovsky (Russia), inspired by the writings of Jules Verne, published "The Exploration of Cosmic Space by Means of Rocket Devices", showing that the man-made construct called Space was a physical place that could be explored.

  Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, is known as the founding father of astronautics

1931
Jesuits invent Big Bang theory (aka, Cosmic Egg or Primeval atom)

1932
Drawing by Tsiolkovksy for the film, "Cosmic Voyage", showing cosmonaut exiting rocket via an airlock into the vacuum of Space.

 
  Credit: Archive of Russian Academy of Science


read on this forum:  Who Invented Space?

This is a good 3 hour overview... long, but entertaining... addressing how the pressure differences would rip thing apart, NASA creating its first vacuum testing center three months after the Moon landing, etc.

Brian Johnston wrote:This is a good 3 hour overview... long, but entertaining... addressing how the pressure differences would rip thing apart, NASA creating its first vacuum testing center three months after the Moon landing, etc.

They still chilling with Jeran? and the guy who supposedly works at the Colorado illuminati airport? Globebusters is SUS AF. grain of salt

Admin wrote:

Real Globebuster...howbeit his car is internally on fire!