It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rockets do not work in the vacuum of space. You will believe anything "expert" scientists say.

page: 12
12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2019 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Beestie

I hope you’re talking about those who believe in space travel. Obviously it’s a lie. Just because you think your government is legitimate doesn’t mean that they don’t lie. They are testing the limits of legitimacy. The amount of lies they can tell before most people get sick of it.




posted on May, 7 2019 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: NicSign
a reply to: fleabit

I have and my dish point more horizontally than vertically


And I've set up dozens, with different providers, and most point into the sky - not at a terrestrial location. I've also set up a ton of point to point Internet as well, pointing to towers on hillsides 30 to 50 miles away. You are simply wrong. Since physically moving a dish to point to a precise location in the sky is what creates the signal, it proves satellites (delivered by rockets) exist.

I've set up service in the middle of nowhere for construction crews, the dish pointing at a very high angle. Let me guess.. you think physically moving the dish is akin adjust the antennae on a TV to pick up a signal? : )



posted on May, 7 2019 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: NicSign

My friend,

I have a question. If there was an explosion in space (a rapid chemical expansion) would the expanding substance continue to expand outward from a single point?



posted on May, 7 2019 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: NicSign
a reply to: fleabit

I have and my dish point more horizontally than vertically


Consumer TV satellites are in geosynchronous orbit generally above the equator. So if you are in the northern hemisphere you would point your dish towards the southern sky (i.e., in a direction above the equator). If you lived in the southern hemisphere, you would point your dish toward the northern sky (again, in a direction above the equator).

In general (very general), the further from the equator you are, the shallower the angle of your dish.

It's similar to the position of the sun in the sky. Near the equator, the sun's path takes it more overhead. The farther from the equator you get, the more towards the horizon is the path of the sun. The difference is that the satellite stays stationary relative to your position.


edit on 5/7/2019 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2019 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: More1ThanAny1

Yes. There would be nothing to impede the momentum of the gas.



posted on May, 7 2019 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: NicSign
a reply to: fleabit

I have and my dish point more horizontally than vertically


Consumer TV satellites are in geosynchronous orbit generally above the equator. So if you are in the northern hemisphere you would point your dish towards the southern sky (i.e., in a direction above the equator). If you lived in the southern hemisphere, you would point your dish toward the northern sky (again, in a direction above the equator).

In general (very general), the further from the equator you are, the shallower the angle of your dish.

It's similar to the position of the sun in the sky. Near the equator, the sun's path takes it more overhead. The farther from the equator you get, the more towards the horizon is the path of the sun. The difference is that the satellite stays stationary relative to your position.



Yup - but they most certainly do not point horizontally, as suggested. Unless the OP can explain how the satellites are getting into the sky, his entire premise is gone. Of course, it was gone from the start anyway, it's a ridiculous notion, but hey.. we entertain the ridiculous quite regularly around here. : )



posted on May, 7 2019 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: NicSign

Correct.

So in your opinion, if there was an explosion in a single point in space, and there was an object adjacent to that point in space, would the explosion push that object?
edit on 7-5-2019 by More1ThanAny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2019 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Trueman

originally posted by: ausername
A bullet will fire in space. Will the pressure from the explosion not force the bullet out? Of course it will, and if you fire it at the expanse of the universe while in space it will give you a little push in the opposite direction. The bullet could travel quite literally forever in space as the universe is expanding so fast it would never catch up.


Fire needs oxygen. That's why they use ray guns instead.


NOPE. Modern gunpowder is a self contained chemical reaction, that has two parts... a Primer, (sticking to center-fire here, rim-fire has primer material as well, but is a different design) and "powder" propellant charge. (usually not structured as powder these days... tend to be more granular in structure)

The powder is a self contained reactive charge. The primer is a very hot shaped directive charge, which causes the powder charge to burn in a "flash", to an observer, and explosion. The sudden gas expansion discharges the bullet from the case, and down the rifled barrel which puts spin on it to stabilize it's flight path.

Consequently, a modern firearm WILL fire underwater, although the bullet will expend it's kinetic energy in a matter of a few feet.



The



posted on May, 7 2019 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: dasman888




Consequently, a modern firearm WILL fire underwater, although the bullet will expend it's kinetic energy in a matter of a few feet.


Bangstick. Sort of ouchy on the eardrums, I hear. Shells need a bit of waterproofing.



posted on May, 7 2019 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: fleabit
Yup - but they most certainly do not point horizontally, as suggested.


He said "more horizontally than vertically", which technically could mean up to 44° from horizontal.

I live in Pennsylvania at approximately 41° North latitude. I don't have a dish, but if I did I would tilt it 37.5° from horizontal (and turn it 266° azimuth) to point it at a TV satellite from my location.

Technically 37.5° is "more horizontal than vertical", being only a few degrees more than 1/3 of the way to vertical.


edit on 5/7/2019 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2019 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: fleabit

There are balloon satellites these days.



posted on May, 7 2019 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: More1ThanAny1

No because the object provides resistance. Molecules collecting near the object and pushing it would imply that pressure will build. Gas moves to lowest resistance. Not saying molecules won’t touch the object, just saying the “push” would be insignificant



posted on May, 7 2019 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: NicSign
a reply to: fleabit

There are balloon satellites these days.


Tethered to the ground, I suppose, in order to maintain their geostationary position.


Here's a puzzle for you. Let's say you're at the equator, standing beneath such a satellite so that it's straight overhead. Now move directly north 690 miles. What is the elevation of the satellite above the horizon?
edit on 5/7/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2019 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Nicsign, Please post your beliefs on other subjects sometime. I find this whole experience extremely fascinating. It will give me a better understanding of how logic processing fails and how a mind can construct such fallacies and deny factual reasoning even when experimental proof is presented.
edit on bAmerica/ChicagoAmerica/Chicago313131America/Chicago by Beestie because: Typo



posted on May, 7 2019 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Beestie

Logic processing fails when you have too many stupid/brainwashed people to do actual science. Like I said, you can’t prove rockets in space using science and math, you can only provide hearsay and edited images.



posted on May, 7 2019 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: NicSign
a reply to: Beestie

Logic processing fails when you have too many stupid/brainwashed people to do actual science. Like I said, you can’t prove rockets in space using science and math, you can only provide hearsay and edited images.


Hahahahahaaa yes I can. To put it the most basic terms 1=1.



posted on May, 7 2019 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: NicSign
a reply to: Beestie

Logic processing fails when you have too many stupid/brainwashed people to do actual science. Like I said, you can’t prove rockets in space using science and math, you can only provide hearsay and edited images.


Have you admitted to being a flat earther yet?
edit on 7-5-2019 by opethPA because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2019 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: NicSign
a reply to: fleabit

There are balloon satellites these days.


A balloon cannot go high enough to match the ability of a satellite being seen at the same time by multiple people hundreds of miles away from each other.



posted on May, 7 2019 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: NicSign
No because the object provides resistance. Molecules collecting near the object and pushing it would imply that pressure will build. Gas moves to lowest resistance. Not saying molecules won’t touch the object, just saying the “push” would be insignificant


Yes the object will resist temporarily, that is called inertia.

But you agree that the rapidly expanding chemicals would push against the object and make it move right? Even if you say its insignificant, correct?

Also, isn't the "significance" determined by the size of the explosion and mass of the object?
edit on 7-5-2019 by More1ThanAny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2019 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: NicSign
a reply to: 8675309jenny

How is the rocket going to push out bowling balls?


Good question! Here's my bowling-ball rocket!


It has a mechanical pusher inside that pushes on the bowling balls with enough force to eject them relatively far out the back of the rocket -- say about 50 feet horizontally. (imaging the rocket in the image is horizontal).

Newton tells us that the force of those bowling balls being pushed out the nozzle requires an opposite force, and that opposite force moves the rocket (a little). It's not at all efficient, but it technically might move it a little if the rocket mass is low enough.





Now, here is a chemical fuel rocket. When ignited, the combusting fuel rapidly expands to great volumes, causing extremely high pressure inside the rocket. The area outside the nozzle end of the rocket is at a much lower pressure, and (as you are so fond of telling us) the pressure gradient causes the high pressure gas to be pushed out though the nozzle.

The pressure gradient does the same type of job as the pusher does on the bowling-ball rocket, but instead of pushing bowling balls out the nozzle, it pushes the expanding combusting fuel molecules.

Since the pressure gradient is so great, the combusting fuel exits the nozzle with a tremendous force. Newton tells us that force of the gas exiting the nozzle requires an opposite force, and that opposite force moves the rocket.





edit on 5/7/2019 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join