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

a reply to: turbonium1

One, you have been proven to post right out lies in other threads. Something about you passionately claiming nobody can make it to an ice wall. Then you post a video claiming it is the ice wall when in actuality it was a standard flyover of a glacier. Not an ice wall.


I would say you claiming rockets are not going into space is totally debunked. And that is telling by you only focusing on one leg of the argument.

Here is the second leg of the argument that you are blatantly ignoring.


A launch that placed these items into space.

Japan’s Epsilon rocket launches seven tech demo satellites

spaceflightnow.com...
spaceflightnow.com...

Seven small satellites launched aboard a Japanese Epsilon rocket Friday, including a diverse suite of tech demo payloads and a spacecraft designed to create an artificial meteor shower next year that developers say should be visible with the naked eye.

We are placing so much junk in space, it might “ruin” the night sky.

SpaceX's Starlink Could Change The Night Sky Forever, And Astronomers Are Not Happy

www.forbes.com... 59b6
www.forbes.com... 59b6

“The potential tragedy of a mega-constellation like Starlink is that for the rest of humanity it changes how the night sky looks,” says Ronald Drimmel from the Turin Astrophysical Observatory in Italy. “Starlink, and other mega constellations, would ruin the sky for everyone on the planet.”

What’s the explanation for all the new space junk added to the space around earth if it’s not left over from rocket lunches? The firmament taking a crap?

Care to explain the phenomena captured in the articles below, and how these new phenomena are explained by the permanent firmament?

How to See and Photograph Geosynchronous Satellites
By: Bob King | September 20, 2017

www.skyandtelescope.com...

Honey, Let’s Start Seeing Other Satellites
By: Bob King | August 2, 2017

www.skyandtelescope.com...

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
a reply to: turbonium1

My friend,

When you watch the Sun set to the west, do you think the Sun has fallen to Earth?

Brilliant post.....

a reply to: TheseNuts

Care to explain why you think they don't?

www.braeunig.us...

www.grc.nasa.gov...

a reply to: TheseNuts

A swing and amiss?

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
a reply to: turbonium1

My friend,

When you watch the Sun set to the west, do you think the Sun has fallen to Earth?

Certainly not, my friend, the Sun IS an example of perspective, unlike the rocket we see in the video, which you seem to think is the same phenomenon, for some reason..

By that argument, you're suggesting all objects which appear to move lower, within the air, are NOT moving lower, at all, due to 'perspective'! I'm sure you know better that that, right?

I know how desperate you are in trying to defend your belief, and saying the rocket is not moving downward, due to 'perspective', is the best you can come up with, but it's absolute nonsense.


First of all, the rocket is a few hundred miles away, at most, and probably far less than that, but let's say it is. The Sun is probably thousands of miles away, at least. Distance is very important, in case you didn't know that, or hoped it didn't come up. It's hard to ignore distance when talking about perspective, but you managed to ignore it completely.


Anyway, it's only one factor that is different between the Sun and the rocket.


Another factor is the shape of the objects, which is obvious to all. The rocket has a front point, or nose, which indicated it's path of travel. Unlike the Sun, of course, which is round.

The rocket's nose will indicate whether it is flying upward, or downward, or level, within air. A rocket is like an airplane, with a nose at front, indicating it's direction of travel, even from the ground. We may not see if the plane is flying slightly higher or lower in air, from the nose, but we know the direction of travel from the nose. Same as a rocket. We see it fly straight up, and we see it fly off in a horizontal path, or mostly so. We may see a rocket fly at horizontal/slightly upward path, at times. I've never seen a rocket fly upward, but appear to fly downward, after a launch, in videos. They all vanish over the ocean, flying the same way. Not downward.

Another point - the boosters eject above the rocket, when they are supposed to eject below the rocket, when flying upward into 'orbit'.

The video on the left, taken on the 'rocket', shows the boosters are below the rocket, after ejection. If you were below the rocket, on the Earth, you'd see the boosters below the rocket, not above it. You'd also see the rocket's nose pointed upward, away from Earth, not downward, towards Earth.

Perspective cannot make objects appear to move in an opposite direction to the actual path, nor can it make other objects eject from the original object appear above it, if they actually are below it, either.

The rocket on the right side is actually THREE different rockets, clipped together, in one video - I guess they hoped that nobody would notice it!! All good, folks, nothing wrong here!!

It's supposed to show us a rocket after launch, going into 'space', from start to finish, in one take, from two different viewpoints, synched together in a single video, shown side-by-side. I wonder if they are so incredibly stupid, to show this crap as 'proof', or secretly wish to tell everyone that it's all faked...who would ever show us it's fake, so blatantly, is a mystery.


After seeing how many of you believe this shows a rocket flying upward into 'orbit', maybe they knew how people are so fooled already, that it's accepted as genuine!

There is a gravestone, with a single inscription (other than name and years born/died.

The inscription is Psalm 19:1

For those unfamiliar with the Biblical passage Psalm 19:1, it is....

"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.


And the tombstone is Werner Von Braun's, the father of rocketry, first leader of NASA, the man who created the Saturn V, which supposedly flew men to the moon.


He would know better than anyone here, for sure.

The fact that rockets don't fly into 'orbit' seems strange to people, because they see no reason to fake it, once, let alone to fake it over and over again, year after year, too.

To fake it once would not convince everyone it was real, of course. The more you fake it, the more people you convince it it real. Then people say 'why fake it thousands of times, it is all faked?' Because that's what convinced you it WAS NOT faked, by doing it thousands of times, year after year! A fake has to be reinforced as real, by repeating the fake, over and over. After awhile, nobody even realizes that it hasn't ever been proven, in the first place.

Rockets fly into 'orbit', over and over again, year after year. Nobody questions it. Nobody knows rockets don't fly into 'orbit', nobody has seen a rocket fly up towards 'orbit', from Earth, and nobody thinks about it.

Some of us know rockets don't fly into 'orbit', and Von Braun knew it, and said it, for all to see, after he died. It's hard to imagine who could know better than Von Braun, the top authority on rocketry. And everyone here should realize that, as well.

After seeing a rocket fly downward, when they show a fake rocket beside it flying upward, after Von Braun said that the firmament existed, it's up to each of you to decide for yourself whether to believe their lies, or accept the truth in front of you.

The main reason for lying about the Earth being round, which supports the lie about rockets flying into 'orbit', is to eliminate our belief in our creator, our creation, our life being a great gift to cherish, and that life goes beyond Earth, forever after.

Believing Earth is round has created fear, uncertainty, denial of our unique creation, our creator of all life, and Earth.

We have never been so insignificant as a speck in an endless universe, a planet hurling randomly through space, a bunch of stupid apes who magically became humans, and everything else.

Training us to mock those who say the Earth isn't round, that we weren't really a pack of mindless apes once, that we are not just an insignificant speck, within the endless universe - it's truly sickening to see such a travesty continue today. But, in the end, I really don't give a s&^* about those who insult people for telling the truth. It's their problem, not mine.

a reply to: turbonium1

God is so unimaginative that he can only create a flat Earth? He nade all these other spheres but couldn't work out what shape to make Earth.

You make God out to be pretty dumb. He won't be pleased about that.

a reply to: turbonium1

We know you are full of deceit. There is literally thousands of man made objects orbiting the earth.



One, you have been proven to post right out lies in other threads. Something about you passionately claiming nobody can make it to an ice wall. Then you post a video claiming it is the ice wall when in actuality it was a standard flyover of a glacier. Not an ice wall.

Doesn’t lying separate you from your little g god that only can make a fish bowl of a word? Again? My God created a whole universe with billions of galaxies.

Again...

I would say you claiming rockets are not going into space is totally debunked. And that is telling by you only focusing on one leg of the argument.

Here is the second leg of the argument that you are blatantly ignoring.

A launch that placed these items into space.

Japan’s Epsilon rocket launches seven tech demo satellites

spaceflightnow.com...
spaceflightnow.com...

Seven small satellites launched aboard a Japanese Epsilon rocket Friday, including a diverse suite of tech demo payloads and a spacecraft designed to create an artificial meteor shower next year that developers say should be visible with the naked eye.

We are placing so much junk in space, it might “ruin” the night sky.

SpaceX's Starlink Could Change The Night Sky Forever, And Astronomers Are Not Happy

www.forbes.com... 59b6
www.forbes.com... 59b6

“The potential tragedy of a mega-constellation like Starlink is that for the rest of humanity it changes how the night sky looks,” says Ronald Drimmel from the Turin Astrophysical Observatory in Italy. “Starlink, and other mega constellations, would ruin the sky for everyone on the planet.”

What’s the explanation for all the new space junk added to the space around earth if it’s not left over from rocket lunches? The firmament taking a crap?

Care to explain the phenomena captured in the articles below, and how these new phenomena are explained by the permanent firmament?

How to See and Photograph Geosynchronous Satellites
By: Bob King | September 20, 2017

www.skyandtelescope.com...

Honey, Let’s Start Seeing Other Satellites
By: Bob King | August 2, 2017

www.skyandtelescope.com...

a reply to: turbonium1

My friend,
You may not want to hear this, but there are a lot of logical issues with your post.

originally posted by: turbonium1
By that argument, you're suggesting all objects which appear to move lower, within the air, are NOT moving lower, at all, due to 'perspective'!

I am not suggesting all objects, because that would be silly. Perspective can be the cause of many different optical illusions. In this case, the illusion is that the rocket is moving down but its not, its moving away. The downward movement can also mean its actually moving down but we know its not in this case.

originally posted by: turbonium1
It's hard to ignore distance when talking about perspective, but you managed to ignore it completely.

In the laws of perspective, when projecting onto a 2D surface like our computer screens, distance mostly defines an object's size and speed, which is not in question here. So distance is irrelevant at this time.

originally posted by: turbonium1
The rocket's nose will indicate whether it is flying upward, or downward, or level, within air. ... I've never seen a rocket fly upward, but appear to fly downward, after a launch, in videos. They all vanish over the ocean, flying the same way. Not downward.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Another point - the boosters eject above the rocket, when they are supposed to eject below the rocket, when flying upward into 'orbit'.

If you were below the rocket, on the Earth, you'd see the boosters below the rocket, not above it. You'd also see the rocket's nose pointed upward, away from Earth, not downward, towards Earth.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Perspective cannot make objects appear to move in an opposite direction to the actual path, nor can it make other objects eject from the original object appear above it, if they actually are below it, either.

That is a big wall of text, let me respond with something better. Here is an animation I made with a 3D modelling software (which mathematically simulates the laws of perspective). This animation is not to scale, but the laws of perspective remain the same.



The window on top shows a left side view of a rocket and a camera's position, angle, and field of view.
The window on the bottom shows the camera's perspective.

As you can see from the left side view, at no point is the rocket moving downwards. It transitions from an upward movement to a horizontal movement (similar to how a rocket is put into orbit). When the rocket reaches a 45 degree angle it jettisons the boosters which then slow down.

From the cameras perspective, when the rocket reaches a 45 degree angle, an optical illusion starts where it appears the rocket is moving downward, but its not moving downward at all. It also appears the boosters are above the rocket, but they are not, the are both below and behind the rocket.

It's all about perspective. Do you see it clearly now?

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

God is so unimaginative that he can only create a flat Earth? He nade all these other spheres but couldn't work out what shape to make Earth.

You make God out to be pretty dumb. He won't be pleased about that.

It's the whole surface of Earth that's flat, mountains are not flat, or hills, valleys, etc. are not flat either.

With a flat surface as the base, everything else - like our magnificent waterfalls, or awe-inspiring mountain ranges, everything created on Earth, we call 'nature' - is on, or within, the immense flat plane.

Earth's incredibly beautiful landscapes, within, above, the plane of Earth, are far from flat, or boring, or 'dumb'.

What WOULD have been dumb, though, is if God had created a humongous ball for us to live on, instead of a flat surface, with features atop, and within the surface, as it is...

How would a ball-shaped Earth work better? It's stupid. We have flat floors in our homes, buildings, and sidewalks to walk on. Not curved.

Why would you ever think a sphere is better to live on than a flat surface, is beyond me.

a reply to: turbonium1

You just called God dumb. You're going to fry in the eternal pit for that.

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
I am not suggesting all objects, because that would be silly. Perspective can be the cause of many different optical illusions. In this case, the illusion is that the rocket is moving down but its not, its moving away. The downward movement can also mean its actually moving down but we know its not in this case.

It certainly IS moving downward in this case, but let's continue...

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
In the laws of perspective, when projecting onto a 2D surface like our computer screens, distance mostly defines an object's size and speed, which is not in question here. So distance is irrelevant at this time.

Of course, that's why you showed me time-lapse images of the Sun, setting in the far distance, when arguing a case of 'perspective'!!!

Your Sun example is now trashed, so let's go on...

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
That is a big wall of text, let me respond with something better. Here is an animation I made with a 3D modelling software (which mathematically simulates the laws of perspective). This animation is not to scale, but the laws of perspective remain the same.

The window on top shows a left side view of a rocket and a camera's position, angle, and field of view.
The window on the bottom shows the camera's perspective.

As you can see from the left side view, at no point is the rocket moving downwards. It transitions from an upward movement to a horizontal movement (similar to how a rocket is put into orbit). When the rocket reaches a 45 degree angle it jettisons the boosters which then slow down.

From the cameras perspective, when the rocket reaches a 45 degree angle, an optical illusion starts where it appears the rocket is moving downward, but its not moving downward at all. It also appears the boosters are above the rocket, but they are not, the are both below and behind the rocket.

It's all about perspective. Do you see it clearly now?

Your example doesn't work, but nice try, anyway.

How clever of you to stop the animation at that point, but it won't help your case.

Even at the point your animation stops, this is nothing even comparable to what we see with the rocket. It is moving downward, at an extremely sharp angle pointed downward, towards the Earth.

You cannot create an accurate simulation that can make a rocket appear to move downward like the rocket we see on the video, it is impossible.

I suggest you look again closely at the video of the rocket, because you'll see that it moves downward, at a sharp angle, which is only possible if the rocket IS moving downward.

Also compare the rocket on the right side, when it is moving downward at a sharp angle, to the rocket on the left side.

The rocket on the left side is pointed nearly straight upward, away from the Earth shown below it. Do you see that?

Now, imagine being on the Earth below that rocket, anywhere at all. What would you see if you looked up at the rocket, from anywhere on Earth? Do you think you'd see the rocket, exactly as shown on the right side, or not? You wouldn't, obviously.

It's clearly not the same rocket, is it? Show me a valid simulation, if you really believe this is somehow possible.


If you cannot do it, and I know you can't, will you admit it?