Your donations are appreciated and help keep this site running. Even the smallest amount helps.
Thankyou

 
PROMOTE YOUR SITE
HERE
Only $3 USD/month
TRUTHSPOON.COM
The man they can't recruit!
Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: The Impossibility of Space Travel - EVER

The Impossibility of Space Travel - EVER 02 Jan 2017 04:41 #21

  • Gaia
  • Gaia's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 7068
  • Likes received: 1542
Exorcist wrote:
Gaia wrote:
What is presented to us, is the idea that rockets, designed for atmospheric (i.e.; pressurized conditions) work using the same propulsion methods in the absence of it. That defies physical and chemical laws.

Rockets are not "designed" to travel in Earth's atmosphere.

Yes they are, as that is the first (and only) environment they were tested in. It is impossible to replicate the conditions of space in a laboratory.

The conditions of space (according to the same mainstream science the space hoaxers use):
- near-zero pressures in an infinite vacuum
- near-zero (3 K) temperatures in absence of solar radiation, ~300 deg C temperatures in sun-lit areas
- gravity as the only main acting force
They will work in both a pressurized gas (an atmosphere) and in a near vacuum (space beyond the atmosphere devoid of pressurized gas). Rocket fuel, be it solid or liquid will react chemically within the rocket motor combustion chamber irrespective of the motor being in the atmosphere or in-vacuo.

"They will" is an unfounded claim.

The combustion chamber is opened to the infinite near-vacuum of space. That moment every molecule that was gas before instantaneously turns solid due to the T and P conditions. There is no medium (near-vacuum), so no transient effect, that would be present in an atmosphere (or liquid).
High pressure combusted rocket fuel gas travelling at high speed is expelled through the rocket motor nozzle and because action and reaction are equal and opposite, acceleration is imparted to the rocket in the vector direction opposite to that of the expelled gas.

M1V1 = -M2V2

You are just plain wrong on this and I'm not going to waste my time explaining it further.

Yes, this is the purely mechanical "explanation" by (((NASA))) that you replicate. But we're not dealing with a purely mechanical problem; it's a mechanical-chemical problem. There is no gas under those conditions, only solids and super-fluids.



There's an additional problem with the Temperature. On the sun-lit side the temperature of a material rises due to radiation from the Sun (the only heat source in space) and is transported through the material via heat conduction. But, any object in space has 2 sides; a Sun-lit side getting hot AND a shadow side that is not heated in any way externally. That side has the temperature of space (3 K). Any material under those circumstances becomes very brittle; it just crumbles.

The problem of having an object at one side heated to ~300 deg C and on the other side -270 deg C. is twofold; apart from the brittleness, the heat conductivity of a material is dependent on the temperature of that material. At near-zero temperatures the heat conductivity becomes very low. That means that the heat obtained at the sun-lit side CANNOT be transported to the stone-cold shadow side.

An impossible metal object in space thus crumbles in thousands of pieces.

Claimed to exist in LEO are satellites and the ISS. Do you believe the ISS exists? How do you explain this heat problem?
The Only Limit is Your Own Imagination
A truth seeker is someone who dares to wade through thick series of toxic smoke screens and tries not to inhale - Gaia
"What do you call 'genius'?" "Well, seeing things others don't see. Or rather the invisible links between things."
- Vladimir Nabokov (1938)
"The silence of conspiracy. Slaughtered on the altar of apathy." - Lords of the New Church (1982)
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

The Impossibility of Space Travel - EVER 02 Jan 2017 16:56 #22

  • Steven
  • Steven's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Fresh Member
  • Posts: 234
  • Likes received: 262
Gaia wrote:
The "photos" of the ISS "taken" are fakes.

Could be - that would fit perfectly in our 'fake world' anyways... :D

Some time ago, I came across a site of a guy who says he takes pictures of airplanes and astronomical stuff. Including the 'ISS':



Here is the link for more 'ISS' pics: www.martin-wagner.org/raumstation_durch_das_teleskop_mit_WebCam.htm

Would like to read your opinion about them.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Gaia

The Impossibility of Space Travel - EVER 02 Jan 2017 17:32 #23

  • Gaia
  • Gaia's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 7068
  • Likes received: 1542
Thanks Steven, gutes Neujahr!

Good you joined the discussion.

First, let me explain my reasoning on this topic; start with the basis. The physics makes the ISS impossible. So starting from that every picture taken from or of the ISS has to be fake(d). Similar with the morphing plane of 9/11. "It cannot be real footage, so it has to be fake".

That's the why, the basis.

Assessing these "pictures" allegedly taken with a telescope+webcam.

The ISS is said to travel with 27,000 km/h. Meaning it takes between 2 to 4 minutes to cross the field of view on the skies. That is comparable to an airplane.

Telescopes are objects able to zoom in to celestial bodies and a camera can be used to take photos. But the subject photographed with those are -with respect to the photographer- static. The Moon, stars, Sun, planets, galaxies and planet moons that can be captured by telescope+camera are not static in an absolute sense, just as the Earth is not static (rotation + orbit), but relative to us they seem static. Hence it's possible to capture them on camera.

The ISS is different; it is very dynamic. To capture it, one would need an extremely fast (shutter speed) camera, able to resolve that angular velocity (lower than 27,000 km/h, but not so much lower).

The claim this guy took photos of an object moving so fast ad still being able to capture it so sharp with a webcam is preposterous.

Telescopes can be automatic with tracking software and hardware; they can be calibrated to focus on let's say Mars and then go back 30 min later (or any other timespan) and the focus stayed on Mars; the telescope has a motor that rotates the telescope to compensate for Earth's rotation. But these motors are not made to track an object moving so fast and keep it in the field of view.

Another problem with these "photos" is the lack of stars. If one is in a dark location, stars are all around. What we see here is what NASA c.s. is showing us too; pitch black backgrounds. Their "explanation" is that the capacity (sensitivity) of film (Apollo era) or digital capture (today) is insufficient to capture a star. As usual they present only half of the story. Yes, an individual star may be impossible to capture on film/digital, but we don't have an individual star, yet millions and millions of them! Their combined light cannot produce a pitch black background.

The MO of this German guy is clear; while it doesn't make any sense to capture an object so small (the ISS) moving so fast (angular velocity of 1000s of km/h) with a simple webcam, he claims to have done that to explain the grainy pictures.

Try capturing a fly in flight when zoomed in with a normal compact camera to max zoom. You won't succeed; the higher the zoom, the smaller the field of view, so the faster the fly moves out of that field of view. You end up with an unsharp linear (following and showing the flight path of the fly) blurred line even if you are so lucky to press the shutter button at exactly the right moment.
The Only Limit is Your Own Imagination
A truth seeker is someone who dares to wade through thick series of toxic smoke screens and tries not to inhale - Gaia
"What do you call 'genius'?" "Well, seeing things others don't see. Or rather the invisible links between things."
- Vladimir Nabokov (1938)
"The silence of conspiracy. Slaughtered on the altar of apathy." - Lords of the New Church (1982)
Last Edit: 02 Jan 2017 17:36 by Gaia.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Steven

The Impossibility of Space Travel - EVER 02 Jan 2017 17:34 #24

  • bd
  • bd's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Silver Member
  • bikerdruid
  • Posts: 3658
  • Likes received: 471
Gaia ... the earth is also spinning at a thousand miles per hour.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

The Impossibility of Space Travel - EVER 02 Jan 2017 17:41 #25

  • Gaia
  • Gaia's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 7068
  • Likes received: 1542
bd wrote:
Gaia ... the earth is also spinning at a thousand miles per hour.
With respect to a point in space yes. Not wrt to an observer on Earth. To us, the skies "move", because of the rotation of the Earth makes it look like that. But that seems slow; it takes several hours from sunrise to sunset (12 at the celestial equator, more at higher altitudes in summer, less in winter). That velocity is slow compared to an object allegedly at 420 km altitude traveling with 27,000 km/h.
The Only Limit is Your Own Imagination
A truth seeker is someone who dares to wade through thick series of toxic smoke screens and tries not to inhale - Gaia
"What do you call 'genius'?" "Well, seeing things others don't see. Or rather the invisible links between things."
- Vladimir Nabokov (1938)
"The silence of conspiracy. Slaughtered on the altar of apathy." - Lords of the New Church (1982)
Last Edit: 02 Jan 2017 17:43 by Gaia.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

The Impossibility of Space Travel - EVER 02 Jan 2017 18:26 #26

  • Steven
  • Steven's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Fresh Member
  • Posts: 234
  • Likes received: 262
Gaia wrote:
Thanks Steven, gutes Neujahr!

Thank you!
Same to you - have a happy and creative new year :)

And thanks for the extensive and detailed answer. I hope I will find more time for that interesting topic.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Gaia

The Impossibility of Space Travel - EVER 02 Jan 2017 18:44 #27

  • Gaia
  • Gaia's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 7068
  • Likes received: 1542
Steven wrote:
Gaia wrote:
Thanks Steven, gutes Neujahr!

Thank you!
Same to you - have a happy and creative new year :)

And thanks for the extensive and detailed answer. I hope I will find more time for that interesting topic.
Thanks. And I hope you do. It is an interesting topic because it supersedes the povs on history and politics while at the same time it's connected:

- the origins of NASA as a military organisation with (((them))) at the start
- the use of space travel as a mean to steal money from us in a fake "space race" with the Soviet Union
- the build-up of a World Government (quotes like "we need an extraterrestrial threat to "bind" us and a central organisation to take care of that 'threat'"), prepped up by movies, Independence Day as stereotypical example
- it looks like an "innocent" hoax keeping us all in awe about what mankind is capable of. For me personally that was the biggest shock. I believed all that space travel and even in the process of waking up to the lies that voice in my head said "it needs to be true". It keeps especially children in its grip, which formed the basis of getting to the core of it to just fight that. It is thus far from "innocent" in its spreading of lies
- the basics of it are not hard to understand. High school physics and comparing the claims on how the solar system works (gravity, orbits, etc.) with how they say space travel works shows how silly it is. A Moon of many trillions of kgs of mass can exercise gravitational forces on Earth (tides) and Earth on the Moon (tidal locking), but suddenly a flimsy tiny space ship can behave like all those incredibly huge forces do not act on them.

The whole basics of it just dawned to me a year ago, so in that sense I am awake only for a short time too.

I had a hard time explaining the satellites. I've used a lot of "satellite" data and we do all the time with GPS, Google Earth, TomToms etc. That part requires a proper explanation in detail later too.

It was a relief to have to conclude Nukes are fake. It was a shock to see also Space Travel is fake.

But also opens up a lot of rest.
The Only Limit is Your Own Imagination
A truth seeker is someone who dares to wade through thick series of toxic smoke screens and tries not to inhale - Gaia
"What do you call 'genius'?" "Well, seeing things others don't see. Or rather the invisible links between things."
- Vladimir Nabokov (1938)
"The silence of conspiracy. Slaughtered on the altar of apathy." - Lords of the New Church (1982)
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Lizzy, Steven

The Impossibility of Space Travel - EVER 02 Jan 2017 18:52 #28

  • bd
  • bd's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Silver Member
  • bikerdruid
  • Posts: 3658
  • Likes received: 471
Gaia wrote:

It was a relief to have to conclude Nukes are fake. It was a shock to see also Space Travel is fake.

.

Imagine the surprise.
"Fake" must be a fluid concept for you.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Flare

The Impossibility of Space Travel - EVER 02 Jan 2017 18:58 #29

  • Gaia
  • Gaia's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 7068
  • Likes received: 1542
Fakery is all around us, it is not the fault of the exposers that is the case.

It may be an uncomfortable feeling, but feelings are not arguments.

The basis to conclude fakery is physics, chemistry and logic. Those tools are essential to really understand it.

No matter how many or how smart people claim something is real, if those three principles are not honoured it simply cannot be real. Peer pressure is put upon us to keep believing lies. It takes a strong character to withstand that, everyone awake knows that.
The Only Limit is Your Own Imagination
A truth seeker is someone who dares to wade through thick series of toxic smoke screens and tries not to inhale - Gaia
"What do you call 'genius'?" "Well, seeing things others don't see. Or rather the invisible links between things."
- Vladimir Nabokov (1938)
"The silence of conspiracy. Slaughtered on the altar of apathy." - Lords of the New Church (1982)
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Lizzy, Steven

The Impossibility of Space Travel - EVER 02 Jan 2017 19:09 #30

  • Steven
  • Steven's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Fresh Member
  • Posts: 234
  • Likes received: 262
Gaia wrote:

The ISS is said to travel with 27,000 km/h. Meaning it takes between 2 to 4 minutes to cross the field of view on the skies. That is comparable to an airplane.

Some years ago I lived in a very remote area at about 900 metres altitude. Not much light there during night times... :P
...but an excellent view to the nightly sky, especially in winter times.

Back then I found a site which shows the actual position of the 'ISS' on a map: iss.astroviewer.net

Once in a while a tiny and shiny dot flew over the nightly sky - exactly as shown on that real-time map and within 4 minutes time.

The 'ISS' stuff is some sort of fake, that is obvious if one looks at all the staged NASA videos, but what could that little 'dot' be in reality?
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

The Impossibility of Space Travel - EVER 02 Jan 2017 19:20 #31

  • Gaia
  • Gaia's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 7068
  • Likes received: 1542
It was a minor struggle to explain that for me.

2 possibilities;
1 - as the apparent angular velocity of the "ISS" is roughly the same as the apparent angular velocity of an airplane, it is possible to have (military) planes flying at high altitude (> 60,000 ft) and replicate the ISS, using lights at night. With the huge budget that goes into "Space Travel", the relatively low costs (some engineering, some CGI and a lot of public relations/propaganda) and the will to perpetrate the hoax, it is doable
2 - this possibility has been suggested to me by the (in)famous Papa Legba, so credit to him for waking me up on that, and that is NEOs (Near Earth Objects). Those are like small asteroids that are in orbit around the Earth. Their location can be predicted in time because they follow a dedicated path (due to gravity) and are stable (because in orbit).

Possibility 1 relies on active lights (sent by the airplane) and possibility 2 on passive light (lit by the Sun).

Which of the two is used to pass on as ISS I don't know and I would love to see the """ISS""" the way you did with my own eyes, but unfortunately there's too much light pollution and too many overcast nights here to see that.

Best stargazing nights I had were also in Germany (Eifel) and in the Andes, close to here.

One day I want to visit the Atacama desert, that should be spectacular.
The Only Limit is Your Own Imagination
A truth seeker is someone who dares to wade through thick series of toxic smoke screens and tries not to inhale - Gaia
"What do you call 'genius'?" "Well, seeing things others don't see. Or rather the invisible links between things."
- Vladimir Nabokov (1938)
"The silence of conspiracy. Slaughtered on the altar of apathy." - Lords of the New Church (1982)
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

The Impossibility of Space Travel - EVER 02 Jan 2017 19:49 #32

  • Steven
  • Steven's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Fresh Member
  • Posts: 234
  • Likes received: 262
Gaia wrote:
2 possibilities;
1 - as the apparent angular velocity of the "ISS" is roughly the same as the apparent angular velocity of an airplane, it is possible to have (military) planes flying at high altitude (> 60,000 ft) and replicate the ISS, using lights at night. With the huge budget that goes into "Space Travel", the relatively low costs (some engineering, some CGI and a lot of public relations/propaganda) and the will to perpetrate the hoax, it is doable
2 - this possibility has been suggested to me by the (in)famous Papa Legba, so credit to him for waking me up on that, and that is NEOs (Near Earth Objects). Those are like small asteroids that are in orbit around the Earth. Their location can be predicted in time because they follow a dedicated path (due to gravity) and are stable (because in orbit).

Possibility 1 relies on active lights (sent by the airplane) and possibility 2 on passive light (lit by the Sun).

Which of the two is used to pass on as ISS I don't know and I would love to see the """ISS""" the way you did with my own eyes, but unfortunately there's too much light pollution and too many overcast nights here to see that.

I will think about these two possibilities - and maybe find a third one :roll:

If you ever get the chance to see that 'ISS-thing' according to the real-time site, then you should use it, your opinion would be interesting. Mostly it can be seen for two or three times after a lap of 90 minutes.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

The Impossibility of Space Travel - EVER 02 Jan 2017 19:53 #33

  • Gaia
  • Gaia's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 7068
  • Likes received: 1542
Please do. The more possibilities there are, the closer we get to the truth.

The more data gathered too. I will put the observation of the "ISS" as a goal for this year.
The Only Limit is Your Own Imagination
A truth seeker is someone who dares to wade through thick series of toxic smoke screens and tries not to inhale - Gaia
"What do you call 'genius'?" "Well, seeing things others don't see. Or rather the invisible links between things."
- Vladimir Nabokov (1938)
"The silence of conspiracy. Slaughtered on the altar of apathy." - Lords of the New Church (1982)
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

The Impossibility of Space Travel - EVER 03 Jan 2017 13:03 #34

  • Exorcist
  • Exorcist's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Senior Member
  • Posts: 1683
  • Likes received: 620
Gaia is attempting to propagate complete Bollocks on this thread

First off I'll deal with this....
Gaia wrote:
There's an additional problem with the Temperature. On the sun-lit side the temperature of a material rises due to radiation from the Sun (the only heat source in space) and is transported through the material via heat conduction. But, any object in space has 2 sides; a Sun-lit side getting hot AND a shadow side that is not heated in any way externally. That side has the temperature of space (3 K). Any material under those circumstances becomes very brittle; it just crumbles.

The problem of having an object at one side heated to ~300 deg C and on the other side -270 deg C. is twofold; apart from the brittleness, the heat conductivity of a material is dependent on the temperature of that material. At near-zero temperatures the heat conductivity becomes very low. That means that the heat obtained at the sun-lit side CANNOT be transported to the stone-cold shadow side.

An impossible metal object in space thus crumbles in thousands of pieces.



Read the pdf LOW TEMPERATURE METALS" by A. Hurlich @ the following link

https://www.bnl.gov/magnets/Staff/gupta/Summer1968/0311.pdf

Quote
In general, metals fall into two distinct classes with respect to the influence of low temperatures upon their ductility and toughness: a relatively small class of metals that retain a high order of ductility and resistance to brittle fracture down to very low temperatures, and a much larger class of metals that, at some temperature or in some range of temperature, undergo a transition from ductile to brittle.behavior. As pointed out above, the temperature level where this transition in fracture behavior occurs is influenced by the test conditions. The metals that remain ductile at extreme subzero temperatures include nickel, copper, aluminum, lead and silver, among others.



Aluminium, the main material used in rocket construction, is highly resistant to extreme low temperature “brittle fracture” stress behaviour exhibited by most metals. It certainly does not “crumble to dust” at extreme low temperature.

Gaia appears to have no understanding of the Scaling Laws first postulated by Galileo.

This allowed Dinosaurs to exist on an Expanded Earth (lower surface gravity) which has since shrunk causing their demise.
As a rocket gets farther and farther away from the Earth's centre, gravity reduces in accordance with the inverse square law.

In Engineering Statics applied to Sructures on Earth

Force(Weight)=Mass x Acceleration(G)

Increasing a structure's distance from the Earth drastically and continuously reduces gravity and gravity induced "self weight" Forces that cause bending/shear/torsional stress on a rocket's connected structural members until these "self weight stress's" are practically non-existent.
Hence “weightlessness”.

Therefore a rocket's structure will not fail by mechanical stress in outer space !!!
"Self Weight Stress's" are reduced to negligible amounts compared to the stress's imposed by gravity on the rocket at rest on the Earth's surface.

Very similar to RottenAr$e/Fiz “time out holidays” drastically reducing Forum member's stress by reduction of Gravitrolly.....:pmsl:

I'll deal with the rest of Gaia's Bollocks in later posts.... :D
NUKES ARE A HOAX
TRUTH IS HATE FOR THOSE THAT HATE THE TRUTH
Meet the New Boss.....Same as the Old Boss

http://www.stopthecrime.net/Henry-Makow---Illuminati----(2008).PDF
(((ROCCO))) is a Sayanim Troll
(((MrAnderson))) is a Sayanim Troll
Last Edit: 03 Jan 2017 14:39 by Exorcist.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

The Impossibility of Space Travel - EVER 03 Jan 2017 13:27 #35

  • novum
  • novum's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 16704
  • Likes received: 7886
Does Missys journey count as space travel? :hahano:



Exorcist wrote:
Fiz “time out holidays” drastically reducing Forum member's stress by reduction of Gravitrolly.....:pmsl:

Warning: Spoiler! [ Click to expand ]
He who is without oil shall throw the first rod.
- Compressions 13.3:1
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Exorcist

The Impossibility of Space Travel - EVER 03 Jan 2017 17:34 #36

  • Gaia
  • Gaia's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 7068
  • Likes received: 1542
Exorcist wrote:
Gaia is attempting to propagate complete Bollocks on this thread

First off I'll deal with this....
Gaia wrote:
There's an additional problem with the Temperature. On the sun-lit side the temperature of a material rises due to radiation from the Sun (the only heat source in space) and is transported through the material via heat conduction. But, any object in space has 2 sides; a Sun-lit side getting hot AND a shadow side that is not heated in any way externally. That side has the temperature of space (3 K). Any material under those circumstances becomes very brittle; it just crumbles.

The problem of having an object at one side heated to ~300 deg C and on the other side -270 deg C. is twofold; apart from the brittleness, the heat conductivity of a material is dependent on the temperature of that material. At near-zero temperatures the heat conductivity becomes very low. That means that the heat obtained at the sun-lit side CANNOT be transported to the stone-cold shadow side.

An impossible metal object in space thus crumbles in thousands of pieces.



Read the pdf LOW TEMPERATURE METALS" by A. Hurlich @ the following link

https://www.bnl.gov/magnets/Staff/gupta/Summer1968/0311.pdf

Quote
In general, metals fall into two distinct classes with respect to the influence of low temperatures upon their ductility and toughness: a relatively small class of metals that retain a high order of ductility and resistance to brittle fracture down to very low temperatures, and a much larger class of metals that, at some temperature or in some range of temperature, undergo a transition from ductile to brittle.behavior. As pointed out above, the temperature level where this transition in fracture behavior occurs is influenced by the test conditions. The metals that remain ductile at extreme subzero temperatures include nickel, copper, aluminum, lead and silver, among others.



Aluminium, the main material used in rocket construction, is highly resistant to extreme low temperature “brittle fracture” stress behaviour exhibited by most metals. It certainly does not “crumble to dust” at extreme low temperature.

Aluminium may be the main material used for space rocket construction, it is not the only material and is used in alloys.

A homogeneous piece of aluminium put under extreme cold test conditions behaves differently than a heterogeneous rocket made of different materials. The cohesion that is present at atmospheric conditions (T min -100 C, P >> 0) is not there in space with T ~3 K, P~0. The T at which different materials have reduced ductility are dependent on those particular materials. An object (in this case a "space" rocket) that undergoes a T change at one side from -100 to -270 deg C passes through various stages where the different materials change their behaviour, making the cohesion between the different materials get lost. It disintegrates.

What is described of the Saturn V module:
Thermal conditioning panels, also called cold plates, were located in both the IU and S-IVB stage (up to sixteen in each stage). Each cold plate contains tapped bolt holes in a grid pattern which provides flexibility of component mounting.
The cooling fluid circulated through the TCS was a mixture of 60 percent methanol and 40 percent demineralized water by weight. Each cold plate was capable of dissipating at least 420 watts.
During flight, heat generated by equipment mounted on the cold plates was """dissipated to space""" by a sublimation heat exchanger. Water from a reservoir (water accumulator) was exposed to the low temperature and pressure environment of space, where it first freezes and then sublimates, taking heat from the heat exchanger and transferring it to the water molecules which escape to space in """gaseous state"'". Water/methanol was cooled by circulation through the heat exchanger.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V_Instrument_Unit#Thermal_conditioning

Cannot be right: there is no "gaseous state" at temperatures of 270 K. There is only solid water, ice, at those temperatures and pressures. Ice molecules that have lost their bonding under those conditions and would fall apart in individual solid H2O molecules.
Gaia appears to have no understanding of the Scaling Laws first postulated by Galileo.

This allowed Dinosaurs to exist on an Expanded Earth (lower surface gravity) which has since shrunk causing their demise.

This topic is not about dinosaurs or Expanding Earth, but this quote only already shows that you contradict yourself; Expanding Earth, but since 65.5 Ma apparently "shrinking Earth". What is it? Respond in the Expanding Earth topic of rodin.
As a rocket gets farther and farther away from the Earth's centre, gravity reduces in accordance with the inverse square law.

The attraction by the Earth may reduce depending on distance, but the currently accepted model, also used by NASA c.s., is that the Moon is held in the gravitational sphere of influence of the Earth and vice versa, creating a common centre of gravity that is located not in the Earth's centre, but somewhere in the mantle. This already makes that "geostationary orbit" is bollocks; there could only be orbits around that common centre of gravity that moves in time due to the orbit of the Moon around the Earth.

If the Moon is held by the Earth's gravity, it is madness to suggest a tiny rocket is suddenly not susceptible to that same field and can just be in an orbit (that cannot exist in the first place) not feeling any gravity effect by the Earth. Zero gravity is fantasy. It is only created to be able to perpetrate the Space Travel lie.
In Engineering Statics applied to Sructures on Earth

Force(Weight)=Mass x Acceleration(G)

Increasing a structure's distance from the Earth drastically and continuously reduces gravity and gravity induced "self weight" Forces that cause bending/shear/torsional stress on a rocket's connected structural members until these "self weight stress's" are practically non-existent.
Hence “weightlessness”.

The idea that those stresses are "non-existent" is another claim not based on anything but a belief in the """authorities""" that tell lies. You admit they did with Apollo, I don't know where you stand on Mars rovers, Cassini and other "planetary exploration" devices or anything outside of LEO, but they have shown their lies over and over again. Now, you suddenly believe them when they say "non-existent".
Therefore a rocket's structure will not fail by mechanical stress in outer space !!!
"Self Weight Stress's" are reduced to negligible amounts compared to the stress's imposed by gravity on the rocket at rest on the Earth's surface.

Very similar to RottenAr$e/Fiz “time out holidays” drastically reducing Forum member's stress by reduction of Gravitrolly.....:pmsl:

I'll deal with the rest of Gaia's Bollocks in later posts.... :D

Your foul language doesn't impress, Exorcist, it is about a major problem in the stories told to us.

Another point in this discussion is the absence of application of all this (non-)science on Earth. If there really would be successful engineering at such extreme circumstances, that knowledge would have been applied in other areas.

- if batteries/electronics would be able to survive for multiple decades in the harsh conditions of space, surely there would be batteries developed that can handle a sunny day or Siberian winter night easily
- if material science would be performed under the space conditions, we would have strong and virtually indestructible materials developed for Earth conditions
- if one side of a rocket can be heated up to 300 deg C, while the other side stays in an extreme cold -270 deg C, that knowledge would be applied on Earth, making the very best fridges and ovens that would be insulated to the max
- if there really would have been tests in space where the alleged Van Allen belts were crossed, not once, but multiple times, to a near-perfect success ratio (already a sign this whole idea is bogus), then the application on Earth for radiation-resistant materials would be very advanced

and so on, and so on.

What did we get from all those "space explorations"? Teflon! Wow, that was worth it to have spent billions and billions and billions of stolen money on! :emb:
The Only Limit is Your Own Imagination
A truth seeker is someone who dares to wade through thick series of toxic smoke screens and tries not to inhale - Gaia
"What do you call 'genius'?" "Well, seeing things others don't see. Or rather the invisible links between things."
- Vladimir Nabokov (1938)
"The silence of conspiracy. Slaughtered on the altar of apathy." - Lords of the New Church (1982)
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

The Impossibility of Space Travel - EVER 30 Apr 2017 04:02 #37

  • Gaia
  • Gaia's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 7068
  • Likes received: 1542
Exorcist wrote:
Gaia wrote:
Jon, I don't have any card in your game with our Ausgerottene Rat Cousin Blue Tackler Frothy. He has shown he has no understanding of or is shilling against physical-chemical knowledge in terms of impossible 9/11 "physics" (ask Exorcist), Space "Travel" (ask me) or thermodynamically impossible perpetual burners in the Holocaust Story (ask hokuspokus).

Repeat.....The following statements you made are absolute Bollocks.

A) Rockets won't work in a vacuum.
B) The temperature of a NASA rocket's structure outside the Earth's atmosphere falls to absolute zero.


You attempted to justify this by copy and pasting a Phase Diagram. In so doing you confirm you haven't a clue regarding the basic concept. I'll try to explain it simply.

A Phase Diagram is a CONCEPT of $cience which describes the behaviour of a chemical element or compound or connected systems confined within a THEORETICAL closed system, a CONCEPTUAL CONTAINER of FIXED VOLUME which allows NO ENERGY IN and NO ENERGY OUT and can result in an Equilibrium State at almost any chosen point on the phase diagram graph depending on adjustment and maintenance of Pressure/Temperature at appropriate constant values . In practical terms, in a lab you can approach close to these conditions but not completely because 100% insulation is not possible.

Within this CLOSED laboratory container you can have MECHANISMS which provide controlled sources of heat or controlled sources of cooling. Within this THEORETICAL CLOSED SYSTEM if you fire up one of these heating mechanisms to heat the substance (eg water) it will boil and evaporate off due to the heat energy increasing the TEMPERATURE/Velocity speed of the water molecules. These "increased velocity" gaseous water molecules impact the container surface and cause an increase in PRESSURE in the FIXED VOLUME CONTAINER. The reverse happens if you "fire up" a cooling mechanism. Under extreme cooling conditions gases can liquefy and most eventually solidify with a consequent drop in pressure. You can approach close to absolute zero, although you'll never actually reach it due to the practical limits of insulation. So....within a lab experiment a compound will behave in compliance with a Phase Diagram.

Earth launched Space Rockets, when they exit the atmosphere ARE NOT IN A CLOSED SYSTEM WHERE A PHASE DIAGRAM APPLIES. The volume of Space is infinite so, apart from a small local volume within the rocket nozzle where the fuel burns, pressure is ZERO. The reason a rocket is propelled forward in a vacuum is down to the Conservation of Momentum principle and has f**k all to do with Phase Diagrams .....

M1V1 = minus M2V2 and this works in the vacuum of space.

I confidently predict TZ members will NOT ask you about $pace Travel unless they enjoy laughing at Bull$hit.
Could be loads of questions......:larf:

Dear Exorcist, I don't regard you a shill or troll, so my question is: Why do you keep defending the shills and try to troll?

First, you are right about the thermodynamic laws. They are defined based on theoretical conditions:
1 - ideal gases
2 - adiabatic (or closed) systems

Those do not exist in nature.

But that's how far your point goes. The fact that those laws (and as a result the phase diagrams) have been theorised based on "ideal" or "perfect" conditions, does that mean those laws and the knowledge coming from them is useless? No.

Tens of thousands of chemists and physicists everyday use those laws. They do experiments (jonb is right; the only real science is empirical).

So do they find big offsets in their analyses of the phase behaviour of solids, fluids and gases? No. The laws may be crafted for ideal conditions, impossible to sustain in our environments, but the phase transition behaviour of materials is following those lines. Water boils at 100 deg C at atmospheric pressures, doesn't it?

The proposed idea that thermodynamic laws suddenly could be thrown out of the window in an (alleged) space environment doesn't make any sense.

You're right about a second thing:
A - space is "infinite" (in our idea of it)
B - pressure is (virtually) zero (NASA c.s. gives a value of 10^-16 bar ~ nothing)

So, with those tools at hand you can scrutinise the claims made.

Your second point is typical NASA c.s. bullshit. It's separating something which cannot be separated. Things do not work in isolation, they are part of a larger sphere (so to say).

What you are doing is regurgitating the MO (modus operandi) of NASA c.s. in your second point; "just imagine there is an isolated system". There is not and there never will be.

What you're doing is presenting a purely mechanical (or "physical") case. Yet, in reality there is much more to it than that. Yes, retention of impulse is a physical law. But we are not talking only physical laws at these conditions, yet also chemical ones. If you exclude that from the analysis and keep and push doing that, you'll never get closer to that what is the truth.

Excluding the incredibly crazy conditions we're talking about here, from the mouths of the Masons:
- T ~ 3K
~ P ~0/10^-16 bar

things work differently than in testable atmospheric conditions (T = 25 C, P = 1 bar).

If you maintain that the conditions of space are somehow "only theoretical" and that "research shows practice is different than theory", then come with sources to highlight that.

The same MO is happening with the gravity.

What NASA c.s. present us, is an idea of:
1 - 0 gravity - cannot exist
2 - again an isolated system (1, at most 2 body problem, while in reality we're dealing with an n-body problem with n far greater than 2 or 3)

The current model says gravity is based on mass and gravity affects bodies based on the proximity of their gravitational master. On Earth, that would be g. But, when going into space, g should decrease, yet gLuna and gSol should increase. The present idea of 0 g is therefore absolutely ludicrous. It couldn't exist, anywhere. Gravity is all around us and when gGaia diminishes, other g's take over.

That's not what the Masonic Maniacs present us. They do exactly as you, although you are and should be smarter than them (9/11, Nuke Hoax), they present a simple case where crucial factors are simply excluded from the equation.

If mankind would really have gone into space (i.e. the absence of atmosphere, that what we were used to, grew up in and developed all our technology in and for), then there would have been a major change in our understanding of physics.

Einstein times 6 million, let's say.

Yet, what "happened" was the exact opposite.

- "first, let's define what's going to happen" and then...
- "it all happened!"

Sputnik and (((Gagarin))) didn't provide any breakthroughs in physics, don't you find that odd? Isn't it strange that in the 1910s/20s (Alberto Ze Jew) things were defined and "they turned out exactly as they were predicted to be"?

That's not how real empirical science (again thank you jonb) works.

The sequence of real science is:
1 - you formulate a hypothesis
2 - you do experiments/tests
3 - your hypothesis may or may not be in the right direction but laws and models are based on your test data, those define

The fact you replicate the simple impulse mechanical "no further issues" idea of NASA highly surprises me, Exorcist. I know you're not stupid (otherwise I wouldn't spend my time on this post), so why you keep grasping the NaStraws is unclear to me.

In short;

A - no, thermodynamical laws are not just theoretical
B - don't fall into the trap of separating things to simplify them just because you want to push some agenda

You may have problems with me, I don't with you. What counts is real science, not Mickey Mouse cartoons drawn based on the deliberate exclusion of crucial circumstances.
The Only Limit is Your Own Imagination
A truth seeker is someone who dares to wade through thick series of toxic smoke screens and tries not to inhale - Gaia
"What do you call 'genius'?" "Well, seeing things others don't see. Or rather the invisible links between things."
- Vladimir Nabokov (1938)
"The silence of conspiracy. Slaughtered on the altar of apathy." - Lords of the New Church (1982)
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

The Impossibility of Space Travel - EVER 29 Jan 2018 02:15 #38

  • Gaia
  • Gaia's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 7068
  • Likes received: 1542


Watch the Brazil "satellite". It's a very good point against the ridiculousness of "Space Travel".
The Only Limit is Your Own Imagination
A truth seeker is someone who dares to wade through thick series of toxic smoke screens and tries not to inhale - Gaia
"What do you call 'genius'?" "Well, seeing things others don't see. Or rather the invisible links between things."
- Vladimir Nabokov (1938)
"The silence of conspiracy. Slaughtered on the altar of apathy." - Lords of the New Church (1982)
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Lizzy

The Impossibility of Space Travel - EVER 30 Jan 2018 11:05 #39

  • novum
  • novum's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 16704
  • Likes received: 7886
Gaia wrote:
Watch the Brazil "satellite"







Hmm is this another reason they dont want us checking out Antarctica? :ponda:
He who is without oil shall throw the first rod.
- Compressions 13.3:1
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Lizzy, Gaia

The Impossibility of Space Travel - EVER 20 Feb 2018 18:38 #40

  • Gaia
  • Gaia's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 7068
  • Likes received: 1542
Excellent explanation why space travel is impossible and it's all faked:

The Only Limit is Your Own Imagination
A truth seeker is someone who dares to wade through thick series of toxic smoke screens and tries not to inhale - Gaia
"What do you call 'genius'?" "Well, seeing things others don't see. Or rather the invisible links between things."
- Vladimir Nabokov (1938)
"The silence of conspiracy. Slaughtered on the altar of apathy." - Lords of the New Church (1982)
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
Moderators: Gaia
Powered by Kunena Forum

Annual Server Target

Whether its 50 cents or five dollars, your donations are appreciated and help keep this community site running so we can all continue to enjoy using it. Secure transactions via paypal.
This target is to meet our server cost for one year, June 2019 - May 2020, in USD.
$ 340 - Target
( £ 270 GBP )
donation thermometer
donation thermometer
$ 100 - Raised
( £ 80 GBP )
donation thermometer
29%
Updated
31st May 2019

No one is obliged to donate, please only donate what you can afford. Even the smallest amount helps. Being an active member is a positive contribution. Thank You.