Did the Americans put a man on the moon?

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120092975#Comment_120092975

There should be plenty of examples on the internet of people zooming around on skateboards by simply throwing a bowling ball as their means of propelling themselves but there simply isn't. The bowling ball forms part of your system - you cannot create a reaction force off something that is part of your system. It's like lifting yourself up by your bootstraps.

Think about yourself as an astronaut who, unfortunately, is hurtling at 100km/hr away from earth. Thankfully you have a bowling ball so you decide to throw it as hard as you can. Have a good think about it. What happens next:

1. The bowling ball shoots off at 120km/hr or more and you, thankfully, either reduce your speed considerably or start returning back towards earth.
2. You and the bowling ball continue to travel at 100km/hr away from earth. You applied energy, per W=fs. All you did was create a displacement between yourself and the ball. As it is part of your system there is no net change in speed/momentum. Therefore, you continue on your path away from earth.

Which scenario is correct based on the laws of physics?

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120093688#Comment_120093688

the challenger disaster, and subsequent columbia disaster, irrevocably changed the safety approach to space flight. Acceptable risks back then are absolutely not acceptable any more.

magicbastarder

There should be plenty of examples on the internet of people zooming around on skateboards by simply throwing a bowling ball as their means of propelling themselves but there simply isn't.

you are correct, but largely due to the fact that a bowling ball would probably have a mass of around 10% of the skater. so if the skater was able to throw the ball away from them at say 30km/h, they'd gain a max of 3km/h. and they would have used up their 'fuel'.

you're rattling off some basic laws of physics like you understand them and your grasp of them is so weak i wonder are you sincere?

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120093705#Comment_120093705

Yeah I get the same impression, almost as if some believe that man suddenly landed on the moon out of nowhere. Without realising it was very step-by-step. In 1968 the Soviets flew a spacecraft around the moon, with animals on it, which came back alive. Where does the real stop and the fake begin is always my question.

robinph

There will be plenty of videos of people propelled around on office chairs with fire extinguishers.

Of course they must all be cgi from NASA as well for the conspiracy to hold.

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120093833#Comment_120093833

ah but they're getting well paid to erh... hang on.. well....

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120093739#Comment_120093739

Neither scenario is correct.

Firstly You cannot be "hurtling away" from the Earth at only 100km/hr. The escape velocity of Earth is 40,270km/hr. Anything less, you would be orbiting the Earth. Or at a speed as low as 100km/hr you would be falling out of orbit.

Secondly, say you were floating in open space in a direction at 100km/hr and you threw the bowling ball in an opposing direction, it doesn't make sense what you would reduce your speed to zero as you seem to suggest. Your speed in the original direction would be reduced in relation to the force you applied to the ball. Similarly the balls speed would increase by that same relation. It would not mean that your "speed is reduced significantly" nor does it mean that you would "fall back to Earth" as per the previous impossibility i explained. So your first scenario is entirely false.

Thirdly, your second senario makes no sense at all. In that scenario the ball would be traveling away from you. If you are moving, the fact that it is traveling away from you means that it is traveling faster. If it is traveling faster than you, but it started traveling at the same speed, it means that either you have slowed down in space (which you have claimed is impossible) or the ball has sped up (again, you claim this is impossible.)

If what you are suggesting is true and that displacement only occurs, then the ball would travel away from you for a set distance, then stop. This means that it would necessarily have to slow down. Which again, you contend is impossible.

If the ball doesn't stop at a set distance, then it is traveling away from you, thus is faster. Which brings it back to my previous point.

You are only correct is that there is no net loss in momentum. When you throw the ball, it gains momentum while you lose the same amount of momentum.

That's how Newton's Laws work.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120093815#Comment_120093815

Usually moon hoax believers do not go as extreme as to claim that all space flight is faked. Most will accept that satellites exist and space missions occur. Most simply claim that the Apollo missions were faked. Or even that just 11 was faked while the others were real.

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120093796#Comment_120093796

You've contributed zero physics up to this point and have moved straight to the digs and accusations. Why won't you pick between scenario 1 or 2 of the post above?

Because you know well that if you pick option 1 this breaks the law of conservation of energy as there would be an indefinite amount of displacement created between you and the ball, therefore - creation of energy out of nothing which is impossible.

But it's clear this debate is getting too hot to handle for you at this point.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120093948#Comment_120093948

Again, your claim is false.

Throwing the ball away from your does not create energy because of an "indefinite amount of displacement".

You use your personal chemical energy to power your muscles to impart a change of velocity to the bowling ball.

After it leaves your hand, it stays at it's now higher speed and you do not impart any more energy to it. Because of it's higher speed, it will travel away from you. It will continue at this higher speed without change until some other force acts on it. Again, this is one of Newton's laws.

In the scenario you are insinuating is true, the ball would only travel a definite amount. (What you believe this would be would be interesting to hear.) If it only travels a set amount, that means it must stop at some point and does not get any more distant from you.

You believe this is impossible as you are insisting that nothing can slow down in space.

It's also actually impossible because in the scenario you propose there would be nothing slowing the ball down to a stop. There wouldn't be any force acting on it to make it stop at a set distance.

I think you are confusing the concepts of acceleration, velocity and speed.

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120093982#Comment_120093982

I think you are confusing the concepts of acceleration, velocity and speed.

i think youre being generous here.

joe40

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120093948#Comment_120093948

Can I ask you do you think all rocket propelled space probes such as voyager are fake?

Dohnjoe

@Markus Antonius The below 5 minute video addresses your points. The opening lines explain the misconception that rockets take off from Earth by "pushing off the ground" and that they get into orbit by "pushing off the air".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWj7wBHB_rE

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120092052#Comment_120092052

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76JM03a6WH4

Yes it does.

And you can relatively easily run this experiment yourself (I've run similar in the past).

/thread.

magicbastarder

MA cited newton's third law earlier in the thread, and then denied the inevitable effect of it.

take an example of an astronaut floating in space (no gravity aspects to worry about). the astronaut weighs 100kg and is holding a 10kg bowling ball, and flings it away from them. equal and opposite reactions mean that the same force applied to the ball is also applied to the astronaut in the opposite direction; so the astronaut ends up moving away from the point of origin at one tenth the speed they threw the ball away at. that meets newton's third law, and the law of conservation of momentum; the sum of the momentum of the ball and the now ball-free astronaut must sum to zero.

if the astronaut was able to fling 10kg away from him or her at 10,000km/h (seems to be about the speed for the exhaust from a liquid propelled rocket), they'd end up moving away from the point of origin at 1,000km/h.

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120094131#Comment_120094131

"The exhaust pushes the car forward"

This is her explanation for how rockets work. Are you joking?

"The balloon moves because of the force of the gas escaping"

This is an incredibly childish explanation. The balloon moves because the escaping air creates a pressure zone with the ambient air around it, thus propelling the balloon forward. The claim that the balloon propels because it is "Ejecting mass and following Newton's 3rd" is ridiculous. Put a hoover nozzle at the balloon opening and you will find that the balloon will go nowhere.

"Xenon thrusters"? Good grief... if this actually works then why isn't it being used right now.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120094261#Comment_120094261

I didn't deny Newton's 3rd. Newton's 3rd happens everywhere but it can't be exploited to propel yourself like a perpetual motion machine - breaking Newton's 1st law.

Why do you keep bringing this back to the case of a static person with a bowling ball and ignoring the scenario above where the astronaut is moving away? This shows very clearly that you don't know what you are talking about as the momentum of the system is going from 0kgm/s to now having a positive momentum. You are using the laws of colliding external particles to explain the breaking up of one unified particle, which is incorrect.

robinph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120094131#Comment_120094131

Do people really think that it's the car exhaust which provides the forward motion for cars? I thought she miss spoke when she first said it, but she kept on referencing it as if it was a thing.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120094670#Comment_120094670

"Xenon thrusters"? Good grief... if this actually works then why isn't it being used right now.

They are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawn_%28spacecraft%29

I didn't deny Newton's 3rd. Newton's 3rd happens everywhere but it can't be exploited to propel yourself like a perpetual motion machine - breaking Newton's 1st law.

You are showing your misunderstanding again. No one is claiming anything about a perpetual motion machine.

When an object is moving in a vacuum it stays moving at it's original speed because there is nothing to slow it down. There is no friction on a road. There is no air resistance. It doesn't require continuous energy to keep that speed going. This is the fundamental issue in your understanding.

The object will only change it's speed when another force acts on it.

This is one of Newton's Laws.

You are using the laws of colliding external particles to explain the breaking up of one unified particle, which is incorrect.

A human and a bowling ball are not particles. Nor are they "one unified particle."

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120094670#Comment_120094670

Most balloons would easily force out enough gas to overcome even a mighty hoover

even a henry hoover

if there is low gravity, low friction then what would slow you down exactly? perpetual motion fails because of forces acting on the machine

There are probes leaving the solar system that man created which other than a few sling shots have been on the go for 45 years

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120094670#Comment_120094670

"The exhaust pushes the car forward"

This is her explanation for how rockets work. Are you joking?

No, you've pulled completely the wrong notion from a simple video. She goes to lengths to explain why exhaust emits a tiny thrust but doesn't push a car forward.

It's clear you don't understand any of this, even in it's most basic sense. That's fine, people don't understand stuff all the time. The difference is that you seem to think the world revolves around your understanding of it, therefore you think the entire space program is fake because you can't grasp that rockets work in the vacuum of space.

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120094686#Comment_120094686

no, it does push the car forward, not entirely on its own, it like if you fart in your chair, it pushes you, just not enough overcome gravity friction etc

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120094793#Comment_120094793

I understand it very well, a lot more than you do, which is why you have a reluctance to get into the nitty gritty of the details and resort to posting videos displaying "simple physics that even a child could understand". This is you clearly trying to pull back the debate to a level you are comfortable with.

This is why debating anything with you is a futile effort as you will always fall back on the fallacious argument that "rockets work because we have the moon landing footage" - you use the very crux of what is being disputed as your evidence. And yet if I showed you video footage of Neil Armstrong/Buzz/Collins faking the footage (which absolutely exists) along with the myriad of other gaffes that NASA have suffered over the years (scuba divers on space walks, harnesses and CGI glitches) you will start scoffing and claiming that Youtube or bitchute are not scientific sources and start dismissing the creator as a "crank" or other such tiresome nonsense.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120094971#Comment_120094971

I have repeatedly challenged you on the nitty gritty of your claims on this thread and others.

magicbastarder

Why do you keep bringing this back to the case of a static person with a bowling ball and ignoring the scenario above where the astronaut is moving away? This shows very clearly that you don't know what you are talking about as the momentum of the system is going from 0kgm/s to now having a positive momentum. You are using the laws of colliding external particles to explain the breaking up of one unified particle, which is incorrect.

oh dear. the *total* momentum of the system remains unchanged. two bodies moving can sum to 0 momentum. they started with zero total momentum, they continue with zero total momentum, even though they're now both moving.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120094971#Comment_120094971

so you think you understand it better than practically every other scientist that works on rockets?

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120094971#Comment_120094971

The principles are simple, and children can understand this. Here's a children's video on Newton's second and third law and rockets in space.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9g0FehS0H1E

If you can't understand this stuff or don't want to, okay, but that's on you.

As for your space travel is "CGI", that the ISS is "filmed underwater" beliefs, okay, but it's a public forum, it's up to others to decide, and you aren't exactly making the most convincing argument.

robinph

Rather than a bowling ball, take your office chair and find a friend with another chair and go to an ice rink. Now sitting on your chairs in the middle of the rink push your freind away from you... What then happens?

Does one of you move? Do you both move? If you move is that from you pushing against the air (like your bowling ball claim that its pushing on the air) or is it from having pushed your friend on their chair? If you both move then are you moving in opposite directions at the same speed? What is the sum of the speeds you are both now moving at?

odyssey06

Others have debunked the physics basis of this theory.

And on a political level it doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. What was the motive? What were the scientists actually working on?

And why would they need a cover story to work on a space programme that didn't exist, could never work - the Cold War was in place, the skills were in demand for weapons systems, and both sides had that rationale to justify spending.

So why would the USSR and USA collaborate in this deception.

It makes no sense, and the posts on this forum in relation to it offer no real explanation.

sydthebeat

lets not forget that markus is the same poster who eventually had to admit to creating a fake photograph to argue against space travel after he was found out... thats the level we're dealing with here

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058161764/we-landed-on-mars-again-mod-note-post-1/p19

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120095076#Comment_120095076

The only consistent explanation I have ever heard for why a conspiracy like this would happen is the notion that they are covering up the flat earth.

In most flat earth mythology, all governments are actually secretly controlled by evil Satanists. One of their goals being that they want to confuse people and keep their from "the Bible's truth." Part of this is their plan to trick the whole world into believe it's a sphere rather than the disc described in the Bible.

It's of course a ridiculous explanation but it's at least a coherent storyline.