|
Post by lordoftherings on Nov 22, 2005 15:20:15 GMT -4
Oh, before I forget, the info told by Rob Moore were written in the NASA confidential report. quote:"Well, Rob told me the whole 'public' space program is based on that theory, but, that theory did not prove to be entirely true. What he told me, and what I read detailed in the confidential NASA report, was that, well, first of all, rockets only have a finite amount of fuel. So, even if a rocket or space craft can reach or exceed 24,000 miles an hour, it will soon run out of fuel if you don't turn off the rockets. The last stage rocket that (supposedly) sent the Apollo craft out of earth orbit had only enough fuel for about a 6 sec blast. But, even when the crafts reached that speed and they flew further out into deep space, according to my friend, Rob, they would slow down, due to earth's pull, much quicker than theorized. As long as the craft remained in a orbit, it could, for the most part, maintain it's speed, but when crafts tired to go further out, they ran into a belt of resistance which slowed them down or forced them into orbit (at the higher altitude). " cheers
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Nov 22, 2005 15:30:41 GMT -4
I am just suggesting that these can be scientists that are just not well recognized at the time, but will be later acknowledged. This is getting needlessly Messianic...
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Nov 22, 2005 15:34:44 GMT -4
but needy not to make sure you are 100% right and no one can be right ecept your theory
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Nov 22, 2005 15:35:16 GMT -4
I believe this is the thread LotR is referring to Thanks... I didn't make the connection. Neither did I...and the reason I didn't is because that story has an "urban legend" feel to it...the old FOAF (friend of a friend) source for information is useless when trying to determine the actual truth of the matter.
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Nov 22, 2005 15:39:54 GMT -4
not friend of a friend only, but another top-secretive report read plus another presentation on US technology edited from top sources. Anyways, we have agreed to dismiss it to be able to discuss what we agree on.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 22, 2005 15:44:35 GMT -4
Ah, you haven't probably noticed that the author doesn't claim that every research done by him is right.
I understand you want to withdraw that as "scientific" evidence of a hoax.
Fine. Do you have any other evidence?
That is the issue, who says they are persistently wong.
I, and those of us who do this sort of work for a living. Most nonsense is very detectable to those who have studied the field. You're trying to drive a wedge into the mutable nature of science, thinking that this will allow nonsensical explanations some leeway simply because they "might" eventually be proven right. That's overly generous. It is possible, even under empirical uncertainty, to categorically reject the absurd.
What is wrong for the previous scientists was right.
No. Not everyone is eventually proved right. Most people with new ideas, in fact, are eventually proved wrong. Mainstream science does indeed progress from idea to idea, but only according to a certain method that ensures theories remain predictive as our knowledge expands. That scientists who were once ridiculed are now mainstream is proof that this system works.
Disproving what the author doesn't claim as 100% real is not something.
True. So come up with some different evidence.
Again and again, to you they are not qualified, same as previous scientists weren't considered qualified at that time.
Yes, they were. They were qualified by empirical merit, although that takes longer to appreciate. True, many of them lacked academic credentials, but they made up for it in other ways. The point is that all those ways are meritorious. What merit can you show in your sources?
I don't have a smoking gun with fingerprints, I am just suggesting that these can be scientists that are just not well recognized at the time, but will be later acknowledged.
Not everyone who calls himself a scientist is one or will be recognized as one. Just because you have some guy spouting nonsense -- and he doesn't have a degree or any practical experience, or any prior recognition -- doesn't mean he'll be the next Tesla or Westinghouse. You're trying to equate your unknown self-proclaimed pundits with notable people from the past whose reputations have been subsequently made. You are forgetting the dozens of similarly unqualified people in Edison's time who went nowhere.
The difference between Edison and these unknowns is that Edison -- despite his lack of education -- was not spouting nonsense, while your pundits are. That's why Edison's name persists and all the othe laughables are now anonymous. You as yet don't have a reasonable test to separate an idiot from a will-be genius.
I was just answering wolf that no one scientist has ever stood up against the moon landings.
Fine, but you offered an affirmative defense. If you're not willing to give the names of scientists who have publicly endorsed the hoax theory, as you claim exist, then simply admit that he was right and you were wrong.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Nov 22, 2005 15:44:56 GMT -4
The last stage rocket that (supposedly) sent the Apollo craft out of earth orbit had only enough fuel for about a 6 sec blast. HUH??? Belt of resistance???It is as Jay posted...it's hogwash no matter who is telling the "story".
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 22, 2005 15:52:16 GMT -4
Oh, before I forget, the info told by Rob Moore were written in the NASA confidential report.
But I have another top secret report that says your top secret report is false.
...What he told me, and what I read detailed in the confidential NASA report, was that, well, first of all, rockets only have a finite amount of fuel.
Agreed.
So, even if a rocket or space craft can reach or exceed 24,000 miles an hour, it will soon run out of fuel if you don't turn off the rockets.
What makes you think you have to run the rocket engines all the time in order to go anywhere?
This is what makes the story so laughable. The author obviously understands so little of how rockets work that he can't be taken seriously as someone who is an expert in space travel.
One does not need to work for NASA in order to become an expert in space travel and understand how rockets work. In fact, I spent a great deal of time last week with NASA trying to help them understand how the liquid hydrogen in the space shuttle's fuel lines creates a certain kind of vibration that is dangerous. NASA comes to me for help because I have the expertise. What makes you think NASA can fool me, or any of the thousands of people in the world upon whom NASA relies?
The last stage rocket that (supposedly) sent the Apollo craft out of earth orbit had only enough fuel for about a 6 sec blast.
Factually incorrect. The TLI burn was for several minutes.
But, even when the crafts reached that speed and they flew further out into deep space, according to my friend, Rob, they would slow down, due to earth's pull...
True, but irrelevant. Orbital mechanics is precisely the study of changing velocities under gravitational influences. Translunar trajectories fit well within our current understanding of orbital mechanics.
...much quicker than theorized.
So you're saying there's some "secret" theory of orbital mechanics that no one else has bothered to see?
As long as the craft remained in a orbit, it could, for the most part, maintain it's speed, but when crafts tired to go further out, they ran into a belt of resistance which slowed them down or forced them into orbit (at the higher altitude). " cheers
And where is this "belt of resistance" described in the scientific literature? Who else would know about it? Who else would need to know about it?
Or is this something that exists only in a secret NASA report that has been seen only by the father of some guy's friend?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 22, 2005 15:54:34 GMT -4
...but another top-secretive report read plus another presentation on US technology edited from top sources.
And you actually believe that all these unsubstantiated sources actually exist?
Anyways, we have agreed to dismiss it to be able to discuss what we agree on.
Clearly we haven't. Regardless of the Moore article, do you still believe there are scientists who endorse the hoax theory? If not, please kindly concede that. If so, please name them and tell us where we can contact them.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 22, 2005 16:14:35 GMT -4
Oh, before I forget, the info told by Rob Moore were written in the NASA confidential report.
What confidential report? I can make up any "report" I like. But never mind, because the whole thing is patent nonsense:
"Well, Rob told me the whole 'public' space program is based on that theory, but, that theory did not prove to be entirely true.
What theory? The laws of motion used succesfully for centuries to predict the orbits of celestial objects? The laws of rocketry used successfully for decades? The models of the near-space environment, and thermodynamics, and radiation and electromagnetic propagation upon which untold billions of dollars of commerce rely absolutely?
What he told me, and what I read detailed in the confidential NASA report, was that, well, first of all, rockets only have a finite amount of fuel.
Who would have thought that rockets have only a finite amount of fuel! What groundbreaking news! Of course NASA would have to classify that - we wouldn't want the Chinese to know about it! Oh, wait - they've known about it for centuries, as the Chinese have used rockets for centuries.
So, even if a rocket or space craft can reach or exceed 24,000 miles an hour, it will soon run out of fuel if you don't turn off the rockets.
Who would have imagined that? You only carry a finite amount of fuel, and if you keep using it... you run out? "This new learning amazes me, Sir Belvedere." Again, better classify that secret!
The last stage rocket that (supposedly) sent the Apollo craft out of earth orbit had only enough fuel for about a 6 sec blast.
Factually incorrect.
But, even when the crafts reached that speed and they flew further out into deep space, according to my friend, Rob, they would slow down, due to earth's pull, much quicker than theorized.
Completely wrong. First of all, many nations have been involved in deep-space and lunar probes, and not one has observed such a phenomenon. Second, if such an effect existed, we would observe it affecting every planet, moon, asteroid, etc.
As long as the craft remained in a orbit, it could, for the most part, maintain it's speed, but when crafts tired to go further out, they ran into a belt of resistance which slowed them down or forced them into orbit (at the higher altitude).
Absolutely false; unphysical. See above for counterexamples.
This entire story is absurd and can be rejected out of hand. It doesn't matter that there's no evidence of such a report, because it all flunks the most basic tests of physics.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 22, 2005 16:16:35 GMT -4
Did I mention that if such a report, invalidating the entire space program, actually existed, it most certainly would not be "Confidential", which is the lowest classified level?
Another demonstration that this story is bogus. But it's pretty minor compared to the sheer idiocy of the rest of it.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Nov 22, 2005 16:17:08 GMT -4
...I spent a great deal of time last week with NASA trying to help them understand how the liquid hydrogen in the space shuttle's fuel lines creates a certain kind of vibration that is dangerous. That is way cool! Can you elaborate on this a bit? I realize that this thread might not be the best place for that...but I am very curious.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 22, 2005 16:30:40 GMT -4
I should probably write something up for one of the less debate-oriented topics.
Briefly, the low pressure fuel pump creates fine-grained back-pressure waves and patters of fluid flow that interact with some of the manufacturing artifacts in the upstream flow liner and bellows joint, and this causes a vibration in the propellant feed system at an amplitude and frequency that can cause stress fractures in the fuel lines.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Nov 22, 2005 18:35:16 GMT -4
Thanks, Jay... You know, I understood more of that than I probably have any right to. More than likely due to your ability to clearly express yourself.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Nov 22, 2005 19:18:09 GMT -4
LordOfTheRings
I've read a bit of the previous discussion about politicians.
I think you need to understand that most people in the world don't have much trust for politicians. We generally work on the basis that they're out to do the best for themselves.
But no matter how much they might lie or act for themselves, they can't lie about facts of the universe.
Whatever lies President Nixon may have told, they can't affect whether Apollo happened. There is a large amount of evidence separate from politics which shows the reality of Apollo.
|
|