If I didn't read this caption, I totally would have assumed the second laser was the reflection off the moon in this photo and stopped reading.
But interesting experiment. It seems the laser has a diameter of 4 miles on the surface, thats amazing. "Out of 1017 photons aimed at the reflector, only one is received back on Earth every few seconds." Do we know there is nothing else reflecting photons? I mean, the laser beam is technically in the shape of a cone and then it bounces off the mirror back onto earth directly at the equipment, while the earth spins and the moon rotates.
How do we know that single photon received back isn't reflected by anything else?
Except that in December 1966, National Geographic reported that scientists at MIT had been achieving essentially the same result for four years by bouncing a laser off the surface of the Moon. The New York Times added that the Soviets had been doing the same thing since at least 1963.
I'd just really like to understand the concept of thrust in an infinite vacuum.
If anyone can explain without showing a video of a vacuum tube(which is severely limited), I'd be all ears.
Does the concept of "every motion has an equal and opposite motion" make sense? It's why firearms have recoil, for instance.
Thrusters use the same idea, except the "stuff" they are shooting out is a bunch of tiny gas/particles. Those particles still have mass, so they push the thruster in the opposite direction.
Mostly, I don't get how if there's constant negative pressure, the thrust, which is expelling at a continuous rate, can propel against its own exhaust.
As it seems like it would be pulled away by negative pressure at at least the same rate as it was expelled.
Do you suppose you’d be able to throw a baseball in space? Or if the two of us were in space next to each other, could we push off against one another?
Sure. But I don't think throwing a baseball would cause my body to float backward at the same rate. I think the forward moment of throwing my arm would pull me with the ball.
No, if we pushed eachother we'd go in opposite directions.
The kinestetics are different.
Forward momentum of throwing a ball wouldn't drag you with the ball at the same rate due to difference in mass obviously, but it would pull you forward right?
I’m pretty sure it would rotate you, probably forward more than back from rotating your arm down.
You could do a rough test by trying to throw something while floating underwater, but it would no doubt need to be heavier than a baseball.
When you’re standing on the ground, you are able to use that as leverage to swing your arm forward, like a hinge clamping. You could still use your mass to some extent, but some force would have to act upon your body.
Either way we digress, because the point is that you can throw a baseball in space, just like you could shoot one out of a cannon both on earth and in space.
Thrust works in atmosphere because of the friction of atmospheric pressure though right?
Seriously unsure, just coming from a strictly common sense pov.
Again, think of a firearm. If you shoot it in a normal environment, you will experience some recoil, maybe dislocate your shoulder if the round is big enough. If you (could) shoot it underwater, you can imagine that the recoil wouldn't be as bad, because the water is cushioning you. In space, there is essentially no friction, so the recoil would literally propel you in a straight line, like the bullet you fired. That's the idea that led to thrusters, more or less.
Most types of propulsion do, like swimming, which is a less refined form of what a propeller would do (so much so that propellers/animal wings can "swim" in air, which is just another fluid).
Thrusters are perhaps intuitive because they are not something humans can do themselves... unless perhaps if you eat a lot of broccoli
Again, think of a firearm. If you shoot it in a normal environment, you will experience some recoil, maybe dislocate your shoulder if the round is big enough. If you (could) shoot it underwater, you can imagine that the recoil wouldn't be as bad, because the water is cushioning you. In space, there is essentially no friction, so the recoil would literally propel you in a straight line, like the bullet you fired.
This is a really simplistic and good explanation, thanks.
Who said we no longer have the technology to do it? America did it five times after the first. There isn’t a whole lot of information or reputation to be gleaned from doing it again. Any information we need can be effectively gleaned from unmanned craft.
If there was a single inkling we hadn’t made it to the moon for real during the space race; Russia would never have stopped talking about it. They wouldn’t have given up their own attempts to put men on the moon to claim first landing. Ever.
Also, the previously mentioned laser mirrors are effective reminders. I guess you could technically say those could have been placed by unmanned craft, but then you’d still have to admit we made it up there.
I hear you on Russia, but isn't national media per country, actually international? One side playing many sides?
And this independent evidence.... 1st photo, reconstructed and 3D projected, from Japan. The rest are from a space probe that is capable of seeing the landing sights. Is there a specific tidbit on that page that stands out to you?
Yeah man, this weirdo scientist is saying all the tech we had for the moon landings has been decommissioned or otherwise retired because it’s old as fuck.
Getting to the moon again is a whole different deal than making it to the ISS, for instance. The ISS is a drop in the bucket, distance-wise from Earth, than the moon is from Earth. We’re nowhere near the level where we can just have a one-size-fits-all solution for any kind of space travel. Every single mission has to be specifically designed for what the mission intends to do.
The whole national media thing is totally up to how you feel/think about the NWO, Illuminati, or the lack thereof. Does one entity control it all, or not? Who are they? You will not find a consensus here or anywhere else.
Not really. That was just supplementary. My main point remains the Russian incentive to call out any fuckery with the moon landing.
Sputnik was in October 1957. JFK says "we will go to the moon" in 1962. Apollo allegedly lands on the moon in 1969. Then in 2017 Don Pettit says we no longer have the technology to go to the moon & getting back to that point is a painful process.
Just to be clear, it took 7-12 years to develop the technology to go to the moon the first time but in 48 years it was too painful to get back to that level of technology?
You're all welcome to correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like it should take far less than 7-12 years to redevelop technology from the 1960's now, then it did then, since it's no longer cutting edge technology and we have far surpassed that level. Right?
I mean that's like saying: We could develop Atari's Pong way back then but getting back to a place where we could make that level of video game today is just super tough.
ill convince you we never went to the moon. check it. the moon supposedly a giant reflector. since we are told the moon reflects the suns rays at us thus the phases of the moon. so imagine a light in your living room 100 watts or so one of those ones facing the ceiling with a reflector around the bulb. imagine you are a little ant standing on the reflector while the bulb is on. Its going to be bright as shit. you wouldn't be able to see a thing.
not only that devastating piece of knowledge I have another bombshell for you. get ready. ok.
Light when reflected can only be the same color as the original source.
BOOM ! moon creates it's own light. Moon landing debunked.
for real though try it out get a warm temp bulb and try to make it reflect of any object and appear to look like a cool temp bulb.
you can't light doesn't work that way.
oh but maybe you think you are smart and will say.. moon rocks man. STFU no not moon rocks, look into how all the moon rocks were lost or stolen. many proved fake. buzz aldrin sold his clothing for more money. also all the original footage lost. ok i'm done
Except that in December 1966, National Geographic reported that scientists at MIT had been achieving essentially the same result for four years by bouncing a laser off the surface of the Moon. The New York Times added that the Soviets had been doing the same thing since at least 1963.
“NASA gives the distance from the center of Earth to the center of the Moon as 239,000 miles. Since the Earth has a radius of about 4,000 miles and the Moon’s radius is roughly 1,000 miles, that leaves a surface-to-surface distance of 234,000 miles. The total distance traveled during the alleged missions, including Earth and Moon orbits, ranged from 622,268 miles for Apollo 13 to 1,484,934 miles for Apollo 17. All on a single tank of gas.)
To briefly recap then, in the twenty-first century, utilizing the most cutting-edge modern technology, the best manned spaceship the U.S. can build will only reach an altitude of 200 miles. But in the 1960s, we built a half-dozen of them that flew almost 1,200 times further into space. And then flew back. And they were able to do that despite the fact that the Saturn V rockets that powered the Apollo flights weighed in at a paltry 3,000 tons, about .004% of the size that the principal designer of those very same Saturn rockets had previously said would be required to actually get to the Moon and back (primarily due to the unfathomably large load of fuel that would be required).
To put that into more Earthly terms, U.S. astronauts today travel no further into space than the distance between the San Fernando Valley and Fresno. The Apollo astronauts, on the other hand, traveled a distance equivalent to circumnavigating the planet around the equator nine-and-a-half times! And they did it with roughly the same amount of fuel that it now takes to make that 200 mile journey...”
But what about the mission video tapes? The blue prints? Mission data? All the hard evidence? Missing by NASAs own admission
“As it turns out, however, NASA doesn’t actually have all of that Moonwalking footage anymore. Truth be told, they don’t have any of it. According to the agency, all the tapes were lost back in the late 1970s. All 700 cartons of them. As Reuters reported on August 15, 2006, “The U.S. government has misplaced the original recording of the first moon landing, including astronaut Neil Armstrong’s famous ‘one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind’ … Armstrong’s famous moonwalk, seen by millions of viewers on July 20, 1969, is among transmissions that NASA has failed to turn up in a year of searching, spokesman Grey Hautaluoma said. ‘We haven’t seen them for quite a while. We’ve been looking for over a year, and they haven’t turned up,’ Hautaluoma said … In all, some 700 boxes of transmissions from the Apollo lunar missions are missing.”
“Unfortunately, it isn’t just the video footage that is missing. Also allegedly beamed back from the Moon was voice data, biomedical monitoring data, and telemetry data to monitor the location and mechanical functioning of the spaceship. All of that data, the entire alleged record of the Moon landings, was on the 13,000+ reels that are said to be ‘missing.’ Also missing, according to NASA and its various subcontractors, are the original plans/blueprints for the lunar modules. And for the lunar rovers. And for the entire multi-sectioned Saturn V rockets.”
- Wagging the Moondoggie
Thrust works in atmosphere because of the friction of atmospheric pressure though right?
Seriously unsure, just coming from a strictly common sense pov.
Most types of propulsion do, like swimming, which is a less refined form of what a propeller would do (so much so that propellers/animal wings can "swim" in air, which is just another fluid).
Thrusters are perhaps intuitive because they are not something humans can do themselves... unless perhaps if you eat a lot of broccoli
27 comments
1 Putin_loves_cats 2018-01-12
This should be an interesting thread.. We didn't, nor can we go to the moon. Three words: Van Allen Belt.
1 ThaFresh 2018-01-12
they left a mirror kinda thing there, anyone with the proper equipment can point a laser at it and get a reading back https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment
unless of course all the people able to perform the experiment are in on it
1 Putin_loves_cats 2018-01-12
How many people have actually performed this specific experiment, and have you personally?
1 seattleman21 2018-01-12
If I didn't read this caption, I totally would have assumed the second laser was the reflection off the moon in this photo and stopped reading.
But interesting experiment. It seems the laser has a diameter of 4 miles on the surface, thats amazing. "Out of 1017 photons aimed at the reflector, only one is received back on Earth every few seconds." Do we know there is nothing else reflecting photons? I mean, the laser beam is technically in the shape of a cone and then it bounces off the mirror back onto earth directly at the equipment, while the earth spins and the moon rotates. How do we know that single photon received back isn't reflected by anything else?
1 lumpygalaxyprincess 2018-01-12
Except that in December 1966, National Geographic reported that scientists at MIT had been achieving essentially the same result for four years by bouncing a laser off the surface of the Moon. The New York Times added that the Soviets had been doing the same thing since at least 1963.
Quote from Wagging the Moon doggie. Silly name, very well put together evidence. Sorry OP just more compelling evidence in support of the lie theory - http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-2/
1 Kunasroommate 2018-01-12
I'd just really like to understand the concept of thrust in an infinite vacuum. If anyone can explain without showing a video of a vacuum tube(which is severely limited), I'd be all ears.
1 chimpan_z 2018-01-12
Does the concept of "every motion has an equal and opposite motion" make sense? It's why firearms have recoil, for instance.
Thrusters use the same idea, except the "stuff" they are shooting out is a bunch of tiny gas/particles. Those particles still have mass, so they push the thruster in the opposite direction.
1 Kunasroommate 2018-01-12
Yes. Newtons laws make sense to me.
Mostly, I don't get how if there's constant negative pressure, the thrust, which is expelling at a continuous rate, can propel against its own exhaust. As it seems like it would be pulled away by negative pressure at at least the same rate as it was expelled.
1 stupidfuckingtroll 2018-01-12
Do you suppose you’d be able to throw a baseball in space? Or if the two of us were in space next to each other, could we push off against one another?
1 Kunasroommate 2018-01-12
Sure. But I don't think throwing a baseball would cause my body to float backward at the same rate. I think the forward moment of throwing my arm would pull me with the ball.
1 stupidfuckingtroll 2018-01-12
Then you’d have a great reactionless propulsion system there!
And if the two of us pushed off against one another, wouldn’t we then go in the same direction?
To be clear, your body wouldn’t float backward at the same rate if you threw a baseball, due to the difference in mass.
1 Kunasroommate 2018-01-12
No, if we pushed eachother we'd go in opposite directions.
The kinestetics are different. Forward momentum of throwing a ball wouldn't drag you with the ball at the same rate due to difference in mass obviously, but it would pull you forward right?
1 stupidfuckingtroll 2018-01-12
I’m pretty sure it would rotate you, probably forward more than back from rotating your arm down.
You could do a rough test by trying to throw something while floating underwater, but it would no doubt need to be heavier than a baseball.
When you’re standing on the ground, you are able to use that as leverage to swing your arm forward, like a hinge clamping. You could still use your mass to some extent, but some force would have to act upon your body.
Either way we digress, because the point is that you can throw a baseball in space, just like you could shoot one out of a cannon both on earth and in space.
1 chimpan_z 2018-01-12
The thrust is the exhaust. More accurately, the backward movement of the exhaust produces the forward thrust of the vehicle.
1 Kunasroommate 2018-01-12
Thrust works in atmosphere because of the friction of atmospheric pressure though right? Seriously unsure, just coming from a strictly common sense pov.
1 chimpan_z 2018-01-12
Thrust works in spite of atmospheric friction.
Again, think of a firearm. If you shoot it in a normal environment, you will experience some recoil, maybe dislocate your shoulder if the round is big enough. If you (could) shoot it underwater, you can imagine that the recoil wouldn't be as bad, because the water is cushioning you. In space, there is essentially no friction, so the recoil would literally propel you in a straight line, like the bullet you fired. That's the idea that led to thrusters, more or less.
1 Kunasroommate 2018-01-12
Gotcha. Always thought propulsion worked due to it expelling against atmospheric pressure.
like how in water, smaller movements with proper dynamics can propel you much farther due to the greater density of the surrounding fluid.
Despite the increased resistance of a denser atmosphere.
1 chimpan_z 2018-01-12
Most types of propulsion do, like swimming, which is a less refined form of what a propeller would do (so much so that propellers/animal wings can "swim" in air, which is just another fluid).
Thrusters are perhaps intuitive because they are not something humans can do themselves... unless perhaps if you eat a lot of broccoli
1 Kunasroommate 2018-01-12
I'll have to look into it a bit more, but I'm still thinking no gravity+negative atmospheric pressure=0 propulsion for some reason.
1 MrWhippie 2018-01-12
I've always wondered OPs question too. I learnt a lot today. Cheers.
1 fifteensunrises 2018-01-12
This is a really simplistic and good explanation, thanks.
1 MoronToTheKore 2018-01-12
Who said we no longer have the technology to do it? America did it five times after the first. There isn’t a whole lot of information or reputation to be gleaned from doing it again. Any information we need can be effectively gleaned from unmanned craft.
If there was a single inkling we hadn’t made it to the moon for real during the space race; Russia would never have stopped talking about it. They wouldn’t have given up their own attempts to put men on the moon to claim first landing. Ever.
Also, the previously mentioned laser mirrors are effective reminders. I guess you could technically say those could have been placed by unmanned craft, but then you’d still have to admit we made it up there.
1 seattleman21 2018-01-12
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16MMZJlp_0Y
I hear you on Russia, but isn't national media per country, actually international? One side playing many sides?
And this independent evidence.... 1st photo, reconstructed and 3D projected, from Japan. The rest are from a space probe that is capable of seeing the landing sights. Is there a specific tidbit on that page that stands out to you?
Thank you for the link.
1 MoronToTheKore 2018-01-12
Yeah man, this weirdo scientist is saying all the tech we had for the moon landings has been decommissioned or otherwise retired because it’s old as fuck.
Getting to the moon again is a whole different deal than making it to the ISS, for instance. The ISS is a drop in the bucket, distance-wise from Earth, than the moon is from Earth. We’re nowhere near the level where we can just have a one-size-fits-all solution for any kind of space travel. Every single mission has to be specifically designed for what the mission intends to do.
The whole national media thing is totally up to how you feel/think about the NWO, Illuminati, or the lack thereof. Does one entity control it all, or not? Who are they? You will not find a consensus here or anywhere else.
Not really. That was just supplementary. My main point remains the Russian incentive to call out any fuckery with the moon landing.
1 seattleman21 2018-01-12
Couldn't a space program be an excuse for tax money? Maybe we copied them
1 magisterspincris 2018-01-12
No. stay stupid, ya moron.
1 LvxLight 2018-01-12
Sputnik was in October 1957. JFK says "we will go to the moon" in 1962. Apollo allegedly lands on the moon in 1969. Then in 2017 Don Pettit says we no longer have the technology to go to the moon & getting back to that point is a painful process.
Just to be clear, it took 7-12 years to develop the technology to go to the moon the first time but in 48 years it was too painful to get back to that level of technology?
You're all welcome to correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like it should take far less than 7-12 years to redevelop technology from the 1960's now, then it did then, since it's no longer cutting edge technology and we have far surpassed that level. Right?
I mean that's like saying: We could develop Atari's Pong way back then but getting back to a place where we could make that level of video game today is just super tough.
1 the_flat_truth 2018-01-12
ill convince you we never went to the moon. check it. the moon supposedly a giant reflector. since we are told the moon reflects the suns rays at us thus the phases of the moon. so imagine a light in your living room 100 watts or so one of those ones facing the ceiling with a reflector around the bulb. imagine you are a little ant standing on the reflector while the bulb is on. Its going to be bright as shit. you wouldn't be able to see a thing.
not only that devastating piece of knowledge I have another bombshell for you. get ready. ok.
Light when reflected can only be the same color as the original source.
BOOM ! moon creates it's own light. Moon landing debunked.
for real though try it out get a warm temp bulb and try to make it reflect of any object and appear to look like a cool temp bulb. you can't light doesn't work that way. oh but maybe you think you are smart and will say.. moon rocks man. STFU no not moon rocks, look into how all the moon rocks were lost or stolen. many proved fake. buzz aldrin sold his clothing for more money. also all the original footage lost. ok i'm done
1 lumpygalaxyprincess 2018-01-12
Except that in December 1966, National Geographic reported that scientists at MIT had been achieving essentially the same result for four years by bouncing a laser off the surface of the Moon. The New York Times added that the Soviets had been doing the same thing since at least 1963.
Quote from Wagging the Moon doggie. Silly name, very well put together evidence. Sorry OP just more compelling evidence in support of the lie theory - http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-2/
1 lumpygalaxyprincess 2018-01-12
“NASA gives the distance from the center of Earth to the center of the Moon as 239,000 miles. Since the Earth has a radius of about 4,000 miles and the Moon’s radius is roughly 1,000 miles, that leaves a surface-to-surface distance of 234,000 miles. The total distance traveled during the alleged missions, including Earth and Moon orbits, ranged from 622,268 miles for Apollo 13 to 1,484,934 miles for Apollo 17. All on a single tank of gas.)
To briefly recap then, in the twenty-first century, utilizing the most cutting-edge modern technology, the best manned spaceship the U.S. can build will only reach an altitude of 200 miles. But in the 1960s, we built a half-dozen of them that flew almost 1,200 times further into space. And then flew back. And they were able to do that despite the fact that the Saturn V rockets that powered the Apollo flights weighed in at a paltry 3,000 tons, about .004% of the size that the principal designer of those very same Saturn rockets had previously said would be required to actually get to the Moon and back (primarily due to the unfathomably large load of fuel that would be required).
To put that into more Earthly terms, U.S. astronauts today travel no further into space than the distance between the San Fernando Valley and Fresno. The Apollo astronauts, on the other hand, traveled a distance equivalent to circumnavigating the planet around the equator nine-and-a-half times! And they did it with roughly the same amount of fuel that it now takes to make that 200 mile journey...”
1 lumpygalaxyprincess 2018-01-12
But what about the mission video tapes? The blue prints? Mission data? All the hard evidence? Missing by NASAs own admission
“As it turns out, however, NASA doesn’t actually have all of that Moonwalking footage anymore. Truth be told, they don’t have any of it. According to the agency, all the tapes were lost back in the late 1970s. All 700 cartons of them. As Reuters reported on August 15, 2006, “The U.S. government has misplaced the original recording of the first moon landing, including astronaut Neil Armstrong’s famous ‘one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind’ … Armstrong’s famous moonwalk, seen by millions of viewers on July 20, 1969, is among transmissions that NASA has failed to turn up in a year of searching, spokesman Grey Hautaluoma said. ‘We haven’t seen them for quite a while. We’ve been looking for over a year, and they haven’t turned up,’ Hautaluoma said … In all, some 700 boxes of transmissions from the Apollo lunar missions are missing.”
“Unfortunately, it isn’t just the video footage that is missing. Also allegedly beamed back from the Moon was voice data, biomedical monitoring data, and telemetry data to monitor the location and mechanical functioning of the spaceship. All of that data, the entire alleged record of the Moon landings, was on the 13,000+ reels that are said to be ‘missing.’ Also missing, according to NASA and its various subcontractors, are the original plans/blueprints for the lunar modules. And for the lunar rovers. And for the entire multi-sectioned Saturn V rockets.” - Wagging the Moondoggie
1 Kunasroommate 2018-01-12
Thrust works in atmosphere because of the friction of atmospheric pressure though right? Seriously unsure, just coming from a strictly common sense pov.
1 chimpan_z 2018-01-12
Most types of propulsion do, like swimming, which is a less refined form of what a propeller would do (so much so that propellers/animal wings can "swim" in air, which is just another fluid).
Thrusters are perhaps intuitive because they are not something humans can do themselves... unless perhaps if you eat a lot of broccoli