Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:27:46 — 100.4MB)
One of the most widespread and enduring myths in recent history is the idea that man has left the earths atmosphere with the specific rocket propulsion technology claimed by NASA. But if we put on our detective hats and look to the fundamentals we can deduce (and know) that this idea is false. This has nothing to do with any nonsense about a flat earth, and I am not stating that space travel is impossible. The point here is that the claims of NASA are demonstrably false.
The crux of the issue is the claim that rocket propulsion as advocated by NASA has the capability to exert a force in the vacuum of space. A common error in understanding confuses the facts of the free expansion of gases with Newtons 3rd law of dynamics. The first of these assumes that gases expanding freely in a vacuum can exert a force on the rocket to move it forward. The second in the conservation of momentum (or recoil effect) in which the mass ejected in one direction will result in a force exerted in the opposite direction.
It’s not Rocket Science
Note that the phrase “It’s not rocket science” is widely used in western culture. It is taken to mean that something is understandable. The implication is that rocket science is not understandable – and it isn’t. But probably not on account of its conceptual complexity, but rather it’s basic fraud.
In this weeks podcast I am joined by Patrik Holmqvist and Simon Shack to examine the many claims of NASA that all rest on the this fundamental issue and are necessarily false if the theory is dis-proven. Patrik is a researcher and rational thinker with a background in IT. Simon Shack is a researcher and author of the book “The Tychos – our Ge-oaxial binary system”. Simon has conducted many years of research and created the Clues Forum at cluesforum.info which is a fantastic resource for any investigator looking to gather all the evidence in order to bust myths such as this, 9/11 and the pandemic hoax.
The three of us have previously discussed another topic that is central to the great deception. It is the model of our solar system. We are all taught that the Earth is a part of a helio-centric solar system centred on the Sun. But the evidence contradicts this claim and fully supports an alternative historical model first conceived by Swedish Astronomer Tycho Brahe and modified in the light of all recent observational data by Simon Shack. This topic is closely related to the issue of space travel by conventional rocket propulsion technology. You can check it out here.
For those who wish examine Newtons third law to further understand the decepetion you may want to check out the video below…
For those looking for further reading there is a book called “We never went to the moon” by Bill Kaysing that is worth a read. Plus, Simon’s well written book called “The TYCHOS – Our Geo-axial Binary System” which is available from his Website tychos.info.
Please feel free to join the conversation – as long as your not a flat-earther! I reject the ludicrous idea that the earth is flat and do not wish to enter into any distracting debate about that topic. I am personally satisfied that ALL the evidence available supports the conviction that the Earth is a sphere. Please do not pollute the subject by commenting about any flat earth theory. Anyone who believes this nonsense has either been duped by a psychological operation to muddy the waters of serious rational debate, or they are part of that psychological operation.
Nigel Howitt
Treehouse Farm, March 21
Did Patrik forget to mention, earlier in the piece, “…equal and opposite reaction.”? )
Can you expand on your point here Dx? I recall that we covered the idea of Newtons third law and the ”recoil effect” as it is sometimes referred to.
First visit to your site and most entertaining, looking forward to more eye opening stuff.
Best regards and wishes for even greater success .
Max
Welcome Max, and many thanks man.
Hi Nigel ! My first visit here, after hearing your interview with Simon and Patrick at the Clues forum… Just notice that you wrote that Tycho Brahe was Swedish, but he was Danish… Haha, I guess Simon and Patrick would be happy IF he was Swedish…:) Nice and interesting website you have by the way.. I’ll bookmark it for later visit…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tycho_Brahe
Hi Trygve. Welcome and thank you for pointing out the error.
I sent this to a friend of mine who is aware of various conspiracies and false narratives, including the moon hoax:
If you believe a rocket can work in space, then you do not understand Newton’s 3rd law at all… 8+ Minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpQ3ynXrG_o
“While NASA is guilty of many lies, this is not one of them.
The YouTube video is false.
In a way, the video is even demonstrating the truth of what they are trying to refute.
When the guy on the skateboard throws the bowling ball, he is propelled backwards. If he were to jump up in the air and throw the bowling ball before he lands (hard to do), he would still be propelled backwards. This is not because of the air that he is “pushing the bowling ball against”, it’s because of Newton’s law. If he were in a vacuum and jumped up in the air and threw the bowling ball before landing on the ground, he would still be propelled backwards. If he were floating in space, in a vacuum or inside a capsule with air, and threw a bowling ball, he would be propelled backwards as well. It has nothing to do with the air. If, instead of a bowling ball, he threw hundreds of marbles, the effect would be the same. If, instead of marbles, he threw zillions of atoms, in the form of gas, the effect would be the same. The faster he throws the ball, or the marbles or the atoms, the more he is propelled backwards. There is a formula for that involving the mass and the degree of acceleration of the mass.
If the guy threw a Styrofoam ball of the same size, he would be propelled much less. That’s because the mass of the ball matters. If he was just pushing against the air, then you would expect the size of the ball to matter, but not the mass. That’s why they don’t use Styrofoam balls or beachballs as wrecking balls when demolishing a building. Even though those are easier to transport, they do not work well as wrecking balls, no matter how fast to swing them.
The people who did that video just plain don’t understand the physics that they are trying to refute. I know that what they are saying may sound logical, it is not. It’s hard to demonstrate because vacuums are hard to make. Here’s one guy’s attempt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BsrzO7aXNs. But Newton deniers will say that the gas is pushing against the back wall of the box, or that the rocket engine is filling up the box with gas. This one is better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRfDwkHPVeg, and this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8-pxkaipcg.
With all due respect Dave, I disagree. The people who made the video in my post, referencing the laws of motion (summarized by Newton) understand the issues correctly.
The third component of resistance is absolutely necessary. Without a medium to ‘push’ against, the only potential force that a theoretical rocket ship would have to propel it forward in space, would be the equal and opposite reaction to throwing/ejecting mass off the ship in the opposite direction. In essence, the conservation of momentum.
This would mean that rocket fuel would only need to consist of mass. If the sum total of the force of propulsion is equivalent to the total mass of the matter ejected in the opposite direction, then the more mass ejected the greater the force. Thus the rockets fuel would necessarily consist of extra (non structural) mass to be ejected in the opposite direction of intended travel.
I hope we can all see how impractical this would be, not only as a means of acceleration and deceleration, but also as a means of manoeuvring!
I trust you can see that if an atmosphere is not needed to push against—as NASA claim—then this is the only propulsion possibility that logically remains.
Nigel