The possibility of space travel

It has been stated to me by at least two sources that space travel is impossible, and thrust in a vacuum leads to nothing. I think the source of this theory is CluesForum, where it is stated that no rocket can leave Earth’s orbit. I have never been convinced of this. In a comment on my original Debunking the Debunkers piece, I left the following comment, which went unnoticed:

Stationary geosynchronous orbit is 22,292 miles above the surface of the earth. There are said to be between 500-600 satellites out there. I have two pieces of evidence that they are really there – one, when companies came here to see if they could put a dish on our house to catch a signal. They all had to point south, and our trees interfered. They are all orbiting above the equator. One, Viasat got through because their satellite was able to point southeast, still at the equator, and get through our trees.

The other is that our Viasat signal, in fact, all geosynchronous satellite signals, are inappropriate for phones and gaming, as the time it takes the signal to travel 22,292 miles creates a delay making phone conversations difficult at best, and gaming impossible.

For that reason, I find the idea that satellites cannot function in space to be questionable. It appears to me they somehow got out there, and are functioning.

22,292 miles is well above the exosphere (6,200 miles), and so qualifies as “space.” How did those 5-600 satellites get there, and what holds them in place? The video below (12+ minutes) explains that they are launched on a satellite and then using “ant” thrusters maneuver to get into position, and then speed up to the necessary speed of around 8,700 mph mpsso that from earth it appears stationary.

I bring this up because this is all done in outer space, where Clues Forum says it cannot be done. Apparently it can. By the way, 22,292 divided by 186,000 mps, the speed of light, creates a delay in our phone signal of about 1/12 of a second, making conversation difficult at best. It also makes computer gaming impossible using communication satellites in geostationary orbit.  Starlink is placing satellites at 500 miles or so above the planet, virtually eliminating that delay, and eliminating the need for an equatorial orbit. They are putting up enough satellites that the signal received by users will be handed off, just as mobile communication via cell towers is. That’s my take, anyway.

Anyway, enough of my disagreement with CF and others who say that space travel is impossible. From this point forward, the floor belongs to MiniMe, who gave me permission to repeat his comments on space travel, which I found valuable. Both comments are in response to this long comment by AK, well worth your time.

In reply to AK.

Oh, yes, you read that right. In case you didn’t know – and since we’re discussing alleged moon landings let’s stick with the technology of the era – Apollo’s engines ran on liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. Them both gases. The very nanosecond these two liquefied gases exited their reservoir, they transformed back into the gaseous form. Yet their mass is constant, regardless of their state. If and when you accelerate them as they are exiting the engine, like during the combustion, they are expelled at high velocity. And that’s where the momentum comes from and consequently force and work. I’m glad you chimed in because it shows you gave it some thought. Just…keep at it. You seem to be a smart one, and very close to understanding the principles of conservation of momentum.

In reply to AK.

I didn’t address two very good questions.

Do you seriously think that’s the difference in velocity the force comes from?
What about propulsion without fuel?

Lets look at the 2nd one first. I’m trying to think of one example, but can’t. But I think you’re trying to find another example, where an object is travelling without moving, so to speak. In all animal cases+human, movement comes from physical work of the host.

Maybe the balloon analogy can serve for both answers, although it can be misleading if you’re not focused enough. The true reason of balloon’s propulsion is the change in momentum of the expelled volume of air/gas – before the nozzle is released, its velocity is zero, then as we open the nozzle, it gains velocity / accelerates for two reasons: difference in pressure and additionally energy stored in its rubber envelope. In rocket’s engine, there’s no rubber storage, but the pressure is produced with combustion. The energy from the chemical reaction is transformed into heat plus movement of the mass / gases due to expansion. This also makes a point where you can now see how low level environment (and vacuum) is actually beneficial for such mechanism of propulsion as there is no atmosphere resisting expulsion of gases from the engine.

Horse’s mouth was right. But I think you believe he’s made an argument for your stance, while he’s actually talking about the conservation of momentum.

My writing above merely shows that it can be and is being done, unless you think that geostationary satellites are a hoax.

103 thoughts on “The possibility of space travel

  1. That post didn’t go unnoticed at all.

    What you and other space travel believers claim is that

    Your precious ‘satellite’ dish, and ALL of the dishes of your fellow believers need to have the impossible to achieve precision

    To point to

    A FIREFLY of 5 mm from a distance of 23 MILES?!

    Namely both factors (the “car sized satellite” and the claimed distance) divided by 1000.
    Even the oscillations on higher buildings are bigger than maintaining that precision.

    Meaning my neighbors in front should experience satellite cutouts everytime a large truck drives by.

    And not one, but ALL dishes should point at the same exact satellite, a point in the sky, that is not indicated with “yeah, just south”, but pinpointed with inclination and right ascension angles.

    Space travel believers are utterly absurd.

    But there is a way out! With just 3 satellite dish owning space believers you can triangulate that 1000x firefly 23,000 miles in the sky. ANY other dish of the same satellite company should point to the exact same point in the sky.


  2. And “Cluesforum says…” doesn’t exist. Or it exist just as much as Piece of Not So Mindful anymore says…

    Cluesforum is a place where hundreds of people or at least accounts have put their valuable time in.

    The 1 million viewed Boethius thread at Cluesforum contains SLAM DUNK, no discussion possible points on why space travel is impossible.

    Minime is half awake, pointing out rightly how absurd it is space travel was possible years before the invention of the microprocessor (1964) but somehow wants to maintain the myth ? What is going on?

    No matter what CGI we get presented of rockets expelling gas, that whole process cannot happen under the claimed conditions of space (3 K and very low P, 10^-16 bar I read back in the day).

    There is NO GAS under these conditions, everything becomes solid and only the lightest gases stay superfluid, but the vapor phase cannot exist.

    So any gas-propelled idea simply doesn’t work in the model of Space (((THEY))) made of it.

    Over 7 years ago I had a lovely talk with an astrophysicist about this. His reaction beat all the amateur trash nonsense I get here and elsewhere where the myth of Space Travel needs to be maintained, I wonder why….


      No matter what CGI we get presented of rockets expelling gas, that whole process cannot happen under the claimed conditions of space (3 K and very low P, 10^-16 bar I read back in the day).”

      Gas – as in a chemical composition/formula – does exist in space or we wouldn’t have no Sun, other stars and some gaseous planets like Jupiter or Saturn. As well, don’t we have an atmosphere here on Earth? Since Earth is in space, it all comes down to physical properties of the local environment where gas is being present, doesn’t it? In extremely low temperatures and low pressure, gases’s state changes and with it its properties. However, they retain their molecular composition AND their mass. As far as I know, the change in natural state of an element/molecules does not change their chemical composition, ergo any gas can be solid, liquid, gaseous and plasma while still called gas. But the essential part is to understand that no matter in what state a gas is, it has MASS. F=m * a; the mass being gases’ mass if talking about the thrust of a rocket engine.

      A rocket engine is somewhat enclosed system, with a single system’s outlet on the bottom end. There’s some tech pages with specifics of F-1 rocket engines for instance – the fuel injector was actually a turbopump, capable of delivering 129 bars of pressure as it pumped fuel into the combustion chamber. I believe this can create a localised gas bubble within an enclosed engine’s chamber for a small amount of time even in 0 bar pressure environment. Initial ignition, start of the combustion process, is provided externally (a huge spark or whatever), afterwards the energy / heat / sufficient temperature is provided with the combustion itself. The process of combustion then raises local pressure due to expansion and adds to efficiency of creating momentum.


      1. Story goes it’s the expansion of the gas pushing against the walls of the nozzle that provides thrust.

        In an ideal nozzle exit pressure should equal ambient air pressure.


      2. Has Petra hijacked your account?

        Under Space Conditions (the claimed model,the only one we can use to check the fairytales) GAS does not exist. Again, this basis physics and chemistry.

        So your whole rant based on make belief (“there is some time”, nope space is black and white, instantaneous, rigid (again, their model, not mine) and strawman tactics.

        The atmosphere of Earth is NOT space, by its very definition.

        The atmosphere of Jupiter we can only analyze so much of from Earth, but we cannot visit it, so no verification possible.

        Gas is just the vapor phase of any material. It says nothing of its elements. It is a state, a state non-existent according to GAIAs laws, under space conditions.

        So whatever you invent to maintain the myth, it is wanting it to be true, instead of an open investigation.

        Oh and F = m*a is a Newtonian physical law derived from experiments on Earth. Remember that Newton has never been in Space, so his laws have never been tested in that environment.


        1. “Has Petra hijacked your account?”

          Omg, dude, seriously? I know it angers you as I’m proving you more wrong with my replies, but don’t get angry at me for choosing to believe in bad physics.

          Earth is positioned in the middle of almost nothing, space, like our Sun or Jupiter, etc. Down here we have abundance of gaseous forms, an atmosphere. Since Earth is in space, so are the gases surrounding Earth. So how can you say something as stupid as that gases don’t exist under space conditions (you probably wanted to say at low T, low P conditions, like vacuum)? Is our atmosphere a hoax? Where would gases’ mass disappear to? Was it miraculously annihilated? I think you are trying to say that gases have different properties at different temperatures and pressure, which I find logical. Nevertheless, H2 is always H2, regardless of its state, a molecule with constant mass.

          Your statement that gases don’t exist under space conditions as per physical laws is bollocks for two reasons. They only become more and more condensed with decreasing temperature, which transforms them into either liquids or solids. In that case and to avoid confusion, it’s properly called liquid x or solid x (x being any gas of your choice). Charles’ law’s claim that the matter (which once had finite volume) has zero volume at absolute zero is absolutely false.


        2. “Has Petra hijacked your account?”
          That’s exactly what I was thinking just now! This site use to be more brainy and entertaining in good ways before Petra arrived here wit her Pro Apollo propaganda. But for example my comments are not good enough for this blog according to Mark because I have few writing errors in my comment. What happened to Mark? THIS is now my final post to here. I promised not “spam” this site any more. Keep thinking high, Gaia.


      1. Yes, you did a great job, with lots of attention.

        Ab the Fakeologist shared that viewcount on his blog.

        Where years ago we covered the Impossibility of Space Travel in detail already.

        But apparently arithmetic means “avoiding pertinent questions” and your and others hard research can just be wiped away cause CF “is on a tangent”.

        Your CF rocket thread is all but a tangent, it is very straight to the points.


      2. I’m really glad you chimed in here. Hopefully, you can help to clarify a few things.

        I went through the CF’s thread regarding the issue at hand and what I noticed is that you never attempted to dispute or refute reasonable arguments against your thesis from at least 2 different authors. As my memory serves, these 2 authors were trying to convey the very same message as I’m trying over here – when you claim:

        “At this point we have a rocket with high-pressure gas generated from liquid fuel that can release the gas into a vacuum but has no way to produce a force while doing so. As soon as the nozzle is opened the gasses escape without doing any work. Therefore the 3rd Law is rendered useless.” (quoted from your 1st post at Cf’s thread).

        You’re wrong about the first part and consequently came to a wrong conclusion – as you release the gas into vacuum, you’ve released its mass with it, already creating a momentum. Since this gas is released by combustion, it’s mass is heavily accelerated, yielding in even more momentum. That’s the force created by this principle. This momentum is conserved by the reactional force in the opposite direction. No Newton’s law is broken or rendered useless.

        The reason you’ve making a wrong conclusion is because of your erroneous interpretation and application of Joule / free expansion principle. Free expansion is a process in which a volume of gas is kept in one side of a thermally isolated container (via a small partition), with the other side of the container being evacuated. The partition between the two parts of the container is then opened, and the gas fills the whole container. The temperature change in such a process provides a measure of intermolecular forces. I honestly can’t see any correlation to the issue of creating the momentum by accelerating and expelling volume of gas into vacuum as with rocket engine.

        I have also noticed that the thread in question has multiple posts from the same contributors, all of them having absolute zero understanding of basic physical principles, which made Shack believe that particular thread has proved that engines can’t work in vacuum. I, for instance, find his ramblings specially detrimental for any serious physics discussion as he’s an utter charlatan.


          1. This is the equation to properly calculate thrust. All parameters’ relationships are clearly understandable:

            F=m * v(exit)+Ae(P1−P2)

            where m is the mass flow rate, v(exit) is the average exit flow velocity across the exit plane, Ae is the cross-sectional area of the exhaust jet at the exit plane, P1 being pressure inside the engine and P2 being atmospheric pressure. Provided that the nozzle is not overexpanded and flow separation does not occur, Ae remains constant, and the thrust difference is realized primarily from the change in P2 => lesser atmospheric pressure = larger thrust.

            I don’t know where you found that graph and especially that correlation between Pa and Pe. According to the equation above, the main consideration is that in vacuum there is no atmospheric pressure fighting the engine thrust, which increases engine’s efficiency.


        1. You keep presenting something that DOES NOT EXIST. Why are you doing this?

          Look up a phase diagram at extremely low Temps and Pressures and everything is SOLID. That “gas expelled to an infinite nothingness of space” is UNPHYSICAL, UNCHEMICAL.

          You present a total fantasy to maintain an even bigger fantasy.


          1. Are you deliberately acting retarded?

            Gas is liquid inside the rocket’s reservoir. During the injection and combustion, it is gaseous. As it exits the engine and enters vacuum , it solidifies. Be it H2 or O2, its molecular composition and mass never changed even though there were 3 different transformations in their states. Let that sink in before you jump at the keyboard with another epic statement.


  3. I don’t know enough about satellites (the claims and evidence for the claims) to comment. As far as piloting rockets through space though, I just look at it as a very simple thought experiment – if space is a vacuum as claimed, where would the resistance needed for propulsion come from? Why can this not be answered in a direct way, without a long-winded digression into impressive physics mumbojumbo? All the other Newtonian physics are just basic mechanics that are practically self-evident – he/they just formalized them. But oh no, rockets in space you have to be a science god to understand.


    1. The resistance is in the machine, the enclosed vessel that when explosive gases ignite have no place to go but outward. I do not have a problem with this concept, though I am pretty sure they never went moonward. It was all in LEO.


      1. When the explosive gases go outward into the vacuum of space though (putting aside the other issues Gaia raises below, which may be valid for all I know), they would just dissipate into the void – not enough matter or atmosphere to push against, so no propulsion. If space is “a vacuum.”


    2. “Why can this not be answered in a direct way, without a long-winded digression into impressive physics mumbojumbo?”

      I answered and explained jet propulsion principles in plainest words possible several times, here and in the previous thread. The problem is that you don’t want to read it and/or accept its meaning because it defies your belief. No resistance is involved in creating a force with jet propulsion as in a rocket engine. Is that so hard to grasp? Now, if you really want to understand why that is so – the mechanism and physical principles of what’s going on – some complicated issues need to be clarified and this requires precision in expressing ideas and thoughts, along with some physical “mumbojumbo”. We’re after all, discussing 100% physics issue here with Newton’s law, aren’t we? Don’t get me going about why the sky is blue or what makes the lift on a wing or how elements are created if you think conservation of momentum is some kind of a mumbojumbo. 🙂 Some issues are just harder to understand, isn’t that how life is in general? Some things can be learned with ease and some are just beyond one’s reach. We all have our limits, I try to expand mine by constant practising.


  4. “Minime is half awake, pointing out rightly how absurd it is space travel was possible years before the invention of the microprocessor (1964) but somehow wants to maintain the myth ? What is going on?”

    Nothing in particular is going on, except that sometimes I get frustrated by bad physics and charlatans abusing logic. So as it happens, I comment. Is that anything you need to be suspicious about? Why don’t you address my points instead?

    I’m not maintaining any myth by correctly interpreting physics and mechanical principles. So far, nobody’s asked me what I believe to be true when it comes to Moon landings. But I said it in my replies to Petra anyway, somewhere above, that I don’t believe anybody was up to the task of taking man crew to the Moon and back for all the technological reasons. But that doesn’t mean rocket engines don’t exist and/or that jet propulsion doesn’t work in vacuum. Instead of accusing me of de facto nothing, try spending your time rethinking the conservation of momentum principle.

    Just to be clear, I also have doubts about the possibility of any space travel , unmanned or otherwise, beyond cca. 400 miles above Earth, due to observed and recorded anomalies in the radiation levels. I have no means to test my hypothesis, but I think none of the alleged satellites in purported high orbits are able to pass through Van Allen belt without damaged electronics. The biggest issue being appropriate shielding, which is problematic for its weight.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. If you have a proper grasp on basic physics and chemistry, nothing advanced is needed, you know that:

      1 – under the claimed conditions of space (the same model NASA allegedly uses) GAS DOES NOT EXIST.

      That is not me, that is GAIA who decided that. At -270 deg Celsius and extremely low (space is not officially a pure vacuum, that term is awkward anyway) pressures, gas simply doesn’t exist.

      I think Hydrogen is the last gas to turn to superfluid, all other elements are rock SOLID at those conditions.

      And as rocket propulsion is and has been engineered to work in and with the atmosphere, it cannot just also work without that medium it is designed in and for.

      It’s like putting a submarine in the air. Yellow submarines; space travel programming?

      Good to read that you doubt space travel, Mark said that you and him were gonna defend space travel, or its possibility, see topic title, against “Fakeologist (just as diverse as Cluesforum or POM, also not speaking with a centralized voice) and Cluesforum are on a tangent here”

      Which “tangent”? What does this even mean?

      Then, if you picture that impossible to exist rocket in space, both sides of the same machine, made from the same materials, suffers dramatically different conditions.

      The sun lit side would heat up and that side would plastically defoem, as that is what metals do when they get hot.

      The shadow side however has the other extreme, extreme cold. And metals become very brittle at extremely low temperatures, meaning the shadow side would crumble to pieces.

      Space is presented to us as harsh, rigid and inhospitable.

      But when funny fairytales need to be perpetraited, suddenly the model is dropped, cause it interferes with the fairytale.

      Those “lights in the sky” that we see should indeed be satellites. Just not man made, they are just asteroids caught in Earth’s orbit and then passed on as artificial satellites, while they are natural.

      A question for you and all who are on some fence;

      Which and when did space travel become REAL?

      What is that undefined line between “fake” space travel (I think only Petra is trolling that story, nobody else here believes in the Playmobil Landings of 1969-72…?) and “””real””” space travel.

      How do you differentiate between the two and why make such illogical exceptions?

      For something that is physically and chemically IMPOSSIBLE, for us and for any other extraterrestrial species.

      The Impossibility of Space Travel Ever. does not depend on technological advancement. It is defined by the laws of Nature.

      That is why they can comfortably fake it. Nobody will ever be able to prove the Select Elite Chosen To Be In Space wrong.


      1. How do we know space is a vacuum? How do we know the van Allen belts are what they say they are? I think it’s likely it’s all b.s.


        1. Van Allen was a hustler as well. He worked with con braun on murica’s first satellite. Here’s a nice documentary from the army about explorer one. If you believe in Arthur c clarke’s geosynchronous satellites you must also believe the video below…


      2. You’re sticking with the idea that jet propulsion demands resistance of the atmosphere in order to provide thrust, just as TimR any many others here and elsewhere.

        But that’s not the principle of how it works. The fundamental principle is change in momentum of exhausted gases, which have mass, and then following this action, there’s a reaction in the opposite direction. The force needed to move a rocket is coming from the change in momentum over time and this is created by accelerating and exhausting combusted gases/mass – which in turn accelerates a rocket in the opposite direction. That’s all, no resistance of an atmosphere is involved in creating propulsive force.

        Once you get a grasp on it, you can begin to understand why somebody thinks Cluesforum is on a tangent by spreading the idea about rocket engines not working in vacuum. That’s bad physics and it can be annoying to see many otherwise intelligent people get stuck in such (ideo)logical fallacy.

        Space is not a vacuum in a sense that it is completely void of matter and pressure. How could you possibly remove charge field (aka photon field) from certain amount/volume of space? So a specific space can be without pressure and temperature, but it’s never truly empty due to presence of photons (which have mass, of course).

        Real space travel… don’t we travel in space down here on Earth? Yes, down here we have an atmosphere, but moving through the space is our habit anyway as we go from point A to point B. So where’s the difference to this concept as we want to move away from Earth? All movement is gping through space, otherwise it wouldn’t be called movement – if you’re confined to a single point, you can’t move.

        Now, regarding the extreme temperatures of outer space environment – I don’t claim to know everything and have all the answers. Lacking knowledge triggers my scepticism too, which is the reason I doubt in high orbit satellites as stated above. I’m just thinking out loud – provided that a rocket has sufficient energy source, it would be heated and cooled where necessary to avoid construction failures. Heat and cold transfer without an atmosphere/medium is somewhat easier to handle than is down here.


        1. Wrong again. The material properties of a material vary with its temperature. So the colder it gets, the more the material starts to behave like extreme cold environments produce; brittle deformation. The other side is heated enormously, some claim the thermosphere is 3000 degrees, which would melt or at least plastically deform the heated side.

          And no it is not “easier” in space (everything above the atmosphere), it is much harder because of the lack of a transient effect. That is what a nice blankety atmosphere would create.

          So you go from 3000 deg heat to stone cold, with just a tiny transition zone at the edges where it turns to the dark, 3 K cold side.

          Liked by 1 person

  5. “By the way, 22,292 divided by 186,000 mph, the speed of light, creates a delay in our phone signal of about 1/12 of a second” . Nope, speed of light is 186,000 mps or 670,000,000 mph or 6.7o6e+8. Your Maths is off slightly.


    1. No surprise that my maths is off slightly. I’ll fix that. I spent my career as a CPA, and contrary to popular opinion, we are 1) not necessarily that smart, and 2) don’t do math. We do arithmetic.


      1. This slip-up (if you use an incorrect unit, I wouldn’t say “your maths are off”), but it nicely ties into one of the silliest stupidest spacey stories we got FED…

        When was it, late 90s, early 2000s, when I was embracing the internet and dicovering its many strengths, back when the internet was still cool, when some Mars lander crashed because the NASA dupes used Imperial instead of Metric or the other way around, it is equally absurd.

        Not only the total lack of professionalism, if NASA would have been a private company such a silly and costly “mistake” would bankrupt the company, but something much more fundamentally wrong and therefore revealing its invalidity.

        The subject in uni is usually called aerospace engineering.

        Forget space, nobody can go there, but the aero and engineering parts are very real and the actual focus of whatever budget goes to whatever aero”space” programs are…

        If there is one thing the aerial industry excels in, it is in the development, and intrinsic application, it is their philosophy you could say, it is in everything, of

        redundancy mechanisms and back-up systems

        This is why flying is so incredibly safe, considering the real “greatest achievement of mankind” overcomes SO many physical-chemical challenges that we couldn’t overcome in the centuries before.

        Meaning that the idea that 1 conversion going wrong and that spoiling a 200 billion fake petradollars worth spacey program, is completely ludicrous.

        Anti-aeronautics (in the end the terms from aviation mostly root in sailing).

        Meaning such a story could never happen in an aero-engineering environment.

        It almost beats the even more absurd story presented to us.

        That “Gus” Grissom (jeje) and his engineer highly trained buddies

        Would ever
        In their sane life

        Step into

        A 100 % oxygenated environment

        And then so-called fry to ash…

        If you believe that, I have a rainbow to sell.


        THINK about how absurd space travel is.
        Start holistically
        Forget all those books

        None of that matters.

        GAIA reveals her truths by herself.

        And if the total nonsensical absurdity of the Monkey Stream Media and good catch by TinR, Psientific Cookoo’s Clan is not clear by now…

        You need to UNMARK more.

        Mark, not as in Tokarski, though Ab’s GEM (“Heyyy MARK !”) is useful out of context and does not imply Mark Tokarski because of my editing, but as in

        Marks – people listening to/reading/following/taking seriously
        Carnies – people who are on a stage and we cannot directly mutually communicate with – any writer, YouTube personality, media, psience, etc. Person. Someone from the Clownworld

        Exactly that world to be avoided if you want to


        that is what we do, forming our mentalversity (vs “university”) at

        Eye am Eye Radio

        Join and Think

        we matter


  6. MiniMe –
    Do you have any diagrams you could post perhaps, showing your model of how a rocket works in space? I never feel like I’m following your terms clearly, so that might help to clarify.

    Also would be interesting to compare to a diagram of a rocket flying within Earth’s atmosphere. I assume you’d say it works the same way, just different external conditions yielding different results?


      1. Thanks SMJ. It looks to me from that info like space would be the ultimate in an “under expanded nozzle.” The blast would go out the back (if rockets work at all in space) and expand out to such a wide plume – at right angles or more to the nozzle – that there would be no thrust. Or at best some infinitesimally small amount of thrust, that would require such a vast amount of fuel as to be absurd.


    1. Here’s one:

      Important to note is that change in momentum of gas, Pgas, over time is what results in force being created. The change in gas’ momentum is basically acceleration. The result of these two vectors or total momentum always adds to zero (conservation of momentum).

      Newton’s 3rd law diagram:

      Combined, these two principles make jet propulsion possible.


        1. They function by the same principle both in atmosphere and in vacuum. In fact, they’re more efficient in vacuum as there is no drag, resistance of atmosphere and less friction, with Earth’s gravity pull being lesser and lesser with the distance travelled.

          One more time – rocket engine creates thrust by accelerating fuel’s mass
          (combustion) and expelling it. There is no pushing against air or ground involved in creation of thrust.


      1. Well, it seems the party has started again.
        Minime, Newton 1-2-3 and conservation of momentum are physics 101, so no one here is disputing their correctness.
        What I’ve been saying is that in this case conservation of momentum is misapplied.
        Conservation of momentum is just a logical consequence of Newton 3, or another way of stating that interactions are always symmetrical. If I push on you, from a mechanical point of view is like saying you’re pushing on me, hence total momentum doesn’t change.
        But conservation of momentum is valid as long as it is applied inside the boundaries of a specific SYSTEM. Any number of interacting objects defines a system. Stating it another way, to belong to the same system the objects must be actually interacting (in a sense we could say that everything belongs to the system called universe, but let’s not complicate the matter stretching it that far).
        The key word here is inter-action. In the realm of mechanics interaction needs physical contact but physical contact itself doesn’t make two or more objects to belong to the same system.
        If two persons A and B are in physical contact their combined mass is A+B. If A starts walking away conservation of momentum doesn’t say that B has to start walking in the opposite direction. That’s because the momentum gained by A is not a consequence of some action by B. They are (or were) in physical contact yet they are not interacting with each other hence they do not belong to the same system. Another visual example is person A holding in his hands a bowling ball. The combined mass is A+B. If A just drops B, B will gain momentum downwards, but A will not gain momentum upwards because in that situation there’s no interaction between A and B, hence they belong to different systems. The system into which conservation of momentum is correctly applied is B+Earth.
        In a vacuum the free expanding gas and the rocket are in physical contact, but as strange as it can sound, like persons A and B of the previous example, they do not interact.
        They do not interact because there’s no way they could interact, ergo they are not in the same system, ergo conservation of momentum doesn’t apply.
        It should be totally clear that the gas is not expanding as a consequence of the rocket pushing on it, the rocket is totally passive here, I hope we can agree on that. Of course, you would say, the action comes from the gas pushing on the rocket, but the gas has no way to push on the rocket, because the gas mass is flowing towards the path of least resistance, and if the resistance is zero, 100% of the flow is going that way (i.e. away from the rocket).
        “Oh, but that’s wrong, the movement of gas molecules is totally random, so statistically half of them will go in the direction of the exhaust flow, the other half will push in the direction of the rocket.
        If that would be the case it means that, if GM is the total gas mass, ½ GM is going in one direction, and (½ GM + rocket mass) is going in the opposite direction, but since the gas molecules have all the same mass and same speed, that would be a violation of conservation of momentum. It’s like saying that a=a+b.
        If you apply conservation of momentum as if the expanding gas and the rocket are in the same system, ALL the gas mass must go one way, to account for the rocket mass going in the opposite way. But if ALL the gas mass is going one way, there’s nothing left to push on the rocket, and if nothing is pushing on the rocket where does its movement come from? Let’s not forget that the rocket here is the passive actor, it cannot push, it cannot move, it cannot do anything.
        The common fallacy is to visualize the situation as if the action starts with the rocket pushing away the gas mass, and receiving an opposite force as a recoil reaction. But that’s totally wrong, the rocket cannot start anything, he can just wait for some action upon itself. The problem is that in a vacuum that action can never come from an expanding gas, for the reasons explained above.
        So, if the rocket and the free expanding gas do not interact and hence are in different systems, what’s the correct way to account for conservation of momentum?
        Whatever the rocket’s momentum before the expansion, it doesn’t change because no action is affecting it. Momentum is conserved.
        The gas momentum, created ex novo by the energy released during the fuel combustion, will be accounted when the gas molecules will find something to interact with, exchanging momentum. It’s just a two phases, time delay process.


        1. Yes, this is good stuff.

          Especially this:

          But conservation of momentum is valid as long as it is applied inside the boundaries of a specific SYSTEM. Any number of interacting objects defines a system.

          whatever Space is supposed to be, in all models presented to us it is


          meaning the amount of elements (objects) in this System, is also infinite, or at least near infinite that we, tiny humans can observe with publicly accessible telescopes, can establish

          that makes

          Space Travel impossible

          the main model relies on gravity, but if you’re an aether fan it works the same way (push instead of pull)

          we cannot even solve the problem to send an imaginary probe up there

          simply the gravitational elements of an Infinite System are and always will be too complex (cause infinite, or at least megalarge) to calculate

          let alone to overcome

          we cannot overcome gravity. Anti-gravity is psi-fi and even there it wouldn’t work, you’d need >50 % of the mass of Earth alone to “escape” the old Earth’s gravity (the anti-gravity device needs to be “heavier” than Earth), but than would just become a new “planet” caught up in all the innumerable gravitational/aethereal/cosmic Forces That Are Way Bigger Than Any Mankind Anywhere Ever. Period.

          rockets work in System Atmospheric Earth and System contained vacuum chambers

          not in infinite environment with forces SO big that the Earth’s tides are caused by it.

          I think since Simon Stevin the scientific (back then) and later psientific (“Enlightenment”+) communities

          damn well KNEW
          that Space Travel would always be impossible

          so they Jules Verned the whole shebang


          1. This is fascinating info and comment from You Gaia. You really take the thinking to the next level, but I can’t take it whole as true so easily. What in Your opinion belongs to te Earth system? I mean how high in the space or atmosphere the system continues and is it the atmosphere or gravity that holds the Earth system in together. Or electricity etc..? I was commenting earlier (But it doesn’t show here, maybe because i mentioned the infamous Party Men from WWII era Germany working for Not A Space Agency?) that there is a tiny possibility that there was more advanced technology in use with spacecrafts what are told to us and maybe the crude rocket engines were only for the first stages of the rockets and other stages were powered with some unknown to us engines. What You think about that. I still believe that humans can’t go through and over the Van Allen Belts, but that enables in theory unmanned space travels to outer space if rocket engines won’t work in vacuum. It’s so hard to think that ALL of the space travels are only fabricated false stories for us or that there is no space at all according to some people. I think at the moment that the truth is somewhere in the middle of the verges, but I might be wrong about it or about everything. These are just thoughts, but someone must be wrong at the end of the day anyway. Thank You for giving me headache from overloading my brains with those astonishing opinions of You. I like to expand my picture of the world so the pains from learning more about the things outweighs the accomplishments. There are so much distinct brain teasers here, but that is just a good think IMO.


              1. O.K. I’m sorry to hear that I’m not good enough to write to Your web site. I didn’t know there are so strict rules in Your Blog. Ever heard a thing called dyslexia? It makes writing perfect text difficult, but it’s not effecting thinking. English is not my first language and I have never wrote with English to web sites before so I write my comment texts first in text editor in my computer, but it’s correction was for Finnish text. I tried to spell the text for errors many times when pasting it to Your site’s comment field, but failed to be enough precise. It take hours to complete my task of one comment. I was so excited that I discovered Your site few times ago and I have read it all and I have found it to one of the best sites about free thinking and place where some people (especially You, Mark.) thinks pretty much like the way I’m thinking. Also different opinions are welcomed to expand my world view IMO. But please go on with good working without me. I’m not “spamming” You any more.


                1. Not at all what I meant. You are welcome to comment here, and what you have written so far is interesting. Over the years, and I do not know this but only suspect, we have had certain agents drop by sent to confuse and mislead, and others have said that they signal one another by misspelling certain words, such as “the” as “te”. That sounds paranoid, I know, and agents have been few and far between, probably imaginary. I wonder as I awake each morning why this blog still exists. We are being tolerated, and I do not know why, and when it is shut down, I will have no regrets. It’s been a good run.

                  I have never tried to conceal my identity. I know that to be pointless. You are not being hounded or forced out. Carry on.


            1. Hi Suominen, great to see so much wisdom coming from saunaland (at least I assume you’re Finnish?)!

              Regarding your 1st question : What is System Earth?

              Great question and I don’t think we will be able to give a definite answer till we would have independent tests done by us. With weather balloons or other devices that can go high enough to be able to verify what the status of the atmosphere and the transition into “space” is.

              What is published is the so-called Kármán “Line”, which is set at 100 km altitude above Earth’s surface. I don’t know if that is the “max”, but what I imagine is like we were “Atlantis people”, living all our lives under water (=atmosphere) and then the only thing we can do is like how dolphins or fish can jump from the water, but they have no possibility to fly, or stay in tthe waterless world (=space to us).

              The 2nd question, I know it is a popular narrative to envision the NAZA (no typo) guys as “all powerful” and “even more advanced than we know”. I find that hard to process, in all my investigations in so many different psyops, the recurring pattern is that those psychopaths OVERPLAY their hands, not at all have super secret super advanced tech that can suddenly overcome thermodynamical (phsycial-chemical) challenges that couldn’t be tackled before.

              I also don’t believe it is a matter of technology, it is a natural law that we cannot leave Earth, and so other species cannot leave their home planets either, making aliens (as in visiting extraterrestrials) evenly impossible.

              Of course I take the mainstream model of space as base, because
              1 – there is no other model
              2 – they use that same model in their supposed calculations

              if there is a different model of space, making space suddenly not anymore inaccessible, then that may be the case, but we can never know that without having access to that “Vatican library held working model”….

              and this

              It’s so hard to think that ALL of the space travels are only fabricated false stories for us

              at first this may be hard to accept, but once you see the exact same errors in ALL the space travel stories, it only makes sense to reject them ALL.

              Hence my questions to the space travel believers, but even the ones who claim space travel is POSSIBLE (see title) do not even have the guts to answer pertinent questions.

              On their own blog. Which is not at all “free”, there is heavy censorship going on here.

              Join Eye am Eye Radio if you like and we can TALK (helping with dyslexia), send me an email to

              agenda2020 [ape tale] protonmail [point] com


              1. I found this comment of Yours just now, sorry. Firstly: I’m okay with my dyslexia, it’s not so bad and it varies from time to time. Mostly some mild typos, which although make sometimes some time to correct because my eyesight varies too from day to day, but sometimes I can write and see my writings quite well and with just a few errors. I don’t know why it is so, but maybe it depends about the tensions or how sleepy I am, or from both. Let’s just forget it. Thank You anyway from Your concern.
                Yes I’m from Finland, but don’t know about wisdom, I just like to think (too much) about things (often too late in the night). Secondly: I’m way too shy to talk in radio, but thanks from asking.
                About the subject: Yes I think too that there is some kind of space up there and according to what are told to us it is impossible for human being to travel over 400 or something miles away. I don’t know surely if space travels are possible for unmanned vehicles, but now I believe that they are. It is much about believing because I can’t go there and check it up. And I can’t trust official stories from NASA or from any other deceivers any more. I can’t straightly trust someone I don’t know in internet either, BUT I’m not going to be astonished if I found out some day that what You say about satellites (or precisely about the lack of them) is true. We are each living here just mostly with the knowledge we are given from above and we don’t know what we don’t know so we each create our own reality where we live. We are a bit like a sims in the Sims computer game and many of us lives without even wanting to know anything from anything. You and I and other people who read sites like this are one of those who knows this is not all that is and wonders what is behind the program and we want to learn more about reality of our world. The simulation might not be actual one inside the computer but it is created with some kind of occult ways to keep us in kind of fantasy (/nightmare) world. Knowledge is power and they are using that power against us.


        2. “The common fallacy is to visualize the situation as if the action starts with the rocket pushing away the gas mass, and receiving an opposite force as a recoil reaction. ”

          That’s exactly where the actions starts, AK, You’ve said it yourself yet you seem to can’t wrap your head around it completely…

          Pushing away the mass of gas – that’s what is producing the force. Gas has mass, and in order to put this mass in motion, you need to act upon it with some force, otherwise it remains static as per Newton’s 1st. So what is actually creating a force to act upon the mass of gas? A chemical reaction as in combustion – since rocket fuel’s gas (or rather a mixture of two gasses inside rocket’s engine), when ignited, can release tremendous amount of energy per small mass, we’re harnessing this energy from it. Energy has to be preserved, some of it transforms into heat and most of it transforms into…movement of gasses’ particles. Since they have mass and you have just accelerated them, they’ve created a momentum. And this is the crux of the matter – in order to move mass, you need to apply force to it. This is Newton’s 2nd. Then, as gasses’ mass has been affected upon and accelerated – an action has been made, and as per Newton’s 3rd, a reaction is triggered in the opposite direction. And that’s what is pushing a rocket forward. No atmosphere is needed for any of this principle to work, in fact, this kind of propulsion system performs better in vacuum.

          The fallacy you’re having issue with is on one level that you’re somehow ignoring the fact that gas has mass. On another level, you’ve overlooked the fact that needed duality (or the system as per your words) is in our case a rocket, mass 1, and its weight of fuel, mass 2, that are affecting each other.


  7. Mark, I’m the one who started the thread on CF about Rockets not working in a vacuum. Being a classically trained scientist I wanted to approach the hoax scientifically. Discussing the moon landing with other scientists is like discussing the authorship of the Bible with priests at the Vatican. I didn’t get very far on CF either; only one person on CF, Sceppy, understood what I was aiming at and responded as such in comments. Here, on the other hand, at least four people get the importance of scientific evidence as a requirement to trust in the science. Modern Science is both a Religion and a Magic Act. It requires absolute belief without proof for our entire lives and it constantly distracts our attention from the core issue under consideration. The radio and video messages being sent back and forth across the globe, the lights moving across the sky at night, pictures of the earth, footprints on the moon, etc…have nothing to do with whether or not gas, inside a limitless vacuum, can generate a force. People Like Dave McGowan actually distract us from the fact that there is no scientific proof. NASA would much rather debate the use of wires, the lack of a crater, the absence of stars, the Masonic symbols, the missing tapes, etc… than furnish physical proof of thrust in a vacuum. NASA has a 50-foot tall vacuum chamber. Let them drop a model rocket from the top. When it is 25 feet from the bottom let them ignite the engines and blast out some gas from underneath. Let’s see how much thrust it generates, how fast it moves upwards, or if it keeps falling and hits the bottom. And then let someone other than NASA repeat and verify the results. No proof. No belief.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank you for commenting here, Boethius. I very seldom go to CF, I should say never, though it is not a slam against the work done there. I just don’t get out much. The post below concerning McGowan is what started this discussion, as a few commenters veered off into discussing travel in space. Since it has long been a curiosity with me, I opted to put up this post and then let better minds than my own have it out. A am not a scientist, in case you did not guess that.


    2. “Discussing the moon landing with other scientists is like discussing the authorship of the Bible with priests at the Vatican.”

      This aspect of science always fascinates me. It sounds like you’re in a unique position of being in the scientific priesthood, yet not overawed by its dogmas or authorities. You must have stories to tell..


  8. It doesn’t really matter rockets work in space or not. Any man-made object: rocket or satellite, that stays in space is under extreme heat from the sun due to lack of atmosphere (or extreme cold if the sun is shielded); the conventional explanation we get is that the object is space is spinning so that the heat get dissipated, but without air, radiation is the only way to dissipate heat, and it must be slower than the radiation received from the sun. Ergo, the object in space would quickly heat up and melt, all the electrical components will simply fail.

    “Satellite signals” or GPS, can be explained without the existence of man-made satellites. Before the ‘invention’ of satellites, (land-based) LORAN (or e-LORAN nowadays) has worked well for long-distance communications already. There is no need for an airborne device.


    1. You are into something. Authority can’t decide if inside the spacecraft there is cold or hot. It was very strange when they show in Apollo 13 movie that astronauts were freezing when they turned of the heating device or something. In other movies (If i remember right for example in Firs Man (2018) they are saying that astronauts are like a weenies in the grill or something like that anyway, which is more realistic option in my mind. Both movies ought to represent the real events and same environments. When thinking that the Sun heats endlessly the tin can Apollo crafts and there is no ways the heat to go outside the craft it must be really like weenies in the grill. There is no stories about there being any air conditioners aboard Moon crafts. Same thing with LEMs (or LM:s) on the Moon and when You think about how much car air condition takes electricity from battery when engine is not running I think it’s impossible that there were enoughtbattery power aboard the LM:s to cool the heat off several days in the continuing sunshine.
      If the rocket motors are working in space or not seems really be less relevant matter in this case (too) because there are so much other things against the manned trip to the Moon which are more easy to understand than the principle of rockets. No one of us readers are never going to space to test if the rocket engines works, but we can imagine what happens to the weenies in the grill.


  9. I’m thinking about the possibility of the space travelling and these days I believe that travel to LEO is possible, manned or not. I also believe whit the knowledge that are available that human can’t travel through and over the Van Allen belts, but maybe it’s possible for unmanned space ships. A rocket working in space is in my opinion possible too. It is the reaction and action law where “for every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction” that “enables” the ongoing explosions from rocket motor to move the rockets even in vacuum of space IMO (With the knowledge we are given). Although they say “in nature” so it might depend if the space is counted as a nature or not and so I may be wrong about the subject. But now I believe space rockets are real.
    There is still a tiny possibility in my opinion that there was more advanced technology available at the time of the Apollo flights which was kept secret from us. Ii might be that they used the crude rocket technique in the first stage to take the next stage to the LEO and then use some secret to us techniques to drive the space vehicles further away. If you know what I mean. I know I’m stretching a lot and have nothing to prove my theory, but why should we believe that NASA liars told us everything about the technology available. For example the blueprints of the computers of the Apollo space ships are so ridiculous that it is unbelievable to think that they believe people to believe that these computers really take people to the Moon and back. But it’s all about believing in the case of Moon flights anyway, same way You believe in Santa Claus for awhile in Your childhood, nothing more. It’s about if You want to believe like in the X-files TV-series, not about how things are in reality. Those last sentences were also awkward transition from one topic to another which is pointed especially to certain Italian SS-lady. (The one who is promoting here some Sensible Bull Sh*t Site or what ever. Why not Gestapo site instead?) You can buy a Millennium Falcon Owner’s Manual Book from internet so it is undownable evidence that Millennium Falcon space ship is real and so must be real all the stories of the Star Wars saga. Debunk that!


  10. I define my former comment if I was inaccurate. With VW Beetle floor I meant old model Volkswagen Beetle Floor pan. If You search pictures for that in search engines they give result of the floor pans that looks pretty much like Moon Buggy without seats, antennas and other s*itt pretending to be important parts. It’s easy to imagine how to build D.I.Y Moon Buggy replica from it with some recycling parts from junkyard. Here is link to one example video in You Tube where some guys are showing the floor pan replacement project. You don’t have to watch the video, but the floor pan is shown clearly in the opening picture of the video.


  11. Arghh.. Now I feel myself just to be stupid. I read Your comment “Do not know why” as “Do You know why?” and thought that my writing “the” as “te” was the reason for You to think my comments were spam and that that was the reason for my comments not showing. I was a little sad about it, but now I know what You meant. So sorry again, my mistake. My first comment I wrote here was maybe a little too personal about You and Your quarrel with Petra so I thought that it was the reason for my comments not showing. Little paranoia is a beneficial feature when writing about these ticklish subjects like Apollo Missions. For example some features of my computer changed overnight after my first commenting here. Nobody else than me in my apartment have access to my computer so it looks like somebody were hacking my computer via internet. Or it was just a strange coincidence that alternations happened right the same time as my writing here. No updates were installed for days. Maybe that’s the reason Your site exist, that they collect information from us the readers when we are commenting here? Or maybe I am just too paranoid? When I’m writing this comment I notice that just now some of my earlier comments are showing here eventually. Now I take a short rest about the subject and go to outside walking to the fresh air and beautiful sunshine. Thank You.


  12. Sorry that I have wrote so many comments about the subject without so much real points, but I thought earlier that my previous comments are not released for reason or other. The reason was that I was new in this site and my writings were examined first by moderators or somebody, and after I was passed the inspection they released all my long comments at once. Anyway now I like to give my little toughs about the space travel and about the rocket engines. I am just an average person without any fancy titles, but as kind of hobby I have been very interested about airplanes and space rockets since I was a kid. There was a time period when I was almost living in libraries absorbing knowledge from science books. Now I’m not sure anymore what was real knowledge and what not because later in my life I realized that we are being lied about so many things.

    Anyway, Now to the Rockets… Here in my homeland they teach children in schools that when You are in a sleigh with the football size rock and the sleigh is on the ice of the frozen lake and when You push the rock in the air the sleigh moves forward, but when You stop pushing the sleigh moves back where it was before pushing. You, sleigh and rock forms a closed system and You can’t move the closed system more than is limited by the Newton’s laws, simply speaking, and if you really want to move Your sleigh without touching the ice You have to in return release something from Your closed system. So You throw away Your rock and Your sleigh moves to the opposite direction without moving back to the original position. The exact point of releasing the power that enables the moving was when the rock separates from Your fingertips. Now, is that process depending about if the sleigh is in the atmosphere or in the vacuum of space? No, it’s not, says science. If it is depending, what are the reasons? I don’t know that. This parable is supposed to be simple basic allegory about the action and reaction and the function of the rocket engines, but is it really so simple to comprehend? No it is not in my opinion. Now imagine taking a fire extinguisher with You instead of the rock and then launch the compressed extinguishing matter from the container via nozzle and sleigh should begin to move if the power of the burst outweighs the friction between the ice and sleigh. Now You are releasing something again from Your closed system. One might thought that the moving power comes from released matter pushing the air and that’s why this should not work in the vacuum, but this is exactly how they explain the rockets are working in space (or in atmosphere) I personally don’t know why it should not working like told us, but it is IMO most difficult to understand. So is difficult to understand the point in rocket engines where and when they achieves the power that moves the vehicle where the rocket are joined. They say (NASA and science) that the point is when the accelerated material is released from the nozzle if I understand it right. It really not depend what kind of rocket it is, they say again that there are for example electric propulsion systems used in the space which are not working by ignition of gases, but they are not as powerful as combustion rocket engines so they are not used at launches from Earth. But the principle of those engines are the same and same as in the sleigh and fire extinguisher vision. I can see why some may be thinking that the vacuum kind of just sucks the bursting gases away without moving vehicle and that there can’t be pressure in vacuum and so that is maybe the reason why rockets are not working in the space, but it’s not about pressure but about released accelerated matter instead. That is the moment where many of our, including mine, understanding may have a gap. It’s just like understanding the moving power of the sleigh in Your fingertips. It’s like a kind of magic. Things like these are the key points where one can be removed from reality and so begins to believe in false alternatives or could be deceived by mischievous agents. That’s why IMO is important to keep mind open when You don’t understand something and not fill the comprehension gaps too easily.

    Talking about magic, many persons involved in rocket science in early days were very attracted by magic and occultic, including Jack Parson of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. So were Nazis attracted in these things and Wernher Von Braun was a kind of nazi too. If You look Jack Parson’s Wikipedia page ( there is mentioned that the page is part of to the series of Thelema. When You go to the Thelema page ( there You can read that “Thelema (/θəˈliːmə/) is a Western esoteric and occult social or spiritual philosophy[1] and new religious movement founded in the early 1900s by Aleister Crowley (1875–1947)”. One can wonder why such a intelligent persons that are developed many of the space rocket engines are involved in such a esoteric and occult activity? Does it need maybe some kind of magic to make rockets fly in space? If You don’t believe it doesn’t matter because in magic they did seemingly. Is that occult activity the way to fill the gaps of understanding and allows the achievements of space travels? Who knows…?


    1. To start with your last point; my view is that the WHOLE Monkey Stream Media-Scientism Clique is occult and magical by nature. Their job is indeed to sell magic to the people.

      But that should not come as a surprise!
      The term Clownworld that I adopted from others perfectly describes this clan of cringy critters. The origins of the mass media and Hollywood are rooted in the traveling “circuses”, the main entertainment “for the masses” of those days.

      Hence why I maintain my point: watching TV is participating in a satanic ritual. No sane individual should watch TV, but the ones here have NO excuse for their abject behaviors and waste of time, time that could and should be used to BUILD A BETTER FUTURE.

      On the first point: what you describe is the classic diversion tactic; focus on just one part and ignore the other.
      What you describe are ONLY the supposed mechanical/physical conditions, but we’re not talking about a pure physical situation, but a chemical-physical condition to deal with.

      The sled on the ice does not have to deal with:

      1 – gravity (or aether if you prefer that)
      2 – the Temperature situation – again, there is NO GAS under the claimed conditions of space:

      how cool, it is best explained on a Finnish ! website…

      so any proposition that works on the basis of expelled GAS (vapor phase) cannot work under the conditions of space, cause that phase does not even exist!

      Then there is a third, in my Eye am Eyes much more fundamental, point:

      NOTHING keeps working without maintenance

      What the “satellites exist because I point my dish to a firefly 23 miles away and that works so you are all wrong!11!!11!!” people forget, is what happens if their beloved Satanic TV signal is interrupted because a satellite fails?

      Apparently satellites are built out of kryptonite or unobtainium, because they NEVER fail. Without maintenance. At 23,000 miles above Earth. Allegedly right inside the (theoretical!*) Van Allen Belts.

      I grew up in the 80s and 90s and thus have dealt with a lot of “older technology”, but even I have not lived through the 1960s and 70s, when Space Travel allegedly was booming.

      Without maintenance, ever. Rrrrright.

      *note these Van Allen Belts are purely theoretical if you don’t believe in space travel. It means nobody has ever verified the existence of those belts. The derivation of them does make sense taking into account:
      1 – the two magnetic poles of Earth
      2 – the northern and southern lights (auroras)
      3 – Van Allen being a geophysicist

      funny that Flat Earthers have no explanation for anything, but the simple fact we have 2 poles means the Earth can only be a convex sphere, no matter the FE trolls who on average have 0 understanding of physics, chemistry and astronomy.


      1. Yeah, Your right about the TV. I know some religious people (Lestadian Cristians) that don’t watch TV for reasons You mentioned. I thought the are silly when I was a shild, but not anymore. First TV- broadcast was conveniently about Adolf Hitler’s speech. And nazis were part of the TPTB and were later heavily involved in C.I.A, N.A.S.A and other diversion agencies. And the occultism was aboard from the beginning. Within this space subject and TV they sold us the idea of the manned space travelling with TV-series like Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, et cetera. Especially Gene Roddenberry of the Star Trek was with TPTB and whole serie was about the freemasonry themes in space. (United federation of planets, et cetera. One nation under one Führer). List goes on and on…
        It’s not easy to admit that many things sold us as real events were just fictitious stories like those in TV.


        1. Yes!

          In my view “the nazis” were just puppets of the same Hidden Hand by the Tribe of Tricksters, as I like to call them jewists (not all jews, and it is not about ethnicity, it is about a total mental disorder) (= the belief they are “the chosen people”, a Napoleon complex but then boosted to level 6,000,000) and a satanic cult (of treating others as livestock / goyim).

          I do not derive Satanism from a christian point of view, I was raised non-religiously in what used to be a christian country, but it is the research into the Clownworld that makes me use that term, it is anti-creation, anti-humanity and anti-nature, therefore satanic (destroying that what should be sacred).

          In the end it is jewism that is behind everything we see. The WEF (Schwab’s daddy was a prominent jew trading freely with the nazis), the “Nazis” (most of them jews themselves), the magic show they put on for us, it is intrinsically linked to the utmost madness of jewism.

          Spiridovich’s The Hidden Hand from 1926 gives an extensive overview of what those big-nosed bullies have been involved in….

          I summarized those ideas in a term I came with but then saw others also used the term, and documented the many examples at Fakeopedia:


          1. Yeh I know that “The Nazis” were manufactured thing by the TPTB (or whatever) and Hitler was just an actor just like so many other (If not all) leaders. There never were “The Good Guys” or “The Bad Guys”, just guys (mostly evils in lead) playing their parts. I’m with You with everything You wrote above in the latter comment. Even my late dad knew that long before internet and I never vent amiss about that. I was not so “lucky” with science stuff because I believed too easily things like Moon Landings or Manned space travels through Van Allen Belts. I wondered how they could travel so far away with so crappy vehicles and why they didn’t do better job with so much money. But I thought the many went to designing the whole thing and that the vehicles were cheap so they could do more of them for more travels. I used to joke about the Luna Module with my late dad that we could build the same thing from junk metal and aluminium foil. Now I know we were right about that. I shame I was so naive about so many science (fiction) things. I used to even sometimes quarrel with my grandmother about the Moon Travels. She have never believed in them. I was arrogant and thought that she just don’t know anything about the technology or science and I just repeating that of course there vent men to the Moon with space vehicles and everybody knows that. How wrong was I. Happily I was able to apologize my behavior and told her that she was right about the Landings being hoaxes.
            In recent years I have been trying to correct my errors in knowledge and sometimes I feel bad about wasting so many years in my youth trying to learn something real, just to realize it was mostly false crap for sheeps like I used to be.
            I’m not ready to agree with all of Your opinions about satellites or Earth’s shape but I have nothing to disagree with You neither. Who am I to judge who is right or not at the end of the day. It’s too hard for me to think that there are no satellites at all, but I like to chew that theory along with others. I know You understand what I mean. Thanks for the link.


            1. I’m not ready to agree with all of Your opinions about satellites or Earth’s shape but I have nothing to disagree with You neither.

              do I understand then that you
              A – believe in (some) space travel
              B – believe the Earth is Flat (or Concave)


              this I find the most impossible position to have. How can you combine these two ideas in your head? How can you ever follow the NASA stories who use a convex model of Earth AND maintain a different shape?

              How must space travel work then?

              And why do Flat Earthers NEVER even are able to predict solar and lunar eclipses, something the convex model does perfectly?

              The impossibility of Flat Earth is VERY easy to point out.

              If the Earth were Flat, a full moon over the Atlantic Ocean should produce 3 different views of the Moon. From East Coast Americas you should see the “correct” view, the full moon (but under different angles along the latitudes, another proof the Earth must be spherical), while an observer on a ship in the Atlantic should see the underside of the Moon and someone in W-Europe/Africa should see the BACKside of the Moon.

              The fact we don’t observe this makes the Flat Earth model psyop impossible.

              I really wonder how you maintain your position, rejecting that what we can establish with our very own eyes but accepting an idea that is physically and chemically impossible?!


              1. So I made a simple overview of the 4 possible positions, with you and Horst (whom I know is a Flat Earther) added. Would be cool if others would “come out of the closet” on both points, or we will be stuck in this same loop for the next 4 years (it is almost 4 years ago that I recorded the Apollo anniversary show with the Impossibility of Space Travel show at Fakeologist shortly after that….


                1. I don’t know the shape of the Earth. Sometimes it feels to be smaller than are told to us, but most times bigger than told to us. At this time I think it to be sphere, but bigger at diameter than told to us. I have nothing real proofs in favor of my opinions of course as has nobody else. Maybe it’s all just illusion made by our thoughts, who knows.


      2. About that Helium superfluid research You mentioned in Your comment, I remember now reading about it Years ago from a science magazine. It’s about searching two Helium isotopes in nearly space conditions and where they change from fluids to the superfluids. I can’t remember those isotopes being related to space travels other than that they say they use these superfluids in satellites in instruments like special cameras and gyroscopes or something like that. It was not so interesting or important thing for me, but that was time when I used to read some finnish language science magazines before they changed to contain more propaganda than real science information.
        Anyway, they say that from combustion rocket engine the burst released from it is very hot and so it can be in gas form. In space the cooling process is slow they say too because there are almost nothing where heat can go, but it doesn’t really matter what happens to the gases after they are released, because then their job is done. Before ignition gases are pressurized and in liquid form in containers. For that reasons I believe rockets are working in space conditions. There are other kind of rockets too, but the principal theory is the same.
        Everybody can’t be of same opinion from everything, but I think we share more opinions about the reality than we dissent each other so let’s not this subject be any kind of threshold issue for our conversation, please. Maybe some day I figured the answer out, but I have to do it thinking myself. For me our reality is like a puzzle which I’m trying to solve, but it is very hard puzzle with too many same kind of pieces and I don’t think I will solve it in my life time so I have to concentrate on parts where the picture is beginning to take shape. If You know what I mean.
        There are some other issues I wonder in what they told us about the space. One is that depending sources if You go to the Space, let’s say only with Your ice fishing overalls and sleigh, You either froze or heat up even when the Sun is shining all the while. Some sources say that there are so few “hot”/fast molecules in space heating You that even near the Sun You will froze and die. Other sources say that if You are same distance from the Sun than Earth is You would be heated up by Sun and die. Some sources even says that there are both heaters and coolers with the space suits and they work alternately depending if the users are in sunlight or in shadow. WTF? Now.. is the Moon surface very hot or very cold? Do they even know which it is? They say in some sources also that the Earth is warm because of our atmosphere where are plenty of molecules moved by the Sun warming us. But the Moon has no kind of atmosphere at all so what is warming the “ether” or the surface there? There are molecules in surface of course, but if You would freeze in the space even with Your overalls why would the surface of the Moon be heated up? Let’s say that it’s because the long time when the Sun heats the Moon and lets say Moon is not cooling enough when the surface is in shadows. That is just a hypothetic thinking. (They say all the time so let me say something too? Heh.) That’s not all, let’s think about so called “Luna Modules” and “astronauts on the Moon. (Yes it’s hard to do, but take a “picture” of the “astronauts” on the Moon and try it to be real or something.)
        Would they be freezing or heating up when landed on the Moon? What about when “astronauts” are in the shadow of the Module? Should they be freezing at least then, because there are no molecules to heat things up in space, as they say? Something is not matching with official stories. But of course that all really doesn’t matter because nobody have never been on the Moon. There are faults in other bed time stories too.


        1. I was wondering what kind of outfits I should wear for my first space travel because of the variable information about the conditions of the space but if there are very very cold in there I found out there are things called Heat thermal boilersuits ( They even comes with the USB so You can maybe load Your batteries from ISS. Maybe this thing was integrated in space suits when travelling on the Moon. Now I go to collect some rocks from the field fence for powering my space sleigh. (I’m not in earnest about my trek to the space so don’t anyone call the ambulance, please.)


        2. Suominen mentioned

          Anyway, they say that from combustion rocket engine the burst released from it is very hot and so it can be in gas form. In space the cooling process is slow they say too because there are almost nothing where heat can go, but it doesn’t really matter what happens to the gases after they are released,

          Interesting. This means that they are aware of the faulty chemistry (no vapor phase) and cover that with something that goes against the model they present space should be.

          Because in my understanding of the extreme T and P conditions and the infinity of space (they call it “the vast nothingness of space”), everything would be instantaneous. Once an H2/He/O2 particle is exposed to these conditions it should solidify instantaneously?

          I bet they didn’t give any thermodynamic explanation of how long the vapor stays vapor (“because some m3 of gas is hotter than the infinintely larger, more massive and thus more important space”), or did they?

          Just “the exhaust gases are hot, making them immune to turn to solids/superfluids, somehow, some way”?

          Pity you think you are too shy for podcasting, in voice you can explain things much better and in your own pace.

          But great you comment here, I think your thoughts and considerations are important.


          1. I’m not trying to argue with You or anyone else here, I’m just telling how I think and feel about space travels with the information that is available for everyone. I told before in one of my comments that I can’t be sure anymore which things are true and which false, because we are being lied about so many things (for example Moon Landings, dinosaurs, JFK, 9/11 etc.). I’m trying to find where are the boundaries between the truth and lies. I think the truth is layered with so many layers like an onion that it is not easy task to do. With this specific topic I think that boundary is that humans can’t go through and over the Van Allen Belts with the technology revealed to us. Is there more advanced technology somewhere in hide, I don’t know, but I have seen the fighters of the Finnish Air Force examined the flying object which flew away with speed impossible for known technology. I’m nonetheless interested about UFO:s or what ever they call these these days. I have no idea what the object was or where it was from and have spend almost any time thinking about it. Hardly it was from NASA anyway, I think that it’s job is just to deceive us with the way or the other. You think that they lie about everything including unmanned spaceflights and satellites and Your opinion is fine for me. I don’t know which one is right, but I think it’s useless to quarrel about that endlessly here. I’m not expert to talk about anything for Your podcasting. There should be someone from NASA or from science society. I’m just average person with rights to have an opinion about things, regardless if they are wrong or not.


          2. Quote: “Interesting. This means that they are aware of the faulty chemistry (no vapor phase) and cover that with something that goes against the model they present space should be.”

            I’m clearly not a rocket scientist, but is it not in the combustion rocket engines that there are first liquids (if not solid matter) that are vaporized then ignited and then bursted away to the space? Why should the burst froze instantly in the vacuum of space? I have never seen mentioned that things should happen instantly in space.
            Secondly: If all the space rockets are hoaxes why are they sending so many rockets over the many years just to be crushed soon in the oceans? It’s not cheap thing to do. I understand the relatively few Apollo rockets which were more or the less hoaxes regardless if they never reached the space or not. I were always thinking why the “mighty” Saturn V rocket is so slow in the launches, but still believed that they travel to the Moon with it because I trusted the sources I was reading in my youth. I questioned the reality of those missions but not hardy enough. Now I know it really was way too slow to ever reach the Moon, but I’m not sure if it reached the orbit or not. Because of those reasons I don’t wanna to crush Your opinions about the subject, because You may be right about it all, I just really wonder why repeating those rocket launches all the time in so many countries if they are for nothing? There should be an island of crushed rockets somewhere in the oceans.


  13. I’m a completely impartial observer with absolutely no definite opinions on space travel nor satellites, and this discussion is quite interesting to me. There are a number of good-sounding points on both sides that haven’t been answered (to my knowledge), which I would like to see answered. Apologies if I missed a response to any, but this thread is very long. Anyone keen to attempt these?

    Regarding space travel – can a skeptic please answer this? Quoth Minime:

    “FYI, there are quite a few military aircrafts capable of flying at high
    altitudes; in excess of 100k feet. For the sake of conversation, here’s
    the Eurofighter Typhoon’s specs: its ceiling is at 65000 feet or 19800
    meters. At that altitude and temperature, the air pressure is cca. 0.03
    bar. That’s approximately 1/33 of the pressure at sea level, yet they
    can propel AND steer the airplane around up there. According to
    you reasoning, such planes have an impossible feature of defying
    physical laws since their engines should be working with 1/33rd of
    their sea level thrust at their ceiling, making it absolutely
    impossible to get an airplane that high up. Yet there they are.

    Can a believer please answer my concern about this? Quoth Minime again:
    “The force caused by
    combustion of the gases adds to acceleration of escaping gases <= mass #1,
    which in turn creates more force over time (thrust) and pushes against the
    rocket <= mass #2 in the opposite direction.””

    The problem with this appears to be so obvious that I fear I’m about to ask a very dumb question. But I shall ask it anyway: how does the force/thrust push against the rocket when the direction of the exhaust is away from the rocket? I understand exactly how it would happen when resistance is involved. But Minime does not appear to have explained how the force pushes against the rocket while moving away from the rocket in a scenario where there’s no atmospheric resistance. Please answer in the simplest terms possible and do not fear that you are patronising me, as you are likely not.

    Regarding satellites – I found this comment of Gaia’s convincing. What’s a satellite-believer have to say about this?

    “Your precious ‘satellite’ dish, and ALL of the dishes of your fellow believers need to have the impossible to achieve precision To point to A FIREFLY of 5 mm from a distance of 23 MILES?!

    Namely both factors (the “car sized satellite” and the claimed distance) divided by 1000. Even the oscillations on higher buildings are bigger than maintaining that precision.

    Meaning my neighbors in front should experience satellite cutouts everytime a large truck drives by.

    And not one, but ALL dishes should point at the same exact satellite, a point in the sky, that is not indicated with “yeah, just south”, but pinpointed with inclination and right ascension angles.”

    I get the feeling someone’s going to be tempted to answer this one with “it’s too stupid for comment” and Gaia “lacks a basic understanding of how these things work”, or somesuch. This tends to be the standard answer to something that appears to be definitively fatal to one’s own argument. Fine – I’m stupid too, in that case. Please explain for a stupid person like me how this actually works and how you can reliably bounce a signal at such vast distances with such a lack of precision.

    Also, one of my own for the satellite believers – why are there no photos of satelites? Why, when we look them up on wikipedia etc. is it all artists’ renderings? I’ve seen exactly ONE page with some photos of geometric shapes covered in gold foil, but that’s all the photographic proof that’s ever been offered, as far as I can tell. Please someone show me a photograph of a completed satellite or explain why there aren’t any?

    Another one of my own, for the satellite skeptics: how do “satellite” broadcasts work then? I understand that there are land-based GPS systems in existence but what about broadcasts and satellite phones? Please be more specific than ‘ionosphere bounce’, and if you’re going down that route, please be prepared to explain how that could be reliably used given that, to my understanding, even transmissions in the microwave band have to be made with direct line-of-sight. How then can higher frequency “satellite” transmissions occur with bouncing involved, especially so reliably?

    Thanks for any replies, I look forward to reading them 🙂


    1. Satellite believers. O’boy, is this where we’re come to? If I ever going to found a band I know it’s name: A Moon Hoax Man and the Satellite Believers. The first song should be the variation from a “I Believe in Rock ‘n’ Roll”by Twisted Sister ergo “I Believe in theSatellites.” Who’s first to buy the first album? Order it right away and save Your money! Please call me, Dee.

      I think that’s all what I have to say about that.


  14. “But I shall ask it anyway: how does the force/thrust push against the rocket when the direction of the exhaust is away from the rocket? ”

    I’ve explained this at least 3 times in this thread – according to Newton and our experiences, when one mass is pushing on a second mass, the second mass is pushing equally hard on the first mass. So, if a rocket is pushing away huge mass of gases each second, the mass of gas is pushing back equally hard on the rocket. Analogy is the same as seen with any balloon, which I’ve also described. Or when you throw/push away any substantial mass – it pushes you away in the opposite direction. Check out the diagram above where the principle nof conservation of momentum is shown for visualisation.


    1. Thanks for your answer, Minime, however I disagree that you’ve answered the question. You’ve doubled down on your application of a specific principle, but you’ve not explained how this principle is applicable in a zero-atmosphere/resistance scenario. So, again, please explain the mechanics of how a force pointing away from the ship pushes against the ship in a zero-resistance scenario. Because currently what you’ve said is equivalent to “it has to, because that’s how physics works.”

      Also, the ship pushes against the gases? Yep…. and I can swim the 100m freestyle on land by attaching two garden hoses to my arms.

      Also, no-one wants to attempt to answer any of the other questions?

      I mean, honestly, it’s looking more and more to me like space flight is an impossibility. But as for the satellites – to date there is no viable explanation. “Satellite” broadcasting works, as Mark says, but the explanation offered for it seems riddled with absurdities, as Gaia says. So how can any of us possibly draw a conclusion on this when neither side can answer the other’s objections?


      1. But I did explain it 4 times already, you just don’t want to read it.

        Rule #1) If you want to move any mass, you need to apply force to it. Gas has mass so if you want to move it, force needs to be applied – in case of rockets, this force is applied by combustion of explosive gasses. By accelerating these gasses, they’ve also gained momentum.

        Rule #2) applied force in any vector direction is met with exactly the same force opposite to its vector direction. In other words, if mass #1 is pushing/applying force on mass #2, mass #2 is pushing back with the same sized force in the opposite direction. Meaning, in case of rockets – rocket (mass #1) is expelling/forcing accelerated gas (mass #2) backwards and this gas / mass #2 is pushing forward.

        Like I said elsewhere, some issues are easier to grasp and some aren’t. Understanding Newton’s 3 laws plus conservation of momentum is novice physics level for me, but I know we’re all different. Try exercising some experiments and logic application, it will definitely help in upgrading your capabilities.


    2. Reply completely disappeared, trying again…

      Thanks for your answer, however I disagree that you’ve answered the question. You’ve doubled down on your application of a specific principle, but you’ve not explained how this principle is applicable in a zero-atmosphere/resistance scenario. So, again, please explain the mechanics of how a force pointing away from the ship pushes against the ship in a zero-resistance scenario. Because currently what you’ve said is equivalent to “it has to, because that’s how physics works.”

      Also, the ship pushes against the gases? Yep…. and I can swim the 100m freestyle on land by attaching two garden hoses to my arms.

      Also, no-one wants to attempt to answer any of the other questions?

      I mean, honestly, it’s looking more and more to me like space flight is an impossibility. But as for the satellites – to date there is no viable explanation. “Satellite” broadcasting works, as Mark says, but the explanation offered for it seems riddled with absurdities, as Gaia says. So how can any of us possibly draw a conclusion on this when neither side can answer the other’s objections?


      1. You asked excellent questions and I wish I could give you a detailed breakdown on how real time satellites are used, but unfortunately I don’t have that expertise.

        But it is either of 2 options:
        1 – the mainstream narrative requiring a car sized object to hang still above a certain point on Earth (“geosynchronous/geostationary”)
        2 – no need for that object, the ionosphere itself rebounds signals

        I would argue that option 1 not only requires an insane precision (had another idea, during earthquakes satellite TV/phone should cut out too, anyone ever heard of that??), it requires an object to be and stay somewhere without maintenance (or any repair possibilities).

        And I find the idea of “geosync/stationary” complete nonsense.

        It presents us with a 2-body problem; a satellite and Earth. Where are all the other bodies acting upon that satellite? What about the attraction of the Moon, causing tides on Earth but doing nothing to upset the simple 2-body satellite-Earth system???

        And what about the Sun, Jupiter, the center of the Milky Way (theoretical, but that is what they present to us)??

        The only “response” I have had with normies/space defenders is that they say that radio signals have a much lower frequency (longer wavelength) than the satellite signals. That is the only thing they put up, also without explaining how it is done then…

        Considering options 1 or 2 (or a third, completely new, way), I’d say logic, or Occam’s razor if you like, should point to the option with the least variables that can rupture the whole functioning of them.

        Satellite surveys, as well as photos, are imho taken by high flying planes. Check Google Earth/Maps-‘satellite’ view, it even says there outright, Boeing and Airbus.

        Imho “chemtrails” are a planted military industrial hoax. Those contrails we see in the skies in patterns, are those high flying planes acquiring “satellite” data, hence why we see
        1 – those trails only with clear skies (the best times to take satellite photos)
        2 – those trails in criss-cross patterns, again the best way to take satellite surveys, especially for other data than photos only

        “Chemtrails” are as chemically nonsensical as rockets in space.

        And the Alex Jones-Stephers-Military Industrial Complex push of those “””chem”””trails points towards a different function than those gatekeepers push (notice how violently ScottRC and Stephers here try to defend space travel and go after me).


  15. I told in one of my former comment that ice sleigh and throwing rock away allegory which explain the Newtons third law as if You are Five years old. I was not joking about that. Throwing the rocks away and the anti movement what that gives to the sleigh is not depending on if there is atmosphere or not. You don’t need air or need to push anything against the air. All the needed power comes from Your movement and from the rock the rock when You are throwing. Action – reaction, force – anti force. I cant explain that more simply anymore.
    However just as there is nothing that I know that should not keep that principle working in the vacuum of space, that do not proof if the rocket engines are working in the space IMO. There might be other reasons for them not to work in space like many here seems to think so. What that reason might be, I don’t have a clue at this moment.
    I used to be a hardcore satellite believer, but when I’m reading the comments here I think I’m now more satellite curious than satellite believer. I have to think that more at nights when I look those lights travelling over my house. Is those lights satellites or just some rocks maybe threw away from some space sleighs? That’s the question.
    Keep on swimming in land, It’s not worst think to do as a hobby.


    1. The mainstream explanation for natural satellites is the exact same as for “””man-made””” satellites; those objects reflect sunlight and that is why we see those lights in predictable paths in the skies (“orbits”).

      I am not like the Cluesforum hardcore members who think everything is CGI, I definitely believe rockets are launched into space.

      But not all.

      The Explorer 1 promo film that smj shared in the Moondoggie thread contains quite some suspicious sections. For instance at 6:10 in, that looks like bad Hollywood editing than a real rocket taking off tbh…


    2. @Suominen
      I’ve been posting dozens of lenghty comments on this topic, but it seems they went totally unnoticed, or it can be they’re just irrelevant or not interesting, or whatever, and that’s perfectly fine, anyway I’m not inclined to delve again into much details.
      I’m just going to (re)address here the gross error of comparing rocks (solid objects) and gas molecules. Rocks and gas molecules are totally different beasts, they both have mass, but they are in opposite realms of inertia. A rock stays at rest until some external force puts it in motion. A gas molecule is from the inception in perpetual motion, it has perpetual inertia of motion. Moreover nothing is keeping it bonded to its fellow molecules. That’s why a gas is constantly trying to expand, it’s just the way it is. You have to apply external force (e.g. a closed container) to prevent a gas from expanding ad infinitum. On the contrary, no external force is needed to make a gas expand.
      If you put a bunch of rocks into a closed container and then open the door they are not going to jump outside on their own, they keep staying comfortably at rest inside. Something has to FORCE them outside the container (or away from your sleigh for that matter).
      That’s not the case for gas molecules, open the container’s door and, unless some external resistance is preventing the expansion, they, like bees leaving the beehive, will be happy to exit and expand as that is exactly what they wanted to do all along. No force needed, no one has to push them outside, least of all the container, that certainly neither has the intention nor the means to push on anything.
      Changing the inertia of an object from rest to motion, like when you throw a rock, is an action, and Newton 3 says that there can be no action without an equal re-action. Actions are never free, they will cost you energy, because the objetct is opposing RESISTANCE to the motion. After throwing the rock your body total internal energy has changed (decreased) because there’s no free lunch.
      Letting a gas expand without resistance (free) is not an action because nothing is actually changing during the process. The internal energy and temperature of the gas don’t change prior to and after the expansion. No internal energy is expended by the gas, it’s an energy free process. No energy expended, no action. No action, no re-action. Just logic.
      And don’t be mislead thinking that somehow energy is expended because here some kind of fuel is burning. Forget the fuel part if you want to understand propulsion, it works with the same principle from bicycles to row boats to jet planes to rockets, it’s all a matter of technical variations on the same tune. Fuel is no more no less than stored energy that can be converted into other forms of energy. Action needs energy, but consuming energy per se doesn’t necessarily give you an action and doesn’t give you propulsion.


      1. Sorry I answered so late, I just found Your comment. You made a very good reasoning why it’s not the same with rocks and with the gases. I was wondering a little bit why my rock and sleigh parable would not work in the vacuum of space, but this what You said explains it quit well that it could work, but the parable is wrong in the first place. That is very interesting point, and shows how easy it is to “educate” us wrong in schools. We may stick in some idea without noticing it’s failings. That is just why I decided to “join” this community. To refresh and increase my toughs and world view. Now I have new ideas for thinking. That’s what Gaia obviously was trying to explain in his comments but because my English is not so good I didn’t understand. I said before that I’m not trying to quarrel with anyone (Not including that special agent from the NASA ) , but I was just telling how I understand things, and even when I have been interested in stuff like these here many years I still don’t know or understand everything. I was living in the reality where there were satellites”flying” over our head in the space, but now I don’t be so sure anymore. It takes time for me to really comprehend what You and Gaia are saying here about space conditions and about impossibility of space travelling, but please be patient with me, I’m not some kind of helpless NASA agent trying to deceive readers like some lady here seems to be.


  16. answering here because I get shadowbanned again….

    so if they didn’t go, there would be slip-ups in the images of the brightly lit lunar surface with the black sky,

    that black sky that cannot exist. Cause there is the combined light of millions of stars. Making your precious “no sign of fakery” black skies complete nonsense.

    there would be signs of fakery in the hours of audio

    EVERY, not one excluded, communication between “Houston” and “astronots” should take at least 2 seconds. If there is an answer from either side to a remark from the other, that takes LESS than 2 seconds, they cannot have been on the Moon. Cause following the alleged distance to the Moon, even light would take 2 seconds to travel, let alone other waves.

    etc, there would be other signs.

    Which there are all over the place, but “you” just ignore them, pretend they don’t exist.

    Just like I think YOU don’t exist. What is going on exactly I cannot know, but I suspect Mark is having a fake account commenting here just to keep him busy. Maybe it is him himself, or he paid his kids some bucks to post here under your fake Italian name, I dunno.

    I don’t believe for a second you are a real truth seeker. And the fact Mark keeps you around, while banning, shadowbanning, and censoring all kinds of other, much more valuable insights, tells me he is keeping this charade active.

    Why do you do this Mark?

    Fuckin fakers


    1. “there would be other signs.”
      That video clip from Bruce Almighty I send a link before in my former comments. “Give me a sign, any kind of sing!”


  17. I appreciate your comments AK… But spell it out for those of us in the cheap seats.. why wouldn’t the stored energy in fuel be converted to propulsion in space? It is in Earth’s atmosphere – what difference does it make? If I can take MiniMe’s side for a moment…

    Also I have what may be a silly question – we keep talking about mass of the rocket and mass of the fuel – but what is the nature of mass in space? There’s zero gravity – other than some distant planetary bodies? So our rocket is just floating around like a feather, no? These two “masses” have essentially zero mass, am I wrong? On the moon they have one mass, on Earth another – or is that “weight”? What’s the practical difference?


    1. is this for real??

      You don’t know the difference between mass and weight?

      I mean, this is 3rd grade physics, you cannot mean this, you must be trolling.


    2. The fuel stored energy is converted into gas internal energy.
      Gas internal energy alone doesn’t give you propulsion.
      It’s the gas expansion that can be converted into propulsion, but in order to do that the expanding gas has to convert its internal energy into some kind of mechanical energy. A free expanding gas has no way to convert its internal energy because there’s nothing to interact with during the expansion.
      Your car engine burns gasoline to convert its stored energy into gas internal energy. The expanding gas acts on the pistons and its internal energy is converted into mechanical energy, that in turn is converted in this case into a spinning wheel. The friction between the spinning wheel and the ground is converted into car propulsion via Newton 3.
      Take the pistons, the wheels or the friction out of the system and you are left with a fuel burning engine and no propulsion.
      A rocket in space is like a car with no pistons, no wheels and no friction, it can burn fuel but that energy is never converted into propulsion.
      If you want to understand how propulsion works in atmosphere just think of sailing in reverse. Normally in a sail boat it’s the moving air that pushes on the sail, and in turn the sail propels the boat, but in principle you could propel a boat by moving the sail against a still air. That would cause a local compression in the air, but air resists compression and the air resistance force will translate via Newton 3 into an opposite force upon the sail that in turn propels the boat. The bigger the sail and the higher its moving velocity, the bigger the air resistance, the biggest the propelling force.
      Now, the exact same effect can be obtained using an expanding gas instead of a solid object like a sail.
      In atmosphere the gas expanding after fuel combustion has to displace the surrounding air to expand, and like in the sail example, that amounts to saying there’s a compression of the surrounding air. In this case the air resisting compression is partially blocking the expansion and that is what causes the building of pressure inside the combustion chamber. The more air is displaced, the higher the blocking resistance, the higher the pressure building inside the combustion chamber. If you keep throttling up the engine you reach a point where the pressure inside is higher than the inertial resistance of the ship and the ship starts accelerating (what we call propulsion).
      Think of the expanding gas as a virtual sail and of the external resistance as the missing wall of the combustion chamber.
      And other than being (allegedly) in orbit or in a zero gravity place (assuming it exists), a rocket is not “floating” in space. It has inertial mass anyway.


      1. “It’s the gas expansion that can be converted into propulsion, but in order to do that the expanding gas has to convert its internal energy into some kind of mechanical energy. A free expanding gas has no way to convert its internal energy because there’s nothing to interact with during the expansion.”

        It’s acceleration of mass that accounts for propulsion in the case of rockets or balloons, not pushing against anything. The system is binary – rocket/mass #1 and gas/mass #2. It’s not the expansion of gasses per se that is causing the momentum to change, that’s not the focus point. It is about the mass being accelerated which in fact creates a force. F=m*a . You are deliberately being obtuse.

        The internal energy of gas is converted into heat and movement of its particles during the combustion. This process requires nothing to interact with, it only requires oxygenation in order to combust gasses. The energy conversion is measurable and absolute. In the case of rockets or their engines specifically, the combustion chamber is a spherical unit with an opening on the lower end where in leads to the nozzle – as gas is entering this spherical unit, it is momentarily creating a localized pressurized area – enough to allow combustion and thus creation of gasses’ momentum and consequently force. That’s roughly how it works.

        You’re constantly invoking free expansion of gas (Joules expansion law?) as if the vacuum is doing something in this case. Vacuum does nothing, it is completely stationary environment. The pressure differential is what you’re trying to describe, probably. But then again, if you think thoroughly, the pressure differential between the combustion chamber and vacuum is only going to HELP the efficiency of the rocket propulsion, just like the absence of atmospheric/gas resistance is helping because combusted gas can exit the nozzle faster/with greater momentum. Logical, no?

        I’ve already explained what Joule’s free expansion gas law means and why it is used. There’s absolutely no correlation between a rocket engine and Joules’ law in the case of jet propulsion, as we’re focusing here on mass being accelerated and conservation of momentum principles.

        “If you want to understand how propulsion works in atmosphere just think of sailing in reverse.”

        Are you saying that throwing a rock from a boat backwards wouldn’t move the boat forwards?

        You know what? I’m done here with repeating myself, correcting the flawed logic and fighting against trolling. Newton’s 3 laws are a)real physical experience in everyday life and b) primary school level of understanding mechanics. I don’t care what you choose to believe as true as it doesn’t bother me, I know better. It’s so tiresome to argue on this basic physics level, where the most exhausting thing are proportions of confidence stemming from not completely understanding the issue at hand. It’s mindboggling, actually.


        1. “You know what? I’m done here with repeating myself, correcting the flawed logic and fighting against trolling.”

          Yeah, me too.


  18. It was all theory up to this point.

    Here’s some real practice, experimental exercise being done – a rocket engine within a vacuum chamber – will it work?

    I knew the result in advance.

    I also know, in advance, what will be possibly brought forward as an alleged argument that these are flawed experiments – since the engine is introducing some volume of gas into the vacuum chamber, this is the reason it works. Or, since the vacuum chamber is to small (engine is to close to the walls of a vacuum chamber), the engine is able to push against the wall. But close observation in is enough to observe the forward motion of a rocket/force being applied within a moment its engine is ignited and before any pressure build-up is possible. Go figure, the wonders of physics…


    1. An enclosed vacuum chamber is not a model for space, which is infinite (according to Ze Model at least).

      And the Temperature also should be -270 deg Celsius.

      Else this is a nice experiment, but it says nothing about how things are supposed to work in space.


      1. Infinity in terms of vacuum volume/size is not the focus here, its conditions are the issue here.

        In terms of pressure differential, it is almost the same.

        In terms of absence of atmospheric mass, it is also almost the same.

        In the case of mechanics, temperature plays no significant role here, so even though this particular parameter isn’t matched in above experiments, it isn’t a flaw in the sense of physics principles being the same in vacuum or atmosphere.

        If your issue is gasses at 3K degrees, think of solid rocket fuel and engine, which is also used, but as proficiently as jet engines. Physics is the same, however.


  19. unless you think that geostationary satellites are a hoax.

    I don’t think that
    they must be
    because they cannot exist
    by its very definition

    a geostationary “orbit” assumes we are talking about a 2 body problem solely, in convenient, schoolboy level accessible isolatioon existing situation

    which we since 1584 ; a century before Isaac Newtons gravitational models

    is impossible

    whatever space is supposed to be
    at the very least we are talking about a 4 body problem

    the Sun and Moon affect the tides on Earth, so 3 gravitational (their model, their measure) bodies exist by definition

    and then the fourth would be any space thingy they dream up

    this is the absolute minimum, for us on Earth, always staying there, thank you Simon Stevin !, to exist

    so any simplification (that is what models are, it used to be my job to make these of complex Gaia, times in which I spent the same 80 work hours a week at maximum creativity…)

    must be incorrect
    an incorrect representation
    of a situation
    we, all of us on Earth
    can verify is non-existent

    (and then the influence of Venus, Mars, asteroids, the center of the Milky Way, Spaghetti Monsters, whatever…

    the idea any of us can battle those Forces of the Vast Cosmos

    is insane and hybris
    from the very onset

    TimR, your questions about steering are essential and very scientific

    and I don’t know if you have had the pleasure to “meet” him

    me unfortunately only on air, I think smj (?) you in real life?

    Chris Kendall of Hoaxbusters awesomeness was the best scientist without naming himself that

    that man understood things at the

    CORE of science


    science – scientias – the art of knowing – truth seeking – verifying true or false
    philosophy – philos sophos – loving wisdom – learning from the lessons of life – verifying good or bad


    1. Thanks Gaia – I guess if they use rocket thrusters to steer, it’s just a variation of the rocket propulsion problem – with the added complexity for Sixties tech of a bunch of micro motors and complex navigation equipment etc.

      I never met SMJ, only read his comments here, and heard him on Fakeologist.

      And I agree, Chris Kendall had an amazingly sharp mind for spotting omissions, inconsistencies, logic errors, etc. He also could sound very ordinary and average, so people he’d debate or question would get lulled in with false confidence, and then caught in a trap of their own words.


    2. There were a lot to think in Your comment and You write it very clearly without any pointless claptrap. I will study more about the theories and opinions of those guys You mentioned in Your comment. I am a slow reader so it may take a awhile. I tried to send You email messages many times from my old computer (the big one which I found from the garbage can one day) but I did something wrong. Now my so is playing with that computer so I try more later.
      Here is a article about the Rally English (and the shyness of speaking it) of the Finnish people like me. I am not alone.


      1. And here is the article about how higher food prices threaten the nutrition of the elderly.
        It threaten the nutrition of all poor people though. That was a subject in one of my other comment here before. It seems to worldwide problem with variable reasons told to us.
        And sorry for the off topic comment.


  20. I try to write this comment without any kind of humor or sarcasm in it.
    There are many things about the space travels we can argue here or somewhere else to the end of the world, but that’s not how I like it. When I’m thinking about thinks I can very easy imagine to be living in many different realities inside my mind. I don’t need to cling in one “true” reality and then struggle for my opinions about that reality like my life would be depend from those opinions. Every one of us creates the own reality from the knowledge we have at the time. If one is not increasing for a reason or an other their knowledge during their live they are then stuck in their reality for the rest of their life. I used to once live in the reality where the man flew to the Moon and back, but I’m happy I have chosen to increase my knowledge in that thing and in other things too. However I have never have the need to push my opinions and reality to other people. I like to discuss about the different opinions with the other people,but it’s okay for me if we are living in different realities. At the end of the day everyone’s reality are distorted in some ways. I think it’s impossible for ordinary people to find the reality which is the ultimate truth and the only real reality.

    Now back to the this time and place. Please let’s all play that we live awhile In the reality of the manned Moon missions, where those “mighty” but oddly slow Saturn 5 rockets ride the brave astronauts to the space from where they went to the Moon and back many times with only that one little failure in one mission.

    They say that there is about temperatures of +253.4 degrees Fahrenheit in the day of the Moon. (Let’s just forget those frigging Moon nights this time, okay?) So there supposed to be very very hot hen the astronouts walked in the surfase of the Moon. That’s why they have those water based cooling systems in their suits. Right? Now let’s really think about why there were supposed to be so hot. Was it because of the Sun was shining? There are no atmosphere in the Moon so the Sun can’t have an effect on the nonexistent molecules and so there are nothing in the “ether” to warm up. There might be that the Sun heats the surface of the Moon so that the astronouts may need to wear a heatproof shoe soles at least. There might be that the Sun heated the astronouts fancy space suits too. That’s what they say anyway. AND there might be that the Sun heated the Lunar Modules too, if we trust the official sources. Let’s play along that we trust those sources in this case and there would be very very hot in the Lunar Modules without some kind of cooling systems. Right this far? But remember that there were no air or other gases in the Moon warming the enviroment of the Lunar Modules and the only source for the heat was the Sun. There might be a chance that the heat somehow radiates from the Moon surface, but the percentage of the reflections of the light of the Sun from the Moon Regoliths is only about 7-9 percents where those Modules were. So it’s not heating anything so much. You know that because when there is a Moon shining here on Earth it’s usually cooler than when there’s no Moon shining. So the Lunar Module was in the emptiness of the space literally speaking. Please tell me If You found any errors (according the official story) in my writings so far, please. You can believe that the Sun really warmed that space ship in the Moon if You try, do You?.

    Now let’s go to the failed one mission aka Apollo 13. You have all seen that dogu.. I mean movie about that story i suppose. There were a scene where they have to turn all the systems down to save the electricity and because of that their ship begins to come colder. The ship (Lunar Module + Command Module) cooled so much that their frankfurters frozen they say/showed in the movie. Lucky for them that somehow the temperature stays so high after all that they just got a little cold or something but managed to stay alive. Here in Finland some peoples froze to death in every winter if they have to stay outside in the frost too long, but somehow there is not so cold that You could die in the space ships without warming systems when travelling happy around the Moon. What is the coolest possible temperature of the unwarmed space ship when the Sun is shining to it? Anybody knows?

    Wait a minute! Just a few sentences before I was writing how warm there was supposed to be in the Lunar Module when staying in the Moon and now there were supposed to be really cold in the exactly same mode of the ship in the exactly same conditions (Minus the 7-9 percent possible reflection).
    This can’t be possible in the same reality IMO. Which reality is true and which false? There can be either warm or either cold in that space ship in space conditions, not both at the same time. I don’t know the answers, but I think that the story writers just forget that there were the Sun shining almost all way long when Apollo 13 travels around the Moon and back to the Earth.

    I have watched lately those old Star Trek episodes from ’60es and I believe now that there were the same persons that were writing some of the worst episodes of that series that wrote some of the worst Apollo Missions too.

    I made it! Not humor at all!


  21. 20 Feb 23, Mark Tokarski :

    Stationary geosynchronous orbit is 22,292 miles above the surface of the earth. There are said to be between 500-600 satellites out there. I have two pieces of evidence that they are really there – one, when companies came here to see if they could put a dish on our house to catch a signal. They all had to point south, and our trees interfered. They are all orbiting above the equator. One, Viasat got through because their satellite was able to point southeast, still at the equator, and get through our trees.

    3 weeks ago you believed mankind could send up space thingies that hang at 23,000 miles above the surface.

    8 March 23, Mark Tokarski :

    The Apollo program was used, in my belief system, as a cover story to allow for implementation of weapons and spy machines in lower earth orbit.

    Do I get now that you dropped 99% of your goalposts and scaled down from 23,000 to about 250 miles above Earth’s surface?

    Where does this silent scaling down come from ? You did realize the absurdity of the pin point accuracy needed in your story?

    We had an earthquake 2 days ago, a strong one, the whole building was shaking. Short, but heavy, after I have had a 5 minute (!) during earthquake here years ago.

    Any dish on top of the tower, my only other upstairs neighbors apart from GAIA, would shake with the building and lose connection to the “satellite”.

    And the same problem exists with space travel in “Low Earth Orbit” (whatever that may be in the fantasies of the believers) as anywhere else. Thermodynamically it cannot work, but for some unexplained reason it does…

    In the same weeks we have seen Suominen comment a lot (hope he responds to my email) and being scolded for the technical errors of THIS blog, not his fault yet Piece of Mindful’s/Mark’s, but unfortunately he went the other way, first believeing in satellites and LEO and such, but now “the shots of the Moon were probably taken by unmanned Apollo 8, in 1968″…. 230,000 miles out, so 10 x farther than those geosynci satan-lights….

    Why don’t you people start fresh, from the ground up, in a logical sequence, with what you know instead of this mish mash of wanting things to be true, but not being able to address even the most basic physics and chemistry we all have had at school. But magical thingies in space do exist, believe us!

    If you say Petra walks out as a strategy, you display the exact same thing.

    Why is it so hard to make your case for “the possibility of space travel”, I wonder…. ?


    1. “You people?” Lower earth orbit would be the realm below the radiation belts where people can go without frying. Geostationary orbit would be out 22,000+ miles where, by fine tuning using small rocket thrusters, satellites are put in place that, due to the orbiting of the earth, appear to be holding still and so are able to transmit a signal that does not move. But the signal is not precise, as you seem to think. It covers a small area, as would a hose when you spray it, the further the spray, the more area covered. Thus can Viasat connect with us through out treetops where Hughes, many degrees away, is blocked out by said trees. So the satellite dishes shaken by the earthquake still receive a signal, as they are within the area targeted by the dish. None of this lasts forever, but they do last years and years before they have to be replaced.

      I remember satellite dishes being very big years ago, to catch a signal. Now they are maybe three feet across. Same idea.

      There is a satellite that orbits from pole to pole used by the Universoty of Alabama at Huntsville to monitor temperatures. I don’t know its altitude, but people on the ground have to adjust their calculations because orbit is degrading. I would imagine that geostationary satellites face the same problems, but they do have thrusters aboard, and thrusters do work in space.


      1. Proving;

        1 – after almost 4 YEARS in which you could have caught the why of the impossibility of space travel (from me, Boethius, others here), you haven’t learned a thing and keep the same ludicrous fantasy alive. Completely deaf for any arguments, who reminds you that of…?
        2 – you make NO attempt at truth seeking, scolds and ignores all the good ones on your own blog and you cling onto “Petra” and a numerological remark as “treasures”. Why?
        Because you have 0 understanding of what you claim is real and functioning and others “do not understand it”.

        Without 0 back up.

        Petra at least makes an effort to dig up some debunker drivel, you, Mark, owner of this place and the theoretical thought leader (you see how completely unsuited you are for podcasts, with your tendency to ban any dissenting views to your fantastical views), and the only one able to post more than 2 links, edit your comments (a function you have taken away from us, because WordPress automatically enables commenter edits for 5 min) and present something tangible, valuable. But, no, crickets. And empty claims you cannot possibly verify (“thrusters holding 23,000 miles out space thingies in place, against the immeasurable Forces of the Cosmos”)
        3 – someone who actually makes a great Piece of Mindful thought, that you should embrace, not remove, gets censored, because on top of your extensive knowledge of thermodynamics, rocketry and your so well presented mental model of ‘Space’, you also decide that the Universe is Expanding and anyone who tries to make us think, is getting wiped.

        It is no wonder you cling onto possibly the worst internet troll I have seen in years.

        You need each other.

        You are of the same “level”.

        Knowing nothing, making no mental models, but claiming those who actually do study the subject are somehow wrong.

        Tragic but true.

        In the meantime I have had amazing conversations with much more intelligent humans than this Clown show here. Soon the first release of 29:14 for all to enjoy ; Space Rijen !


  22. Out now for everyone to enjoy, the first 29:14 podcast mix in the Space Rijen series, with new members CalmCardKen and Geluidsvandaal, where we cover various topics but the focus is on Space and GAIAs wisdoms, including the absurdity of the weekdays we use…

    you hear other thinkers of Eye am Eye Radio, with whom I had chats about the absurdity of space travel. Important is that none of them subscribes to Flat Earth, so a healthy stance of deconstructing the Animal Farming narratives.—SPACE-RIJEN-i-e20gc38

    Those who want and care to share their brightest thoughts on air, contact me !

    washington sean, you are an amazingly bright thinker, beyond my own thoughts, so someone who can and thus should teach me and thereby us, consider leaving your valuable insights on air, where they stay, unlike these blog comments….


  23. I bring this up because this is all done in outer space, where Clues Forum says it cannot be done. Apparently it can.

    just 1 change…

    I bring this up because this is all done in outer space, where Wagging the Moondoggie says it cannot be done. Apparently it can.

    what does “apparently it can” mean ?

    you think sharing a 3rd party ; so carny, video of a software program only developed DECADES after the bulk of “satan lights” were shot into your so “well known” space, solves the problem ?

    What is this Mark ?

    is this a blog for truth seeking

    or are you, eerily similar to Petra, grasping at Monkey Stream Straws because you just refuse to make a mental model of space first.

    is this Piece of Mindful or is this “Swallow this NASA BS, lemme watch my hypercommercial non-sports and shut up….” blog ?

    is this supposed to be the slam dunk argument against those who actually conceptualize space with the parameters (((they))) give us about that Magical Kingdom you and me are not allowed in….

    you are just as married to the “muh satan lights must exist because apparently they do” narrative as Ms. Liverani is to her Beavers, sorry Bunnies on the Moon stories

    I cannot be the only one observing this
    I most probably am the only one saying this out loud


    we ARE aLOUD.

    when do you start truth seeking on your own blog, Mark…?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s