Asian Sexy Babe

Conspiracies

Tomoreno

Well-known member
Oct 4, 2020
1,504
2,150
113
Okay there puppy. Explain how a rocket works in space. What friction do they use to move?

And I'll even ignore the whole first law thing.
Friction that allows us to walk depends on gravity to convert our mass to weight which holds our feet against the surface where static friction enables the soles of our shoes to push off against the surface of the Earth.

Even when ice skating, kinetic friction keeps the blades sliding against the ice in a forward direction, and static friction allows the skates to push off to propel the skater forward.

Even a rocket engine, which otherwise could be used to propel you in a frictionless environment, depends on the difference in force between friction caused by great pressure of propellant exhaust on a small area (exit pressure) and the lesser friction of propellant exhaust flowing through a larger area (free stream pressure). The equation for rocket thrust shows this:

rocket thrust=mass flow rate×exit velocity+(exit pressure−free stream pressure)×exit arearocket thrust=mass flow rate×exit velocity+(exit pressure−free stream pressure)×exit area

The coefficient of friction is a measure of how strongly two surfaces will stick together. It's the ratio between the force necessary to induce sliding, and the pressure holding the two surfaces together. It can be used to calculate the amount of friction:

F=u×NF=u×N

FF is the frictional force
uu is the coefficient of friction
NN is the normal force (perpendicular to both surfaces, which presses them together)

If surfaces could slide with no force at all, the numerator of their coefficient of friction would be zero, the coefficient itself would be zero, and the frictional force between those two surfaces would be zero. The maximum coefficient of friction is one, and the minimum is zero.

Friction exists everywhere in the Universe. To have no friction, there would have to be no gravity, no electromagnetic force, no gluons to hold atomic nuclei together, and no bosons to allow the buildup of heavy nuclei in stars. All would be chaos. Newton's third law would be inoperative. The universe would be a soup of uniform density with no structure. Entropy would tend to be maximal. You would not be able to walk.
 

squeezer

Well-known member
Jan 8, 2010
21,373
16,052
113
Whenever there's a debate that involves multiple parties there'll be some who are not receptive to information regardless of premise, content or essence.
Religious and political debates are a perfect example. People don't like having their foundational beliefs challenged and that causes hostility.
Any person telling another person who grew up believing in moon landing that it might be untrue - is challanging a foundational belief. Some hostility is expected.
I don't believe you are correct. I think it has more to do with folks that do not buy into bullshit, spin and nonsense but what do I know.

One more thing hotshot, you should always state the reference where you copy and paste your own "thoughts" from LMFAO

Go to 14 Answers

 

Tomoreno

Well-known member
Oct 4, 2020
1,504
2,150
113
So you can't travel in space according to this theory, where there is no friction?
No wonder conspiracies seem reasonable to you.
Friction isn't a conspiracy!!!

There are 4 types of Frictional Forces:
Static, Sliding, Rolling and Fluid.

There's no atmosphere, air or water in space. That simply means that Fluid friction is taken out of equation is some cases.

A space ship is still built with earth materials. They will have friction coefficient regardless of location in Univers

Moon is in space. It's surface materials too have friction coefficients or no one would ever be able to land on moon, walk or use a rover to drive. Same applies to every other planet in Universe.

Btw, just because something is in motion, doesn't mean it was always in motion. Something made it move.
On Earth, every motion starts with use of frictional forces unless a movement was caused by gravity.

I don't agree with everything in that video, but it's essence is right:

 

SchlongConery

License to Shill
Jan 28, 2013
13,183
6,806
113
Hey Tormoreno....Still avoiding explaining how an airplane needs the friction of an asphalt runway to fly?

Couldn't find anything to copy and paste?
 

Tomoreno

Well-known member
Oct 4, 2020
1,504
2,150
113
I don't believe you are correct. I think it has more to do with folks that do not buy into bullshit, spin and nonsense but what do I know.

One more thing hotshot, you should always state the reference where you copy and paste your own "thoughts" from LMFAO

Go to 14 Answers

I was asked for an explanation. It was posted.

I'm not handing in an essay for grading, so referencing sources is irrelevant.

Your Gotcha Moment doesn't work here, because you're being ignorant.

And to those claiming that I impled that Forces of Frictiom had anything to do with buildings collapsing - WTF are you on?

WTC1 and WTC2 were elastic buildings with flaws. Thank you for that explanation. I agree this is why they fell. I still don't understand though why WTC7 collapsed the same way, straight down, without any fires or explosions.

Pentagon was built with much better materials. Ok! Very good!
Now try flying a Boeing 757 into such a building.
It'd be virtually impossible. Plane would either stall, fall before reaching it or overshooting by a longshot.
For some ace to hit it straight in the middle is some spectacular skill. He should've been a pilot, not a goat herder.
 

squeezer

Well-known member
Jan 8, 2010
21,373
16,052
113
I was asked for an explanation. It was posted.

I'm not handing in an essay for grading, so referencing sources is irrelevant.

Your Gotcha Moment doesn't work here, because you're being ignorant.

And to those claiming that I impled that Forces of Frictiom had anything to do with buildings collapsing - WTF are you on?
OK, hotshot, whatever you say!
 

Tomoreno

Well-known member
Oct 4, 2020
1,504
2,150
113
Hey Tormoreno....Still avoiding explaining how an airplane needs the friction of an asphalt runway to fly?

Couldn't find anything to copy and paste?
I'll pretend for a second that you're being serious.

Without rolling friction tires would not be able to grab onto any surface.

Without fluid friction there would be not drag, not lift, no force to make a plane take off, fly and remain airborne.
 

SchlongConery

License to Shill
Jan 28, 2013
13,183
6,806
113
I'll pretend for a second that you're being serious.

Without rolling friction tires would not be able to grab onto any surface.

Without fluid friction there would be not drag, not lift, no force to make a plane take off, fly and remain airborne.

So are you saying that the airplanes tires need to be able to grip the asphalt to accelerate the aircraft to flying speed?

And that "fluid friction" is required for lift?
 

Tomoreno

Well-known member
Oct 4, 2020
1,504
2,150
113
Gravity of the Moon is 1/6th of the Earth.
Apollo 13 apparently used that gravity to sling shot around the Moon and return home. Gotta be some pull.
However landing on the Moon seems extremely easy and videos of take off are even better. It's like poof and off we go. Camera sitting there recording the take off.
If Neil Armstrong is the first man to step on a new planet, who filmed him getting off?
If gravity is 1/6 less, wouldn't astronauts jump like 3-6 feet high.
Their suits, that can be viewed at a museum, are made of cloth. Boots made of rubber. Not exactly high tech stuff to protect from radiation or temperatures of 120°C during day and -150°C during night.

... and take it easy... this is simply a conspiracy theory. It's just wrong so nothing to worry about.
 
Last edited:

Tomoreno

Well-known member
Oct 4, 2020
1,504
2,150
113
Don't know enough about the airlines to comment.

Moon landings - Yeah. They became way too expensive because there wasn't enough return on them (turned out moon rocks aren't that much different than earth rocks) and public support for the expense was drying up. Remember the entire space program at the time was part of the Cold War. The Americans wanted to beat the Soviets to the moon, especially after the Soviets had beaten them into space almost a decade earlier. But once they did it there was no real ongoing point or purpose. Apollo 13 had also pointed out the potential dangers. It just wasn't worth it any more. There were other priorities.

9/11 - As regards your timing. The building were hit 17 minutes apart (8:46 am and 9:03 am) not an hour apart as you claimed in a later post and they fell half an hour apart (9:59 am and 10:28 am) not at the same time, as you claimed in that same later post. Nor does what happened defy "laws of physics, nature, chemistry, logic."

As others have been pointing out, both would have been massive conspiracies that would have been impossible to keep under wraps for so long.
Times you indicated aren't accurate according to Wikipedia.

One World Trade Center (WTC 1) (the North Tower) was hit at 8:46 a.m. Eastern time and collapsed at 10:28 a.m. Two World Trade Center (WTC 2) (the South Tower) was hit at 9:03 a.m. and collapsed at 9:59 a.m. The resulting debris severely damaged or destroyed more than a dozen other adjacent and nearby structures, ultimately leading to the collapse of 7 World Trade Center at 5:21 p.m.

Requested Reference:
 
Last edited:

Tomoreno

Well-known member
Oct 4, 2020
1,504
2,150
113
Don't know enough about the airlines to comment.

Moon landings - Yeah. They became way too expensive because there wasn't enough return on them (turned out moon rocks aren't that much different than earth rocks) and public support for the expense was drying up. Remember the entire space program at the time was part of the Cold War. The Americans wanted to beat the Soviets to the moon, especially after the Soviets had beaten them into space almost a decade earlier. But once they did it there was no real ongoing point or purpose. Apollo 13 had also pointed out the potential dangers. It just wasn't worth it any more. There were other priorities.

9/11 - As regards your timing. The building were hit 17 minutes apart (8:46 am and 9:03 am) not an hour apart as you claimed in a later post and they fell half an hour apart (9:59 am and 10:28 am) not at the same time, as you claimed in that same later post. Nor does what happened defy "laws of physics, nature, chemistry, logic."

As others have been pointing out, both would have been massive conspiracies that would have been impossible to keep under wraps for so long.
Yes, going to the Moon is expensive... so instead let's give more money to NATO and go to Mars instead... and yeah! Let's not ask any other country to join into efforts, because it would be bad.
 

jerimander

Well-known member
Feb 16, 2014
2,974
646
113
Yes, going to the Moon is expensive... so instead let's give more money to NATO and go to Mars instead... and yeah! Let's not ask any other country to join into efforts, because it would be bad.
China has more than enough money and is still unable to land a man on the moon, 50 years after Apollo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dracula14

SchlongConery

License to Shill
Jan 28, 2013
13,183
6,806
113
I am sooooo tempted to ask Tomoreno the airplane taking off on a treadmill question...
 

squeezer

Well-known member
Jan 8, 2010
21,373
16,052
113
I’ll defend you a little bit because you’re not totally wrong. Can we walk without friction? No. Can we jump without friction? No. On these points, you’re not totally off.

I originally got on your case because you said you can’t move from point A to point B without friction. When I told you you were wrong, you laughed and said I’d be sorry. All you’ve done here is just admit that you were wrong.

Friction provides resistance to generate inertia in some instances. However, as I pointed out numerous times, gravity, electricity, and magnetism can generate motion without friction. Electrical potential energy is ENTIRELY independent of frictional forces, as is gravitational and magnetic. Also, rolling friction? That’s not a thing. Wheels that roll experience static friction at numerous instantaneous points along their surface. There is kinetic friction, static friction, and I guess you could also say there is viscosity, though that’s not really an entirely separate category.

If you just had admitted what you originally posted was wrong, I wouldn’t have to keep coming on here and making you look like a moron. I have no hostility towards you, just towards the dissemination of false information.

Also, planes fly because of the variable flow rate of air above and below their wings if you’re interested.

When you type “I was wrong,” I will stop. Be a man.
but those were not his points, they were a cut and paste. LMAO

Refer to post #90
 

Ceiling Cat

Well-known member
Feb 25, 2009
28,788
1,536
113
Man on the moon - Yes, man went to the moon. There were too many people involved to be a hoax.

9/11 - World Trade Center building 7. - It came down without explosives because two building came crashing down in close proximity and weakened the structure and foundation


Area 51 - No aliens, just the US military that does not want you to snoop around there. BTW humanity is not in contact with aliens, they are millions of light years away and do not have any way to get here.

Les Wexner & Jeffrey Epstein - These two are set up by Israeli intelligence to carry out covert ops in the USA with the knowledge of American intelligence. They were probably used by US intel to do dirty deeds that the USA can not get involved in. Les Wexner is set up as a money man to fund these dirty ops. He was picked and his competition was eliminated one by one until he had the scanty panty business pretty much to himself. I would not be surprised if competition number 2 and 3 are part of the same operation just to make Les Wexner and Victoria secrets look good and on top.

Jeffrey Epstein was the compromiser. His job was to lure people into his trap by having people like Prince Andrew, movie, TV, music and sports personalities around him. Epstein liked his job too much and involved himself in the compromise. Epstein was suicided because they powers that be could not let him tell it as it is.
 
Last edited:

Tomoreno

Well-known member
Oct 4, 2020
1,504
2,150
113
They were all laughing at him then until what he said started happening to them too. Bashar Al-Assad isn't laughing now.

 
Toronto Escorts