Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


If you can read this message, please contact us immediately at the following email address:

We'd like to communicate.


(1) Please swing by our "HELP CENTER" to view our forum rules prior to posting or commenting.
(2) Acknowledge that by commenting or posting, you take full responsibility for the content and message of the information you put forth, which does not necessarily reflect the opinions of this website.
(3) If you ever need assistance, simply contact one of the staff or send us an email and we'll be glad to help.

Why space travel is impossible, and "Mars" is likely just a studio on Devon Island, Canada

Matt_ADMIN_Matt_ADMIN_ Administrator
"...Say, 'GOD is sufficient for me.' In Him the trusters shall trust." (Quran 39:38)


  • At 8 minutes in, the producer announces that his experiments are solid evidence that space travel is fake.  What he should have done is admit that he is a flake.

    The fan didn't work because there was no air to move.  It didn't address the primary theory of thrust, "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction".

    The NASA rockets work in space because they carry large tanks of liquid oxygen, rather than the tiny amount that would be released by a chemical reaction.  I have a more plausible theory, If you were to heavily strike the producer of this video upside the head with a pickaxe handle, it would ring like a gong for several minutes.

    If the politicians treat people this poorly when they're armed to the teeth,

    just imagine what they'll be willing to do once they've disarmed everyone.

  • Matt_ADMIN_Matt_ADMIN_ Administrator
    edited March 28
    But of course it touched upon the theory of thrust - thrusters work no differently than a fan would in a vacuum; there must be something to push against, otherwise there will be no movement.

     "Equal and opposite reaction" refers to the relationship of motion (or rather force) between two objects. In a vacuum, there is no second object on which to build such a relationship, hence in "space", thrusters would be entirely useless. The experiment in the video demonstrates that "thrust" becomes irrelevant in an environment where there is no matter to thrust against. 

    If we replace the fan with a rocket engine, and replace the feather with the vacuum of space, what is the rocket pushing off of to make its movement? A rocket would only be able to enter into space (if it could, that is) , using the atmosphere of Earth, but once it entered into the vacuum, it would have zero ability to navigate, and would twirl madly about due to the first law of motion.


    I just want to add something important: the purpose of the video, while tangentially addressing thrust in space, actually simulated thrust in the atmosphere of Mars, and demonstrated that the thrusters used on the supposed landing craft (and their parachutes, by proxy), would have no effect - hence, they would be immediately destroyed upon impact. 

    If the craft don't operate as we're told, are there any any craft, and thus, any landings? If there are no landings, is there anything to actually land upon? It all seems based on a string of assumptions.

    If such craft can't work where there is an atmosphere, how do identical craft supposedly work in the pure vacuum of space? What are these space agencies really spending our money on?

    "...Say, 'GOD is sufficient for me.' In Him the trusters shall trust." (Quran 39:38)
  • Rocket thrust doesn't work by pushing against something (ie: air).  The fuel and oxygen are mixed at high pressure in the engine then ignited.  The resulting high pressure/high speed reaction escapes through the cone of the engine.  The vehicle reacts by moving away from this high pressure/high speed ejection.  The gases aren't pushing against anything, the vehicle is reacting to the high pressure behind it, caused by the high pressure gases being expelled. 

    Propellers and turbines work on a different principle.  An example that best illustrates this but in a slower way, would be a wood screw.  The screw isn't moving deeper into the wood because it's pushing against the air behind it as it turns.  A propeller isn't any different than a screw, it just doesn't have a continuous thread like a screw.  A jet engine at its simplest, is nothing more than a tube full of extremely high speed propeller blades.

    If the politicians treat people this poorly when they're armed to the teeth,

    just imagine what they'll be willing to do once they've disarmed everyone.

  • Matt_ADMIN_Matt_ADMIN_ Administrator
    I think there is a misunderstanding, and I take fault for that misunderstanding for the simple reason that I'm a very poor explainer at times. Reading back on what I wrote, I conflated and took logical leaps that someone who has not looked into this subject as much as I have would likely (and reasonably) reject, and I would even go so far as to say the video did the same.

    So first, my apologies for that. If I'm to explain something, I need to do it in a better manner than I'm currently doing. In truth, there are decades of indoctrination to undue, and that won't be done in a single 15 min youtube video, nor by someone like myself who gets too aggressive in the presentation of information.

    So, that said, let me introduce Mr Brian Mullin - a bonafide engineer and physics expert who, while perhaps not subscribing to planar earth theory, has identified problems with the current "model" of space travel. More specifically, he explains why space travel, using Newton's laws and the current supposed modes, have severe problems:

    He's an all around smart guy, so don't listen to me (the bumbler), listen to him. And in fact, check out all his videos on physics, and it will be amply demonstrated that why how we're told things "work" in "space" may not be so.
    "...Say, 'GOD is sufficient for me.' In Him the trusters shall trust." (Quran 39:38)
Sign In or Register to comment.