So, we didn't go to the moon then

If NASA didn't go to the moon, why would the Soviets keep their mouth shut about it? They would have every reason to expose the US, wouldn't they?

 

So is it fair to say that your example of local pressure systems depicts a lateral pressure gradient, while the atmospheric pressure lapse rate observed as one climbs in altitude depicts a vertical pressure gradient?

 

You're attempting to confuse me by spouting jargon you think I don't understand as well as attempting to obfuscate the issue at hand. Please stop, it's just a fustrating style of argument to deal with.

To address your question, gravity is supposed to be acting upon ALL matter, right? Why would vertical or horizontal movement make a difference?

I've laid it out simply enough for everyone in the thread to understand. It's your turn now. Please stop dodging the question and explain how a high pressure environment can exist next to a no pressure environment without a physical barrier. How?

Why would the Soviets expose the US at all? Exposing the US means exposing themselves.

We know that the Soviets supposedly sent a man into space and a spacecraft to and around the moon where it took pictures, but we understand that rockets can't work in space. If they pointed the finger at the USA for bullshitting about the moon landing, that same finger would go back to them for bullshitting about sending spacecraft to the moon.

It's the same scam being pulled here. One's just bigger than the other.

 

OK. I'm not interested in Moon landing anymore, I want to talk physics. But first I have to make sure you're being serious. Please tell me...
do you really believe that

• every student and professor of Physics or Aerospace Engineering is either wrong or silent about the rocket engine lie
  
• ISS doesn't exist
• GPS satellites don't exist
• weather satellites don't exist
• surveillance satellites don't exist
  
• telephone company satellites don't exist
  
• the governments of Russia, China, India, Japan, EU members and US are part of the conspiracy
  
• these companies are scams: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_private_spaceflight_companies
• every single rocket launch (supposedly a few hundred of them so far) is a fabricated event

if you do, I admire you.

 

Really? Those two notorious enemies were working together? Then that means that a whole bunch of other countries are also lying... do you really think all those countries are good enough to keep up such a huge secret for so long?

 

I'll take that as a yes

Really? I'm dodging the question? What about this:

But since I'm such a patient guy, I'm more than happy to dumb this down even more for you. Once again, you're misconceptions stem from a) not taking scale into consideration when comparing pressure events, and b) not taking orientation of forces into consideration when comparing pressure events, both tremendous errors.

As you have said, gravity is a force that exerts equally on all matter. This force is a downward force. If someone were to throw a car on top of me, I would surely be crushed, as the forces are acting downward on top of me. I can attempt to resist this force by applying my own vertical (opposing) force, but it will be overcome by the downward force being applied to me.

Now, what if we apply this equal and downward gravitational force to a fluid? Maybe like water? Well, when we observe the pressures of water as we descend beneath its surface, we see a pressure gradient much like we do in the atmosphere. After all, water has mass right? And gravity exerts an equal, downward force on all things with mass right? Therefore, the deeper one goes below the surface of water, the greater the pressure. Ever have your ears pop when swimming in the deep end of a swimming pool? Pressure. Ever wonder why divers have to control their accents to the surface? Pressure. Ever wonder what causes decompression sickness when the divers ascend too quickly? Pressure.

Now, let's apply what we learned to another fluid: air. As with water, since air has mass, then the equal, downward force of gravity will also be applied to air. This gravitational force acts downward on the air. What is the result of this force? An observable pressure gradient, just like water. the deeper I go, the more mass I have above me, and therefore, the greater the pressure exerted onto me.

Now that we understand pressure gradient, we can apply it to your argument.

This is the number 1 most common misconception moon landing deniers have about atmospheric pressure. In their mind, we have the zero pressure vacuum of space residing next to the high pressure atmosphere of Earth. Sounds reasonable doesn't it? Except it completely ignores a key variable: pressure gradient. See, the vacuum of space doesn't directly border the high pressure we see at Earth's surface. No, because we have a gradient. in reality, the zero pressure environment of space borders the extremely low pressure environment of our outer atmosphere. Then, that low pressure environment will border a slightly higher, but weak pressure environment. And so on and so forth until you arrive at the high pressure environment we enjoy here at the surface.

Does high pressure seek low pressure? Absolutely. So it stands to reason that the pressure gradient seen in the atmosphere would create a vertical, upwards force. This is what most moon landing deniers would describe as the atmosphere "rushing out" into space. But remember, this gradient is an extremely weak force. You have to travel 1,000 feet just to see a 1"hg of pressure change. In this case, this weak, upwards force is being opposed by the equal, downward gravitational force being applied to air. Since the downward force of gravity is greater than the upward force caused by the pressure gradient, the air stays local to our stable atmosphere.

Here's where my third post in this topic becomes relevant:

As you have admitted, local pressure systems have lateral pressure gradients, while the preasure gradient we previously discussed have a vertical pressure gradient. You asked me why gravity doesn't prevent the pressure gradient seen in local pressure gradients. Well, why would it? In the atmosphere, the pressure gradient creates a vertical force, a force that is directly opposed and overcome by the equal, downward force of gravity. In a local pressure system, the pressure gradient creates a lateral force. Now, why would gravity prevent a force that it doesn't even oppose?

Oh, I don't know, maybe because the forces of the two pressure events in question don't even oppose gravity at the same angle? lmfao

LOL, did anybody else catch this? A balloon filled with air has low pressure inside of it? What?

Instead of explaining why you're wrong, I'm just gonna pose some questions to illustrate the hilarious contradictions this brings forth.

Ah, okay, right. So what you're saying is that the low pressure inside of the balloon rushes out to meet the high pressure outside of it. Gotcha. So I guess low pressure seeks high pressure then huh? That's very interesting.

Hold on. Now wait just a minute. Didn't you just say that low pressure seeks high pressure? That's what happens in a balloon right? So why would the high pressure of Earth rush out into the zero pressure environment of space? Shouldn't the zero pressure environment of space be rushing into our atmosphere, since - as you have been so kind to explain - low pressure seeks high pressure? Didn't you just say that "it is extremely simple"?

; )

@DeservedCriticism, so far in our interaction, you've said that I was using half truths and assumptions in my arguments, and that I had to "dig myself out" of the hole I've put myself in. Yet, you don't even know what kind of pressure resides in a balloon filled with air. Needless to say, I expect you to own up to this.

 

Don't worry, I will reply to everything. If not today, then early next week. Sunday-Monday. Trust me, I hate leaving shit like this up in the air.

The majority of your post is in great question, all of it except for one part. You're right, that was wrong of me to say. Balloons, when inflated, have a higher pressure than the air outside said balloon, which allows them to float higher into the air. If it had low pressure, it wouldn't do much at all.

Tire pumps calculate the amount of air you pump inside by using PSI. The more pounds per square inch, the higher the pressure inside.

Damages the credibility, but the argument itself is still intact, only a few details would have to be changed as a balloon, with the air pressure being higher than said pressure outside of it, it's still an example of pressure reaching equalization in spite of any kind of gravitational effect.

This much, I admit and this much, I've learned. I actually thought about it later and realized I messed up there and well, ya beat me to it. That is my bad, I admit it. That being said:

You'll get a proper reply very soon, though. I'm having too much fun to let it just slide.

 

I respect this post

 

The simple truth is: YUP. (I mean, it's a bit more involved than that, but basically yes)

Any logically responsible and honest individual has to go where the evidence leads. Whatever forms of authority and large groups say/think/or even do does not matter. Since we've established that rockets can never work in space, you have to consider the implications this has on everything you just mentioned. But before we "talk physics", here's my question to you:

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold on just a minute. So instead of reconciling anything directly about the moon landing I said to you earlier, you completely dump it out and attempt to change the subject?

This only tells me that you're not interested in actually figuring out with me or any other honest individual in this thread on whether or not the moon landing actually happened. In the beginning of our discussion between me and you, you refused to take what I was saying seriously and then when I replied to you with arguments directly against the moon landing, you're trying to change the subject between us.

Even if you decided to attack my arguments above towards the moon landing, I shouldn't have to tell you to do so.

With that, give me one, just one valid reason to continue speaking to you on this topic.

There's three problems in this response I'm seeing here.

To start, why are you assuming they were working together? Similar lies from different heads don't mean those heads are working together. You're also doing the same thing my previous opposition is doing. You cannot be naive to think that because "a lot of people are in on it", that it must be true. This is a fallacy and we can't make those kinds of illogical statements when searching for the truth, now can we?

Finally, to address your question about all those countries... absolutely not. It's not that they've done a good job keeping up a secret, it's that there's too many people who are too indoctrinated to see right through it.

Just in America alone, there are 40% of people who hate math. That's 40% of our population who dislike and therefore can't or dislike thinking critically (since math is critical thought at its purest) and those who can't or dislike thinking critically can't reconcile what we're talking about here.

That, plus people believing whatever they hear when they're children (there are exceptions, however) and finally, people who are unable to fathom being lied to on this scale and are afraid of the implications of this lie and you've got a wonderful case of indoctrination right there.

Your entire post is invalidated by your attempts to claim that gravity has an "equal downward force" on something when the amount of that said something hasn't been quantified. While it's true that air and water have mass, you have to get into the specifics about the quantity of that water and air.

This is like saying vehicles have mass. That's too general a statement. Different vehicles have different weights, from a bicycle to an aircraft carrier and the same applies to your argument. Take your example with air.

How much air? Is the air hot or cold? (Since cold air has more mass than hot air)

How much water?

Not only is this an attempt to sidestep the fundamental issue here, but you also just argued my own stance a bit.

Pressure gradient is irrelevant. If anything, that's precisely the problem we're talking about here. This, in no way, explains why the atmosphere of the Earth doesn't get sucked out into the vacuum at all.

As you've stated, yes, high pressure seeks low pressure and yet the high pressure we experience here on Earth doesn't seek out the low pressure of the atmosphere, which is the underlying problem. No one can say gravity causes the high pressure to NOT seek out the low pressure in our atmosphere because pressure systems here on Earth reach equalization in spite of gravity all the time.

Take balloons, the balloon has more pressure inside of it than it does on the outside of the inflated balloon. When the high pressure inside the balloon is released, it seeks out the lower pressure of the environment its being released to, causing it to fly around everywhere.

Gravity had nothing to do with that. Why are you telling me gravity has something to do with our atmosphere not being sucked out? The low pressure of our atmosphere is still higher pressure than space, which is literally none.

All pressure systems seek out vacuums. Why doesn't ours? It's not gravity because gravity has nothing to do with it and it isn't a pressure gradient because that doesn't prevent pressure systems from not seeking lower pressure systems.

No, scratch that question, I've a better one. Why are you still using jargon to argue? This isn't a scientific forum, most people, apart from you and me, don't even understand what you're talking about. Which only tells me you're not interested in teaching me anything, you're only interested in intimidating me. You're still obfuscating the matter at hand.

The only time you actually speak plainly is when I messed up by calling a balloon a low pressure environment within one. You knew that I was very clearly wrong when I said that and thus, it wasn't difficult to point out that I was. But in every other parts of our discussion, you don't speak in plain terms at all, you speak in terms that would confuse the average person or make them think you're right because it "looks complicated".

I don't think you're even here to learn anything. I think you just want to make me look like a fool because you're interested in keeping the lie of the moon landing up. There's honest opposition and then there's this. What I'm dealing with right now.

Take this for example:

Why are you contradicting yourself? This is exactly what I mean, gravity doesn't oppose pressure gradients and pressure systems at all, yet you attempted to tell me earlier that gravity causes our atmosphere to remain in place.

And here's a question. Not for you, but for those reading:

Which is stronger? The 1g we experience on Earth that doesn't even oppose water molecules or infinite space's perfect vacuum?

LOL WHAT???

Angles? Since when did angles matter with pressure systems and gravity? This is like saying the sunlight has a smell to it and that the moon's rocks taste like cranberries!

I think this conversation between us is over. You've done nothing but blow smoke this whole time, apart from the time you pointed out my error earlier. That was the only honest thing you said. Everything else is an attempt to sidestep or blow a cover on the topic. Which means nothing I say will ever reach you.

 

And thus, this makes people such as yourself who may actually want to follow along because they too (as most human beings are) are curious as to what's really happening in our world have no reason to think that jargon proves a superior intellect or a more sophisticated understanding of our reality.

I'm here to teach and to learn. And I nor you can't do the latter when the person you're speaking to isn't interested in having you do just that.

Funny picture, by the way.

 

Moi?