The price movement now is just a self fulfiling prophecy. The people that bought earlier are buying a little more to gain more confidence in their own decisions and people that had sold earlier are just assured that it will grow by the price not falling. Thats how I see it.

People dont get bitcoin because it looks realy fishy. The price looks too good to be true, so people judge it by caution statement "if it looks too good its propably is".

Bitcoin advantage is mostly in its monetary philosophy. Thats the stuff everyone can buy. Some could buy micropayments, others low transaction costs so could earn some money by holding the btc. Thats basicly it in a nutshell.

I have a lot more understanding than you it seems so visit that forum more frequently. I know that a force has a direction. Isnt it the direction of the gas movement is the direction of the force. No? Ofcourse it is.

I think you mean a third law of motion made by newton that is in action here. Yes it is in action if you have two masses. One mass is a exhausted gas produced by a propulsion and the other mass is the mass of the atmoshperic gas. If you dont have the atmospheric gas what is the second mass that a third newton law is talking about?


FLAT EARTHER tells me im confused and cant read. Oh shit..... Give me a break will you?


I dont want to be rude but you have just ignored my arguments against the flat earth like:


1. Sun is shining on a half of the earth In the march/september and only 33% or less in July and 66% or more in December on flat earth model. Does it change its shape or what? No its not only nasa lies, you can check that yourself by counting the sunrise/sunset periods.
2. You should see a sun in the night in flat earth model. If its only a matter of "rules of perspective" as you were implying
3. How could you guard a south pole and have a military bases there if its the biggest continent with the surface bigger than the rest of the world?
4. How come that Australia flights takes less time than they should in the flat earth model? The airplanes should have a lot higher speed than the speed of sound. If those passangers airplanes would reach a speed of sound their wings would likely fall off.
5. Polar stars that should be able to be seen from all surface of the flat earth. They are not.

Yes you are a winner.

We might live in an enclosed motionless surface but:
a) All those rockets hitting the oxide coating should make the coating fall off in few places showing us the ugly iron shit.
b) flat earth theory has a lot of counterarguments which all of them you just completly ignore.
 
You are like this guy,



Dumb people agrees with you. YAY!. Congratulations.

I have an impression you dont know what a pressure is. Pressure difference creating a force? What? Pressure IS A FORCE on a square surface.

by letting the gas out you dont create a pressure do you? I was asking how you create a pressure aka that is a FORCE that is in the direction of the acceleration. I know how they do that. They use the mass of the atmosphere and its relativly high internal pressure. Its undoable in vacuum.

Rockets are just a transformers of indirect pressure in all direction to a pressure directed towards the rocket, but they need some medium to help them tranform the direction of the force to more coherent one.

Yes but if you push against the internals of the rockets you are pushing it back. So its like 0 sum force. Thats why I used the argument of unability of elevating yourself by the belt - you keep making 0 sum force even if you use force. Just explain me where on which direction and what is the cause of the pressure wave. It should not be that hard to do.

So a force affecting a gas does not affect other bodies so why bother with explaining gas? There need to be some connection and the only connection there could be is pressure.


Everybody is making assumptions or using someone elses assumptions. No sorry brainless people dont make assumptions, but yeah I discluded those.

BRAIN works on assumptions.

Experiments are repeated. On Earth. Well. Yeah they are and you just "assume" its the same in supposed vacuum.  Hence the space is vacuum because noone does experiments if a space is vacuum. Got it?

We are not talking about if a rocket works. THEY DO. We are talking about space being a vacuum or not. Got it? And that thing is just assumed not testen, proven peer reviewed or anything. This issue is just ignored.


You have not explained ANYTHING. You have just gave me some stupid article ignoring a thermodynamics - the only thing worth mentioning in the rockets, and you have told me im wrong in assuming something and didnt explain why.

And you lick it, making your tongue stuck there, so you could never tell humanity about it.

No its you who make the wrong assumptions. You keep on talking about external gas to the engines like if its a one body within the rocket. Those are not. Even when gases are interior to the engine structure they are still external bodies per se. Gases around you may move very fast they dont affect you unless you compress them against you. Then and only then you might talk about gases affecting another bodies by a compression.

And yes it might seem they are part of rocket becuase they are inside the engine, but they are not a part of the rocket neither any objects with different density is not a part of another body unless you compress them against that body.


Engineers are not scientists. To be an engineer all you have to have is a master degree. To be a scientist you need phd. Someone else gives them assumptions and they build stuff based on that assumptions. Difference between a rockets works in vaccum and there is no vacuum in space is completly and utterly irrelevant for them.

I dont want to assume that they dont understand that you cant lift yourself by the belt. Maybe 4 years in college to be an engineer is to little time to understand that you cant but.... What can I say. Im not physicist maybe they figured out the way how to lift yourself up.

If something works inside a physical body it does not mean that it can move the body in any direction without the external force. If you create forces (newtons) inside the physical body the forces even themselfs (as in the law of thermodynamics) out in every direction if not acted upon by external forces. That is like elementary school physics.


So? Does that makes theory of relativity valid at that kind of speeds? No. Its still a normal physics. Its just makes pressure higher IF A PRESSURE IS BUILT. IF is very important here.

Higher molecules speed makes it possible to use slower moving molecules as if they are different density objects to create a pressure but you need both of them.


Thats a BS. Gas is a gas. Freshly exploded gas with unfreshly exploded gas what does that even mean? Either something has same or different density or speed of particles or is soon to be the same fluid. How do you want to divide the gas? By what measures?

Ill take a look. Thanks. But what this have to do with what I had written? Where have I made a wrong assumptions? Im not saying that there cant be made any pressure inside a propulsion engine by burning up the fuel. Im just proposing the idea that its a very small amount of pressure from the engine in supposed vacuum, making it only faasible to make a spacecraft change its directions not a speed especially when the fuel is mixed with some heavy particles like some metals.

And I go as far as here to make your version of story the most feasible. I dont know why I do that. You give me some engineering principles when I tell you physical properties. Explain me how does engineeres go about the physics stuff. Its wrong to assume that everyone is a constructor of rockets. Im not. I had just better education (post soviet) than the westerners in a general science.

And I dont view vacuumless space like high density space but even the tiniest vacuumlessnes is a heavy nut to crack to physics.


Edit after reading the summary:


Are you a cheater or you just try to confuse me? They say they dont analyse the most important thing that im talking about..... They dont talk about how a gas moves. Shit man...... Thats the most important here. Its like saying - we will talk about the computer build without analysing its motherboard.

We assume that we assume that we assume that our assumption is assumpted and computed based on the assumptions. Great science.... Hats off. Its not a surprise that they dont like people like me just disturbing their jerking circle of assumptions creating some stupid shit like dark matter.

By your wish added to ignore. I suggest you do the same and we would be both happy.

Ill just quote myself here to answer you, because there is noone else with any argument other than - you are stupid because I say so.


Have you done any experiments or have any interpretation on the facts? Do you have any knowledge of physics of the pressure? If no. Fuck off.


Many people believe its a piece of junk from a various different point of view. And mind that its an official model of explanation, not that a gravity exists. Its just a matter of a definition and its implications.

Thats all cool my more retarded friend


Make love not war.
Make science not shit.
Make shuttthefuck up instead of retardation.

Im just giving you a science. But a Nietzche once have said that. "How do you want to disprove something with proofs, when the mob believed something without a proof". You people are just a sheepy mob. Prove me Im wrong

Instead of throwing shit and insults at eachother. Why not make some science? Like this video explains:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBYADIjWYbc


Notbatman is far superior than you technicaly so by making him look stupid you make yourself look even more stupid.

And yes he is right that you need to have an atmosphere to push against for a rocket to make thrust movement. I was considering the other option and I found it utterly stupid to lift yourself by the belt. And thats what basicly the science says when they claim you can accelerate rockets in the vacuum. To have a force (and in the case of a rocket its a bounce aka elasticity force) that newton described in his third law of motion you need two masses one thrown against another. In case of a bullet its a force created by explosions, making a gas particles rapidly move hitting both the shooter and the bullet very very fast. The force created that way is created by a pressure wave. The wave is measured by the hertz. Those are measurement of occurance of a particles hitting both masses in a unit of time.

When you create an explosion in the vacuum the particles goes into all directions evenly. Some of them bounce of up and down evenly so those are irrelevant. What is interesting to us if the force is directed towards direction of desireable acceleration. For particles to do that they would have to hit the back of the engine once and go back into space not creating a bouncing force aka pressure.

I saw this experiment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uf6158lBjGo

All I can say is that a vacuum in a tube is not a vacuum in a space. The exploded gas particles can still bounce of the perimeter of the tube. The guy doing the experiment accidently proved my and notbatman point here. The thrust pressure he created makes a bounce force a lot weaker in the vacuum. The only thing that saves the globe argument in that experiment is that the particles are bouncing of the perimeters of the glass. I would suggest making 2 more experiments with larger and even larger tube to see if the force of a thrust is weaker each time we increase the size of the tube. That would suggest that if a tube is an infinatly large, like they suggest the space is, the force of a rocket thrust is infinatly smaller getting close to zero.


What does that mean:

1. Space is not a vacuum - Thats my position. Whats the difference does it make? Huge. If space is not a vacuum all the model of official gravity is just what it is. A piece of junk.

2. Space does not exist - The position of a notbatman.

3. You are an ignorant pricks and fuck off. Go believe your voodoo magic.

4. Nasa fakes all their footages and there could be some leprehauns, dwarfs and unicorns in the space - quite hard to fake absolutely everything.

I need to further investigate the subject honestly. A first thought is that you cant make any pressure to press against in a vacuum. Pressure is pressing against something. In the gun thought experiment you press the shooter against the bullet in opposite directions. I must admitt Im puzzled by this and need to think this through.

If theoreticly we would shoot the bullets or some other heavy mass by microexplosions, maybe it would be possible to accelarate in the vacuum a little bit. But then the mass of the bullets would be so huge that it would defeat the purpose in the first place. There is a change im missing something here.

Great. Just point out my grammar or syntax errors so that I can improve my english skills. Thanks.




Its easy. You just need to use critical thinking. Lets look at the globe earth theory and their half truths. Globe theory aknowledges the karman line on the altitude of 100km, where meteorites burn out. They explain it as if a bug fly into a wind shield. To make it happen there would need to be a very dense particles like sodium. As they claim there is. Sodium is way too heavy to be on that heights so its a lie. Its some of the truth (karman line and the burnout of asteroids there) to justify a lie (mechanics of a wind shield).

Now you can argue with me based on the fact that Karman line exists. Concave earth/flat earth model suggest its solid object and globe theoretists suggest its not solid. But the Karman line/Glass sealing/dome what ever you call it exist. Its a fact. Some things are proven and some things are not proven. You should separate one from another.



Its not about feelings. Its all about critical thinking. Someone have it and others dont.


Every scientists should be distrustful. Even to themselfs. If you think scientists should just trust someone without doublecheck, then someone has lied to you what science is. Consensus is such an abused word now. Word consensus just smells rotten like.... Jesuits . It should be a long dead word like Jesuit order should not be ressurected. If everyone would agree to cut off your head and piss on your deformed corpse, would you agree to the "consensus"? Right is right and no voting make it otherwise.


I dont dismiss the collective knowledge of a humankind. I just state that some of the knowledge is a bs. Dont spread lies ok? Just because I see some things as not true does not mean that I see everything as untrue. How could you spawn such a logical error?



Thrust in other words is a rapid push. You know what a push force is? You push something against something. Why do you spread a misconception. Its not that complicated that to push you need to have something to push against.

Squid is pushing the water against the water by creating a massive pressures.

You cant push something against nothing. How could you came up with such an absurdal idea?




They are like:




Ok maybe a gun could fire up. My bad, but rocket fuel is another story. Its mainly a hydrogen.

Wow. You realy believe you could fire a gun in vacuum? Just wow. You are just full of shit arent you? Not to mention you need oxygen to burn stuff.
Why do you think the "star wars" program involves using lasers not rockets or machine guns huh? Oh yeah. Because you cant fire a gun or shoot a rocket Einstein.

What pushes what? Detonation is just a rapid burnout creating a huge movement of the air by creating heavy air pressure. What air in the vacuum? Similiarly you cant have sound in the vacuum because its all a movement of air. There could be only an implosion aka the big boom speaking the kinds of you to the inside where there is an air on the spaceship.

Explosion and Implosion is just a matter of extreme pressures upon density of the air.

For blind Nasa believers, Nasa and its physics is just some magic. No its not magic I can assure you.

No. Its not all lies. Just mostly a half truths. A little truth here and there to justify a lie. Its like a Newton is made saint in the school. The guy has made great statement of his mechanics. But thats it. All rest what he said is just a justification for a lie. For example his constant number of gravitational acceleration is just a gimmick (no proof other than fake moon landing. Yes is ok on earth but its justify some weird maths and thats just weird). You make Founding Fathers as gods. You make theory of evolution viable (no proofs) only because its seems rational because there are proven rules of heredity. Rules of heredity of some traits is not a rule to create a new species. To the contrary most of the hardcore mixes are infertile so there your theory of evolution is debunked.

Its like a lot of lies are mixed with some little truths. You throw pearls infront of a swines. Children are too stupid to figure out you make fools out of them so thats should be their parents responsibility to teach them not being a fools.

Those are all just examples. I could wrote a whole book how school is mixing truth to justify lies or at least unproven stories that are justifying some larger scam. And I dont state that Newton lied or someone else is a scammer. People make mistakes. Its ultimately those who combine together the material taught in school are responsible for everything. You can make me for some conspiracy theorist, but take my word on this. Every school program on the world now to smaller or bigger degree is being developed by a Jesuits. It always was depending on them in the middle ages and its still is in the XXI century.

You dont know that? History is taught in schools as well, so if you only have knowledge from schools you will never ever think thats the case. For example a Jean A.N de Condorcet was writing in the middle of French revolution how to make an education system other than Jesuits. Guess what happened to the man? Yes you have guessed it right he was killed and his model is never tought or mentioned in any school. Ever. Condorcet is only tought in few universities, but only as of his abused concept of a progress. Just to justify another lies about gender and other utter bs science. I can asure you that Condorcet would be utterly shocked and disgusted that a woman could be a man. He would for 100% disagree. How do I know it? I could read his works and his biography. He was mostly been in a company of woman and still he had not became a woman. Maybe a little less muscular from a lack of sport activities, but still a man. He was stating a lot of a stuff about the gender differences as well that does not change in culture, rather shape the culture itself.


How about instead you making people look stupid, listen to this. Why do you throw pearls infront of the swines? People have intelligence to tell the difference if something is worthwile or bs. By having to agree on everything, you treat me as I would have no Inteligence at all. Thats not ok.

P.S rockets dont accelerate in vacuum for fuck sake! You know how they work? Particles of matter hits the other particles of matter create a force and force create an acceleration. If there is no matter to hit a matter with how could rockets work? You see? Ofcourse they could still have the momentum so stating that rockets dont fly in vacuum is just a halftruths that flat earthers love. Those who state that rockets dont accelerate in space have to aknowledge something from school.

Im not defending the flat earthers. I just defend their attitude of progress by questioning. If they dont question their own thesis something is utterly wrong here and it looks like a psyop to discredit the idea of questioning everything.

Thats what Condorcet was mainly talking about the way to decrease the influence of Jesuit order on the public education and make it a different model pupils should be first able to question the traditions of everything. It was like 200 years ago. Forgotten sadly, but need to be remembered.


What conclusions? Question all you want what ever you want until you find undeniable axioms. If you want to believe in arguments not build on axioms its your choice to be vulnerable to the utter bs. Its not my choice.

We are just trolls that dont believe a saints from Nasa. Youve got us. We repent the Nasa for disbelieving it. Would they forgive us?



Why do you keep persisting that nasa tell all lies and are devils or they are angels and tell always truth? Are people retarded? World is a little more complicated than that.

You just proved my point. You people are like entrenched on your positions by politics. Further dialog is futile.

Boys, have fun by putting dicks in each others ass. Its not for me. My last words are:

No I dont hate you but you clearly hate all of your opponents. I dont know what you hate more. Rational argumentation or your opponents? I would say its equal. You invest so much emotions into this that you cant go back. All I can do is pity you not hate you.