tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9617943.post115301619341946675..comments2009-11-19T13:54:55.299+10:00Theo Clarkhttps://profiles.google.com/108645831840656817487noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9617943.post-25246774903397065942009-11-19T07:53:07.299+10:002009-11-19T07:53:07.299+10:00I think your experiment needs more numbers. Adding some statistics with margins of error will make the experiment much more scientific. I&#39;m sure Spooked911&#39;s experiment would have been better received if he had more numbers. On the other hand, adding numbers reduces the &quot;cool&quot; factor, so I guess you have to decide if you&#39;re going for Internet fame or government funding.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9617943.post-1154935708446175452006-08-07T17:28:00.000+10:002006-08-07T17:28:00.000+10:00Your experiment was worthwhile, but unnecessary. You could have simply thrown a glass bottle of paint into the air and watch it shatter against the firmament covering the flat Earth. (I don't know how high the firmament is, but it can't be too high. The idea that the firmament (or "sky") is high in the air is promoted by evil satanic atheists. (The ESAs are very convincing with their satanic steel birds that fly along it, but I'm not convinced. I went into one of them once, and I can assure you— it's all a satanic act of trickery. I can tell it's satanic because the food in them was horrible, and I wasn't allowed into first class. I'm a child of God, you sinner! I can ride in first class with an economy-class ticket if I want to!)Maronannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9617943.post-1154791748856294862006-08-06T01:29:00.000+10:002006-08-06T01:29:00.000+10:00I saw the pictures and immediately recognized the problem. <BR/>It's the rocket! <BR/>The one you used is completly wrong, it should have been a "coke" bottle. <BR/>After all everyone knows that "Things go better with Coke!"<BR/><BR/>Allan W Janssen is the author of the book "The Plain Truth About God-101.com" (what the church doesn't want you to know!) at www.God-101.comMoseshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09168659604725040986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9617943.post-1154708993939575372006-08-05T02:29:00.000+10:002006-08-05T02:29:00.000+10:00On the plus side, the "Earth" was stationary. And since we live in a geocentric universe, that part was correct. LMAOBerlienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9617943.post-1154123631304057942006-07-29T07:53:00.000+10:002006-07-29T07:53:00.000+10:00This is probably the wrong thread to be a stickler for detail, but NASA did not use solid propellant for primary thrust. All three stages of the Saturn V booster (S-IC, S-II and S-IVB) used LOX and the last two used LH2. The CM and LM crew-habited vehicles also used LOX propellant. Solids were only used for stage separation retros.<BR/><BR/>So the liquid propellant in the barbecue bottle is at least close to the mark. Sorta. Well not really.Chris Taylorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07950708305751526474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9617943.post-1154105159532426802006-07-29T02:45:00.000+10:002006-07-29T02:45:00.000+10:00Hmmm. I see some minor flaws in your experiemnt. May I make some observations/corrections?<BR/><BR/>1. You have launched the rocket from a basketball deigned to be the earth. Every one KNOWS the earth is flat. Ergo, your model is flawed.<BR/><BR/>2. Was the barbeque bottle full, or empty? As everyone knows, the inertial effects of the liquid in the bottle must be accounted for in the docking procedure especially since NASA apparently used solid propellent. If it was empty, you will need to repeat the experiment with something like salt in the bottle.<BR/><BR/>3. The bottle rocket concept is flawed in that you had one of the wings on backwards for crying out loud. And then you claim this did not matter? There is no symmetry on the craft! How would you account for this if you extrapolated to a full size rocket. See point #1 and repeat. This would explain the failure to land by itself.<BR/><BR/>4. Were the labels on each of the items the appropriate size? Rand McNally and Google earth both have the earth labelled differently. Which one is the correct one? I suggest that you place the earth label in the lower left hand corner of the PIECE OF PAPER that models the earth to more accurately model the actual item. See point #1 and repeat the experiment.<BR/><BR/>5. The method of initial propulsion; was it overhand or underhand? See, an underhanded approach by NASA would have resulted in an orbit from bottom to top of the moon. An overhanded approach would have resulted in an orbit from top to bottom. Since you were trying to land on the TOP of the moon and failed, I JUST BET that you used an underhanded approach. (*sigh*...amateurs)<BR/><BR/>Its obvious your experiment is full of flaws. Next time, spend a little more time on the research, and a little less on the model accuracy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9617943.post-1154098510153415442006-07-29T00:55:00.000+10:002006-07-29T00:55:00.000+10:00For the more accurate earth model, you could try freezing a waterballoon, cutting the balloon off the ice ball, then using a hairdryer to make it more melty in the middle for the puddle effect.<BR/><BR/>The added benefit to this is that you'll have a ready supply of water for when you start throwing flaming sparkling BBQ sauce bottles around the house. Potentially risky, but hey, it's the price of science.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9617943.post-1153844261274928162006-07-26T02:17:00.000+10:002006-07-26T02:17:00.000+10:00Wrong barbecue sauce. Duh. What kind of scientist are you?Bird Doghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09793382759922908071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9617943.post-1153843132387284702006-07-26T01:58:00.000+10:002006-07-26T01:58:00.000+10:00What about the concrete dust in those moon landing photos? Definetely caused by controlled demolition.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9617943.post-1153629913482318702006-07-23T14:45:00.000+10:002006-07-23T14:45:00.000+10:00heheL>Thttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13606249934759030832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9617943.post-1153623390991313502006-07-23T12:56:00.000+10:002006-07-23T12:56:00.000+10:00<A HREF="http://humbugonline.blogspot.com/2005/01/examples-of-observational-selection.html" REL="nofollow">Observational Selection</A>. (Though perhaps justfified.) Of course, if you are only reading your own comments, you won't have read this one...Theohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07342708791160461777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9617943.post-1153622332371113502006-07-23T12:38:00.000+10:002006-07-23T12:38:00.000+10:00well, I'm going to quit reading all other comments except my own. <BR/>What do you call that?L>Thttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13606249934759030832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9617943.post-1153604401278240512006-07-23T07:40:00.000+10:002006-07-23T07:40:00.000+10:00And sarcasm is the lowest form of satire - as opposed to what this so obviously is - a <A HREF="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parody" REL="nofollow">parody</A>. Remo, you might want to read other posts, and follow the links. <BR/><BR/>Theo should start putting warnings on posts such as this so they don't go over people's heads.texhttp://www.bp.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9617943.post-1153583057253549182006-07-23T01:44:00.000+10:002006-07-23T01:44:00.000+10:00Well, that bottle and balloon experiment sure has me convinced. That was scientific and well done. I believe Goddard used bottles too in his making of rockets. And NASA of course used the same bottle and balloon experiment and decided it was impossible to land on the moon and thus faked the whole landing. <BR/>For you idiots out there who believe this, it's called sarcasm.Remonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9617943.post-1153530414257185072006-07-22T11:06:00.000+10:002006-07-22T11:06:00.000+10:00i spammo the magnificent, famed 711 researcher and <B>founder of 711 porker for truth institute </B> intend to file a <I>, classless action suit</I>, againt everyone involvedmrspammohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11568034119383784081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9617943.post-1153525913661714152006-07-22T09:51:00.000+10:002006-07-22T09:51:00.000+10:00Hi Pat,<BR/><BR/>My original version was to flick a speck of dust with tweezers at the "Moon", to try and get the relative sizes right. However, I don't own any tweezers (back to the budget thing) and dust doesn't really show in photographs.Theohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07342708791160461777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9617943.post-1153506652612119932006-07-22T04:30:00.000+10:002006-07-22T04:30:00.000+10:00The rocket's far too big, but otherwise this strikes me as excellent science in the Spooked911 tradition!<BR/><BR/>Pat from Screw Loose ChangePathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08823192240617043839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9617943.post-1153441094306353862006-07-21T10:18:00.000+10:002006-07-21T10:18:00.000+10:00Ha ha! I can't talk I'm laughing so damn hard.L>Thttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13606249934759030832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9617943.post-1153417589011189192006-07-21T03:46:00.000+10:002006-07-21T03:46:00.000+10:00Freakin' briliant!Conspiracy Smasherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01561350472368127509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9617943.post-1153395383312071582006-07-20T21:36:00.000+10:002006-07-20T21:36:00.000+10:00Thanks Thomas!<BR/><BR/>Another flaw, true, but more opportunities for grant money...<BR/><BR/>Your suggestions of "puddles on the surface and cold at the ends" will require a really big budget. Now I will have to go to NASA. <BR/><BR/>If they refuse to fund my research, it's obviously because they don't want me to prove the landings were fake!Theohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07342708791160461777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9617943.post-1153394565079898212006-07-20T21:22:00.000+10:002006-07-20T21:22:00.000+10:00I think a serious flaw in the experiment is the indented lines on the basketball. The basketball is a reasonable substitute for Mars (canals) but for Earth you need a smoother ball... with puddles on the surface for the oceans... and it needs to be really cold at the ends. Getting there, but you really don't know which variables are crucial until you try harder for verisimilitude - like the 911 guy with the chicken wire and cement blocks.Thomas Lowellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9617943.post-1153393459857762902006-07-20T21:04:00.000+10:002006-07-20T21:04:00.000+10:00This was a preliminary investigation but already it is generating fruitful ideas for further research!<BR/><BR/>Thanks for a brilliant suggestion Ben. I'll use it when I apply for a research grant from the European Space Agency.<BR/><BR/>How much does a packet of sparklers go for these days anyway? The ESA budget isn't as big as NASA's.Theohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07342708791160461777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9617943.post-1153388593254147152006-07-20T19:43:00.000+10:002006-07-20T19:43:00.000+10:00Hmmm... Theo, you have obviously missed the MOST important part of firing rockets into space in your experiment: FIRE!<BR/><BR/>Every right thinking person knows that in order for a rocket to function correctly it must have flames coming out the end! <BR/><BR/>However, this omission is easily addressed thought the prudent application of sparklers in the appropriate place. <BR/><BR/>The ritual of lighting the 'engines' (sparklers) can now be included as part of the countdown.<BR/><BR/>I predict that the engines will now make the appropriate 'whooshing' noises, which when combined with the countdown and flames, will now allow the rocket to accurately intercept with the moon, release its crew of Lego men (it does have a crew doesn't it?) to collect samples and return them all safely the basketball- er... I mean Earth.Bennoreply@blogger.com