Another Massive LIE. “The Vacuum of Space” Debunked

suborbitalflightThis is a very important piece to understand the sheer lunacy of what Astro Physics and NASA tells us happens where the Earth’s Atmosphere ends and Space “Vacuum” begins.

The article below shows how absurd the whole “Vacuum of Space” story lie has been told sold to the unquestioning masses for decades.

So when does one feel the Earth’s spinning of 1,000 mph once it reaches “The Vacuum of Space”?

Never, according to NASA. It doesn’t.

In fact it is never even reported by astronomers. How can this be?

When you stick your head out a car window, you immediately feel the blast of air at just 60 mph. Can you begin to imagine what should be encountered when rockets and their “rocket men” leave Earth’s orbit?

NOTHING. NADA. NUNCA.  The “Vacuum of Space” enters and NOTHING is felt because it is a “Vacuum”.   Does this make any sense to anyone, except the Programmed Parrots of Astrophysics and NASA?

****

Selection_05o0

~ Hat tip to Themoderngnostic.com

NASA Pseudoscience Mind-Kontrol: The Vacuum Of Space

We are told by the deities of NASA that space is a virtual vacuum and their approximation as to where this vacuum starts and the atmosphere stops is called the Karman Line which is estimated at 62 miles. However the Wiki [5] says “no clear boundary exists between earths atmosphere and space,  just a decrease in density or fewer gas molecules”. Its important to note that the whole concept of space travel is driven by two concepts, (1)gravity and the (2)vacuum of space we call the universe.

Here is the Wiki for Outer Space;

[5]There is no clear boundary between Earth’s atmosphere and space, as the density of the atmosphere gradually decreases as the altitude increases. There are several standard boundary designations, namely:

The Fédération Aéronautique Internationale has established the Kármán line at an altitude of 100 km (62 mi) as a working definition for the boundary between aeronautics and astronautics. This is used because at an altitude of about 100 km (62 mi), as Theodore von Kármán calculated, a vehicle would have to travel faster than orbital velocity in order to derive sufficient aerodynamic lift from the atmosphere to support itself. The United States designates people who travel above an altitude of 50 miles (80 km) as astronauts.

So the Karman line is approximately 62 miles up and then you enter the partial vacuum of space, poof!, you’ve become weightless. That is what the Freemasons of NASA want you to believe and it’s total BS.

[6]Vacuum is space void of matter. The word stems from the Latin adjective vacuus for “vacant” or “void”. An approximation to such vacuum is a region with a gaseous pressure much less than atmospheric pressure.[1] Physicists often discuss ideal test results that would occur in a perfect vacuum, which they sometimes simply call “vacuum” or free space, and use the term partial vacuum to refer to an actual imperfect vacuum as one might have in a laboratory or in space.

 

The principal environmental characteristic of outer space is the vacuum, or nearly total absence of gas molecules. The gravitational attraction of large bodies in space, such as planets and stars, pulls gas molecules close to their surfaces leaving the space between virtually empty. Some stray gas molecules are found between these bodies, but their density is so low that they can be thought of as practically nonexistent.

So as stated above, the term partial vacuum “refers to an imperfect vacuum as one might have in a laboratory or in space.”Since a laboratory or space are two places we could look for imperfect vacuums, let’s look at the laboratory versions.

Tdownload-68hey all have an envelope/glass dome to offset the inward pressure as air is pumped out. Without some type of rigidity they would collapse in on themselves. So if the laboratory can create an equally good imperfect vacuum shouldn’t examples in space have the same types of attributes? One would think so but it’s not the case.

A vacuum in the lab is created by sucking out the gases/matter, but in space the same vacuum is supposedly created and maintained by the paradoxical expansion of the universe. Imagine exhaling into a balloon (expansion) and then inhaling the air back out (vacuum) they are two different processes but yet NASA says it yields the same result. Sorry not buying it.

By the way the supposed expansion of the universe was just recently recorded by NASA’s Spitzer Space Telescope and it was…

74.3 plus or minus 2.1 kilometers (46.2 plus or minus 1.3 miles) per second per megaparsec (a megaparsec is roughly 3 million light-years) “Space itself is pulling apart at the seams”

The measurements of the expansion of the universe of course are complete nonsense since The Spitzer Telescope only exists on the hard-drives of NASA’s production department. . As I’ve stated numerous times, just show us real images and video of earth and satellites and we’ll call off the dogs. But true to their colors as accomplished liars, there’s always another lie to cover another truth.

In space a new set of principles seem to apply allowing the envelope/dome/boundary to be semi-permeable and objects can gradually enter into and out of the vacuum. Because of this very reason space cannot be considered a vacuum as compared to it’s laboratory brethren. There is obviously something wrong with the assertion that there is a “vacuum of space”. The only proof offered that a vacuum exists in space are fake asstronot images or videos7 of either the Apollo, Space Lab, ISS/Shuttle hoaxes.

“The only proof of the Vacuum Of Space is the illusion of weightlessness” and without the illusion of weightlessness in space, it would reveal the farce and canard that NASA calls the Vacuum of Space. One cannot have a vacuum next to a non-vacuum and have interplay between the two, it’s impossible and paradoxical.

****

imageThe framework or scaffolding that space travel is real was born out of the crucible of science-fiction and fantasy long before it was purportedly confirmed on July 16, 1969 with Apollo 11.  Below is the editorial section of the New York Times called Topics Of The Times to professor Robert Goddard’s statement that a rocket can function in a total vacuum in the New York Times from an article published Jan. 13, 1920. The first paragraph states

”That Professor Goddard, with his ‘chair’ in Clark College and the countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution, does not know the relation of action to reaction, and of the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react — to say that would be absurd. Of course he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools.”

Here you see the editorial mocking the absurdity that a rocket can work in a vacuum on its own. The second paragraph was the official retraction 49 years later on July 17, 1969. The Freemasons never miss an opportunity to do-it right in plain sight. Apollo 11 was launched July 16, 1969 on the 4 day journey to the moon. What are the odds?

Further investigation and experimentation have confirmed the findings of Isaac Newton in the 17th century and it is now definitely established that a rocket can function in a vacuum as well as in an atmosphere. The Times regrets the error.

Here is an excerpt from Professor Goddard released by Clarke University after his findings were ridiculed by the New York Times;

Dr. Goddard gave another reaction to the New York Times editorial in front of an assembly of Clark University undergraduate students a few years before his first rocket launch. As described by one of the students who was there, inside a glass bell jar Dr. Goddard put “a spindle at the top of which was rigged a .22 caliber revolver loaded with a blank cartridge. The latter was electrically wired to explode at a given moment.

After exhausting as much air as practically possible from the bell jar, thus creating an airless vacuum analogous to the medium outside the earth’s atmosphere, and after quoting The New York Times pejorative comments, Dr. Goddard touched a key, the cartridge exploded, and the pistol spun briskly around making four complete revolutions. Dr. Goddard knew that Isaac Newton’s Third Law, viz., that every force has an equal and opposite reaction, had never been repealed; that it operates universally whether in or out of a vacuum; and therefore whether in or out of atmospheric space. This experiment as repeated for us was highly dramatic and, of course, quite conclusive. As the pistol spun around, Dr. Goddard dryly observed, ‘So much for The New York Times.’”

This is the absurd proof that Goddard uses to prove that rockets work in a vacuum.

First and foremost, how much removal of air does “practically possible” mean? Inside a bell jar, even a small amount of gas would be sufficient to push against because of the containment rigidity of the bell jar. And it’s certainly possible that no air was removed and the demonstration was slight-of-hand trickery (science certainly has no shortage of frauds and charlatans in the history books). In space that same amount of gas would not be contained but rather dispersed since no bell-jar exists in the first place. In a bell-jar pressure waves reverberating off the glass will also further distort the proof,  but the vacuum of space has no such limitations.

Furthermore, stating it’s analogous to space is a theory on top of a theory since no direct proof existed of space or its contents at the time (1920). The bell-jar therefore cannot be considered analogous to space since the “vacuum of space” was unverified and only speculative. There was and has been no scientific verification just mathematical and half-baked pseudoscience examples like the above.

But the powers that be said it’s so, so then it must be.

The University Of Illinois Champagne – Urbana Physics Dept. States:

So the answer really depends on what you mean by vacuum. If you mean what’s left when all the atoms etc. are pumped out, yes it still has a temperature of electromagnetic radiation. If you want, though, you could choose to only call that a vacuum if the temperature is zero. By the way, the third law of thermodynamics says nothing can ever get to zero temperature, so by that definition there wouldn’t be any vacuums.

(more)

14 thoughts on “Another Massive LIE. “The Vacuum of Space” Debunked

  1. David Gordon July 8, 2016 at 8:08 pm Reply

    Nice work on your article here. However, “… the Karman line is approximately 62 miles up and then you enter the partial vacuum of space, poof!, you’ve become weightless.” There is no such claim in the standard model. They suggest that the idea that the vehicle is traveling at high (17,000mph) speed that objects, like ISS, are experiencing a centripetal force equal and opposite to gravity. This is the force that one experiences on a merry-go-round. Alleged weightlessness in space has nothing to do with vacuum. You will be easily debunked as simply ignorant if you don’t know the standard model as well, if not better, than it proponents.

    Like

  2. Your Mom January 17, 2017 at 9:37 pm Reply

    Yeah. The fact there is now so few molecules of air that to get enough lift to stay up you have to go at orbital speed has nothing to do with whether you’re weightless or not. You just have to get a craft to accelerate at 9.81 mps^2 down. People have experienced simulated weightlessness while well within the atmosphere, even long enough to get married! And how could the have kissed (and they did) if they were wearing space suits? They didn’t have to. Space is an absence of atmosphere, not gravity.

    Like

    • jwlpeace January 17, 2017 at 11:58 pm Reply

      so….if there is no atmosphere and its the …vacuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum of space….where does it begin? and …and how can spacecraft maneuver if their is not friction and drag…. gravity is weight, density and buoyancy, simple and elegant…Newton et. al, are/were frauds…perp’d by the Jesuits, who also wrote the Big Bang theory and edited the final edition of Newton’s “Principia”…Do your homework plz.

      Like

      • Tom February 15, 2017 at 11:06 pm

        So, what is weight then (in a scientific sense, that is)?

        Like

  3. Ed February 15, 2017 at 11:25 am Reply

    It impossible to think there is no barrier between a positive pressure of 14.5 psi and 0 psi think about it . Gravity is the weakest of forces and a vacuum is vastly stronger ,what stops the atmosphere from equalising with space

    Like

    • Tom February 15, 2017 at 11:05 pm Reply

      Perhaps because a vacuum doesn’t work like you are somewhat suggesting.

      Like

  4. Austin Muir February 23, 2017 at 11:09 pm Reply

    Hi just stopped by cuz I’ve been doing a project on the round earth. I gotta say that just because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean it’s fake. You literally don’t trust the only thing (NASA) that provides proof that the earth is round. I’ve been doing research on both “worlds” and the main difference is that the flat earth is only grounded in fact from the Bible which was written 2000 years ago and is the only source of information from an era with a perspective that did not have NASA or any ability to look beyond our atmosphere. Those who argue the globe however, use simple observations of the earth, experiments, and multiple sources of information besides just one book completely out of date.

    Like

  5. sandman666 March 15, 2017 at 4:57 pm Reply

    Great blog indeed! Yes, NASA is one big lie and has deceived billions for far to long. I sadly admit that I too was fooled for a great many years by this same clever deception. Was vacationing in New York at the time Apollo 11 was landing on the moon. In the hotel lobby scores of folks were watching this earth shattering historic event with childlike grandeur. I too cheered when those famous words were first spoken as mr. Armstrong slowly made his way down the ladder. The room exploded with loud applause just as his feet make contact with the lunar surface. Sure, was a special time in my life like the Tigers winning in 68. However, it has right after this moon landing event that I begin to scrutinize the whole thing as an elaborate hoax. JFK himself helped to plant the seed of disbelief in my heart in that we must go to the moon before the end of this decade crap speech. We both know that was a strange thing for an acting president to say especially after the horror of Nam. I’ve never understood this concept of vacuum especially if we supposably live on a spinning planet that has an atmosphere I don’t see how it could be protected from a actual high yield vacuum at its highest potential in deep space? I know that if I placed earth in a x-ray vacuum tube it would be void of any life or atmosphere for that matter. Lastly, a spinning atmosphere at 1k makes little sense when you look at all them global weather patterns. Heck, any storm packing any kind of punch would have sustained winds at hundreds of miles an hour due to the atmospheric friction of the storm moving in the opposite direction of the spin? As for those satellites in orbit broadcasting megawatts collectively I don’t understand the power requirements of 31 transponders in relation to the size of them solar panels? They claim each transponder produces a whopping 100 watts of microwave energy yet we both know solar panels are quite limited in wattage output no matter what size they may be. I’ve always wondered about those undersea cables too that 99% of the worlds transmissions reside from? In closing actually I’ve hit on a few key points of interest but, don’t have a degree in astrophysics and don’t plan to get one anytime soon for i solely rely on my god-given common sense when understanding this challenging world around me..

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Ben Bucy December 15, 2017 at 11:36 pm Reply

    Right on man. Isnt it frustrating? . Cause you know that they know. But just like a liar found out… … and backed up in a corner. What does he do? He makes up another story .and lays it on thicker and thicker . anything will do
    Just buy some more time .oh yea ? Reallly ? Huh huh . no sir . yes it is . no it isnt . how come? Just wait and see . wait for what ? Im goin to prove it
    Yea . im goin to build a vaccume. You spell ed it wrong . in my kitchen . nu huh? Yea man. I. Had a bunch of vacumes in some jars. But i got rid of them ? Why ? Cause they were takin up too much space.

    Like

  7. EvidencePlease January 4, 2018 at 3:01 pm Reply

    The article above contains over 1700 words, which I take as an attempt to oversell a flawed concept. The notion of a vacuum should be much more simple to discuss and describe.

    Simply put, a vacuum is when the density of matter decreases until there is very little remaining. You can never reach a full vacuum, as some matter always is left behind. As a statement of existence, the lack of matter cannot act upon anything, as there is nearly zero energy in the emptiness.

    Sorry this was too wordy (53 words), but I’m not a scientist, and my average language is my way to state the obvious, and is not always concise.

    This is the evidence I know of for a vacuum. Any feedback or different definitions?

    Thx.

    Like

  8. Carl paul February 10, 2018 at 8:25 pm Reply

    Our Atmosphere is held in place by magnetic fields. The reason things can stay in orbit is the gravitational force of the planet and the size, speed and distance it is from Earth. Another reason rockets can work in space when others say it needs something to push off of is the fact of “Dark Matter.” It’s everywhere out there. I believe it’s actually all the space between objects. Like water, everything in it pushes against each other creating a force of matter.

    Like

  9. michael May 26, 2018 at 3:22 pm Reply

    @ Carl paul: I “believe” – yes, it’s all a hope, a belief, religion.

    Like

  10. Michael May 26, 2018 at 3:27 pm Reply

    @Carl paul: You said, I “believe. . . ” This points out that you have faith in what someone else said. You hope this is correct. You put your faith in what someone else says. It seems to me this would constitute some sort of religion, a faith. That is what science is mostly, as well. All the “facts” of science have changed over the years and decades depending on what those in “authority” have expressed. They are facts until someone more influential says otherwise. Copernicus’ heliocentric view took many, many years to gain the major influence that it did because those that wanted it to be so simply declared it to be so. The geocentric view is just as viable. It simply depends on which paradigm one buys in to. Paradigm is everything.

    Like

  11. michaelcrase55 May 26, 2018 at 3:39 pm Reply

    @Carl paul: You said, I “believe . . .” This is a faith, a belief, a religion. I believe it because you have decided to. It all depends on the paradigm you choose to buy in to. Paradigm is everything. “Facts” change over the decades, centuries and millenium. We make statements based on what we see and decipher today. We actually know an infinitesimal amount about our planet and universe. We even know less about our oceans than so called “outer space.” In another one hundred years all the “facts” will be different because we supposedly know more. In reality, we know what we want to know. Belief. Example: Two parallel lines never meet. We cannot actually prove that. We call it an axiom. No one can ever go to the end of two parallel lines to actually prove it with out any doubt whatsover. So we choose to ‘believe’ the axiom we identify. It’s our only option. If I throw a ball up we believe it will come down. We cannot insist that it will come down, all things being equal because we would have to do it an infinite number of times as all it would take would be for it to NOT come down one time. However, we cannot throw it up an infinite number of times. So we decide to commit to an axiom we declare to cover the issue for all practical matters.
    We, in my opinion, do not really know how to think, largely, in our western society due the structure of our propagandized government run educational system. We are taught to regurgitate, not think. Thinking outside the accepted governed system brings outright scorn and riducule. Sad.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: