Zekk vs. Billy: Closemindedness

Before I begin to answer Billy's points, I want everyone to pay attention to some scientific facts.

Fact: Airplanes can't fly.

Fact: Insects can't flap fast enough to keep themselves in the air.

But fact: we've all seen insects fly, and fact: we have all either been on a plane or know someone who has.

When we look at Billy's speech, Billy gives us a new fact: man did not land on the moon. When looking at his "facts," we see facts not rooted so deeply in science as they are rooted in his personal assumptions; however, when we analyze the bits and pieces of his theory, one thing becomes clear: Mankind can fly through space and Mankind did land on the moon.

Lets look at the first issue Billy brought up: radiowaves. Even though Billy essentially concedes his reasoning is flawed, we see Billy made several dangerous personal assumptions that were not rooted in science but his personal conjectures. He assumed that NASA only had AM broadcasters for communication. He assumed satellites use different waves than radio. And he assumed radio waves are sound. But all of these are wrong. NASA used sattelites, which were created twelve years before the Apollo 11 landed. NASA used radio waves; satellite waves don't exist. And radio waves are radiant energy (light), not sound. And as a final note, Billy even got the date for the moonlanding wrong: 1969, not 1967.

This tells you two things: one, Billy's theories are not always fully rooted in hard science, and two, it is perfectly possible NASA communicated with its manned crew on the moon.


Now his second point is the more important point, can space travel exist? "No," Billy claims to us. His argument is that only a vacuum exists in space and, therefore, propulsion is impossible. Therefore, a spaceship could not move forward in space, but once again, we see several flawed assumptions that are underlying in his beliefs.

Firstly, the concept of a vacuum. Billy believes that a vacuum is empty, nothing exists in it, but this view of vacuum is once again rooted not so much in science as it is on his personal guesses. The notion that vacuum is empty has been thoroughly disproven for over half a century, and Einstein himself even scoffed at that notion when he wrote his special theory of relativity in 1905. A vacuum, contrary to popular belief, is a vibrant and active segment of space. It is not empty but rather filled with tons of particles, ranging from the smallest electrons and quartzes to the largest molecular constructs. Quantum physics theories have shown for years that matter is constantly created and destroyed in the blink of an eye inside a vacuum. A true "empty vacuum" does not exist and cannot exist; even in that concept of pure empty space, there must be the fabric of space for it to be there. So we see that there is matter inside a vacuum, matter that can give the resistance needed for propulsion to occur.

But going on, Billy once again makes several dangerous assumptions, he just assumes that no flames can occur because there is no air in space. Clearly, the concept of an oxygen tank is new to Billy. The most cursory analysis of any schematic of NASA's spacecraft shows that there are numerous chemicals, including oxygen, used to manufacture thrust.

But also, consider the implications of Billy's point that propulsion in a vacuum is impossible: nearly all satellites fly outside earth's atmosphere, they exist inside a vacuum but are still affected by earth's gravity. If they were unable to move themselves inside a vacuum, as Billy claims, the earth's gravity would pull these sattelites into our atmosphere, destroying them in the process. But!...... sattelites, inside this "vacuum," are able to thrust themselves to ensure that earth's gravity doesn't pull it into its atmosphere. The plane can fly, ladies and gentlemen.


In the end, its clear, Billy has given you some cute points, but they are INCREDIBLY lacking in any scientific support. Here's what it boils down too, Billy has been unable to prove to us that space travel is impossible and so there it is clear that man could travel through space. Want proof we got there? Watch [url=http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/apollo11/index.html]the videos[/url].

[url]http://www.astro.lsa.umich.edu/users/hughes/ucourses/120f96/inf3.html[/url]

the only particles in space are elctrons (light, or energy), Electromagnetic Waves, etc etc. There is no MASS in space. mass is what we would use to propel against to creat motion. You cannot turn light energy into kenetic energy in space. At least not for the sole purpose for thrusting a space ship for traveling thru space and/or manuvering it thru space.

Light (electrons, EMW, etc) cannot be used for thrust. No way in hell. Can you use a flashlight to move something ? Yeah maybe if you used the actualy flashlight itself, but I am talking about if you shined the light on something could you move it with the light ? no. The sun rays, can we use sun rays to push objects around ? no. Can you use readio waves to move something ? no.

So there goes your "fact" about how space is filled with particles to create thrust for the ship.

And I have already said that I was wrong about the radio waves. Thus far, you have proven to me that communication thru space is possible, and I have agreed, so lets not use something against me like that. It just makes you look desperate for ways to make me look bad.

And the laws that you are talking about that Einstein came up with, well.. yeah. They dont pertain to space travel at all. The Special Theory of Relativity is something to do with the speed of light and gravity. Nothing about how space is filled with particles. And something he claimed in that theory was indeed proved wrong 50 years later with his Unified Field Theory. The only problem is, --as right, as many scientists think Einstein may be in this theory -- is that no one has been able to figure out just how we might go about testing it. Einstein predicted that others would have difficulties to test his final theory. So therefore it is NOT fact, but it is THEORY.

And like I said before. I work with FACTS. And the fact remains that there is nothing for the ship to propel off of to manuver and/or travel thru space. Yes it can travel. You can throw something off into one direction (i.e. take off from earth) but once in space you will forever travel in that direction at that speed, until something has forced it to change directions. And since the ship is flying thru nothing, it cannot change directions. No way, no how, never.

Obviously I cant tell you have spent some time in Google, or maybe you have studied this in the past a bit, which is good. I like a challenge. It expands my mind. And hopefully I am helping expand your mind also and all the others that have been reading this. Now lets see what else we can prove wrong about my beliefs. Or should I say let you try.

First off, I want you all to note, as I stated earlier, that Billy lacks concrete knowledge on this topic. When I brought forth the radio waves in my last speech, it wasn't to make Billy look bad, but it was to show to you that, despite his passion and avid "researching" of this topic, his knowledge of both space travel and physics are quite limited.

Now, before I answer the few points he makes, I want you to look at what he completely fails to respond to:

1. Firstly, he doesn't address propulsion is possible in space. He originally claimed there is no air in space so no fire can occur, however, I pointed out you can bring an oxygen tank. My analysis is pretty simple, sensible, and sound; so I'm sure he concedes this point, since his only offense left standing is "space is empty."
   
   
2. Second, he never addresses the point about sattelites. If Billy's point that no propulsion can occur in space is true, then no sattelite would be able to propel itself. The implications are simple, this means our entire Geographic Information Systems, our Global Communication Sattelites, and our Geographic Weather Sattelites are part of a giant international government conspiracy. Since these sattelites operate inside a vacuum, something must ensure that earth's gravity doesn't pull them into our atmosphere (and destroy them in the process). That something is thrust, its space travel, and its alive and well. If Billy can't disprove this to you, then there's no real need for me to prove the viability of space travel. Why argue whether a bee can scientifically fly when there's one in front of you?

Nonetheless, I'll tackle the points he made, and, in doing so, prove to you that space travel is alive and possible:

Firstly, one contentious issue in this debate is whether space is empty. Billy claims that there is nothing inside space that causes either friction or an opposing force that would allow for the propulsion needed by space travel to occur. However, I tell you that matter spontaneously comes in and out of existence in a vacuum.

Billy responds to this by showing a link to a source of some sort and exhuberantly states, "There is no MASS in space."

However, Billy's own source (which I'm not sure if he even read), not only fails to prove Billy's point, but it claims the exact opposite:

Quote:

---

The cosmos consists overwhelmingly of vacuum. Yet vacuum itself is proving not to be empty at all. It is much more complex than most people would guess. "But surely," you might ask, "if you take a container and remove everything from inside it - every atom, every photon - there will be nothing left?" Not by a long shot. Since the 1920s physicists have recognized that on a microscopic scale, the vacuum itself is alive with activity. Moreover, this network of activity may extend right down to include the very structure of space-time itself.

---

Therefore, we can see that vacuum is not empty. In fact, it is a live and well with particles that come in and out of existence. Furthermore, as I stated, there are countless larger molecular forms in space, space is filled with debris, flying astroids, magnetic gas clouds, and the likes. A vacuum is not empty.


Lets move on...

Now, I tell you that as early as 1905, when Einstein was writing his Special Theory of Relativity, he claimed that space is not empty. So lets address a few of Billy's arguments here:

First off, for future reference, the Theory of Relativity has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with gravity. Now you know, Billy.

Second off, I said "when he wrote his theory," as in, as early as 1905 Einstein scoffed at this caricature of what a vacuum is.

But then Billy suddenly says something fascinating (and quite telling about his understanding of physics):

"Something he [Einstein] claimed in that theory was indeed proved wrong 50 years later with his Unified Field Theory."

Unified Field Theory? Holy shit... so Einstein created a Unified Field Theory in 1955 (the year he died). This is really interesting since today, in the year 2004, scientists are still struggling to create a Unified Field Theory, using String Theory and Quantum Physics. I guess we should inform these scientists Einstein already figured out the Unified Field Theory 49 years ago. It'll break their hearts.

Now, besides the fact that no one has ever been able to create a Unified Field Theory (something everyone who has studied even a little bit of physics knows), lets assume Einstein did write it in 1955 (which he didn't). Billy's claims "something he [Einstein] claimed in that theory was indeed proven wrong 50 years later with his Unified Field Theory."

This doesn't mean anything.

"Something" in "that theory" was "proven wrong" in "the Unified Field Theory" (lets pretend the UFT exists). Without Billy showing to you that that "something" equals the notion that matter exists in a vacuum, Billy's whole point is meaningless and irrelevant to this discussion. It just says something is wrong, I'm going to say that that "something" is not whether vacuum is empty or not. This point is irrelevant.


Now Billy mounts his final offense against space travel. He says that the theory that matter exists in a vacuum is just that, a theory, its never been proven. As he says, "The only problem is that no one has been able to figure out just how we might go about testing it. Einstein predicted that others would have difficulties to test his final theory. So therefore it is NOT fact, but it is THEORY."

However, thats not what I hear when I read Billy's own source, which he quotes at the top of his speech:

Quote:

---

This is not mere theorizing. In 1958 a tabletop experiment demonstrated the "Casimir effect," measuring the force caused by virtual particles appearing and vanishing in total vacuum through the attraction they caused between two parallel metal plates. If the vacuum were truly empty the plates should not have attracted, but the incessant dance of virtual particles in the space between them produces a detectable effect.

---

So Billy's own source shows to you that it is PROVEN that matter spontaneously appears and disappears in space. Therefore, there is matter in space. Also, I want you to note that Einstein's final theory was not neither the Special Theory of Relativity nor the General Theory of Relativity, so this whole point is irrelevant to begin with.



Now, here is one additional argument that I failed to bring up the first time around, and this is the one that puts the nail in the coffin for Billy's theory (which means Billy's coffin is privy to two nails).

Billy correctly (for once) points out to you that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. So lets imagine we're in a vacuum, if you throw an object in the opposite direction, just as much force as you applied to that object will be applied to you. In effect, if you’re at Point A and you throw the ball to the left, not only will the ball move to the left of Point A, but you will move to the right of it. This is the underlying theory of space travel:

When a rocket combusts fuel, it places matter (gas) into space. By pushing the matter one end, it pushes itself to the other end. Rocket engines throw mass in the form of high-pressure gases. As the engine throws the gas out in one direction it gets a reaction in the opposite direction. The mass is the weight of the fuel that the engine burns. This burning process then accelerates the mass of fuel so that it comes out of the rocket nozzle at high speeds. So if you burn a pound of rocket fuel, a pound of exhaust comes out the nozzle in the form of a high-temperature, high-velocity gas. The burning process accelerates the mass and, in doing so, accelerates the spacecraft.

Therefore, combusting fuel creates force in one direction that pushes you in the other direction. And that is what you need for space travel.

Note, by the way, that the fact that fuel turns from a solid or liquid into gas when it burns does not change its mass; the mass stays constant, its shape simply changes.


In the end, its pretty simple, Billy gave us some under-researched arguments based on his personal conjectures, but when we compared them to some hard-researched science, his theories failed to stand the test. Now that you've read this far three things are evident to you: first of all, it is possible to travel in space; second of all, man did land on the moon, there is no reason remaining for us to dispute that claim; and, finally, you can be a pimp and still know your physics.

Booya!

i can't believe this is even being debated. haha

interesting concept i guess--definitely a totally brand new one to me

definitely with mvplaya on this one. bravo. sorry i don't really have much to add on the subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MVPlaya

First off, I want you all to note, as I stated earlier, that Billy lacks concrete knowledge on this topic. When I brought forth the radio waves in my last speech, it wasn't to make Billy look bad, but it was to show to you that, despite his passion and avid "researching" of this topic, his knowledge of both space travel and physics are quite limited.

---

I believe I have already claimed this is how I work. I tell my beliefs and someone tries to prove me wrong, if I can contradict their statement at all then I dont take that info in as fact. But if I cannot prove you wrong, then obviously that will make you correct and I will then take it in as a fact learned and I will admit defeat. So stop trying to make me look bad or tell people that I dont have concrete proof, because this was one of my very first statements about my kind of debates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MVPlaya

Now, before I answer the few points he makes, I want you to look at what he completely fails to respond to:

1. Firstly, he doesn't address propulsion is possible in space. He originally claimed there is no air in space so no fire can occur, however, I pointed out you can bring an oxygen tank. My analysis is pretty simple, sensible, and sound; so I'm sure he concedes this point, since his only offense left standing is "space is empty."
   
   
2. Second, he never addresses the point about sattelites. If Billy's point that no propulsion can occur in space is true, then no sattelite would be able to propel itself. The implications are simple, this means our entire Geographic Information Systems, our Global Communication Sattelites, and our Geographic Weather Sattelites are part of a giant international government conspiracy. Since these sattelites operate inside a vacuum, something must ensure that earth's gravity doesn't pull them into our atmosphere (and destroy them in the process). That something is thrust, its space travel, and its alive and well. If Billy can't disprove this to you, then there's no real need for me to prove the viability of space travel. Why argue whether a bee can scientifically fly when there's one in front of you?

---

1) I again have already made the statement many posts ago about a oxygen source (i.e. oxygen tank) on the ship. I said even if they had this then there would be fire, but still nothing for the fire to propel against. Read all of my posts before you knock me.

2) Satalites do not need a thrust to manuvure thru space. They sit in a stationary spot in relativity to the earth. In deed these things are moving thru space. They are in orbit, much like the moon. The gravity is pulling on the satalites, yes, but they are specifically designed and positioned so that the amount of gravity will not pull them down, they will in fact orbit the earth. Thus meaning there is no need for the satalites to have any use for thrust because satalites stay in a relatively fixed position to the earth in space.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MVPlaya

Nonetheless, I'll tackle the points he made, and, in doing so, prove to you that space travel is alive and possible:

Firstly, one contentious issue in this debate is whether space is empty. Billy claims that there is nothing inside space that causes either friction or an opposing force that would allow for the propulsion needed by space travel to occur. However, I tell you that matter spontaneously comes in and out of existence in a vacuum.

Billy responds to this by showing a link to a source of some sort and exhuberantly states, "There is no MASS in space."

However, Billy's own source (which I'm not sure if he even read), not only fails to prove Billy's point, but it claims the exact opposite:

Therefore, we can see that vacuum is not empty. In fact, it is a live and well with particles that come in and out of existence. Furthermore, as I stated, there are countless larger molecular forms in space, space is filled with debris, flying astroids, magnetic gas clouds, and the likes. A vacuum is not empty.

---

It has been proven in other theories that particles (atmos, mass, etc etc - whatever you want to call it) cannot be created from nothing and cannot be destroyed - only manipulated chemically or physically. Basic High School Chemistry I can tell you this. So there for your theory of "matter spontaneously comes in and out of existence in a vacuum" is wrong.

And yes there are larger things, such as astroids, gas clouds. etc etc. these things are irrelevant to our discusion. By you saying this, that means that a ship would have to be flying thru a gas cloud to be able to manuvure ? Would it have to come up to an astroid and bounce off of it ? Why mention things irrelevant things ? We all already know they exist. I am talking about matter that is in between everything else. the part of space that takes up 99.99999% of space. There is nothing there. No mass to use for propeltion or thruthing or manuvering. nothing. Impossible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MVPlaya

Lets move on...

Now, I tell you that as early as 1905, when Einstein was writing his Special Theory of Relativity, he claimed that space is not empty. So lets address a few of Billy's arguments here:

First off, for future reference, the Theory of Relativity has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with gravity. Now you know, Billy.

---

[url]http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/relativity.php[/url]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MVPlaya

Second off, I said "when he wrote his theory," as in, as early as 1905 Einstein scoffed at this caricature of what a vacuum is.

But then Billy suddenly says something fascinating (and quite telling about his understanding of physics):

"Something he [Einstein] claimed in that theory was indeed proved wrong 50 years later with his Unified Field Theory."

---

[url]http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2002-10/msg0044425.html[/url]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MVPlaya

Unified Field Theory? Holy shit... so Einstein created a Unified Field Theory in 1955 (the year he died). This is really interesting since today, in the year 2004, scientists are still struggling to create a Unified Field Theory, using String Theory and Quantum Physics. I guess we should inform these scientists Einstein already figured out the Unified Field Theory 49 years ago. It'll break their hearts.

---

He figured it out "approximately" 50 years later - even you said it yourself "half a century later"... Geesus dude. And he DID figure it out, but no one can understand his work to this day, and thus far are unable to test it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MVPlaya

Now, besides the fact that no one has ever been able to create a Unified Field Theory (something everyone who has studied even a little bit of physics knows), lets assume Einstein did write it in 1955 (which he didn't). Billy's claims "something he [Einstein] claimed in that theory was indeed proven wrong 50 years later with his Unified Field Theory."

This doesn't mean anything.

"Something" in "that theory" was "proven wrong" in "the Unified Field Theory" (lets pretend the UFT exists). Without Billy showing to you that that "something" equals the notion that matter exists in a vacuum, Billy's whole point is meaningless and irrelevant to this discussion. It just says something is wrong, I'm going to say that that "something" is not whether vacuum is empty or not. This point is irrelevant.


Now Billy mounts his final offense against space travel. He says that the theory that matter exists in a vacuum is just that, a theory, its never been proven. As he says, "The only problem is that no one has been able to figure out just how we might go about testing it. Einstein predicted that others would have difficulties to test his final theory. So therefore it is NOT fact, but it is THEORY."

However, thats not what I hear when I read Billy's own source, which he quotes at the top of his speech:

So Billy's own source shows to you that it is PROVEN that matter spontaneously appears and disappears in space. Therefore, there is matter in space. Also, I want you to note that Einstein's final theory was not neither the Special Theory of Relativity nor the General Theory of Relativity, so this whole point is irrelevant to begin with.

---

blah - i am not good with physics - never in my life have i ever looked at it before last night. But damn i learned alot. its worth more looking into for me. But as I said, eistien did figure out that unified field theory, but no one is able to test it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MVPlaya

Now, here is one additional argument that I failed to bring up the first time around, and this is the one that puts the nail in the coffin for Billy's theory (which means Billy's coffin is privy to two nails).

Billy correctly (for once) points out to you that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. So lets imagine we're in a vacuum, if you throw an object in the opposite direction, just as much force as you applied to that object will be applied to you. In effect, if you’re at Point A and you throw the ball to the left, not only will the ball move to the left of Point A, but you will move to the right of it. This is the underlying theory of space travel:

When a rocket combusts fuel, it places matter (gas) into space. By pushing the matter one end, it pushes itself to the other end. Rocket engines throw mass in the form of high-pressure gases. As the engine throws the gas out in one direction it gets a reaction in the opposite direction. The mass is the weight of the fuel that the engine burns. This burning process then accelerates the mass of fuel so that it comes out of the rocket nozzle at high speeds. So if you burn a pound of rocket fuel, a pound of exhaust comes out the nozzle in the form of a high-temperature, high-velocity gas. The burning process accelerates the mass and, in doing so, accelerates the spacecraft.

Therefore, combusting fuel creates force in one direction that pushes you in the other direction. And that is what you need for space travel.

Note, by the way, that the fact that fuel turns from a solid or liquid into gas when it burns does not change its mass; the mass stays constant, its shape simply changes.


In the end, its pretty simple, Billy gave us some under-researched arguments based on his personal conjectures, but when we compared them to some hard-researched science, his theories failed to stand the test. Now that you've read this far three things are evident to you: first of all, it is possible to travel in space; second of all, man did land on the moon, there is no reason remaining for us to dispute that claim; and, finally, you can be a pimp and still know your physics.

Booya!

---

The gas is burned and creates a fire. This fire is producing heat. The heat should then push against something in space. I see where you are going with this. And it would sooo work, if there wasnt a damn flame to chemically change the fuel to a heat source. You cant push off of heat. But if they shot out the gas it would so work. At least to some point.

But as you said, they have oxygen tanks that eject oxygen into the flames to feed the flames which are burning the fuel from the tanks to create heat (which in the earth's atmospher WOULD cause momentum) but in space this is nothing. Space is empty so there is nothing to heat up, and there is nothing to push off of, and heat is irrelevant in space because it doesnt exist.

---

NOTE: I just skimmed over your post in about a 10 minute time span because I am at work. You will have to let me go back and re read this later tonight and maybe catch some things you said that I didnt see this time around.

Until then, good day.

*bows and walks away*

ring ring ring ring ring ring ring....banana phone

wtf is a banana phone ?

that was the funniest banana thing ive ever seen! I have had that damn tune stuck in my head for the last few days!

I said it before and I'll say this again: Billy doesn't know what he's talking about. He makes countless assumptions that he never bothers to research and just goes around asserting stuff, forcing me to correct him over and over. His knowledge on this topic is very limited. I want you to remember that when he goes around making blank assertions. Now, I'm all for a public forum style debate where people debate common knowledge, but Billy, you would have really improved the quality of this debate by researching it beforehand.


Lets go to the dropped arguments first, which he hurriedly tries to address:

1. Oxygen tanks: Billy concedes that oxygen tanks can be taken, good, you all learned something new: oxygen tanks exist. And Billy, you originally said its a possibility, you could have researched to make sure.
   
   
2. Sattelites: Billy assumes sattelites can just magically stay in the sky. Sattelites are in space, no matter how they are designed, they can't flap their wings to stay up in the air. Gravity pulls them in. Now, you say that they are in a spot relative to the earth? Thats only for "geostationary" sattelites. Most army satellites are designed to cross the earth.
   
   But hey, since Billy's knowledge on this is limited to his high school chemistry days, here's a website designed for high schoolers on Geostationary sattelites:
   
   From [url=http://www.howstuffworks.com/]HowStuffWorks.com[/url]:
   
   Quote:

   ---

   Satellites usually start out in an orbit that is elliptical. The ground control station controls small onboard rocket motors to provide correction. The goal is to get the orbit as circular as possible. By firing a rocket when the orbit is at the apogee of its orbit (its most distant point from Earth), and applying thrust in the direction of the flight path, the perigee (lowest point from Earth) moves further out. The result is a more circular orbit.

   ---

   Now you know, sattelites use thrusters. And aside from that, Billy, there is no point where you magically stay in orbit, a space craft will always be pulled in, and when your that close to earth like space craft are, that gives you a very short lifespan. Thats why satellites have thrusters.

Now, lets address whether matter can be spontaneously created in space.


First of all, I want you to remember that Billy's OWN SOURCE not only agrees with me on this point but states that it is scientifically proven. Sorry Billy, you lose. Billy then tries to claim, "oh, my basic knowledge of high school chemistry from over a decade ago doesn't think so, so I win." No. You lose.

But for fun, lets address his "basic knowledge of high school chemistry from over a decade ago": the theory Billy refers to is the First Law of Thermodynamics, study it, since it can only be applied to a closed system, where nothing can enter or exit. Unless you know whether space is open or closed, you can't make that call. I actually found a link that explains it to you:

[url=http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae332.cfm]The First Law of Thermodynamics v. Quantum Physics[/url]

It addressed your point perfectly:

Quote:

---

In the macroscopic world, the domain of ‘classical’ physics, the laws of thermodynamics are, and have always been, true.

However, on the quantum scale, it is a very different matter. Heisenberg’s uncertainty states that there will always be a level of uncertainty when you try to make measurements of particles and other quantum scale occurrences. You can never know everything about a particle’s position and motion at any one time. This is an intrinsic uncertainty, it is not due to limitations on our measuring devices. This uncertainty of the energy of anything of the Planck scale is size allows some very bizarre phenomena to occur.

To us, vacuums appear to contain nothing at all. But, it you were to look closely, very, very closely (to the order of 10^-35m), space is actually a foaming mass of quantum activity. This quantum foam is made of particles and micro-black holes popping in and out of existence, apparently in contravention of the second law of thermodynamics, they appear out of nothing with energy, then disappear again just as quickly. The key to this is the uncertainty principle. The disturbance is permitted to ‘borrow’ a tiny amount of energy and exist for a very short length of time, and then it must return the energy and disappear again. But, the more energy it borrows, the less time it is allowed to exist. These ‘temporary’ particles, called virtual particles, are not just theoretical, they have been proven to have real effects on scientific experiment.

---

Get it? First off, the laws of thermodynamics don't apply to the quantum level. Which makes sense, since quantum activity was unknown when the theory was made in the 1800's. Second of all, it doesn't violate the tenet that matter can't be created or destroyed, just like negative energy, these particles come into existence until they are cancelled out by anti-particles. Its like borrowing something, you can't create money (well, counterfeiters can), but you can borrow money and pay it back. Same with these particles, they can come into existence and be cancelled out again. And third of all, this source says that the phenomenon is proven, just like Billy's own source did --- You know have expert testimony and two scientific proofs to weigh against Billy's outdated knowledge.

According to Billy, "I am talking about matter that is in between everything else. the part of space that takes up 99.99999% of space. There is nothing there. No mass to use for propeltion or thruthing or manuvering. nothing. Impossible." Says who? Oh yeah, you say it. Well, your source disagrees, I disagree, Scientific American disagrees, Einstein disagrees, anyone who has taken a upper division course on physics disagrees. So: no.

On the topic of Unified Field Theory: No, Einstein never figured it out. Never. As in: At no point in history. Einstein's goal was to create the Unified Field Theory but he died trying. He spent 30 years trying to create it and never succeeded. That source you linked to just mentions UFT and Einstein, it doesn't say he created it, read the source before linking it.

So, at this point, it is real clear: matter comes in and out of exitence in space. C'mon: weigh it out, you have Einstein saying it, you have Billy's own source saying it, you have scientific proof of the phenomenon, on the other hand, you have Billy's assumption about what he remembers from high school chemistry, and even that assumption 1) doesn't apply to quantum physics and 2) doesn't disprove it either.

At this point its clear, there is matter in space, a vacuum is not empty.


But here is the key argument, how rockets work. This is real simple, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

The concept is simple, for a space craft to move forward, something must move backwards, that something is the fuel. The spacecraft burns the fuel, which causes it to eject in the form of gas at a high velocity. By forcing the gas out at a high velocity, an enormous amount of pressure is applied onto the ship that propels it forward.

Billy tries to respond:

1. Quote:

   ---

   The gas is burned and creates a fire. This fire is producing heat. The heat should then push against something in space. I see where you are going with this. And it would sooo work, if there wasnt a damn flame to chemically change the fuel to a heat source. You cant push off of heat. But if they shot out the gas it would so work. At least to some point.

   ---

   Uhm... no. Like you said, matter can't be created or destroyed. What happens when you burn wood, does it disappear and turn into heat? No, the carbon chemicals are heated and turn into gas. Same with space travel, you have rocket fuel and liquid oxygen, you burn these and they turn into gases. So, when they heat it, they are still ejecting the same mass, except they are not ejecting it as a liquid but as a gas.
   
   I even clarified this for you because I know you're bad with physics:
   
   "Note, by the way, that the fact that fuel turns from a solid or liquid into gas when it burns does not change its mass; the mass stays constant, its shape simply changes."
   
   Get it? You're still throwing it out. You're not creating heat, you are heating an object and turning it into gas. Even basic high school chemistry would teach you that.
   
   
2. Quote:

   ---

   But as you said, they have oxygen tanks that eject oxygen into the flames to feed the flames which are burning the fuel from the tanks to create heat (which in the earth's atmospher WOULD cause momentum) but in space this is nothing. Space is empty so there is nothing to heat up, and there is nothing to push off of, and heat is irrelevant in space because it doesnt exist.

   ---

   First of all, this whole point is useless to begin with, since its based on the flawed assumption that burning causes objects to magically disappear. But to educate Billy: heat doesn't create momentum, buddy. You can't heat something up and have it propel forward in any meaningful way. Furthermore, the spacecraft ejects mass into space, that can heat up. And there are particles in space.

In the end, it is real clear: Billy doesn't have any arguments left standing. I have proven to you that his theories are wrong, I have shown to you that space travel is wholly possible, and we now have no reason to dispute the countless video tapes, the plethora of evidence and testimony, and thousands of scientists who are working hard every day to make sure that we can [url=http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040720/us_nm/space_moon_dc_10]return to the moon[/url] once again.

Yeah, I'm going to call the debate... the winner is: MVPlaya.

Sorry Billy, outdated knowledge from high school chemistry doesn't make you knowledgeable... prepare better next time:

Funny lines from Billy

1. Quote:

   ---

   Know your facts before you try to knock me.

   ---

2. Quote:

   ---

   Now lets see what else we can prove wrong about my beliefs. Or should I say let you try.

   ---

3. Quote:

   ---

   *bows and walks away*

   ---

Your egomania would've been cool if you didn't get spanked like a Catholic school girl.

If anyone else ever wants to debate, do some research beforehand, correcting people is really boring and offers no challenge whatsoever.

Bravo ! Bravo !! :D

MVPlaya is by far declared the winner of that debate. But I know a little secret all of you DONT know.

I never believed we never went to the moon. I knew it the whole time. This is what I like to call "reverse debating". The only reason I do it is because when you attack someone's belief or you try to prove them wrong, they will get more into the debate and bring forth more knowledgable facts. And even some people will go out and do research up on the material covered so that they can further prove themselves.

MVP so went for the bait and ran with it. This has been an overall great experience for me. I found out alot of things that I did not know about this issue, but yet I still knew that space travel was possible.

The reasons I do debates like these, seriously, is to get people thinking. Even if your just a bystander and not in on the debate, you will get to thinking. And everyone will end up learning from the experience.

The reason I picked the topic of "we never landed on the moon" is because there really are stupid people that believe in that crap out there and there arguments stand strong, but with enough research, can be proven wrong. This makes it easier for me to bring forth the "facts" that these believers use in there arguments. For an everyday person it is hard to dispove these "facts" because they are strong and are based on strong facts. But with a bit of research, or knowledge, one could easily prove this way of thinking wrong.

I hope I did not upset anyone in any way with this debate, but I think it is well worth it. Everyone has learn at least one thing with this debate. I know I have learn a small portion of physics with it because i had to do alot of reasearch to find crap to "prove" the "no land on moon" theory. MVP gave me a run for my money with this one and it was not expected.

But I have to take your winner status away MVP, for you didn't win. Neither did I, in fact. But we have all walked away winners today because we all learned something.

Now if anyone else wants to start a new debate - please do. I LOVE debates. If no one can come up with one within 2 weeks from this post, then I will come back with another "reverse debate". :D Or maybe I will come back with a real debate with my true feelings for the subject - I will have to suprise you all ;):D

It was good debating, just research it this time though ;)

MVP = 1, Billy = 0.

I'd like to see more of a debate, maybe this time something more interesting that other people can jump in too. Since Billy thought up this one maybe MVP can think up the next topic. Let the spanking ensue.

Pourquoi pas?

Billy, we could debate a policy. I can propose whether the government should do something, and then the two of us can debate whether its a good idea or not. I prefer to debate something about international relations.