The Impossibility of Space Travel. EVER.

[aSHIFT.]

I haven't been keeping up with the latest and greatest outcomes of the conspie sphere, but I have not come across others who reject the possibility of Space Travel EVER as a principle.

Years ago, when the Fakeologist Discord was still a place of truth seekers and not of narrative pushing megalomaniacs, with Geris we held multiple podcasts, but one of my favorites is FAC 602, therefore linked at Fakeopedia.

In this thread I want to collect the strongest, most holistic, least affected by carnies points that support my thesis,

1. Holistically - whatever Space is, whatever it would be, it is UNKNOWN and UNCERTAIN. No matter how you slice it, that is what it is. Every EXTRA factor, previously not considered, is an extra barrier to the narrative (the possibility of space travel). Think about anything else that works like that and still needs to succeed. Full success, meaning that you as a space traveler, need to overcome ALL the obstacles, it cannot be that there is one unaccounted for, cause that is not how nature works. You cannot just choose that a forest is NOT on fire, while in actuality it is and you need to traverse it...

2. Thermodynamics/PhysioChemically - the combination of chemistry and physics is needed, while NASA and buddies present a case of pure physical behavior, mechanical, pressure is the only factor. This is wrong, because according to the model, the temperatures in Space are nearing absolute zero. At those conditions, physics becomes strange and chemistry is needed also.

For instance, according to the phase diagrams we can make based on measurable observations (laboratories),

GAS DOES NOT EXIST at near-zero temperatures.

So if you present to us a story, a narrative, that you can send thingies into space, using gas, that cannot be true. Or the temperatures are much higher, but that is not the model presented to us. You cannot eat your cake and feed the rest of the world also with it....

3. Gravity - I don't care about "gravity deniers", they can measure little g for themselves and conclude that it's not constant. But what it means is that one must overcome the gravitational pull of Earth (and Moon and any other celestial object having such effects).

How can that happen? How can any species (not just mankind, the Impossibility of Space Travel. EVER. is for all extraterrestrial species the same) create a force that is stronger than the Forces of the Cosmos? Stronger than an 10^23 kg heavy object, or what is the supposed mass of Earth, of force on the other side?

Preposterous.

Add your own insights to this thread!

It is not "technology" or "how advanced a civilization" is, that stops us from going into Space.
It is the Laws of Nature herself that decide that for us. And extraterrestrial others.

[pasterno]

It's funny that you mention this, as I was discussing this topic with a friend yesterday.

Here's how I see it, looking beyond Earth:

- The Moon is fascinating. Many women sync their ovulation with the full moon.
- A full moon often causes restless nights.
- We only ever see one side of the Moon, as it rotates in perfect unison with the Earth - astonishing!
- The Moon's position influences ocean tides.
- The Sun is a source of happiness and energy. Some modernists attribute this to vitamin D, but I'm skeptical.
- Our interaction with 'space' is limited to observation. Occasionally, we see shooting stars.
- Witnessing a sunrise is a marvelous experience.
- These phenomena are observable in our lives and those around us, independent of 'faith.

Regarding space, I believe we know very little. Anything we send up, like a rocket, eventually comes down. Beyond 10 kilometers up, conditions become inhospitable. For example, on Mount Everest, we need supplemental oxygen, and even then, a quick descent is necessary.

We can reach up to 20 or 40 kilometers with balloons or rockets, but that's incredibly close to Earth - just a thin layer.

Similarly, our exploration into the Earth's crust is minimal, barely 10 kilometers deep, whether under the sea or through drilling. It's barely scratching the surface.

It seems we are bound to this planet.

In terms of modeling, we can predict the movements of the Earth, Moon, Sun, and stars. While fascinating, these are just models - human constructs, imaginative predictions. I think the modern 'scientists' are arrogant and deceiving. It's like those people in the UN who think they can create a global, governable body. Man can model, but man's understanding is just a little slice of reality.

From my perspective, we've only slightly impacted the Earth and barely extended into space. We're confined here, together, for an average of 80 years. The celestial bodies exert a mystical influence on our lives, an influence often dismissed or mocked, even in religious contexts.

As a Catholic, I've noticed that the lunar cycle and the Sun don't play significant roles in the Bible. Moon worship, practiced in neighboring cultures, was prohibited in Israel. Deuteronomy 4:19, for instance, cautions against worshipping celestial bodies.

I adopt a somewhat mystical stance to understand these phenomena. Without this perspective, we get lost in concepts like gravity, temperature, and vacuum.

I think the modern "scientists" are deeply arrogant, dumb and deceiving. It's like those people in the UN that think that can created a global governable body. Really? Let's see. Man can model, but man's understanding is just a little slice of the eality. Humility would be good.

Modernists claim that beyond Earth, there's a perfectly predictable world, hence satellites can orbit flawlessly for decades.

I question the existence of satellites and rocket ships, considering them illusions perpetuated by those in power.

I recommend simply marveling at the Moon for ten minutes tonight and enjoying a sunrise soon. There's beauty in these simple acts.

I haven't delved deeply into this, but I sense an inversion in everything. For instance, the entire universe might be discoverable in a single cell, if we could zoom in indefinitely.

We are largely ignorant about the universe and the Earth.

A fitting perception, I believe, is to acknowledge God's greatness and embrace the mystery.

[Grand Illusion]

As a Catholic, I've noticed that the lunar cycle and the Sun don't play significant roles in the Bible. Moon worship, practiced in neighboring cultures, was prohibited in Israel. Deuteronomy 4:19, for instance, cautions against worshipping celestial bodies.

I was raised Catholic going through all rituals but then I finally broke out of it and realized something smelled fishy about the religion and all religions.

The way I look at anything forbidden in the Bible, is that it's really an advertisement to people about a behavior or idea that doesn't come natural to humans. The idea of worshiping the moon being forbidden would make people aware of something Pagan that they didn't realize. Then forbidding somebody to do something has a psychological effect (trick?) on the mind to make people want to do it more.

We see this with homosexuality in the bible. It's forbidden, but why does it need to be forbidden? It's a learned behavior. It doesn't come naturally to people. It's sourced from some demonic energy or entity that feeds off of the behavior. When you forbid people to do it, they become hip to the idea and the restriction part makes people want to do what is taboo.

[pasterno]

-

[pasterno]

As a Catholic, I've noticed that the lunar cycle and the Sun don't play significant roles in the Bible. Moon worship, practiced in neighboring cultures, was prohibited in Israel. Deuteronomy 4:19, for instance, cautions against worshipping celestial bodies.

I was raised Catholic going through all rituals but then I finally broke out of it and realized something smelled fishy about the religion and all religions.

The way I look at anything forbidden in the Bible, is that it's really an advertisement to people about a behavior or idea that doesn't come natural to humans. The idea of worshiping the moon being forbidden would make people aware of something Pagan that they didn't realize. Then forbidding somebody to do something has a psychological effect (trick?) on the mind to make people want to do it more.

We see this with homosexuality in the bible. It's forbidden, but why does it need to be forbidden? It's a learned behavior. It doesn't come naturally to people. It's sourced from some demonic energy or entity that feeds off of the behavior. When you forbid people to do it, they become hip to the idea and the restriction part makes people want to do what is taboo.

How I see it.

It's not forbidden to look and feel awe in the moon, especially in the old texts, for instance psalm 8:3-4 says, "When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have ordained; What is man that You are mindful of him, and the son of man that You visit him?"
Psalm 104:19: "He made the moon to mark the seasons; the sun knows its time for setting."
Psalm 136:9: "The moon and stars to rule over the night, for his steadfast love endures forever."

It's just that God is greatest, not the moon.

I think we are all born with sin, some sexual, some others, we can discern on sin is by the energy, is it calm and loving?
Many of those in the fake "conservative" or "progressive" slave camp battle all day about gay people wether it's sin or no sin.
While every day I hear at least 2 persons use God's name in vain.

Modern society is tricking us in obsession. And many walked away from God for one of these (in my opinion devilish) obsessions.

I don't think "the bible" forbids anything, that's just in society, there is just the law of God, and we all have the freedom to break it or not, and we should just be willing to face the consequences, which I believe will follow in some kind of form.

God's love and forgiveness is greater than any man can have; when I see some fellow Catholics going on and on about abortion / gay people, I always get a bit disgusted, it's the mind reducing God to 2 sins and throwing the rest of his wisdom and love away.

Anyhow maybe the natural phenomena like the moon should just be seen as described in the Psalms. Seems logical to me.

Anyhow, I think we will never get to "space"

[PotatoFieldsForever]

Personally, I don't believe in the existence of space.

However, if such environment existed, would space travel be possible ?

First, I don't think the temperature would be a problem since out of the 3 methods of transfer of heat, only radiation would be possible due to the vacuum. What's the temperature of a vacuum anyway ?

I don't think the gravity allegedly caused by the mass of the Earth would be a problem because they made sure that even an object as massive as the Earth in their model wouldn't produce a big gravity force and we know multiple methods to generate a force that would counterbalance the gravity force. However, in vacuum, it seems trickier to achieve, they use Newton's third law as an explanation but the way I see it, once you put the fuel in contact with the vacuum, it would almost instantly expand into the vacuum of space and the spaceship is not pushing the gas, it leaves on its own.

There are also the solar radiations but since only NASA can measure those, they can tell you that the levels are safe or could be mitigated if it fits their narrative.

I still think the vacuum would be the biggest issue, any impact on the spaceship could be deadly.

[aSHIFT.]

Great to read so many good points and arguments.

This

As a Catholic, I've noticed that the lunar cycle and the Sun don't play significant roles in the Bible. Moon worship, practiced in neighboring cultures, was prohibited in Israel. Deuteronomy 4:19, for instance, cautions against worshipping celestial bodies.

I didn't know. I thought the Jewish calendar is a lunisolar one, just like the Muisca calendar and others, while indeed our calendar is solar-dominated. But interesting to read there was so much opposition to the Moon or her involvement in timekeeping.

I think mountaineering is an excellent analogy for space travel.

Because of the enormous challenges, the highest we can walk, and because it opens the door for all kinds of other analogies.

I used in the past the one that a NASA narrative of 100% success in a 1000% hostile environment

is like someone telling you they know someone who climbed Everest without arms and legs.

Like any sane human being knows that cannot happen.

"but we have photos, videos, everything!"

Eh yes
A) they do not support your story
B) they actually go against your story

The idea that mankind would overpower such enormous natural forces, and then on top of that all the other EXTRA, previously unknown forces, is just so absurd, already from a conceptual stance.

Human exploration ALWAYS has errors, mistakes, things going wrong.

I have done hikes, but I wouldn't call myself a hiker or so, but with any hike, walk, exploration beyond that what you know, there are always, but literally always unforeseen circumstances.

Except in space travel. There it seems the natural laws of entropy (not really, but the accumulation of "mistakes" leading to chaos) do not apply. Space travel is always successful. Even in the scripted movie story of Apollo 13.

That is not real exploration, simply because things go wrong. Real exploration has many victims. Not a 100% success story, that only happens in movies.

[pasterno]

I like the mountaineering analogy.

They say that beyond a certain altitude, climbers break through a barrier, entering a realm where everything becomes perfect, closer to the essence. This concept resonates deeply with the journey of astronauts. Near Earth, the risks are tangible - the pull of gravity, the threat of the unknown, the mechanical and human errors. But, as they ascend and 'break through' the Earth's atmospheric layer, a transformation occurs.

In the vast, silent expanse of space, everything becomes serene and predictable. Astronauts float and chill in the vacuum, their laughter echoing in the confines of their spacecraft. They play with water droplets, perform weightless somersaults, and experience a sense of freedom unattainable on Earth. In this environment, traditional risks and fears dissipate, and a new sense of peace and predictability takes hold.

This experience transcends physical exploration; it's a spiritual journey, a modern portrayal of heaven. Free from Earth's gravity, astronauts feel as light as feathers, unburdened by worldly concerns. They find joy in simple acts and even connect with Earth in profound ways, like conducting interviews with school classes, sharing their unique experiences from a perspective that few will ever know.

In this celestial voyage, space becomes more than a physical location; it symbolizes a heavenly state of being. It's a place where the soul is unshackled from earthly constraints, where the mind can wander freely across the universe, and where the heart can experience the purest form of joy and wonder.

This portrayal of space travel as a spiritual odyssey offers a seduction into a realm where the human spirit, unbound by physical limitations, can attain a state of celestial bliss - a metaphorical heaven that lies not in God, but in "The Science".

[pasterno]

Of course, the idealized notion of space is a fallacy, one that the majority of mankind chooses to believe.

The higher we ascend, the more inhospitable and harsh the environment will become. In reality, exposure to space's true conditions would be instantly fatal. Yet, no one seems eager to acknowledge this truth.

Our collective conception of space is one of the foundational elements of (post)modernism. In my view, space is among the things that truly matter, but not in the way many think. It serves as a symbol of heaven, a part of a broader tapestry of beliefs that shape our worldview:

- Space, symbolizing heaven.
- The recognition of absolute evil, epitomized by figures like Hitler, representing the devil and the imperative to combat such forces.
- The aspiration for peace on Earth, as a manifestation of God's love.
- Extreme weather events, interpreted as signs of God's wrath.
- The drive to reduce CO2 emissions, seen as a testament to living a virtuous life under God's grace.

The profound issue lies in humanity's dedication to this secular faith. Most perceive these symbolic interpretations as tangible realities. Challenging these beliefs is often met with aggression, akin to blasphemy.

In my opinion, these are the central themes of 'fakeology'— current events, like the so-called fake Gaza-Israel conflict, are merely instruments to sanctify the yearning for global peace. They compel us to metaphorically kneel and pray, 'Please, UN, keep us safe! Grant us peace on Earth!'

And when they seemingly grant this peace in a few years, even if momentarily, we applaud and praise our leaders, who we believe love us dearly. It's a cycle of gratitude towards these perceived benevolent figures.

Thank you, our lords!

And we will build statues for them, next to Mandela and Gandhi and Churchill and all those benevolent billionaires who built museums and schools, just because they love us.

[PotatoFieldsForever]

There is also an association between space and dreams, exploring new worlds, going for an adventure. In movies, they often put the crew in a hibernation state during long space travel so in a sense, to reach these new places, they have to sleep.

Only in his dreams, could Man set foot on the moon.