It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship

Markjo27000: LOL! Nice try.

Knew YOU couldn't do it.

Of course I could, but I chose not to waste my effort throwing pearls before a swine.

Yes, markjo27000; OF COURSE you could...

LOL!

Quote from: Papa Legba on May 18, 2015, 01:02:29 PM

Markjo27000: LOL! Nice try.

Knew YOU couldn't do it.

Of course I could, but I chose not to waste my effort throwing pearls before a swine.

I would have thought you'd jump at the chance to point out the errors in space adventure disbelievers. But instead you've decided to say...

nothing.

Very clever, markjo. Bravo.

Remember what I said about NASA breaking ALL the laws of physics, markjo27000?

Or have you not learnt what the word 'ALL' means yet, Mr. High&Mighty Happy-Fascist?

Take your time....

Quote from: markjo on May 18, 2015, 01:07:28 PM

Quote from: Papa Legba on May 18, 2015, 01:02:29 PM

Markjo27000: LOL! Nice try.

Knew YOU couldn't do it.

Of course I could, but I chose not to waste my effort throwing pearls before a swine.

I would have thought you'd jump at the chance to point out the errors in space adventure disbelievers.

Normally, I would.  However, Papa has demonstrated time and time again that he is not interested in anything that anyone has to say, so why should I bother wasting my time indulging him?

markjo: Computer, what do I say to non-believers who bring up Newtons laws?

computer: Tell them about how the rocket exhaust pushes the rocket along.

markjo: Goddammit! They already know that's complete bollocks!

computer: Tell them you wouldn't throw pearls before a swine.

markjo: Thanks. That might work...

Ah, forget markjo; I hate him anyway.

Good riddance.

Surely someone else here can debunk my obvious troll-post though?

I mean, how hard can it be? You got every 'rocket-scientist' in the world backing you up...

Wait! Don't tell me Santa ain't real after all?

Oh, no!









LOL!!!!!

Surely someone else here can debunk my obvious troll-post though?

What would the point be? You're not even entertaining.
(I'll give you a start though: the rocket fuel is not physically part of the rocket, it is separate).

In fact, it is the man's ARM, in throwing (i.e. imparting THRUST upon) the ball, that represents the exhaust; whilst the BALL represents an external mass such as the atmosphere.

no, the ball represents the exhaust. the atmosphere represents the atmosphere.

Good evening & shut up.

For Lo! It is I; Papa Legba, returned in all my splendiferous eloquence, armed with a mighty Staff - made of Truth & the size of a House - that none but I can wield...

LOL, as if you have any splendiferous eloquence and tell the truth.

NASA explain their model of how rockets work via the following Analogy: A man stands on a skateboard, holding a medicine ball.

The skateboard represents the rocket, the man represents the rocket motor, the ball represents the rocket exhaust.

When the man throws the ball, he travels backwards; this represents the rocket throwing the exhaust mass, thus producing an action-reaction pair according to Newton's 3rd.

However, this is FALSE.

In fact, it is the man's ARM, in throwing (i.e. imparting THRUST upon) the ball, that represents the exhaust; whilst the BALL represents an external mass such as the atmosphere.

If that's the case then thy to move a skate board by moving your hand in a throwing motion.  It won't work unless you throw the ball.

Thus, we see the true placement of the action-reaction, Newton's 3rd, pairing is between Exhaust & External mass, NOT between Exhaust & Rocket motor; in fact the latter makes no sense whatsoever if considered logically.

Want more proof? Imagine the man & his ball suspended from a rope, so he throws the ball DOWNWARDS (after all, rockets travel vertically do they not?).

Rockets work the same no matter what direction they face.

When he does so, little effect will be seen, yet lower him so that his ARMS can touch the MASS of the ground & he will be able to THRUST himself up, producing LIFT.

That's because throwing a medicine ball does not produce enough lift to lift you off the ground.  It will produce vertical thrust, but it's canceled out by gravity.  If his arms touch the ground then that's one way he can propel himself, but that doesn't disprove any other propulsion methods.

Ergo: rockets require an outside mass in order to function, so cannot work in a vacuum.

Space travel is a physical impossibility.

I have launched model rockets myself and they work, in fact I can calculate their exact thrust using Newtonian laws of motion.

You can howl, nitpick, cry, abuse, deride; but whatever you try, nothing will change that.

I can probably quote 100 instances where flat earthers cherry pick evidence, 2 of which are linked in my forum signature.  I bet you can't tell me one instance where a round earther ignores evidence.

Just remember the immortal words of the great Stanley Laurel: 'You can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be led'.

What are YOU, space-cultists?

Horses?

Or Pencils?

That analogy makes no sense.

So mikeman.nasa.cult; now you have launched rockets into space?

Or did you just launch them within earth's atmosphere, where, as I stated, they have an outside mass to thrust against?

Thus proving NOTHING.

As for Mr. Laurel's profound statement; it makes just as much sense as NASA's rocketry-FAIL analogy.

But is far funnier...

Everyone else: the medicine ball represents a MASS, against which the man's arm, which represents the rocket's exhaust column, THRUSTS, thus producing an action/reaction pairing.

It's not hard; you can do it...

The doorway is open.

Yet, inevitably, you will prefer to descend into reductio ad absurdum than to face the truth.

Because you are insane.

So mikeman.nasa.cult; now you have launched rockets into space?

Or did you just launch them within earth's atmosphere, where, as I stated, they have an outside mass to thrust against?

Thus proving NOTHING.

As for Mr. Laurel's profound statement; it makes just as much sense as NASA's rocketry-FAIL analogy.

But is far funnier...

Everyone else: the medicine ball represents a MASS, against which the man's arm, which represents the rocket's exhaust column, THRUSTS, thus producing an action/reaction pairing.

It's not hard; you can do it...

The doorway is open.

Yet, inevitably, you will prefer to descend into reductio ad absurdum than to face the truth.

Because you are insane.

To help prove the basic laws of motion I would like you to consider the following experiment.

Say you are floating in the water in a light weight inflatable raft of some sort and your raft is touching a dock you want to get off at.  As you move towards the dock the raft (which is lighter then you) will move back a lot more then you move forward and when you try to go towards the dock you only move towards it a bit while the raft moves in the opisite direction.  I have personally been in such a scenario and I am willing to bet that you have too.

So mikeman.nasa.cult; now you have launched rockets into space?

Or did you just launch them within earth's atmosphere, where, as I stated, they have an outside mass to thrust against?

Thus proving NOTHING.

As for Mr. Laurel's profound statement; it makes just as much sense as NASA's rocketry-FAIL analogy.

But is far funnier...

Everyone else: the medicine ball represents a MASS, against which the man's arm, which represents the rocket's exhaust column, THRUSTS, thus producing an action/reaction pairing.

It's not hard; you can do it...

The doorway is open.

Yet, inevitably, you will prefer to descend into reductio ad absurdum than to face the truth.

Because you are insane.

Rocket engines do not thrust against anything. They propel themselves by expelling mass at extremely high speeds in one direction.

stick your willy in a woman's pee hole and a baby pops out! Tell me that isn't magical?

That would be magical. However, I recommend you aim for the vagina - it's far more effective as well as being significantly less uncomfortable for your partner.

Bijane wrote: 'the rocket fuel is not physically part of the rocket, it is separate'

Really?

Because last I looked, the solid-fuel rocket boosters of the space shuttle came in pre-formed steel segments into which the solid fuel was already tightly packed.

It is hard to imagine a scenario where the fuel was LESS 'physically part of the rocket' than that.

Perhaps you can enlighten us as to wtf you are babbling about, Little Miss foot-in-mouth disease?

As to the rest of you: learn to read.

& mikeman.nasa.dolt; stop trying to 'prove' ONE crappy false analogy by spamming out ANOTHER, you broke-brained loser.

Now try harder.

Rocket engines do not thrust against anything. They propel themselves by expelling mass at extremely high speeds in one direction.

That's fascinating quail. That answers all questions anyone could have on the subject, doesn't it?

Tit.

The point I raise is: where does the action/reaction pairing occur in order to give thrust to a rocket?

I say it occurs between the rocket exhaust column & an outside mass i.e. the atmosphere or ground.

NASA says it occurs between the rocket &... erm... itself. Somehow.

Who is right?

Me?

Or the Liars?

William Blake wrote: 'The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water & breeds reptiles of the mind'.

Is that your problem, space-cultists?

Do you have REPTILES?

In your MINDS?

Really?

Because last I looked, the solid-fuel rocket boosters of the space shuttle came in pre-formed steel segments into which the solid fuel was already tightly packed.

It is hard to imagine a scenario where the fuel was LESS 'physically part of the rocket' than that.

Let's see. Can you spot a difference between the rocket, and the rocket fuel?

Bijane: are you saying that the fuel inside a space shuttle solid-fuel booster IS NOT physically part of the rocket?

Simply answer 'yes' or 'no', then we can let the neutral observer decide who is right.

Bijane: are you saying that the fuel inside a space shuttle solid-fuel booster IS NOT physically part of the rocket?

That would be a valid question if anyone has ever proposed the fuel was staying inside the space shuttle.

Bijane said: 'the rocket fuel is not physically part of the rocket, it is separate'.

I showed it was not.

She is now trying to say she was referring to the EXHAUSTED fuel; this is a LIE.

Bad Bijane.

& markjo; stop retro-editing your posts, you utterly creepy mental-case.

markjo: Computer, what do I say to non-believers who bring up Newtons laws?

I would tell them that if they need to resort to willfully misrepresenting Newton's laws, then there really isn't much point in continuing. 

This thread has already gone 30 pages of trying to explain why one doesn't need to personally go to space in order to be able to get an idea of what it's like out there.  I don't see how another 30 pages of trying to explain how rocket engines work to someone who chooses not to understand will do anyone any good.  I've already been through this sort of thing with sceptimatic and with Anders and I'm not sure if I can force myself to care enough to try it again with Papa.

Bijane said: 'the rocket fuel is not physically part of the rocket, it is separate'.

I showed it was not.

She is now trying to say she was referring to the EXHAUSTED fuel; this is a LIE.

So, focusing on semantics instead? Well, not surprised.

Markjo: well STFU & get back in your fouled-diaper-encrusted, retro-editing, thoroughly creepy, strength-through-joy hugbox then.

You are neither wanted nor needed & your contributions will NOT be missed.

My point is that neither you, NASA, or many others here are capable of applying Newton's 3rd Law correctly to the subject of rocket propulsion.

I aim to help you think correctly.

The doorway is open...

& bijane; not quite comedy gold, but LOL!!!!

YOU are the one employing semantic tricks, to get out of the mess you got yourself into with your stupid statement about fuel not being part of a rocket!

Jesus! Grow up, the lot of you...

& bijane; not quite comedy gold, but LOL!!!!

Your trolling's very far from comedy gold too. Just obnoxious at this point. I suggest a little bit of freshness, try to actually be somewhat entertaining.

Quote from: legion on May 18, 2015, 01:25:38 PM

markjo: Computer, what do I say to non-believers who bring up Newtons laws?

I would tell them that if they need to resort to willfully misrepresenting Newton's laws, then there really isn't much point in continuing. 

This thread has already gone 30 pages of trying to explain why one doesn't need to personally go to space in order to be able to get an idea of what it's like out there.  I don't see how another 30 pages of trying to explain how rocket engines work to someone who chooses not to understand will do anyone any good.  I've already been through this sort of thing with sceptimatic and with Anders and I'm not sure if I can force myself to care enough to try it again with Papa.

It's not just Papa who sees that Newton's laws are regularly being violated by space adventures. Let me repeat:

Law 1. An object will remain at rest, or continue in motion, unless acted upon by an external force.
Law 2. F=MA
Law 3. To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts.

Do you see the problems in respect of laws 1 and 3?

Markjo: well STFU & get back in your fouled-diaper-encrusted, retro-editing, thoroughly creepy, strength-through-joy hugbox then.

You are neither wanted nor needed & your contributions will NOT be missed.

My point is that neither you, NASA, or many others here are capable of applying Newton's 3rd Law correctly to the subject of rocket propulsion.

I aim to help you think correctly.

The doorway is open...

& bijane; not quite comedy gold, but LOL!!!!

YOU are the one employing semantic tricks, to get out of the mess you got yourself into with your stupid statement about fuel not being part of a rocket!

Jesus! Grow up, the lot of you...

Rockets produce thrust by expelling mass at high velocity in a focused direction. Not a single law of physics says that it needs something to push against. Rockets aren't propeller engines, you know? The fuel is the reaction mass of the rocket. It gets combusted, which causes it to expand and be deflected away at high speed by the nozzle, producing thrust. The rocket produces thrust, and looses mass. There is nothing that violates any of the laws of physics here.

Oh, & let's not forget the Joules-Thompson Effect, i.e. Free Expansion Of Gas In a Vacuum; THAT has a few nasty implications for NASA's GAS-powered rockets too.

Learnt the meaning of the word 'ALL' yet, markjo?

Or am I casting Pearls before Swine?

& quail: WHERE is the thrust produced?

WHERE is the action/reaction pairing situated, PRECISELY please?

Oh, btw Legion; NASA violate Newton Law 2 as well, & in a particularly LOL way.

But we'll get to that eventually...

In the meantime, shall we stick to finding precisely where the action-reaction pairing occurs in a rocket in order for it to produce thrust?

Inquiring minds wish to know!

Oh, & let's not forget the Joules-Thompson Effect, i.e. Free Expansion Of Gas In a Vacuum; THAT has a few nasty implications for NASA's GAS-powered rockets too.

Learnt the meaning of the word 'ALL' yet, markjo?

Or am I casting Pearls before Swine?

& quail: WHERE is the thrust produced?

WHERE is the action/reaction pairing situated, PRECISELY please?

The action is the fuel being combusted and deflected out of the nozzle. The reaction is the rocket being pushed by the exhaust.

Throwing something heavy and feeling how you get pushed back is pretty much the same, without the combustion and deflection part.