Intercontinental ballistic missile

  • 1723 Replies
  • 241013 Views
*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #990 on: January 25, 2019, 06:16:16 AM »
The man on the skateboard shows otherwise.
We've been through this numerous times and numerous times it shows atmospheric resistance to achieve what happens.
You showed nothing. You claimed a 170 pound guy can push off of one pound of air. Why can’t the guy use a balloon to get the same results?

How much air does a 1 million pound rocket need to push off?
Show me where I claimed a 170 lb guy can push off of one pound of air.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #991 on: January 25, 2019, 06:23:33 AM »

If the atmosphere "pushing down" on the water was causing the pressure, then the same atmosphere would be "pushing down" directly on the pressure gauge before the hose is filled.
The gauge is atmospherically equalised. It's set to zero under atmospheric conditions.

Quote from: Platonius21
And why would the atmosphere push harder the more water is in the hose?
Because the more water the more mass and that means the more displacement of atmosphere.

Quote from: Platonius21
And if the hose were filled with a heavier liquid (like mercury, which would give greater pressure) why would the atmosphere "push down" harder than on the water?
Because the mercury is less porous and displaces more atmosphere.


Quote from: Platonius21
JackBlack: this is relevant to the thread because it refutes the idea of the atmosphere pushing back being required to make a rocket move
It's all relevant because that's how everything works. That's why nothing moves unless it is acted upon by atmospheric pressure.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #992 on: January 25, 2019, 06:32:25 AM »
Again, Sceptimatic you don’t understand you are wanting to have it both ways.  Action / Reaction you keep saying it but you don’t understand it.  My examples were chosen to illustrate that no atmosphere is needed for pressurized propulsion systems.  I can show you videos of astronauts displaying Newton’s first, second. Third laws but you will claim them to be fake videos.
They are videos of people pretending to be going to space or in space, so those videos are depicting fakery.
Quote from: JCM
   As if Every space faring country doing these experiments and demonstrations goal is to fool everyone about physics.
Anyone doing real physics are doing just that. Those who are pretending to do real physics are the issue at hand. Two entirely different things and the first one I'm not arguing against.

Quote from: JCM
You claimed the pop can is pushing off the wall in the low atmosphere environment, yet the shower head pushing itself up can’t push off your hand smothering the open end...  Don’t you see this makes no sense?  You made the claim, back it up.
The lid and the decompressing gas up against the already decompressed gas inside the chamber crash into each other and create a reaction. The wall just adds to that reaction in such a small area.

Quote from: JCM
Speaking of the can, so if we diverted the exhaust of the can say to the sides what would the can do? Not move at all? Move slower? Faster?
The can would move opposite to where the gas was ejected from because that's the air it would be thrusting into.


Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #993 on: January 25, 2019, 06:44:20 AM »
Ah we forgot he speaks sceptinese

Ref hose and watertower
When he says pressure hes equating it to gravity or his displacemnt of air.

Another great example of scepti wasting peoples time by purposefully miscommunicating and misusing words
« Last Edit: January 25, 2019, 06:46:39 AM by Themightykabool »

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #994 on: January 25, 2019, 06:51:34 AM »
The sooner you realise that everything is just a slightly different take on the exact same thing, the sooner you'll understand how and why atmospheric pressure works against energy thrust againsct it.
[/quote]

Have you done any experiments or have any maths of this. If so can you show your evidents please.

Are you you saying rockets stop from lets say 300mph to 0 in a split second or it will gradually slow down i.e. 300mph, 200mph, 100mph then 0.


*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #995 on: January 25, 2019, 07:02:24 AM »


Have you done any experiments or have any maths of this. If so can you show your evidents please.

Are you you saying rockets stop from lets say 300mph to 0 in a split second or it will gradually slow down i.e. 300mph, 200mph, 100mph then 0.
There's quite a few experiments done but people who believe rockets work without atmosphere simply deny those experiments.
That's fair enough but it does not help them understand the truth. Maybe some don't want to know the truth because it destroys the fantasy, which it actually would.

Some most likely gate keep the nonsense knowing full well it is just that.

As for stopping dead. You have to provide a rocket that is moving at a consistent speed and then have it completely shut down it's thrust.
I have yet to see this, so I have to go on how i see things.

By all means scupper me but make sure you do so by providing real evidence and not just evidence of acceleration and momentum, or using horizontal movement as your yardstick.

I'll happily admit I'm wrong if I see concrete evidence against what I say.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #996 on: January 25, 2019, 07:32:39 AM »


Have you done any experiments or have any maths of this. If so can you show your evidents please.

Are you you saying rockets stop from lets say 300mph to 0 in a split second or it will gradually slow down i.e. 300mph, 200mph, 100mph then 0.
There's quite a few experiments done but people who believe rockets work without atmosphere simply deny those experiments.
That's fair enough but it does not help them understand the truth. Maybe some don't want to know the truth because it destroys the fantasy, which it actually would.

Some most likely gate keep the nonsense knowing full well it is just that.

As for stopping dead. You have to provide a rocket that is moving at a consistent speed and then have it completely shut down it's thrust.
I have yet to see this, so I have to go on how i see things.

By all means scupper me but make sure you do so by providing real evidence and not just evidence of acceleration and momentum, or using horizontal movement as your yardstick.

I'll happily admit I'm wrong if I see concrete evidence against what I say.

Can you show the experiment that rockets don't work without atmoshere please. Sorry I just want to know how you know this

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #997 on: January 25, 2019, 08:03:42 AM »
The man on the skateboard shows otherwise.
We've been through this numerous times and numerous times it shows atmospheric resistance to achieve what happens.
You showed nothing. You claimed a 170 pound guy can push off of one pound of air. Why can’t the guy use a balloon to get the same results?

How much air does a 1 million pound rocket need to push off?
Show me where I claimed a 170 lb guy can push off of one pound of air.
The density of air is 1.23 kg/m3 I took rougly half of it to get a pound. How much air do you think the guy pushes off of? The ball isn’t even close to touching a cubic meter of air.

How much air does a million pound rocket push off of?
« Last Edit: January 25, 2019, 08:22:15 AM by sokarul »
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #998 on: January 25, 2019, 08:13:59 AM »

If the atmosphere "pushing down" on the water was causing the pressure, then the same atmosphere would be "pushing down" directly on the pressure gauge before the hose is filled.
The gauge is atmospherically equalised. It's set to zero under atmospheric conditions.

Quote from: Platonius21
And why would the atmosphere push harder the more water is in the hose?
Because the more water the more mass and that means the more displacement of atmosphere.

Quote from: Platonius21
And if the hose were filled with a heavier liquid (like mercury, which would give greater pressure) why would the atmosphere "push down" harder than on the water?
Because the mercury is less porous and displaces more atmosphere.


That is pure rubbish. The water and mercury displace the same amount of atmosphere because the water and mercury have the same volume. The pressure is different because mercury is heavier than water. Like I said, basic high school physics.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #999 on: January 25, 2019, 08:14:13 AM »


Can you show the experiment that rockets don't work without atmoshere please. Sorry I just want to know how you know this
Before I answer that, how exactly do you think they work.
Can you show me exactly why they work from your perspective?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1000 on: January 25, 2019, 08:16:54 AM »
Quote from: sokarul

 You claimed a 170 pound guy can push off of one pound of air.

Show me where I claimed a 170 lb guy can push off of one pound of air.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1001 on: January 25, 2019, 08:22:08 AM »
That is pure rubbish. The water and mercury displace the same amount of atmosphere because the water and mercury have the same volume. The pressure is different because mercury is heavier than water. Like I said, basic high school physics.
Not as basic as you think.

Mercury and water do not have the same volume, at all.
If they did then water would be the primary use in a barometer. You see, mercury is used because it is a very dense liquid that has very little volume and does not readily allow atmosphere to breach it to create a larger compression at the top of the tube which would cause the barometer to malfunction and give out wrong readings in short order.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1002 on: January 25, 2019, 08:22:52 AM »
The man on the skateboard shows otherwise.
We've been through this numerous times and numerous times it shows atmospheric resistance to achieve what happens.
You showed nothing. You claimed a 170 pound guy can push off of one pound of air. Why can’t the guy use a balloon to get the same results?

How much air does a 1 million pound rocket need to push off?
Show me where I claimed a 170 lb guy can push off of one pound of air.
The density of air is 1.23 kg/m3 I took rougly half of it to get a pound. How much air do you think the guy pushes off of? The ball isn’t even close to touching a cubic meter of air.

How much air does a million pound rocket push off of?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1003 on: January 25, 2019, 08:35:42 AM »
That is pure rubbish. The water and mercury displace the same amount of atmosphere because the water and mercury have the same volume. The pressure is different because mercury is heavier than water. Like I said, basic high school physics.
Not as basic as you think.

Mercury and water do not have the same volume, at all.


It makes no sense at all to say mercury and water do not have the same volume.  If you fill a gallon jug with water, the volume of water in the jug will be one gallon. If you fill the jug with mercury, the volume of mercury in the jug will be one gallon. The volume is determined by the size of the container -- not the weight or mass of  the liquid it contains.

Same with the hose experiment -- whether it contains water or mercury, the volume is the same.  The amount of atmosphere displaced is the same. The pressure produced at the bottom of the hose is very different.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1004 on: January 25, 2019, 09:01:34 AM »


Can you show the experiment that rockets don't work without atmoshere please. Sorry I just want to know how you know this
Before I answer that, how exactly do you think they work.
Can you show me exactly why they work from your perspective?
I never said I know how they work, I'm just curious to how you know they work like that and maths will be good.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1005 on: January 25, 2019, 09:11:15 AM »
That is pure rubbish. The water and mercury displace the same amount of atmosphere because the water and mercury have the same volume. The pressure is different because mercury is heavier than water. Like I said, basic high school physics.
Not as basic as you think.

Mercury and water do not have the same volume, at all.


It makes no sense at all to say mercury and water do not have the same volume.  If you fill a gallon jug with water, the volume of water in the jug will be one gallon. If you fill the jug with mercury, the volume of mercury in the jug will be one gallon. The volume is determined by the size of the container -- not the weight or mass of  the liquid it contains.

Same with the hose experiment -- whether it contains water or mercury, the volume is the same.  The amount of atmosphere displaced is the same. The pressure produced at the bottom of the hose is very different.
No it won't be the same. It will by eye but under real scrutiny and pressure it will be totally different volumes due to the porosity of them which will be undetectable unless you get down to super microscopic level.

And yes it counts because it's structure and what's trapped within it and absorbs into it.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1006 on: January 25, 2019, 09:13:03 AM »
I never said I know how they work, I'm just curious to how you know they work like that and maths will be good.
How would you like me to prove it to you without you saying I'm not?

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1007 on: January 25, 2019, 10:02:36 AM »
There's quite a few experiments done but people who believe rockets work without atmosphere simply deny those experiments.
That's fair enough but it does not help them understand the truth. Maybe some don't want to know the truth because it destroys the fantasy, which it actually would.

We've shown you plenty that you deny that show the truth and destroy your fantasy. How about showing at least one that can destroy our fantasy?

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1008 on: January 25, 2019, 10:13:55 AM »
This isnt denp thread.
You (scepti) need to use normal terms.
Volume != density
and porosity displacement is not a thing.

?

JCM

  • 245
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1009 on: January 25, 2019, 10:24:47 AM »
Quote from: JCM
You claimed the pop can is pushing off the wall in the low atmosphere environment, yet the shower head pushing itself up can’t push off your hand smothering the open end...  Don’t you see this makes no sense?  You made the claim, back it up.
The lid and the decompressing gas up against the already decompressed gas inside the chamber crash into each other and create a reaction. The wall just adds to that reaction in such a small area.
You still haven’t answered why the shower head doesn’t lift off your hand smothering the water side.  Add as much water pressure as you want, it doesn’t push any extra due to your hand under it.  It only can raise higher as you crank the water pressure up.

If that’s not a good enough experiment, maybe not enough pressure...  take a firehose, it has measurable water pressure right, a lot of it, measurable even while exhausting.  Under constant water pressure walk the hose up to a wall.  Are you suggesting that pressure pushing back on the person holding it increases when the firehose is placed as close to the wall as possible?  Be very specific, this effect is actually measurable and if true then it would actually support your theories. 

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1010 on: January 25, 2019, 10:32:43 AM »


We've shown you plenty that you deny that show the truth and destroy your fantasy. How about showing at least one that can destroy our fantasy?
You've shown me nothing that proves anything about ICBM's and certainly not rockets working without atmosphere.

What you need to do is literally understand that there's 3 things going on, not just one simple Newton's 3rd law as we are told. In for every action tehre's an equal and opposite reaction, which, although true, it needs one more thing that is absolutely imperative to make action and reaction work.
That is RESISTANCE.
You can only ever get resistance when you push into something by using something to actually do that.
The only thing that will allow this, is a fluid.


Here's where you cannot gain any movement in an action and equal and opposite reaction scenario. In a so called vacuum of space...but equally you will gain nothing from an action and equal and opposite reaction if you have extreme low resistance, as in a low pressure environment.


No resistance to action or little resistance to action means zero reaction or very little reaction which means no work done or extremely small amount of work done.

The so called Newton law, although correct in the action and reaction context, can only ever be that if you add the ingredient that makes it work. RESISTANCE of FLUID.
Take away that and you take away everything, never mind a moving rocket.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1011 on: January 25, 2019, 10:36:25 AM »
This isnt denp thread.
You (scepti) need to use normal terms.
I use my terms. Accept them or don't. Your choice.
Quote from: Themightykabool
Volume != density
No, volume is not density at all.

Quote from: Themightykabool
and porosity displacement is not a thing.
I never mentioned porosity displacement.

You get so many things wrong. Deliberate?

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1012 on: January 25, 2019, 10:49:02 AM »
That is pure rubbish. The water and mercury displace the same amount of atmosphere because the water and mercury have the same volume. The pressure is different because mercury is heavier than water. Like I said, basic high school physics.
Not as basic as you think.

Mercury and water do not have the same volume, at all.


It makes no sense at all to say mercury and water do not have the same volume.  If you fill a gallon jug with water, the volume of water in the jug will be one gallon. If you fill the jug with mercury, the volume of mercury in the jug will be one gallon. The volume is determined by the size of the container -- not the weight or mass of  the liquid it contains.

Same with the hose experiment -- whether it contains water or mercury, the volume is the same.  The amount of atmosphere displaced is the same. The pressure produced at the bottom of the hose is very different.
No it won't be the same. It will by eye but under real scrutiny and pressure it will be totally different volumes due to the porosity of them which will be undetectable unless you get down to super microscopic level.

And yes it counts because it's structure and what's trapped within it and absorbs into it.
Volume is Volume. It's a definition. Fill up the container. Look with your eye. If it's a gallon container and it's full of any liquid, there's a gallon of liquid. Period. No extra scrutiny, no extra pressure involved. A gallon is a gallon.

Maybe you need to change from "Flat Earth Scientist" to "Flat Earth Troll"

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1013 on: January 25, 2019, 10:49:23 AM »
That is pure rubbish. The water and mercury displace the same amount of atmosphere because the water and mercury have the same volume. The pressure is different because mercury is heavier than water. Like I said, basic high school physics.
Not as basic as you think.

Mercury and water do not have the same volume, at all.
If they did then water would be the primary use in a barometer. You see, mercury is used because it is a very dense liquid that has very little volume and does not readily allow atmosphere to breach it to create a larger compression at the top of the tube which would cause the barometer to malfunction and give out wrong readings in short order.



That is pure rubbish. The water and mercury displace the same amount of atmosphere because the water and mercury have the same volume. The pressure is different because mercury is heavier than water. Like I said, basic high school physics.
Not as basic as you think.

Mercury and water do not have the same volume, at all.


It makes no sense at all to say mercury and water do not have the same volume.  If you fill a gallon jug with water, the volume of water in the jug will be one gallon. If you fill the jug with mercury, the volume of mercury in the jug will be one gallon. The volume is determined by the size of the container -- not the weight or mass of  the liquid it contains.

Same with the hose experiment -- whether it contains water or mercury, the volume is the same.  The amount of atmosphere displaced is the same. The pressure produced at the bottom of the hose is very different.
No it won't be the same. It will by eye but under real scrutiny and pressure it will be totally different volumes due to the porosity of them which will be undetectable unless you get down to super microscopic level.

And yes it counts because it's structure and what's trapped within it and absorbs into it.

You used density and volume interchangedly between the two above posts, hence everyones confusion and arguement.

By all means keep misusing words.
Poor you are misunderstood and ganged up on by the gullibled.
But continue being misunderstood by purposefully causing it.
And everyone will contiue to argue in go-no-where circles.
Not sure if you noted a pattern.
Maybe thats what you get off on, being a troll and all.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2019, 10:56:26 AM by Themightykabool »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1014 on: January 25, 2019, 11:00:15 AM »
Quote from: JCM
You claimed the pop can is pushing off the wall in the low atmosphere environment, yet the shower head pushing itself up can’t push off your hand smothering the open end...  Don’t you see this makes no sense?  You made the claim, back it up.
The lid and the decompressing gas up against the already decompressed gas inside the chamber crash into each other and create a reaction. The wall just adds to that reaction in such a small area.
You still haven’t answered why the shower head doesn’t lift off your hand smothering the water side.  Add as much water pressure as you want, it doesn’t push any extra due to your hand under it.  It only can raise higher as you crank the water pressure up.

If that’s not a good enough experiment, maybe not enough pressure...  take a firehose, it has measurable water pressure right, a lot of it, measurable even while exhausting.  Under constant water pressure walk the hose up to a wall.  Are you suggesting that pressure pushing back on the person holding it increases when the firehose is placed as close to the wall as possible?  Be very specific, this effect is actually measurable and if true then it would actually support your theories.
Think of a better scenario because I'm not too sure what you're getting at with this wall stuff.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1015 on: January 25, 2019, 11:08:01 AM »
The man on the skateboard shows otherwise.
We've been through this numerous times and numerous times it shows atmospheric resistance to achieve what happens.
You showed nothing. You claimed a 170 pound guy can push off of one pound of air. Why can’t the guy use a balloon to get the same results?

How much air does a 1 million pound rocket need to push off?
Show me where I claimed a 170 lb guy can push off of one pound of air.
The density of air is 1.23 kg/m3 I took rougly half of it to get a pound. How much air do you think the guy pushes off of? The ball isn’t even close to touching a cubic meter of air.

How much air does a million pound rocket push off of?

Can you answer these questions?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1016 on: January 25, 2019, 11:23:22 AM »
I never said I know how they work, I'm just curious to how you know they work like that and maths will be good.
How would you like me to prove it to you without you saying I'm not?
All I asked you was how you knew rockets don't work in space and if you have the maths for that. I'm here to learn.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1017 on: January 25, 2019, 11:29:34 AM »
We've shown you plenty that you deny that show the truth and destroy your fantasy. How about showing at least one that can destroy our fantasy?
You've shown me nothing that proves anything about ICBM's and certainly not rockets working without atmosphere.

Sure, whatever. How about you showing one thing that backs up you claims? Just one.


*

JackBlack

  • 21870
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1018 on: January 25, 2019, 11:51:18 AM »
Because the more water the more mass and that means the more displacement of atmosphere.
But the same atmosphere above pushing down.
We can put a gauge at the top and see this.
Like I said, if you want to rely upon your magic denpressure BS, go do it in its thread, not this one.

They are videos of people pretending to be going to space or in space, so those videos are depicting fakery.
So far all the evidence indicates they are really going to space or in space.
Why should we believe your delusional claims about it being fake?
Your argument is entirely circular.
You claim it is impossible, based upon an alleged lack of evidence, yet the only valid evidence would be them going to space, but you reject this evidence because you claim it is fake because you claim it is impossible.

There's quite a few experiments done but people who believe rockets work without atmosphere simply deny those experiments.
You are yet to provide any such experiments backing up your delusional claims about rockets.

Maybe some don't want to know the truth because it destroys the fantasy, which it actually would.
Yes. One person this applies very well to is a poster here that goes by sceptimatic.
This poster seems to be very much against the truth and instead clings to their fantasy, rejecting all the evidence and rational arguments which show the truth.

You have to provide a rocket that is moving at a consistent speed and then have it completely shut down it's thrust.
I have yet to see this, so I have to go on how i see things.
And you have also been told why you never see this, because it never happens.
A rocket will continue to accelerate while its engine is on.
You are the one claiming it will travel at a constant velocity so the burden is on you to show that.

I'll happily admit I'm wrong if I see concrete evidence against what I say.
No you wont. You will just lie and pretend the evidence doesn't show you are wrong.

Before I answer that, how exactly do you think they work.
Can you show me exactly why they work from your perspective?
You have had it explained to you repeatedly. You have been completely unable to provide any rational argument against it. Instead you just have your same ridiculous BS.
How about you try an explanation, explaining clearly how the force gets to the rocket.
Remember, the hot gas out of the rocket can't touch it and thus can't provide the force.

Mercury and water do not have the same volume, at all.
If they did then water would be the primary use in a barometer.
No, they can have the same volume.
The issue is density.
Water is far too light to use in a barometer. You want a nice dense fluid to create a large pressure gradient.

Again, barometers don't work under your nonsense and show it to be pure nonsense.

it will be totally different volumes due to the porosity of them which will be undetectable unless you get down to super microscopic level.
Again, pure BS and irrelevant to the thread. Go discuss this in your denpressure thread, where that BS has already been refuted.

In for every action tehre's an equal and opposite reaction
Yes, so in order for the gas to go one way, the rocket has to go the other. No atmosphere needed.

That is RESISTANCE.
Yes, resistance to motion, commonly called inertia.
It isn't the atmosphere.
We have been over this repeatedly.
If it was the atmosphere then it requires the atmosphere to resist all motion and cause the entirety of the force that is needed. That means as soon as you stop applying the force the object stops dead.
But you know that doesn't happen and instead accept momentum (when it suits you).
It is creating this momentum which requires force.
This means no atmosphere is required.

You can only ever get resistance when you push into something by using something to actually do that.
Yes, like pushing into a ball, using your muscles.
You don't need that ball to be pushed into a fluid.

So no, no atmosphere is required.

I use my terms. Accept them or don't. Your choice.
And like I said, every time you use a term without using the agreed upon definition, you are lying.
If you want your own terms, make up your own terms, don't just steal existing ones.

?

JCM

  • 245
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1019 on: January 25, 2019, 02:45:31 PM »
Quote from: JCM
You claimed the pop can is pushing off the wall in the low atmosphere environment, yet the shower head pushing itself up can’t push off your hand smothering the open end...  Don’t you see this makes no sense?  You made the claim, back it up.
The lid and the decompressing gas up against the already decompressed gas inside the chamber crash into each other and create a reaction. The wall just adds to that reaction in such a small area.
You still haven’t answered why the shower head doesn’t lift off your hand smothering the water side.  Add as much water pressure as you want, it doesn’t push any extra due to your hand under it.  It only can raise higher as you crank the water pressure up.

If that’s not a good enough experiment, maybe not enough pressure...  take a firehose, it has measurable water pressure right, a lot of it, measurable even while exhausting.  Under constant water pressure walk the hose up to a wall.  Are you suggesting that pressure pushing back on the person holding it increases when the firehose is placed as close to the wall as possible?  Be very specific, this effect is actually measurable and if true then it would actually support your theories.
Think of a better scenario because I'm not too sure what you're getting at with this wall stuff.

This is readily apparent to everyone reading this I think, but I will break it down. 

You think rockets, sprinklers, pressurized soda cans, fire hoses all expell fire or water etc and that expelled material pushes on the atmosphere and a reactionary force is felt the opposite direction of the flow.   These examples are pushing off the atmosphere you say; they are also pushing off of objects like walls, edges of the vacuum chamber, etc.  It would follow logically that this effect could be measured or seen.

Following me with this?  I displayed that there was not enough air in the chamber for the drone to work, yet that didn’t affect the pressurized soda can in its ability to thrust away from the soda explosion in any noticeable way. 

Except here we have a problem, because if these devices can push off of walls, why isn’t your hand smothering the shower head causing it to push off your hands and go higher?  I brought in the firehose because it is a really good analogy. The firehose pushes back onto the fireman a considerable amount correct?  THe water it is ejecting has hundreds of pounds of measurable force.   The water pressure running through the fire truck is monitored as well and controllable.   Your contention is that these things are pushing off both the atmosphere and other physical barriers like walls, etc.  Therefore, a fireman, walking towards a wall with his hose at constant pressure, should notice a significant difference in the reactionary force he is feeling when he gets within a couple feet of the wall correct?