Intercontinental ballistic missile

  • 1723 Replies
  • 241128 Views
*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1020 on: January 25, 2019, 03:39:18 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?
I'll leave you with this video and you can decide what's happening.

www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=3Al6L7sgqhM

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1021 on: January 25, 2019, 03:48:38 PM »
When the hose passes through the window there is not even a slight flinch. Clearly the water is not pushing off objects.


Now care to answer my questions yet?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

JCM

  • 245
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1022 on: January 25, 2019, 04:01:59 PM »
I'll leave you with this video and you can decide what's happening.

www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=3Al6L7sgqhM

You have not answered anything and your own video shows that hose rising and lowering based entirely on the pressure of the water, you can hear it.  More importantly, wouldn’t the hose move up significantly when it went through the window? 

The force the fireman feels or the force pushing the shower head up.  Why doesn’t that force change if you put an obstacle in front to push off of.  You said yourself it is pushing off the wall.   This effect would be so easy to measure, just apply a spring scale to the hose and measure its reactionary force then move that hose towards the wall.

Boom, you disprove rockets. No space travel  right?  Real scientific evidence at your fingertips... Why aren’t you jumping at the bit to test this?  This wouldn’t even be costly to get data. 

Oh wait, this nozzle reaction force is measured all the time, it’s a device that already exists
69 pounds of force pushing backwards is not insignificant. Surely, fireman training videos on moving a fire hose through a building would train to deal with changing nozzle reactionary forces based on distance to the object they are spraying correct?  Or are firefighters also in on the conspiracy to disprove Newton’s Laws too?

I can find fire hose video of it next to objects. There are thousands of hours of footage and training videos of fire hoses in action. 
« Last Edit: January 25, 2019, 04:18:14 PM by JCM »

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1023 on: January 25, 2019, 04:18:35 PM »
Hahaha  awesome.
Reminds me of when danang posted a video debunking his 3.17.
Good job scepti.

What we all see vs what scepti sees.



*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1024 on: January 25, 2019, 06:03:19 PM »
I'll leave you with this video and you can decide what's happening.

www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=3Al6L7sgqhM

Wow, 35 pages and this is your first post of what you think "evidence" is?

Favorite vid comment: "It only requires the use of a full interior attack crew to roll it forward, 20x the amount of water you'd normally need to extinguish it, and 4x the time for application."

Seems your theory is very efficient.

I'm surprised you didn't pick this as your first piece of evidence:

« Last Edit: January 25, 2019, 07:01:43 PM by Stash »

*

JackBlack

  • 21870
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1025 on: January 25, 2019, 06:23:50 PM »
I'll leave you with this video and you can decide what's happening.
They waste a lot of water.
No indication that it needs to push off the atmosphere.
If anything, exactly the opposite, where the push appears to remain the same regardless of resistance.
Even when passing over a solid object quite close, the push remains the same, whereas if resistance mattered it would go up much more.

Now, if you wish to continue asserting such nonsense as the atmosphere magically pushes it, then address 2 main points:
1 - How the gas inside the rocket moves without producing an equal and opposite reaction of the rocket moving.
2 - How the air magically pushes the rocket.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1026 on: January 26, 2019, 01:14:12 AM »
I'll leave you with this video and you can decide what's happening.

www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=3Al6L7sgqhM

You have not answered anything and your own video shows that hose rising and lowering based entirely on the pressure of the water, you can hear it.  More importantly, wouldn’t the hose move up significantly when it went through the window?
The force the fireman feels or the force pushing the shower head up.  Why doesn’t that force change if you put an obstacle in front to push off of.
 You said yourself it is pushing off the wall.
 This effect would be so easy to measure, just apply a spring scale to the hose and measure its reactionary force then move that hose towards the wall.
Stop using walls as if I've used walls as my push. I said the wall of the container acted as the resistance to allow the build up of the gas from the can and allowed pressure build up.

Outside this would be dissipated and it's not how I'm telling you hoses work.
Forget the window in the video and stop using it to get out of it.
Why does the hose need the different water sprays to orientate it if it's not using atmosphere?

 
Quote from: JCM

Boom, you disprove rockets. No space travel  right?  Real scientific evidence at your fingertips... Why aren’t you jumping at the bit to test this?  This wouldn’t even be costly to get data.
There is a perfect video that disproves rockets in so called space as working how we are told.
The problem is, you people go into immediate denial of it.
The thing is you people use balloons as your action and reaction and tell us all that the expelled air is not what propels the balloon, you say it's the action and reaction that pushes the balloon forward inside and the exhaust is nothing.

There's a video (simple but clever) that utterly disproves it. But the excuses come flooding out by the gatekeepers.
Any rational thinking person who wants the truth will see how nonsensical space rockets are.

This is not for you specifically. This video is simply being used in your post. I know it'll be denied by the usual suspects.
Watch it all from both sides but if you simply just want to watch the experiment then skip to 11 minutes.
I suggest people watch the lot so they know what they are being duped with, with so called space rockets and what reality actually is in how they simply wouldn't work in a so called space.


*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1027 on: January 26, 2019, 01:18:21 AM »
I'll leave you with this video and you can decide what's happening.

www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=3Al6L7sgqhM

Wow, 35 pages and this is your first post of what you think "evidence" is?

Favorite vid comment: "It only requires the use of a full interior attack crew to roll it forward, 20x the amount of water you'd normally need to extinguish it, and 4x the time for application."

Seems your theory is very efficient.

I'm surprised you didn't pick this as your first piece of evidence:


35 pages of utter denial by people like you, coupled with too many simply attacking with all kinds of attempted ridicule and then blaming me for it.
That's why this is as long as it is.

But guess what?
This isn't even my topic. I didn't start it. I'm just taking part and bloodying the noses of those who think they're bloodying mine.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1028 on: January 26, 2019, 01:20:53 AM »
I'll leave you with this video and you can decide what's happening.
They waste a lot of water.
No indication that it needs to push off the atmosphere.
If anything, exactly the opposite, where the push appears to remain the same regardless of resistance.

So all the spray from the holes in the sides of the hose are pushing against...what?
If atmosphere is not involved then explain how that hose is working like it is?


Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1029 on: January 26, 2019, 01:35:11 AM »
I'll leave you with this video and you can decide what's happening.

www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=3Al6L7sgqhM

Wow, 35 pages and this is your first post of what you think "evidence" is?

Favorite vid comment: "It only requires the use of a full interior attack crew to roll it forward, 20x the amount of water you'd normally need to extinguish it, and 4x the time for application."

Seems your theory is very efficient.

I'm surprised you didn't pick this as your first piece of evidence:


35 pages of utter denial by people like you, coupled with too many simply attacking with all kinds of attempted ridicule and then blaming me for it.
That's why this is as long as it is.

But guess what?
This isn't even my topic. I didn't start it. I'm just taking part and bloodying the noses of those who think they're bloodying mine.

Correct
We ve told you many times your denp bullsht doesnt apply here.
Take it bakc to denp thread and work on your diagrams

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1030 on: January 26, 2019, 01:48:15 AM »
I'll leave you with this video and you can decide what's happening.

www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=3Al6L7sgqhM

Wow, 35 pages and this is your first post of what you think "evidence" is?

Favorite vid comment: "It only requires the use of a full interior attack crew to roll it forward, 20x the amount of water you'd normally need to extinguish it, and 4x the time for application."

Seems your theory is very efficient.

I'm surprised you didn't pick this as your first piece of evidence:


35 pages of utter denial by people like you, coupled with too many simply attacking with all kinds of attempted ridicule and then blaming me for it.
That's why this is as long as it is.

But guess what?
This isn't even my topic. I didn't start it. I'm just taking part and bloodying the noses of those who think they're bloodying mine.

Just saying 35 pages and you finally posted something other then you just saying. It's clear you've been beaten about the head and face here for 35 pages. Mountains of evidence has been provided all of which showing your claims have no merit. And the one bit of evidence you post to attempt to support your claim is a multi-manned highly inefficient fire extinguisher? You not only have no evidence, you don't know how to use the google very well.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1031 on: January 26, 2019, 02:06:01 AM »
This thread is a bit mad as like most flat earth debates deliberately ignores reality. In the real world heat engines, millions of them, all work away quite happily on principles very different from those promoted by Sceptimatic. Has he never wondered why the real world works in ways very very different to the one in his head?

This debate has nothing to do with reality and this world as it’s concerned with a very very different world that only exists inside Sceptimatic’s head and appears to operate in ways only he understands.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1032 on: January 26, 2019, 02:07:24 AM »
This thread is a bit mad as like most flat earth debates deliberately ignores reality. In the real world heat engines, millions of them, all work away quite happily on principles very different from those promoted by Sceptimatic. Has he never wondered why the real world works in ways very very different to the one in his head?

This debate has nothing to do with reality and this world as it’s concerned with a very very different world that only exists inside Sceptimatic’s head and appears to operate in ways only he understands.
All a bit sad for him.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1033 on: January 26, 2019, 03:51:35 AM »
Just saying 35 pages and you finally posted something other then you just saying. It's clear you've been beaten about the head and face here for 35 pages. Mountains of evidence has been provided all of which showing your claims have no merit. And the one bit of evidence you post to attempt to support your claim is a multi-manned highly inefficient fire extinguisher? You not only have no evidence, you don't know how to use the google very well.
I see people like yourself trying to put forward something that you clearly do not understand and are deliberately trying to coax me into a belief that atmospheric pressure is not used for rockets and everything else.

Guess what?
You've convinced me of nothing from your side. All you do is strengthen my resolve.
I know 100% for a fact that nothing works without the aid of atmospheric pressure.....except fantasy sci-fi.

By all means endear yourself to your sci-fi; it can be interesting.  Nuclear fantasy and space rockets and country destroying ICBM's that hit home from thousands and thousands of miles away....etc.....etc....all well and good and makes for good and interesting and scary fantasy.

Use action and reaction in any way shape or form you want to from your side.

The real side has something else involved. It's called LEVERAGE or to put it in a more easier way...RESISTANCE.


And here's how it really works in all applications.

Action = energy applied against resistance to create a reaction.
You need all 3.
Now here's where space rockets fail even allowing for the fantasy of a space vacuum.

Your rocket burns its fuel with oxygen/oxidiser.
That fuel is expanded out of the rocket and then super expanded against absolutely no resistance.
It has no means to push in the opposite direction inside the rocket or even behind the rocket exhaust, because it simply expands one way with no resistance.


In atmosphere it's plain to understand why it works.
First of all fill your rocket with just fuel. No oxygen, except for normal atmospheric venting to allow the fuel to be pushed down and out of the rocket nozzle.
Have it burn as it comes out.
What's allowing it to burn?
Obviously the atmosphere is crushing into the fuel and allowing it to burn.
But what's the issue as to why the rocket cannot launch?

The issue is, the thrust is not there. It's merely venting atmosphere pushing a mass of fuel and only a nozzle for it to simply be pushed from.

A big spread fire that struggles to super compress the atmospheric stack below in order for that stack to be super compressed back in a crush against it and simply leaves a mass of burning fuel spreading all over the gorund.
So what do you do?

You seal the top and you place all of your pressure inside the rocket to act as that inner push into the fuel to force that fuel from the rocket at high velocity. Thrust.
Ignite that against the atmosphere below and you super compress that atmospheric stack which creates a massive resistance because of that massive expansion of the pressurised oxygen and fuel not only expanding unignited but super expanding when ignited.

It creates a push on push and none of it is done inside the rocket.
All the rocket can do is have a pressurised tank inside that is only capable of being a barrier to hold the pressurised oxygen and nothing more.

The best way to actually describe how a real rocket would work using a people analogy is to look at this depiction of people rising and think of it as fuel mass acting on atmosphere and how a big compression is achieved to keep a movement vertically.




Get your honest thinking caps on.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1034 on: January 26, 2019, 03:54:12 AM »
This thread is a bit mad as like most flat earth debates deliberately ignores reality. In the real world heat engines, millions of them, all work away quite happily on principles very different from those promoted by Sceptimatic. Has he never wondered why the real world works in ways very very different to the one in his head?

This debate has nothing to do with reality and this world as it’s concerned with a very very different world that only exists inside Sceptimatic’s head and appears to operate in ways only he understands.
The reason why I am where I am is because I understand more of the real world than what I was indoctrinated into believing based on fantasy.

Engage your own brain into that and you just might see it for yourself. Assuming you have any intention of doing anything other than gate keep a global fantasy, of course.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1035 on: January 26, 2019, 03:58:08 AM »
This thread is a bit mad as like most flat earth debates deliberately ignores reality. In the real world heat engines, millions of them, all work away quite happily on principles very different from those promoted by Sceptimatic. Has he never wondered why the real world works in ways very very different to the one in his head?

This debate has nothing to do with reality and this world as it’s concerned with a very very different world that only exists inside Sceptimatic’s head and appears to operate in ways only he understands.
All a bit sad for him.
And some said that poor JRoweSkeptic was "off with the fairies" but JRowe had nothing on Sceppy, who lives in his own "Twilight Zone -- A World of His Own Scifier939".

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1036 on: January 26, 2019, 04:01:21 AM »
This thread is a bit mad as like most flat earth debates deliberately ignores reality. In the real world heat engines, millions of them, all work away quite happily on principles very different from those promoted by Sceptimatic. Has he never wondered why the real world works in ways very very different to the one in his head?

This debate has nothing to do with reality and this world as it’s concerned with a very very different world that only exists inside Sceptimatic’s head and appears to operate in ways only he understands.
All a bit sad for him.
Interesting, not sad.
Mind freeing. Not sad.
Ability to add on and take away to gain an edge, Interesting, not sad.

The fact shelf or the fiction shelf or the shelf marked ?
The sadness is reading a book and enjoying the story but never ever knowing for sure what shelf to place that book back onto, but placing it on the fact shelf because you feel it was a good story.

*

JackBlack

  • 21870
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1037 on: January 26, 2019, 05:27:01 AM »
Stop using walls as if I've used walls as my push.
No you never said walls, that would make it all to easy to destroy your model.
Instead you said it was resistance, that the object moves due to resistance of its burning thrust (or in this case water) moving through the atmosphere.
You even said that rockets would have less actual thrust at higher altitudes because the resistance of the atmosphere is less.

But last time I checked, the resistance of a solid wall is much greater than that of air.
A water jet or gas jet is unable to penetrate most solid walls.
So logically, that means a lot higher resistance and thus a lot higher thrust. But that isn't observed. Hence your model is wrong and it doesn't matter what the water/burning thrust is passing through.

Forget the window in the video and stop using it to get out of it.
Why just forget the part that shows you are wrong?

Why does the hose need the different water sprays to orientate it if it's not using atmosphere?
Why wouldn't it?
Each spray provides a thrust, which provides a force and a torque.

It's like why a car has 4 wheels, to keep it balanced.

There is a perfect video that disproves rockets in so called space as working how we are told.
Then why not provide it?

The thing is you people use balloons as your action and reaction and tell us all that the expelled air is not what propels the balloon, you say it's the action and reaction that pushes the balloon forward inside and the exhaust is nothing.
No, that is what you claim.
We claim it is the expelled air which propels the balloon. The process of expelling the air pushes the balloon.

35 pages of utter denial by people like you
You are the one repeatedly denying how rockets work and basic physics.

So all the spray from the holes in the sides of the hose are pushing against...what?
Well before they start spraying, they are pushing off the object. This results in an action and reaction pair, where the water goes out and pushes the object in the process.
If they weren't, how does the water magically come out?

I see people like yourself trying to put forward something that you clearly do not understand
Again, that is you. You are putting forward pure nonsense regarding basic physics and rockets work. Yet you have nothing backing you up.

That fuel is expanded out of the rocket and then super expanded against absolutely no resistance.
How?
In your fantasy world where it doesn't work in a vacuum, how is the fuel expanding?

If there is no resistance, then what is there to stop the rocket moving/accelerating?

It has no means to push in the opposite direction inside the rocket or even behind the rocket exhaust, because it simply expands one way with no resistance.
This literally makes no sense. If there is no resistance, it expands isotropically, i.e. in all directions.
In order for it to expand one way, it needs resistance.

First of all fill your rocket with just fuel.
No. Lets deal with rockets with fuel and oxidiser, which do not have any venting except their nozzles.

You seal the top and you place all of your pressure inside the rocket to act as that inner push into the fuel to force that fuel from the rocket at high velocity. Thrust.
Yes, thrust. A force, and action. This requires an equal and opposite reaction.
This means the rocket is pushed up, in the same location which is pushing the fuel down.

No need for the atmosphere.

The sadness is reading a book and enjoying the story but never ever knowing for sure what shelf to place that book back onto, but placing it on the fact shelf because you feel it was a good story.
No, the sadness is you foolishly thinking it was a good story and sticking it on the fact shelf even though everyone around you sees it is crap.

?

JCM

  • 245
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1038 on: January 26, 2019, 06:49:24 AM »
Sceptimatic do you listen to yourself?  How is air able to provide resistance but not a solid object for a propulsion system under pressure?  That makes zero sense. 

You fail to understand the earlier poster asking how much air is needed to push a million pounds.    You are telling me that the soda can released its gas, which weighs a lot less then the can, then it used that gas it released to push off of?

How much air does it take to move something as massive as a rocket?  You are the one redefining all of physics, you have the onus to provide some kind of formula at least at a theoretical testable level.

That video you are looking for is a balloon with a piece of paper stuck to the rocket behind the thrust stopping the rocket movement.  I will let you find it today and post it yourself before that is ripped apart because it actually is a great example of why you will be dead wrong.  Please, post away.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1039 on: January 26, 2019, 07:45:52 AM »
Just saying 35 pages and you finally posted something other then you just saying. It's clear you've been beaten about the head and face here for 35 pages. Mountains of evidence has been provided all of which showing your claims have no merit. And the one bit of evidence you post to attempt to support your claim is a multi-manned highly inefficient fire extinguisher? You not only have no evidence, you don't know how to use the google very well.
I see people like yourself trying to put forward something that you clearly do not understand and are deliberately trying to coax me into a belief that atmospheric pressure is not used for rockets and everything else.

Guess what?
You've convinced me of nothing from your side. All you do is strengthen my resolve.
I know 100% for a fact that nothing works without the aid of atmospheric pressure.....except fantasy sci-fi.

By all means endear yourself to your sci-fi; it can be interesting.  Nuclear fantasy and space rockets and country destroying ICBM's that hit home from thousands and thousands of miles away....etc.....etc....all well and good and makes for good and interesting and scary fantasy.

Use action and reaction in any way shape or form you want to from your side.

The real side has something else involved. It's called LEVERAGE or to put it in a more easier way...RESISTANCE.


And here's how it really works in all applications.

Action = energy applied against resistance to create a reaction.
You need all 3.
Now here's where space rockets fail even allowing for the fantasy of a space vacuum.

Your rocket burns its fuel with oxygen/oxidiser.
That fuel is expanded out of the rocket and then super expanded against absolutely no resistance.
It has no means to push in the opposite direction inside the rocket or even behind the rocket exhaust, because it simply expands one way with no resistance.


In atmosphere it's plain to understand why it works.
First of all fill your rocket with just fuel. No oxygen, except for normal atmospheric venting to allow the fuel to be pushed down and out of the rocket nozzle.
Have it burn as it comes out.
What's allowing it to burn?
Obviously the atmosphere is crushing into the fuel and allowing it to burn.
But what's the issue as to why the rocket cannot launch?

The issue is, the thrust is not there. It's merely venting atmosphere pushing a mass of fuel and only a nozzle for it to simply be pushed from.

A big spread fire that struggles to super compress the atmospheric stack below in order for that stack to be super compressed back in a crush against it and simply leaves a mass of burning fuel spreading all over the gorund.
So what do you do?

You seal the top and you place all of your pressure inside the rocket to act as that inner push into the fuel to force that fuel from the rocket at high velocity. Thrust.
Ignite that against the atmosphere below and you super compress that atmospheric stack which creates a massive resistance because of that massive expansion of the pressurised oxygen and fuel not only expanding unignited but super expanding when ignited.

It creates a push on push and none of it is done inside the rocket.
All the rocket can do is have a pressurised tank inside that is only capable of being a barrier to hold the pressurised oxygen and nothing more.

The best way to actually describe how a real rocket would work using a people analogy is to look at this depiction of people rising and think of it as fuel mass acting on atmosphere and how a big compression is achieved to keep a movement vertically.




Get your honest thinking caps on.

Thanks for the video.
Again another disproving of your own teory.

Lets put both theories/ cocepts together.

The stack uses a hard surface to resist to keep the rocket/ shower head a floar.

Watch the bump in height when the "hose" goes over the "window/ wall".



Did this (above) happen in the shower rocket or fireman video?
 - No, Therefore not true.

So by all means keep providing evidence against yourself.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1040 on: January 26, 2019, 09:53:34 AM »
Stop using walls as if I've used walls as my push.
No you never said walls, that would make it all to easy to destroy your model.
Instead you said it was resistance, that the object moves due to resistance of its burning thrust (or in this case water) moving through the atmosphere.
You even said that rockets would have less actual thrust at higher altitudes because the resistance of the atmosphere is less.

But last time I checked, the resistance of a solid wall is much greater than that of air.

And this is why you and other never seem to grasp very much of what I say. You're all too fired up ready to dismiss stuff to understand what resistance means in how it works.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1041 on: January 26, 2019, 09:56:02 AM »
Sceptimatic do you listen to yourself?  How is air able to provide resistance but not a solid object for a propulsion system under pressure?  That makes zero sense. 

You fail to understand the earlier poster asking how much air is needed to push a million pounds.    You are telling me that the soda can released its gas, which weighs a lot less then the can, then it used that gas it released to push off of?

How much air does it take to move something as massive as a rocket?  You are the one redefining all of physics, you have the onus to provide some kind of formula at least at a theoretical testable level.

That video you are looking for is a balloon with a piece of paper stuck to the rocket behind the thrust stopping the rocket movement.  I will let you find it today and post it yourself before that is ripped apart because it actually is a great example of why you will be dead wrong.  Please, post away.
How about telling me about the rocket in the string and tell me why it doesn't render your rocket adherence, pointless.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1042 on: January 26, 2019, 09:57:40 AM »
Just saying 35 pages and you finally posted something other then you just saying. It's clear you've been beaten about the head and face here for 35 pages. Mountains of evidence has been provided all of which showing your claims have no merit. And the one bit of evidence you post to attempt to support your claim is a multi-manned highly inefficient fire extinguisher? You not only have no evidence, you don't know how to use the google very well.
I see people like yourself trying to put forward something that you clearly do not understand and are deliberately trying to coax me into a belief that atmospheric pressure is not used for rockets and everything else.

Guess what?
You've convinced me of nothing from your side. All you do is strengthen my resolve.
I know 100% for a fact that nothing works without the aid of atmospheric pressure.....except fantasy sci-fi.

By all means endear yourself to your sci-fi; it can be interesting.  Nuclear fantasy and space rockets and country destroying ICBM's that hit home from thousands and thousands of miles away....etc.....etc....all well and good and makes for good and interesting and scary fantasy.

Use action and reaction in any way shape or form you want to from your side.

The real side has something else involved. It's called LEVERAGE or to put it in a more easier way...RESISTANCE.


And here's how it really works in all applications.

Action = energy applied against resistance to create a reaction.
You need all 3.
Now here's where space rockets fail even allowing for the fantasy of a space vacuum.

Your rocket burns its fuel with oxygen/oxidiser.
That fuel is expanded out of the rocket and then super expanded against absolutely no resistance.
It has no means to push in the opposite direction inside the rocket or even behind the rocket exhaust, because it simply expands one way with no resistance.


In atmosphere it's plain to understand why it works.
First of all fill your rocket with just fuel. No oxygen, except for normal atmospheric venting to allow the fuel to be pushed down and out of the rocket nozzle.
Have it burn as it comes out.
What's allowing it to burn?
Obviously the atmosphere is crushing into the fuel and allowing it to burn.
But what's the issue as to why the rocket cannot launch?

The issue is, the thrust is not there. It's merely venting atmosphere pushing a mass of fuel and only a nozzle for it to simply be pushed from.

A big spread fire that struggles to super compress the atmospheric stack below in order for that stack to be super compressed back in a crush against it and simply leaves a mass of burning fuel spreading all over the gorund.
So what do you do?

You seal the top and you place all of your pressure inside the rocket to act as that inner push into the fuel to force that fuel from the rocket at high velocity. Thrust.
Ignite that against the atmosphere below and you super compress that atmospheric stack which creates a massive resistance because of that massive expansion of the pressurised oxygen and fuel not only expanding unignited but super expanding when ignited.

It creates a push on push and none of it is done inside the rocket.
All the rocket can do is have a pressurised tank inside that is only capable of being a barrier to hold the pressurised oxygen and nothing more.

The best way to actually describe how a real rocket would work using a people analogy is to look at this depiction of people rising and think of it as fuel mass acting on atmosphere and how a big compression is achieved to keep a movement vertically.




Get your honest thinking caps on.

Thanks for the video.
Again another disproving of your own teory.

Lets put both theories/ cocepts together.

The stack uses a hard surface to resist to keep the rocket/ shower head a floar.

Watch the bump in height when the "hose" goes over the "window/ wall".



Did this (above) happen in the shower rocket or fireman video?
 - No, Therefore not true.

So by all means keep providing evidence against yourself.
Total inability to understand what's being said. Surely this has to be deliberate.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1043 on: January 26, 2019, 12:05:06 PM »
How much air does a 1 million pound rocket push off of?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1044 on: January 26, 2019, 12:29:22 PM »
Just saying 35 pages and you finally posted something other then you just saying. It's clear you've been beaten about the head and face here for 35 pages. Mountains of evidence has been provided all of which showing your claims have no merit. And the one bit of evidence you post to attempt to support your claim is a multi-manned highly inefficient fire extinguisher? You not only have no evidence, you don't know how to use the google very well.
I see people like yourself trying to put forward something that you clearly do not understand and are deliberately trying to coax me into a belief that atmospheric pressure is not used for rockets and everything else.

Guess what?
You've convinced me of nothing from your side. All you do is strengthen my resolve.
I know 100% for a fact that nothing works without the aid of atmospheric pressure.....except fantasy sci-fi.

By all means endear yourself to your sci-fi; it can be interesting.  Nuclear fantasy and space rockets and country destroying ICBM's that hit home from thousands and thousands of miles away....etc.....etc....all well and good and makes for good and interesting and scary fantasy.

Use action and reaction in any way shape or form you want to from your side.

The real side has something else involved. It's called LEVERAGE or to put it in a more easier way...RESISTANCE.


And here's how it really works in all applications.

Action = energy applied against resistance to create a reaction.
You need all 3.
Now here's where space rockets fail even allowing for the fantasy of a space vacuum.

Your rocket burns its fuel with oxygen/oxidiser.
That fuel is expanded out of the rocket and then super expanded against absolutely no resistance.
It has no means to push in the opposite direction inside the rocket or even behind the rocket exhaust, because it simply expands one way with no resistance.


In atmosphere it's plain to understand why it works.
First of all fill your rocket with just fuel. No oxygen, except for normal atmospheric venting to allow the fuel to be pushed down and out of the rocket nozzle.
Have it burn as it comes out.
What's allowing it to burn?
Obviously the atmosphere is crushing into the fuel and allowing it to burn.
But what's the issue as to why the rocket cannot launch?

The issue is, the thrust is not there. It's merely venting atmosphere pushing a mass of fuel and only a nozzle for it to simply be pushed from.

A big spread fire that struggles to super compress the atmospheric stack below in order for that stack to be super compressed back in a crush against it and simply leaves a mass of burning fuel spreading all over the gorund.
So what do you do?

You seal the top and you place all of your pressure inside the rocket to act as that inner push into the fuel to force that fuel from the rocket at high velocity. Thrust.
Ignite that against the atmosphere below and you super compress that atmospheric stack which creates a massive resistance because of that massive expansion of the pressurised oxygen and fuel not only expanding unignited but super expanding when ignited.

It creates a push on push and none of it is done inside the rocket.
All the rocket can do is have a pressurised tank inside that is only capable of being a barrier to hold the pressurised oxygen and nothing more.

The best way to actually describe how a real rocket would work using a people analogy is to look at this depiction of people rising and think of it as fuel mass acting on atmosphere and how a big compression is achieved to keep a movement vertically.




Get your honest thinking caps on.

Thanks for the video.
Again another disproving of your own teory.

Lets put both theories/ cocepts together.

The stack uses a hard surface to resist to keep the rocket/ shower head a floar.

Watch the bump in height when the "hose" goes over the "window/ wall".



Did this (above) happen in the shower rocket or fireman video?
 - No, Therefore not true.

So by all means keep providing evidence against yourself.
Total inability to understand what's being said. Surely this has to be deliberate.

Exactly...

Maybe resistance means something different to you.

How about you draw a picture.
Everyone here seems to be on the same page (planet).

*

JackBlack

  • 21870
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1045 on: January 26, 2019, 01:02:03 PM »
The best way to actually describe how a real rocket would work using a people analogy is to look at this depiction of people rising and think of it as fuel mass acting on atmosphere and how a big compression is achieved to keep a movement vertically.
Now that the vid is there (It wasn't showing before) I can comment.
This doesn't act anything like a rocket.
Notice how the people just climb?
Notice how they aren't throwing things down at high velocity?
So no, that video wont help people understand rockets at all.

And this is why you and other never seem to grasp very much of what I say. You're all too fired up ready to dismiss stuff to understand what resistance means in how it works.
No, this is why I wont just accept what you say. I actually think about it and compare it to my experiences and realise it is BS.
When exposed as such, rather than attempt a rational explanation at why this is false, you instead just insult people.

In your fantasy, resistance is that whatever is coming out in a high velocity stream needs to meet resistance to motion, and that the magnitude of this resistance determines the thrust.
A solid wall provides more resistance than the air, so it should be more thrust, but it isn't.

Again, all the evidence and rational thought shows you are wrong.

If the rocket (or the like) needed the resistance of the atmosphere to push off, a solid object would provide more thrust, but it does not.
It would also mean that the thinning atmosphere would reduce the thrust produced, but also reduce the thrust needed to accelerate/move the rocket, meaning the rocket still accelerates.

If the atmosphere is the only thing which causes resistance to motion, then:
in space there would be nothing to resist the motion of a rocket or prevent it accelerating, so it should work just fine (although there would be questions of control).
in the atmosphere if you threw an object, as the force was no longer applied it would stop dead as it no longer has the force required to move through the atmosphere (This is also what you claim happens, but only in one case of your magically selective physics).

The latter shows that the atmosphere resisting the motion is not the primary cause of the actual resistance, as objects continually move. This shows that objects have a property based upon their speed and mass (you can even pretend it is your magic volume instead), perhaps we can call it momentum, which resists motion. When you initially try to accelerate an object, the majority of the force will typically go into the momentum, with only a small amount going directly to pushing the atmosphere away.
This momentum is then lost as it moves through the atmosphere with the atmosphere resisting its motion.
It is also apparent that this can work to speed up the object such as through wind, with no preference for any action with the object being thrown into stationary air or pushed into by the wind when starting out stationary. This shows that gaining and losing momentum function the same.

Based upon this fact, the main resistance from the rocket exhaust (or burning thrust as you want to call it) will be due to accelerating it. That will require an equal and opposite reaction to the rocket, accelerating the rocket.
This means no air is required for the motion.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1046 on: January 26, 2019, 01:30:52 PM »
How much air does a 1 million pound rocket push off of?
None because they're fictional.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1047 on: January 26, 2019, 02:01:43 PM »
How much air does a 1 million pound rocket push off of?
None because they're fictional.

How much air does a 1 pound rocket push off of?

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1048 on: January 26, 2019, 02:53:22 PM »
How much air does a 1 million pound rocket push off of?
None because they're fictional.
How do satellites get into orbit?

Re: Intercontinental ballistic missile
« Reply #1049 on: January 26, 2019, 05:15:42 PM »
Just saying 35 pages and you finally posted something other then you just saying. It's clear you've been beaten about the head and face here for 35 pages. Mountains of evidence has been provided all of which showing your claims have no merit. And the one bit of evidence you post to attempt to support your claim is a multi-manned highly inefficient fire extinguisher? You not only have no evidence, you don't know how to use the google very well.
I see people like yourself trying to put forward something that you clearly do not understand and are deliberately trying to coax me into a belief that atmospheric pressure is not used for rockets and everything else.

Guess what?
You've convinced me of nothing from your side. All you do is strengthen my resolve.
I know 100% for a fact that nothing works without the aid of atmospheric pressure.....except fantasy sci-fi.

By all means endear yourself to your sci-fi; it can be interesting.  Nuclear fantasy and space rockets and country destroying ICBM's that hit home from thousands and thousands of miles away....etc.....etc....all well and good and makes for good and interesting and scary fantasy.

Use action and reaction in any way shape or form you want to from your side.

The real side has something else involved. It's called LEVERAGE or to put it in a more easier way...RESISTANCE.


And here's how it really works in all applications.

Action = energy applied against resistance to create a reaction.
You need all 3.
Now here's where space rockets fail even allowing for the fantasy of a space vacuum.

Your rocket burns its fuel with oxygen/oxidiser.
That fuel is expanded out of the rocket and then super expanded against absolutely no resistance.
It has no means to push in the opposite direction inside the rocket or even behind the rocket exhaust, because it simply expands one way with no resistance.


In atmosphere it's plain to understand why it works.
First of all fill your rocket with just fuel. No oxygen, except for normal atmospheric venting to allow the fuel to be pushed down and out of the rocket nozzle.
Have it burn as it comes out.
What's allowing it to burn?
Obviously the atmosphere is crushing into the fuel and allowing it to burn.
But what's the issue as to why the rocket cannot launch?

The issue is, the thrust is not there. It's merely venting atmosphere pushing a mass of fuel and only a nozzle for it to simply be pushed from.

A big spread fire that struggles to super compress the atmospheric stack below in order for that stack to be super compressed back in a crush against it and simply leaves a mass of burning fuel spreading all over the gorund.
So what do you do?

You seal the top and you place all of your pressure inside the rocket to act as that inner push into the fuel to force that fuel from the rocket at high velocity. Thrust.
Ignite that against the atmosphere below and you super compress that atmospheric stack which creates a massive re


sistance because of that massive expansion of the pressurised oxygen and fuel not only expanding unignited but super expanding when ignited.

It creates a push on push and none of it is done inside the rocket.
All the rocket can do is have a pressurised tank inside that is only capable of being a barrier to hold the pressurised oxygen and nothing more.

The best way to actually describe how a real rocket would work using a people analogy is to look at this depiction of people rising and think of it as fuel mass acting on atmosphere and how a big compression is achieved to keep a movement vertically.




Get your honest thinking caps on.

Thanks for the video.
Again another disproving of your own teory.

Lets put both theories/ cocepts together.

The stack uses a hard surface to resist to keep the rocket/ shower head a floar.

Watch the bump in height when the "hose" goes over the "window/ wall".



Did this (above) happen in the shower rocket or fireman video?
 - No, Therefore not true.

So by all means keep providing evidence against yourself.
Total inability to understand what's being said. Surely this has to be deliberate.

Exactly...

Maybe resistance means something different to you.

How about you draw a picture.
Everyone here seems to be on the same page (planet).

Anyone else remeber the discussion about pushing fluids in a bathtub/pool?

Fluids will move and flow out of the way.
You cant "stack" them to cause directionality when there is no container.
Same sht buddy.
Keep telling us all to think.
Really...