Intercontinental ballistic missile

Quote from: Didymus on February 01, 2019, 03:19:00 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 31, 2019, 10:16:02 PM

Quote from: Didymus on January 31, 2019, 09:49:42 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2019, 10:08:39 PM

Quote from: Didymus on January 30, 2019, 11:01:34 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 30, 2019, 08:15:39 AM

Bet you cant draw a simple and basic diagram to illustrate your longwinded description

He really shouldn’t need a diagram if he has the concept nailed.

The spring argument defeats itself. There will certainly be a recoil. Who has not ever fired an air gun?

The operative word is "air" gun.

Quote from: Didymus

He’s had it explained to him twice now, once with, and once without a diagram.
He still doesn’t get it. Or rather can not get it due to confirmation bias, hypothesis lock, or whatever you like to call it: rockets can not work in a vacuum and that’s it.
Otherwise it’s one domino in the chain falling.

Of course I've had it explained. The explanation is 100% wrong.
You lot are being duped and you can't/won't see it.
I've explained what really happens and that should be clear to anyone who cares to want to know reality.

What’s the point about air gun?
The spring being released gives a recoil. So what you said about the spring being released not giving a recoil is wrong.
And:
Newton’s third law is how many percent wrong?

Try the spring in your hand like I said and you'll have that experiment literally in your own hand, so no need to argue that one.
As for the air gun. It's the spring that is compressed which locks inside ready for release against a piston to force air onto the pellet to compress it against it.
That's your recoil.

As for Newton's 3rd law. The law of action and equal and opposite reaction is only true if there's a resistance for action and a resistance for reaction. It has to start by using applied energy which requires a resistance in itself then the resultant equal reaction to that resistance which is the result of that energy applied.

We're just trying to help you here.
You do know the difference between a £3000 gas powered match rifle and a £100 Chinese springer don't you?
Both have air coming out of the end.
In the case of the expensive one there's almost no recoil. That's partly the point.
The cheap spring gun rattles like an old tin can, and the kick is quite strong.
This contradicts both your points at the same time:
The release of a spring will give a reaction.
It has nothing to do with pushing on air.
You would get a recoil from a cocked spring gun in a vacuum.

As for Newton. Just no, as Rab pointed out.

We can ref ladder guy again.
Haha
Cracks me up

Oh, man...
Physics sure can suck.
Use responsibly.

Quote from: Mikey T. on January 31, 2019, 01:48:32 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 31, 2019, 08:42:55 AM

Quote from: Mikey T. on January 31, 2019, 08:35:40 AM

Spend a day, a week, a month, a year away and the stupidest flat Earth ideas are still put forth without a single shread of verifiable evidence.  We try to inform you of how to do testing, you complain that it costs money, you don't have time, the makers of the sensors and equipment are in on the conspiracy, etc.  Never once trying to test your own theories, just insulting others for questioning your clearly idiotic statements.  Flat Earth is a mental illness, it has to be.

It's strange that because I provide you with the means to test and it doesn't cost a fortune and in fact costs about a £1 $1 or whatever if the so called scientists have an evacuation chamber.
But guess what?
Nobody wants to do any tests. It all goes quiet and instead people argue against my tests saying they don't prove anything. That is absolute dishonesty, so don't be coming that nonsense.

Please link the conversation where you told me how to test your idiocy?  Also, you have to test for what you claim, ignore the counter argument, if you say pressure causes things to be pushed down then when pressure is removed from a chamber whatever inside said chamber should reduce in weight.  I seem to remember someone showing you this with a small vacuum chamber, a weight, and a scale.  Your response was to blather about the trueness of the vacuum chamber.  We, as in you and I have not engaged in such discussions as you are an idiot and do not understand testing things.  You are content to wallow in your mental deficiency and continuously claim that anything that highlights said mental damage is nothing more than a conspiracy.  Newsflash, you are not important enough to warrant a conspiracy against you.  Hell this amount of discourse with me is beyond your worth.  Feel blessed I chose to speak to you.

Keep yapping Mr yapper. Name calling will get you a long way in your world with those who actually care what you say. In my world you are stood still, like a statue with movable lips that can give the ambling person like me a small chuckle as I walk past. 
Put some effort in or sit back and wallow in your own tish.

Name calling?  I never did that, I said your ideas are garbage, I said you have brain damage,  I said you are not important enough for a conspiracy against you, and I said you are unworhy of conversation with me, but I'm feeling charitable.  Sometimes you must humor idiots or they will allow depression to set in when they are faced with how meaningless they truly are.  I do not wish for you to think about self injury so I will humor you a bit more.  Now, if you need name calling to get you to actually answer the questions then by all means, dunderhead, LINK THE CONVERSATION we supposedly had where you told us if tests we can do that show what you claim.  I could link you plenty of things showing the opposite but I choose not to at this time.  A mildly retarded chimpanzee with a head wound can see that your denpressure utterances are garbage.

We're just trying to help you here.
You do know the difference between a £3000 gas powered match rifle and a £100 Chinese springer don't you?
Both have air coming out of the end.
In the case of the expensive one there's almost no recoil. That's partly the point.
The cheap spring gun rattles like an old tin can, and the kick is quite strong.
This contradicts both your points at the same time:
The release of a spring will give a reaction.
It has nothing to do with pushing on air.
You would get a recoil from a cocked spring gun in a vacuum.

As for Newton. Just no, as Rab pointed out.

Yes the spring will give a reaction because it has to hit something to attain that reaction, like a piston that compresses the air to release the pellet, so it's different to the spring in the hand and certainly to how it would work in so called space, because the spring recoils one way using only the base as mere holding foundation.

Name calling?  I never did that, I said your ideas are garbage, I said you have brain damage,  I said you are not important enough for a conspiracy against you, and I said you are unworhy of conversation with me, but I'm feeling charitable.  Sometimes you must humor idiots or they will allow depression to set in when they are faced with how meaningless they truly are.  I do not wish for you to think about self injury so I will humor you a bit more.  Now, if you need name calling to get you to actually answer the questions then by all means, dunderhead, LINK THE CONVERSATION we supposedly had where you told us if tests we can do that show what you claim.  I could link you plenty of things showing the opposite but I choose not to at this time.  A mildly retarded chimpanzee with a head wound can see that your denpressure utterances are garbage.

This adds nothing to the conversation but thanks for the effort.

Quote from: Didymus on February 01, 2019, 03:19:00 AM

We're just trying to help you here.
You do know the difference between a £3000 gas powered match rifle and a £100 Chinese springer don't you?
Both have air coming out of the end.
In the case of the expensive one there's almost no recoil. That's partly the point.
The cheap spring gun rattles like an old tin can, and the kick is quite strong.
This contradicts both your points at the same time:
The release of a spring will give a reaction.
It has nothing to do with pushing on air.
You would get a recoil from a cocked spring gun in a vacuum.

As for Newton. Just no, as Rab pointed out.

Yes the spring will give a reaction because it has to hit something to attain that reaction, like a piston that compresses the air to release the pellet, so it's different to the spring in the hand and certainly to how it would work in so called space, because the spring recoils one way using only the base as mere holding foundation.

And this?

You would get a recoil from a cocked spring gun in a vacuum.

Quote from: markjo on January 31, 2019, 05:51:26 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 31, 2019, 04:37:28 AM

I've done enough simple experiments to prove rockets do not work as you people say. That's more than enough to show where the duping lies.

Oh?  Would you care to tell us more about these "simple experiments"?

You've been on long enough to know what experiments they were. You have the ability to perform every one so there should be no excuses needed.

I read lots of threads with lots of experiments so it's hard to keep them all straight.  Please refresh my memory.

Quote from: markjo

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 31, 2019, 04:37:28 AM

You're just gate keeping and I understand that. The more you do it, the more I explain.... and the more that people who can think for themselves get to look over. It's all good.

Thinking for yourself doesn't necessarily mean that you're right and everyone else is wrong.

I never said it did, but following a narrative does not make what you follow, a fact, does it?

That's why there are countless experiments that you can perform yourself to confirm Newton's laws, among other things.

Quote from: rabinoz on February 01, 2019, 02:39:35 AM

How could anyone with the slightest understanding claim that force = mass x acceleration is "obscure in the extreme when looked at in a rational sense."
Because all three of Newton's Laws of Motion are included in that one simple expression.

f=ma is fine but it's what it really represents.

Force requires a resistance to become a force to push mass against a resistance to accelerate it.

Scepti, do you believe that a rocket and the thrust coming out the back are one object or two objects?

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 01, 2019, 05:57:12 AM

Quote from: Didymus on February 01, 2019, 03:19:00 AM

We're just trying to help you here.
You do know the difference between a £3000 gas powered match rifle and a £100 Chinese springer don't you?
Both have air coming out of the end.
In the case of the expensive one there's almost no recoil. That's partly the point.
The cheap spring gun rattles like an old tin can, and the kick is quite strong.
This contradicts both your points at the same time:
The release of a spring will give a reaction.
It has nothing to do with pushing on air.
You would get a recoil from a cocked spring gun in a vacuum.

As for Newton. Just no, as Rab pointed out.

Yes the spring will give a reaction because it has to hit something to attain that reaction, like a piston that compresses the air to release the pellet, so it's different to the spring in the hand and certainly to how it would work in so called space, because the spring recoils one way using only the base as mere holding foundation.

And this?

Quote

You would get a recoil from a cocked spring gun in a vacuum.

Nope. You would have no piston compression to create it. No recoil.

I read lots of threads with lots of experiments so it's hard to keep them all straight.  Please refresh my memory.

You certainly don't need your memory refreshing. You're well aware of them, so I won't take that route with you.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 01, 2019, 03:50:01 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on February 01, 2019, 02:39:35 AM

How could anyone with the slightest understanding claim that force = mass x acceleration is "obscure in the extreme when looked at in a rational sense."
Because all three of Newton's Laws of Motion are included in that one simple expression.

f=ma is fine but it's what it really represents.

Force requires a resistance to become a force to push mass against a resistance to accelerate it.

Scepti, do you believe that a rocket and the thrust coming out the back are one object or two objects?

The rocket and the thrust coming out of the back is one attached object/gas burn hitting atmosphere.

Quote from: markjo on February 01, 2019, 06:18:05 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 01, 2019, 03:50:01 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on February 01, 2019, 02:39:35 AM

How could anyone with the slightest understanding claim that force = mass x acceleration is "obscure in the extreme when looked at in a rational sense."
Because all three of Newton's Laws of Motion are included in that one simple expression.

f=ma is fine but it's what it really represents.

Force requires a resistance to become a force to push mass against a resistance to accelerate it.

Scepti, do you believe that a rocket and the thrust coming out the back are one object or two objects?

The rocket and the thrust coming out of the back is one attached object/gas burn hitting atmosphere.

Is there a force inside the rocket pushing the exhaust out of the rocket?

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 01, 2019, 06:33:53 AM

Quote from: markjo on February 01, 2019, 06:18:05 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 01, 2019, 03:50:01 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on February 01, 2019, 02:39:35 AM

How could anyone with the slightest understanding claim that force = mass x acceleration is "obscure in the extreme when looked at in a rational sense."
Because all three of Newton's Laws of Motion are included in that one simple expression.

f=ma is fine but it's what it really represents.

Force requires a resistance to become a force to push mass against a resistance to accelerate it.

Scepti, do you believe that a rocket and the thrust coming out the back are one object or two objects?

The rocket and the thrust coming out of the back is one attached object/gas burn hitting atmosphere.

Is there a force inside the rocket pushing the exhaust out of the rocket?

Just a foundation allowing the expansion of fuel and oxidizer to be released, naturally to be ignited to expand much more against the external atmosphere.

There's absolutely no force pushing the other way internally. All that's happening is stacking. The rocket is basically stacking and sitting on the burning fuel against the compressed atmosphere.


The atmosphere is doing the reactionary work to the action of the expanded fuel into it.
It's compressing by super expansion of gases which create a massive low pressure in the middle of the flame, leaving the outer atmosphere compressed to hell, as well as into the stack.

It all springs back onto that thrust and squeezes that rocket up on that thrusting burn alone.
All the rocket has to do is to stay steady and it does this by the speed of it due to the thrust.

The rocket has to push through the atmosphere at speed so the atmosphere grips it all around and keeps it steady.
The same applies in a car on a bike or walking or running or swimming. It applies to everything to keep it steady.

Seeing it in the basic manner is too hard for those that wish to follow a narrative of rockets hoofing themselves into their own guts.

I still can't believe people fall for this who actually have time to think on it.

Stacking is not an accepted scientific term, please explain.

Quote from: Mikey T. on February 01, 2019, 05:28:51 AM

Name calling?  I never did that, I said your ideas are garbage, I said you have brain damage,  I said you are not important enough for a conspiracy against you, and I said you are unworhy of conversation with me, but I'm feeling charitable.  Sometimes you must humor idiots or they will allow depression to set in when they are faced with how meaningless they truly are.  I do not wish for you to think about self injury so I will humor you a bit more.  Now, if you need name calling to get you to actually answer the questions then by all means, dunderhead, LINK THE CONVERSATION we supposedly had where you told us if tests we can do that show what you claim.  I could link you plenty of things showing the opposite but I choose not to at this time.  A mildly retarded chimpanzee with a head wound can see that your denpressure utterances are garbage.

This adds nothing to the conversation but thanks for the effort.

And neither does any of you baseless sht.
Unless you have a youtube or diagram youd like present to us.

Quote from: markjo on February 01, 2019, 06:13:36 AM

I read lots of threads with lots of experiments so it's hard to keep them all straight.  Please refresh my memory.

You certainly don't need your memory refreshing. You're well aware of them, so I won't take that route with you.

Swishswish dodge dodge.

You obviously have lots of time on your hands.

Simple put the basic experiment on youtube.
As oer history, you have the inability to describe in english what you percieve physics to be, so, a picture tells a 10000words.
So
Post to youtube or draw a diagram.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 01, 2019, 06:31:11 AM

Quote from: markjo on February 01, 2019, 06:13:36 AM

I read lots of threads with lots of experiments so it's hard to keep them all straight.  Please refresh my memory.

You certainly don't need your memory refreshing. You're well aware of them, so I won't take that route with you.

Swishswish dodge dodge.

You obviously have lots of time on your hands.

Simple put the basic experiment on youtube.
As oer history, you have the inability to describe in english what you percieve physics to be, so, a picture tells a 10000words.
So
Post to youtube or draw a diagram.

As soon as you post a diagram showing me how your space rockets work with a full description of everything that happens inside of it and what happens outside of it (or doesn't, according to you people).

I keep asking but all I seem to get is a copy and paste action/reaction tube diagram that explains absolutely nothing.
Over to you, Roger.

Quote from: markjo on February 01, 2019, 06:35:40 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 01, 2019, 06:33:53 AM

Quote from: markjo on February 01, 2019, 06:18:05 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 01, 2019, 03:50:01 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on February 01, 2019, 02:39:35 AM

How could anyone with the slightest understanding claim that force = mass x acceleration is "obscure in the extreme when looked at in a rational sense."
Because all three of Newton's Laws of Motion are included in that one simple expression.

f=ma is fine but it's what it really represents.

Force requires a resistance to become a force to push mass against a resistance to accelerate it.

Scepti, do you believe that a rocket and the thrust coming out the back are one object or two objects?

The rocket and the thrust coming out of the back is one attached object/gas burn hitting atmosphere.

Is there a force inside the rocket pushing the exhaust out of the rocket?

Just a foundation allowing the expansion of fuel and oxidizer to be released, naturally to be ignited to expand much more against the external atmosphere.

There's absolutely no force pushing the other way internally. All that's happening is stacking. The rocket is basically stacking and sitting on the burning fuel against the compressed atmosphere.


The atmosphere is doing the reactionary work to the action of the expanded fuel into it.
It's compressing by super expansion of gases which create a massive low pressure in the middle of the flame, leaving the outer atmosphere compressed to hell, as well as into the stack.

It all springs back onto that thrust and squeezes that rocket up on that thrusting burn alone.
All the rocket has to do is to stay steady and it does this by the speed of it due to the thrust.

The rocket has to push through the atmosphere at speed so the atmosphere grips it all around and keeps it steady.
The same applies in a car on a bike or walking or running or swimming. It applies to everything to keep it steady.

Seeing it in the basic manner is too hard for those that wish to follow a narrative of rockets hoofing themselves into their own guts.

I still can't believe people fall for this who actually have time to think on it.

For the 100th time, we re talking about vertical.
Not horizontal.
What dont you understand.

Oh wait... it doesnt matter.
Magically now it doesnt matter.

Quote from: JCM on January 31, 2019, 10:00:07 AM

Quote from: JCM on January 30, 2019, 06:26:37 AM

SCEPtimatic, you think all the people watching the launches are rent a crowd?  Vertical air ships?  You need to clarify.

That plane is a cruising height , that rocket goes far higher then the plane is.  Where is the fakery? 

Another one...  where are the vertical airships? Where is the fakery?  That rocket is obviously far heighten then the airplane.

And another one.

This one is watching it on TV, turns the camera to the window of the plane.  What more evidence do you need?

I can find more.  Hundreds more.  All made by amateurs.  Where are these vertical ships? Please explain what these people are seeing..  from an airplane...

Sceptimatic you asked which videos are from an airplane. Here are a few. The last video is with the live news showing the shuttle launch at the same time on the airplane monitors

Let me know when someone has the mindset to zoom in.

You are so ridiculous.  You know there are videos of that shuttle zoomed optically, you have seen them. That isn’t the point of the videos, they show the height above a 30,000 foot plane from amateurs with no apparent fakery and no desire to fool anyone.  You deny those zoomed in videos as well.  I can find them, you say they are fake.  You’ve seen the Falcon Heavy launches from cameras on the sides of the rocket...  Literally, every angle of the rockets, from every perspective except maybe another rocket chasing it videotaping it you have seen and denied them all.  Even video from space of the launches. They are hiding nothing.

You tell me what video you haven’t seen and lose the pretense of impartiality as you have none.  You have the nerve to call literally millions of people who watch these launches in person, who record these launches with high definition cameras, who do zoom in on them as they drop their boosters, who have toured the facilities, who have touched the rockets, that all of them are just dopes or paid shills.  You are the person claiming this yet you have zero evidence.  You can’t even put together a coherent explanation for how they would fake it or why.   

What are you going to say in the next five years when Blue Origin or Virgin Galactic starts selling tickets for the general public to LEO?   

Quote from: Mikey T. on February 01, 2019, 05:28:51 AM

Name calling?  I never did that, I said your ideas are garbage, I said you have brain damage,  I said you are not important enough for a conspiracy against you, and I said you are unworhy of conversation with me, but I'm feeling charitable.  Sometimes you must humor idiots or they will allow depression to set in when they are faced with how meaningless they truly are.  I do not wish for you to think about self injury so I will humor you a bit more.  Now, if you need name calling to get you to actually answer the questions then by all means, dunderhead, LINK THE CONVERSATION we supposedly had where you told us if tests we can do that show what you claim.  I could link you plenty of things showing the opposite but I choose not to at this time.  A mildly retarded chimpanzee with a head wound can see that your denpressure utterances are garbage.

This adds nothing to the conversation but thanks for the effort.

So you bald face lied about testing your idiotic notions?  It's ok, you can just run away from your false accusations.  It's pretty much expected that lies are one of the first recourses of people when faced with their own ineptitude. 

You are so ridiculous.  You know there are videos of that shuttle zoomed optically, you have seen them.
That isn’t the point of the videos, they show the height above a 30,000 foot plane from amateurs with no apparent fakery and no desire to fool anyone.  You deny those zoomed in videos as well.  I can find them, you say they are fake.

Howe about showing me a zoomed in shot of the space shuttle from the plane. Surely someone must have had the mind to do this, right?
Just one from the plane will do. I'm not asking for a load of them.

One zoomed in shot of the shuttle coming through the clouds, taken from the window of a plane. I'm sure you can find one, right?

  You’ve seen the Falcon Heavy launches from cameras on the sides of the rocket...  Literally, every angle of the rockets, from every perspective except maybe another rocket chasing it videotaping it you have seen and denied them all.  Even video from space of the launches. They are hiding nothing.

Yeah I've seen the saturn V as it's about to lift off by camera's mounted around the launch pad and everything. All angles and all positions on the rockets, except side views and up views on the so called thrusting space rockets.

Any of them available?
Try not to get any that shows a dark screen or so called space.

You tell me what video you haven’t seen and lose the pretense of impartiality as you have none.  You have the nerve to call literally millions of people who watch these launches in person, who record these launches with high definition cameras, who do zoom in on them as they drop their boosters, who have toured the facilities, who have touched the rockets, that all of them are just dopes or paid shills.

I don;t know who I'm calling because I don't know the millions who claim to have seen this stuff. All I see is the odd person claiming it and many following that narrative. That doesn't create a fact for me. It might for you and that's your affair.

  You are the person claiming this yet you have zero evidence.  You can’t even put together a coherent explanation for how they would fake it or why.

I think I've given many scenarios of which I do admit all could be wrong.One thing that isn't wrong and that's where they supposedly go.....to so called space. I'm 100% sure they don't in my mind but then again my mind isn't a fact book. Weirdly neither is yours, so it's down to picking out what's what.
You adhere to magic and I try to decipher the magic into realistic potential. That's the basics.
 

What are you going to say in the next five years when Blue Origin or Virgin Galactic starts selling tickets for the general public to LEO?

Probably similar to what I'm saying right now. Why?
There won't be any public going anywhere in space. They might have a high altitude flight into the night that will probably seem like space. It would be very easy to dupe people.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 01, 2019, 06:00:05 AM

Quote from: Mikey T. on February 01, 2019, 05:28:51 AM

Name calling?  I never did that, I said your ideas are garbage, I said you have brain damage,  I said you are not important enough for a conspiracy against you, and I said you are unworhy of conversation with me, but I'm feeling charitable.  Sometimes you must humor idiots or they will allow depression to set in when they are faced with how meaningless they truly are.  I do not wish for you to think about self injury so I will humor you a bit more.  Now, if you need name calling to get you to actually answer the questions then by all means, dunderhead, LINK THE CONVERSATION we supposedly had where you told us if tests we can do that show what you claim.  I could link you plenty of things showing the opposite but I choose not to at this time.  A mildly retarded chimpanzee with a head wound can see that your denpressure utterances are garbage.

This adds nothing to the conversation but thanks for the effort.

So you bald face lied about testing your idiotic notions?  It's ok, you can just run away from your false accusations.  It's pretty much expected that lies are one of the first recourses of people when faced with their own ineptitude.

No lies here, just hard core questioning with a strong armour.

Quote from: Mikey T. on February 01, 2019, 08:43:27 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 01, 2019, 06:00:05 AM

Quote from: Mikey T. on February 01, 2019, 05:28:51 AM

Name calling?  I never did that, I said your ideas are garbage, I said you have brain damage,  I said you are not important enough for a conspiracy against you, and I said you are unworhy of conversation with me, but I'm feeling charitable.  Sometimes you must humor idiots or they will allow depression to set in when they are faced with how meaningless they truly are.  I do not wish for you to think about self injury so I will humor you a bit more.  Now, if you need name calling to get you to actually answer the questions then by all means, dunderhead, LINK THE CONVERSATION we supposedly had where you told us if tests we can do that show what you claim.  I could link you plenty of things showing the opposite but I choose not to at this time.  A mildly retarded chimpanzee with a head wound can see that your denpressure utterances are garbage.

This adds nothing to the conversation but thanks for the effort.

So you bald face lied about testing your idiotic notions?  It's ok, you can just run away from your false accusations.  It's pretty much expected that lies are one of the first recourses of people when faced with their own ineptitude.

No lies here, just hard core questioning with a strong armour.

. Great!  Now link the conversation on how to test your claims.  Prove you were not lying, then we will proceed.  Also, strong armour...  Hilarious.  I'm STILL waiting, you are STILL blowing smoke. 

Quote from: Themightykabool on February 01, 2019, 07:51:36 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 01, 2019, 06:31:11 AM

Quote from: markjo on February 01, 2019, 06:13:36 AM

I read lots of threads with lots of experiments so it's hard to keep them all straight.  Please refresh my memory.

You certainly don't need your memory refreshing. You're well aware of them, so I won't take that route with you.

Swishswish dodge dodge.

You obviously have lots of time on your hands.

Simple put the basic experiment on youtube.
As oer history, you have the inability to describe in english what you percieve physics to be, so, a picture tells a 10000words.
So
Post to youtube or draw a diagram.

As soon as you post a diagram showing me how your space rockets work with a full description of everything that happens inside of it and what happens outside of it (or doesn't, according to you people).

I keep asking but all I seem to get is a copy and paste action/reaction tube diagram that explains absolutely nothing.
Over to you, Roger.

Pfff
All redily available for the indoctrinated.
Try google or youtube.
Im not fallin for your troll.
Dodgedgode swishswish some more.

Youre the lone wolf that doesnt seem to have anything available.
Wheres your stuff?

Great!  Now link the conversation on how to test your claims.  Prove you were not lying, then we will proceed.  Also, strong armour...  Hilarious.  I'm STILL waiting, you are STILL blowing smoke.

Test my claims for what?
How about you test your claims against what you think my claims are.

Pfff
All redily available for the indoctrinated.
Try google or youtube.
Im not fallin for your troll.
Dodgedgode swishswish some more.

Youre the lone wolf that doesnt seem to have anything available.
Wheres your stuff?

Put some effort in.

Quote from: Didymus on February 01, 2019, 06:12:36 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 01, 2019, 05:57:12 AM

Quote from: Didymus on February 01, 2019, 03:19:00 AM

We're just trying to help you here.
You do know the difference between a £3000 gas powered match rifle and a £100 Chinese springer don't you?
Both have air coming out of the end.
In the case of the expensive one there's almost no recoil. That's partly the point.
The cheap spring gun rattles like an old tin can, and the kick is quite strong.
This contradicts both your points at the same time:
The release of a spring will give a reaction.
It has nothing to do with pushing on air.
You would get a recoil from a cocked spring gun in a vacuum.

As for Newton. Just no, as Rab pointed out.

Yes the spring will give a reaction because it has to hit something to attain that reaction, like a piston that compresses the air to release the pellet, so it's different to the spring in the hand and certainly to how it would work in so called space, because the spring recoils one way using only the base as mere holding foundation.

And this?

Quote

You would get a recoil from a cocked spring gun in a vacuum.

Nope. You would have no piston compression to create it. No recoil.

Next time you fly, take your air gun with you and see if the recoil is the same!
All of which fails to explain why the recoil is greater on a spring gun than a gas gun.

Quote from: Themightykabool on February 01, 2019, 07:51:36 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 01, 2019, 06:31:11 AM

Quote from: markjo on February 01, 2019, 06:13:36 AM

I read lots of threads with lots of experiments so it's hard to keep them all straight.  Please refresh my memory.

You certainly don't need your memory refreshing. You're well aware of them, so I won't take that route with you.

Swishswish dodge dodge.

You obviously have lots of time on your hands.

Simple put the basic experiment on youtube.
As oer history, you have the inability to describe in english what you percieve physics to be, so, a picture tells a 10000words.
So
Post to youtube or draw a diagram.

As soon as you post a diagram showing me how your space rockets work with a full description of everything that happens inside of it and what happens outside of it (or doesn't, according to you people).

I keep asking but all I seem to get is a copy and paste action/reaction tube diagram that explains absolutely nothing.
Over to you, Roger.

All available online, have you looked or spoken to your local university.  Please do not ask people here to explain, there is no point.

Here ya go Sceptimatic


Local news channel zoomed in enough to see the booster separation then the fairing separation.  It isn’t perfectly clear as expected of something miles away...  That took 5 minutes to find, want to see more?


Amateur zooming in, near shuttle launch

This one is obviously fake as it has NASA on it

LISTEN... 3 miles away...  vertical blimp...  right...
More amateur booster separation zooming in..

These are easy to find, how many more would you like to see?

Quote from: markjo on February 01, 2019, 06:35:40 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 01, 2019, 06:33:53 AM

Quote from: markjo on February 01, 2019, 06:18:05 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 01, 2019, 03:50:01 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on February 01, 2019, 02:39:35 AM

How could anyone with the slightest understanding claim that force = mass x acceleration is "obscure in the extreme when looked at in a rational sense."
Because all three of Newton's Laws of Motion are included in that one simple expression.

f=ma is fine but it's what it really represents.

Force requires a resistance to become a force to push mass against a resistance to accelerate it.

Scepti, do you believe that a rocket and the thrust coming out the back are one object or two objects?

The rocket and the thrust coming out of the back is one attached object/gas burn hitting atmosphere.

Is there a force inside the rocket pushing the exhaust out of the rocket?

Just a foundation allowing the expansion of fuel and oxidizer to be released, naturally to be ignited to expand much more against the external atmosphere.

There's absolutely no force pushing the other way internally.

Are you saying that there is no propellant burning and expanding inside the rocket engine?

All that's happening is stacking. The rocket is basically stacking and sitting on the burning fuel against the compressed atmosphere.

How can a heavy rocket stack on top of light exhaust gasses?

The atmosphere is doing the reactionary work to the action of the expanded fuel into it.
It's compressing by super expansion of gases which create a massive low pressure in the middle of the flame, leaving the outer atmosphere compressed to hell, as well as into the stack.

Huh?  Compressed by super expansion?  How does that make any sense?  Why doesn't the heavy rocket fall into the massive low pressure in the middle?

It all springs back onto that thrust and squeezes that rocket up on that thrusting burn alone.

So the thrust is pushing the rocket up after all?

I still can't believe people fall for this who actually have time to think on it.

Maybe people "fall for it" because simple experiments show that it's a perfectly reasonable explanation.

Quote from: Themightykabool on February 01, 2019, 09:42:09 AM

Pfff
All redily available for the indoctrinated.
Try google or youtube.
Im not fallin for your troll.
Dodgedgode swishswish some more.

Youre the lone wolf that doesnt seem to have anything available.
Wheres your stuff?

Put some effort in.

Looks like Scepti is a bot.
We can all move on.