since youtube is shutting my channel down)No kidding. Why could that possibly be??
First off : Apollo was not a hoax, but a straight up con of epic proportions.Thanks !!!!
Secondly : feel free to watch the best documentary ever uploaded on youtube about APOLLO - HOAX OF THE CENTURY (pay attention : download it, and reupload it on your channels, as soon as you can, since youtube is shutting my channel down) :
APOLLO - HOAX OF THE CENTURY - part 1 :
APOLLO - HOAX OF THE CENTURY - part 2 :
APOLLO - HOAX OF THE CENTURY - part 3 :
APOLLO - HOAX OF THE CENTURY - part 4 :
APOLLO - HOAX OF THE CENTURY - part 5 :
ON TOP OF THAT :
APOLLO HOAX - WHY RUSSIA NEVER SPILLED THE BEANS :
Moon landing propaganda is like software code being installed on people's brains. And it's purpose is to utterly warp a person's perception of their reality and their senses, to the point that they are likely to believe all manner of nonsense because once you accept that men have gone to the moon, a feat which I'm not even convinced will ever be within the realms of possibility seeing as there isn't even any evidence the moon is actually this rock in space that humans can fly to and land on, but once you accept this garbage you are much more likely to accept other totally unproven "facts" from these deceivers. Suddenly you have people believing unquestioningly the universe started with a big bang explosion from absolutely nothing that happened 14 billion years ago (impossible to know what happened 50,000 years ago let alone 14 BILLION, talk about total insanity) or that people evolved from bacteria in the ocean, all utter nonsense that can never ever be demonstrated, tested or proven in any way. Just math equations and computer models that are entirely made up. But once a person accepts just one of their mind warping propaganda programs, they inevitably end up believing them all.
I think the apollo missions play a big part in how people form their beliefs about the world and the universe so much so that accepting them as hoax would cause their worldviews to collapse and I don’t think most people today are ready to face that kind of a fundamental change in their lives. It changes everything. The apollo missions are nasa’s way of proving to people that they got all the answers and that everything is the way they claim it is because they’re the only ones that have been out there. Now you have billions of people in the world who believe in them and their doctrine and anyone who disagrees with them is portrayed as an insane paranoid conspiracy theorist. The technique used by narcissists to destroy the credibility of their victims.
Simple OFFICIAL science debunks the moon landing. - It's called Van Allen Belt, the radiation would kill everyone and all electronics. The materials used aluminum, nickel/iron, and titanium would have all melted due to the extreme radiation and temperatures.
How could they survive the radiation and high temperature, WITH THAT SUITE. i think that a bunch of fan could never handle that, cause that (include all things on back pack) will broken and become unusable on such a hot temperatures...Just how... is it calculated to know the temperature on the moon? Being the moon is some 1/4 million miles away? The temps calculated for the earth are not always accurate, let-alone to tell us the temps on the moons surface are such. Are they shooting a beam to the moon such as one checking the temp of his steak on the grill? A 1/4 million miles away. Forgive—a thermometer was stuck in the soil upon arrival.
Our measurments show that the maximum radiation level as of 1958 is equivalent to between 10 and 100 roentgens per hour, depending on the still-undetermined proportion of protons to electrons. Since a human being exposed for two days to even 10 roentgens would have only an even chance of survival, the radiation belts obviously present an obstacle to space flight. Unless some practical way can be found to shield space-travelers against the effects of the radiation, manned space rockets can best take off through the radiation-free zone over the poles. A "space station" must orbit below 400 miles or beyond 30 000 miles from the earth. We are now planning a satellite flight that will test the efficacy of various methods of shielding. The hazard of space-travelers may not even end even when they have passed the terrestrial radiation belts... James Van Allen
Do tell where all the O2 was kept for them to breathe, for a scuba divers tank will only last for about an hour without complicated rebreather technology. Surly there was no such device then. -Two astronots breathing 02 from the time they left earth, to the time they returned to earth about seven days just where was all this 02 stored? A SCUBA divers tank which holds 80 cubit feet of air would calculate to 13,440 cubic feet of air needed for roughly 7 days just for two people. The air locks between the lunar rover and the outside, none. NONE!!! Fantasy the lot.
In1986 I was a 2nd Lt. and a newly minted, USAF officer and aviator, flying C-130s. One of my first operational missions was to fly some troops to Andrews AFB. We stayed in D.C. for two days. On one day, we wemt to the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum. When I saw the LEM and especially when I saw the lunar rover exhibit, a life size mock-up, I told one of my crewmates, another 2nd Lt., copilot, that this is b.s., no way they landed the LEM with that rover. After seeing that exhibit, I started questioning the veracity of the lunar landings. Most professional aviators do not have the balls to even question the lunar missions, let alone say that they were fake. Look at 911, any active aviator who questions 911 will be grounded. Few will say a thing when they know the Pentagon strike was a virtual impossibility. John Basilone
Blazing Saddles, Boyz in the Hood, Star Wars, and Back to the Future are just a few of the hundreds of films collected in the Library of Congress. But we’re to believe NASA can’t preserve the telemetry data from the moon missions. Hahahahahah!!!
Don’t get me wrong. Those are all great films but I believe the significance of the moon data may be just a tad bit more important. I guess it’s hard to hold on to something that never existed.
"The only bird who can talk is the Parrot and he didn't fly very well.. There are great ideas left undiscovered to those who can peel away one of truths most protective layers."
- Neil Armstrong --------- Don't be a parrot people..
IN ADDITION :
ROCKETS CAN'T FLY IN A VACUUM :
One other guy (below one other similar video) left this very interesting comment :
No... Rockets do not make what they push against to work. It's fluid dynamics...it does not matter if it's water... Or air... It works the exact same way...its like saying that a submarine makes the water that the propeller pushes against while it's on land.. people will agree that the submarine would not move..The same exact thing will happen to a rocket in space.. That is the dumbest and most idiotic wrong explanation of how rockets work that is even possible. Because space is as close of a perfect vacuum there is ...it is impossible to have thrust... Saying that a rocket pushes off it's own gas from combustion is ludicrous... It's no different than saying that you can blow hard enough into a vacuum cleaner and make positive pressure... A vacuum cleaner is a very extremely small fraction of the vacuum of space....just like a vacuum cleaner will suck the air right out of your lungs... Space will do the same exact thing to a rocket... Only many many many many many many many many times quicker and the molecules will go in every direction evenly making thrust impossible ....using small box like this moron... You release pressure into the box and after the box gets to 0 pressure... The rocket.. "can"...will apply force to the container until there is enough pressure to prevent this from happening then it will push off of its own gasses inside the box... This does absolutely nothing but prove that you should not listen to anything this idiot says at all... ever... until he admits this experiment is flawed and invalid. If he does not at least do that... Then he is purposely deceiving people....personally I think he is deceiving people. I work with pressures and vacuums every single day I work and I guarantee that there is not a single person on this planet that can prove what I said was incorrect or untrue. He does not have a vacuum pump that is able to take the gasses out of that chamber as fast as its being put in... Like it would be in space....he pulled a vacuum and closed a valve taking the vacuum pump ..."space" out of the experiment....invalid experiment... And he got the wrong conclusion because the experiment was invalid...
In his next response he said this :
You still did not say that I was wrong... So what the fuck was the point of your comment because I don't see one... you are a troll that somehow benifits off of the deceptions of the government...if u can't prove me wrong... Than go fuck yourself ...if you can prove wrong me then do it....are you telling me you do not know how things move through water...because thats all you need to understand for proof rockets do not work in a vacuum... It's really that simple....will a submarine move that is on land that makes the water that the propeller pushes against even if there was no friction between the submarine and ground... You are telling people that the submarine would move... research articles for what... How things move through water?...the only person that is not being logical is you... And also... What was your point of throwing in the GPS reference... Is that the only counter argument you have against what I said...are you saying that rockets work in space because the GPS loses reception in a tunnel... Damn you are desperate for a counter argument if u threw that in there...who ever gave you a high school diploma needs to be fired... That's if you didn't drop out... Which I think is most likely
Finally, look what happens when you fly over the target :
Two days ago i uploaded video by the name YOUTUBE IS SHUTTING DOWN MY CHANNEL, and after a few hours they shut that video, too, so feel free to acquaint yourself with their fake excuse by reading just a few excerpts from my "hate speech" video :
https://i.postimg.cc/HWzxHpzV/1-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-3-1.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/0jXPSyXn/2-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-4.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/PJ7nxFNF/3-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-4-1.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/fyp1ZtgG/4-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-4-2.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/x8wpBrXY/5-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-4-3.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/N0GtdThD/6-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-4-4.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/90ZsmF5z/7-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-4-5.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/YSPPQmth/8-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-4-6.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/L4LWZXw8/9-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-4-7.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/xdXxjTLY/10-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-4-8.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/G3FMmfTB/11-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-5.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/fWfKN01m/12-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-6.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/9QKPpPq5/13-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-6-1.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/CM7jtpf4/14-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-6-2.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/rwBWW8vq/15-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-6-3.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/PJVvqhWs/16-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-6-4.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/13qVyk42/17-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-6-5.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/QxBHq2gC/18-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-6-6.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/FKxRRNvW/19-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-5.jpg
I made this collage of screenshots on this guy's request :
https://i.postimg.cc/c4hz1ztx/YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-SEI-SHIN.jpg
You are useless.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=81808.0
First off : Apollo was not a hoax, but a straight up con of epic proportions.Thanks !!!!
Secondly : feel free to watch the best documentary ever uploaded on youtube about APOLLO - HOAX OF THE CENTURY (pay attention : download it, and reupload it on your channels, as soon as you can, since youtube is shutting my channel down) :
APOLLO - HOAX OF THE CENTURY - part 1 :
APOLLO - HOAX OF THE CENTURY - part 2 :
APOLLO - HOAX OF THE CENTURY - part 3 :
APOLLO - HOAX OF THE CENTURY - part 4 :
APOLLO - HOAX OF THE CENTURY - part 5 :
ON TOP OF THAT :
APOLLO HOAX - WHY RUSSIA NEVER SPILLED THE BEANS :
Moon landing propaganda is like software code being installed on people's brains. And it's purpose is to utterly warp a person's perception of their reality and their senses, to the point that they are likely to believe all manner of nonsense because once you accept that men have gone to the moon, a feat which I'm not even convinced will ever be within the realms of possibility seeing as there isn't even any evidence the moon is actually this rock in space that humans can fly to and land on, but once you accept this garbage you are much more likely to accept other totally unproven "facts" from these deceivers. Suddenly you have people believing unquestioningly the universe started with a big bang explosion from absolutely nothing that happened 14 billion years ago (impossible to know what happened 50,000 years ago let alone 14 BILLION, talk about total insanity) or that people evolved from bacteria in the ocean, all utter nonsense that can never ever be demonstrated, tested or proven in any way. Just math equations and computer models that are entirely made up. But once a person accepts just one of their mind warping propaganda programs, they inevitably end up believing them all.
I think the apollo missions play a big part in how people form their beliefs about the world and the universe so much so that accepting them as hoax would cause their worldviews to collapse and I don’t think most people today are ready to face that kind of a fundamental change in their lives. It changes everything. The apollo missions are nasa’s way of proving to people that they got all the answers and that everything is the way they claim it is because they’re the only ones that have been out there. Now you have billions of people in the world who believe in them and their doctrine and anyone who disagrees with them is portrayed as an insane paranoid conspiracy theorist. The technique used by narcissists to destroy the credibility of their victims.
Simple OFFICIAL science debunks the moon landing. - It's called Van Allen Belt, the radiation would kill everyone and all electronics. The materials used aluminum, nickel/iron, and titanium would have all melted due to the extreme radiation and temperatures.
How could they survive the radiation and high temperature, WITH THAT SUITE. i think that a bunch of fan could never handle that, cause that (include all things on back pack) will broken and become unusable on such a hot temperatures...Just how... is it calculated to know the temperature on the moon? Being the moon is some 1/4 million miles away? The temps calculated for the earth are not always accurate, let-alone to tell us the temps on the moons surface are such. Are they shooting a beam to the moon such as one checking the temp of his steak on the grill? A 1/4 million miles away. Forgive—a thermometer was stuck in the soil upon arrival.
Our measurments show that the maximum radiation level as of 1958 is equivalent to between 10 and 100 roentgens per hour, depending on the still-undetermined proportion of protons to electrons. Since a human being exposed for two days to even 10 roentgens would have only an even chance of survival, the radiation belts obviously present an obstacle to space flight. Unless some practical way can be found to shield space-travelers against the effects of the radiation, manned space rockets can best take off through the radiation-free zone over the poles. A "space station" must orbit below 400 miles or beyond 30 000 miles from the earth. We are now planning a satellite flight that will test the efficacy of various methods of shielding. The hazard of space-travelers may not even end even when they have passed the terrestrial radiation belts... James Van Allen
Do tell where all the O2 was kept for them to breathe, for a scuba divers tank will only last for about an hour without complicated rebreather technology. Surly there was no such device then. -Two astronots breathing 02 from the time they left earth, to the time they returned to earth about seven days just where was all this 02 stored? A SCUBA divers tank which holds 80 cubit feet of air would calculate to 13,440 cubic feet of air needed for roughly 7 days just for two people. The air locks between the lunar rover and the outside, none. NONE!!! Fantasy the lot.
In1986 I was a 2nd Lt. and a newly minted, USAF officer and aviator, flying C-130s. One of my first operational missions was to fly some troops to Andrews AFB. We stayed in D.C. for two days. On one day, we wemt to the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum. When I saw the LEM and especially when I saw the lunar rover exhibit, a life size mock-up, I told one of my crewmates, another 2nd Lt., copilot, that this is b.s., no way they landed the LEM with that rover. After seeing that exhibit, I started questioning the veracity of the lunar landings. Most professional aviators do not have the balls to even question the lunar missions, let alone say that they were fake. Look at 911, any active aviator who questions 911 will be grounded. Few will say a thing when they know the Pentagon strike was a virtual impossibility. John Basilone
Blazing Saddles, Boyz in the Hood, Star Wars, and Back to the Future are just a few of the hundreds of films collected in the Library of Congress. But we’re to believe NASA can’t preserve the telemetry data from the moon missions. Hahahahahah!!!
Don’t get me wrong. Those are all great films but I believe the significance of the moon data may be just a tad bit more important. I guess it’s hard to hold on to something that never existed.
"The only bird who can talk is the Parrot and he didn't fly very well.. There are great ideas left undiscovered to those who can peel away one of truths most protective layers."
- Neil Armstrong --------- Don't be a parrot people..
IN ADDITION :
ROCKETS CAN'T FLY IN A VACUUM :
One other guy (below one other similar video) left this very interesting comment :
No... Rockets do not make what they push against to work. It's fluid dynamics...it does not matter if it's water... Or air... It works the exact same way...its like saying that a submarine makes the water that the propeller pushes against while it's on land.. people will agree that the submarine would not move..The same exact thing will happen to a rocket in space.. That is the dumbest and most idiotic wrong explanation of how rockets work that is even possible. Because space is as close of a perfect vacuum there is ...it is impossible to have thrust... Saying that a rocket pushes off it's own gas from combustion is ludicrous... It's no different than saying that you can blow hard enough into a vacuum cleaner and make positive pressure... A vacuum cleaner is a very extremely small fraction of the vacuum of space....just like a vacuum cleaner will suck the air right out of your lungs... Space will do the same exact thing to a rocket... Only many many many many many many many many times quicker and the molecules will go in every direction evenly making thrust impossible ....using small box like this moron... You release pressure into the box and after the box gets to 0 pressure... The rocket.. "can"...will apply force to the container until there is enough pressure to prevent this from happening then it will push off of its own gasses inside the box... This does absolutely nothing but prove that you should not listen to anything this idiot says at all... ever... until he admits this experiment is flawed and invalid. If he does not at least do that... Then he is purposely deceiving people....personally I think he is deceiving people. I work with pressures and vacuums every single day I work and I guarantee that there is not a single person on this planet that can prove what I said was incorrect or untrue. He does not have a vacuum pump that is able to take the gasses out of that chamber as fast as its being put in... Like it would be in space....he pulled a vacuum and closed a valve taking the vacuum pump ..."space" out of the experiment....invalid experiment... And he got the wrong conclusion because the experiment was invalid...
In his next response he said this :
You still did not say that I was wrong... So what the fuck was the point of your comment because I don't see one... you are a troll that somehow benifits off of the deceptions of the government...if u can't prove me wrong... Than go fuck yourself ...if you can prove wrong me then do it....are you telling me you do not know how things move through water...because thats all you need to understand for proof rockets do not work in a vacuum... It's really that simple....will a submarine move that is on land that makes the water that the propeller pushes against even if there was no friction between the submarine and ground... You are telling people that the submarine would move... research articles for what... How things move through water?...the only person that is not being logical is you... And also... What was your point of throwing in the GPS reference... Is that the only counter argument you have against what I said...are you saying that rockets work in space because the GPS loses reception in a tunnel... Damn you are desperate for a counter argument if u threw that in there...who ever gave you a high school diploma needs to be fired... That's if you didn't drop out... Which I think is most likely
Finally, look what happens when you fly over the target :
Two days ago i uploaded video by the name YOUTUBE IS SHUTTING DOWN MY CHANNEL, and after a few hours they shut that video, too, so feel free to acquaint yourself with their fake excuse by reading just a few excerpts from my "hate speech" video :
https://i.postimg.cc/HWzxHpzV/1-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-3-1.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/0jXPSyXn/2-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-4.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/PJ7nxFNF/3-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-4-1.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/fyp1ZtgG/4-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-4-2.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/x8wpBrXY/5-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-4-3.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/N0GtdThD/6-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-4-4.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/90ZsmF5z/7-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-4-5.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/YSPPQmth/8-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-4-6.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/L4LWZXw8/9-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-4-7.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/xdXxjTLY/10-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-4-8.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/G3FMmfTB/11-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-5.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/fWfKN01m/12-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-6.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/9QKPpPq5/13-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-6-1.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/CM7jtpf4/14-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-6-2.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/rwBWW8vq/15-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-6-3.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/PJVvqhWs/16-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-6-4.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/13qVyk42/17-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-6-5.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/QxBHq2gC/18-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-PROOF-6-6.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/FKxRRNvW/19-YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-5.jpg
I made this collage of screenshots on this guy's request :
https://i.postimg.cc/c4hz1ztx/YOUTUBE-IS-SHUTTING-DOWN-MY-CHANNEL-SEI-SHIN.jpg
I am going to check it all out !!
Take the argument over to the other thread. It’s all explained there.
(https://j.gifs.com/7L4J9Q.gif)
(https://j.gifs.com/7L4J9Q.gif)
You haven't noticed (since you haven't watched it, in the first place), but this scientist is referring to your argument (as well) in the video :
ON TOP OF THAT, I AM GOING TO USE SOMEONE ELSE'S WORDS (ON THIS MATTER) AGAIN (SORRY FOR THAT) :
I still don't see how this explains why rockets can provide thrust in a vacuum at all, one must be foolish to take this as a valid experiment. The balloon pressurized the vacuum and gave it something to push off of, along with the walls of the chamber itself. The only way to prove either side is to get an infinite vacuum and a rocket inside of it (Good luck getting the funding!!). Some may attempt explaining this by stating the example of a person throwing a cinder block standing on a skateboard and relating it to a rocket forcing out hot expanding gasses, but they are different. One is like firing a heavy round from a rifle, and the other is firing a blank, except the rifles are fired in an infinite vacuum. Rockets work in an infinite vacuum only in a NASA studio paid for with our taxes. I will try to address the explanation given by InfernoVortex, there is no gas in space that expands to push the rocket, the rocket thrust doesn't have mass for the rocket to push off of and a vacuum would dissipate the hot gases very quickly. This is the most absurd claim ever. Now to wait for all the little scientists to tell me I'm stupid and say "Its science silly, you are just too stupid to understand it."
The Action Lab ....please explain how a rocket pushes off it's own gas... That's got to the dumbest reason I have ever heard as the reason a rocket would work in space... So as an example... You are stating a rocket has an exhaust of 100 Psi then it ejects exhaust at 500 psi and this is how rockets work?....instead of the very obvious reason the can has thrust in this example is because force is being applied to the container...in order for Newton's third law a force must be applied to something else in order to be able to get an opposite reaction....so with a rocket that weighs a million lbs in space... The rocket would have to apply 1 million pounds of thrust off of something just to get it to begin to move...
Theoretical physics can prove that an elephant can hang off a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy!
Theoretical physics can prove that an elephant can hang off a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy!
Too bad the Earth was allready measured hundreds of thousands of times as a globe
and theoretical physics can't prove it was flat any more. :)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Prove that the rocket propellant has no mass and velocity,
and you will prove that the rocket can't work in vacuum.
Theoretical physics can prove that an elephant can hang off a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy!
Too bad the Earth was allready measured hundreds of thousands of times as a globe
and theoretical physics can't prove it was flat any more. :)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Prove that the rocket propellant has no mass and velocity,
and you will prove that the rocket can't work in vacuum.
Who is talking about flat earth here? You know very well that i don't believe in flat-earth stupid theory, and despite that you bring in the discussion totally unrelated topic. Only total idiots and lowlife scumbags use such derailing/deceptive techniques in order to try to discredit their opponents...
The fact that the nozzle makes the car go slower is the fact that the escaping air in the nozzle expands (pressure drop) and slows down, is the nozzle to big then the force isn't big enough to pusch the car.
Thats why rockets need different nozzles (for max performance) depending on the air pressure.
And let's have a look at rockets flying in a vacuum :
NASA sais : Its Newtons third law, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction
so when i push against a wall with 50 kg the wall pushes back with 50 kg ????
- A wall is lifeless and can't pusch back (reaction) ??
- something opposite is equal ??
doesn't sound that right does it, when i push against a wall and the wall does not move, it's not pushing back but RESISTING my action from 50 kg and it feels to me as if the wall would be pusching.
so resistance is a very importent part of newtons third law
let's look at a example with a football :
1. i kick a football made of concreet that can not move with 50 kg, to me it would feel as if the football would hit my foot with 50 kg so Fr = -Fa x 1 (1 is the factor of resistance = max)
2. this time it is a normal football, it won't feel to me as if the football hits my foot with 50 kg but maybe only 25kg so Fr = -Fa x 0.5
3. and when i kick and miss the football (resistance = zero / vacuum) i dont feel any force on my foot so Fr = - Fa x 0
you can also do the same experiment with a wall,
When it is fixed on the ground you can't move it, put it on some wheels then you can move it and you will experience a smaller force
And ofcourse when you try this on ice (very low resistance) nothing will move because you can't push without the necessary resistance that stops your feet from slipping
Then why do they teach newton's third law as beeing Fr=-Fa and not Fr=-Fa x r (resistance coefficient)
Well if they don't hide the fact that resistance is needed they can't keep the space myth alive
ACCOMPANYING VIDEO :
ROCKETS CAN'T FLY IN A VACUUM - 2 :
Theoretical physics can prove that an elephant can hang off a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy!
Too bad the Earth was allready measured hundreds of thousands of times as a globe
and theoretical physics can't prove it was flat any more. :)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Prove that the rocket propellant has no mass and velocity,
and you will prove that the rocket can't work in vacuum.
Who is talking about flat earth here? You know very well that i don't believe in flat-earth stupid theory, and despite that you bring in the discussion totally unrelated topic. Only total idiots and lowlife scumbags use such derailing/deceptive techniques in order to try to discredit their opponents...
The fact that the nozzle makes the car go slower is the fact that the escaping air in the nozzle expands (pressure drop) and slows down, is the nozzle to big then the force isn't big enough to pusch the car.
Thats why rockets need different nozzles (for max performance) depending on the air pressure.
And let's have a look at rockets flying in a vacuum :
NASA sais : Its Newtons third law, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction
so when i push against a wall with 50 kg the wall pushes back with 50 kg ????
- A wall is lifeless and can't pusch back (reaction) ??
- something opposite is equal ??
doesn't sound that right does it, when i push against a wall and the wall does not move, it's not pushing back but RESISTING my action from 50 kg and it feels to me as if the wall would be pusching.
so resistance is a very importent part of newtons third law
let's look at a example with a football :
1. i kick a football made of concreet that can not move with 50 kg, to me it would feel as if the football would hit my foot with 50 kg so Fr = -Fa x 1 (1 is the factor of resistance = max)
2. this time it is a normal football, it won't feel to me as if the football hits my foot with 50 kg but maybe only 25kg so Fr = -Fa x 0.5
3. and when i kick and miss the football (resistance = zero / vacuum) i dont feel any force on my foot so Fr = - Fa x 0
you can also do the same experiment with a wall,
When it is fixed on the ground you can't move it, put it on some wheels then you can move it and you will experience a smaller force
And ofcourse when you try this on ice (very low resistance) nothing will move because you can't push without the necessary resistance that stops your feet from slipping
Then why do they teach newton's third law as beeing Fr=-Fa and not Fr=-Fa x r (resistance coefficient)
Well if they don't hide the fact that resistance is needed they can't keep the space myth alive
ACCOMPANYING VIDEO :
ROCKETS CAN'T FLY IN A VACUUM - 2 :
feel free to watch the best documentary ever uploaded on youtube about APOLLO - HOAX OF THE CENTURYBeing the best documentary on a lie doesn't magically make it true.
Moon landing propaganda is like software code being installed on people's brains. And it's purpose is to utterly warp a person's perception of their reality and their senses, to the point that they are likely to believe all manner of nonsense because once you accept that men have gone to the moon, a feat which I'm not even convinced will ever be within the realms of possibility seeing as there isn't even any evidence the moon is actually this rock in space that humans can fly to and land on, but once you accept this garbage you are much more likely to accept other totally unproven "facts" from these deceivers.So what you really mean is when people start to accept one part of reality and see that a religion is wrong, they are more likely to accept more points that show that religion is wrong, instead of blindly following religious indoctrination?
Simple OFFICIAL science debunks the moon landing.No it doesn't, not in the slightest.
It's called Van Allen BeltA region of radiation that the Apollo craft went mainly around, rather than through.
The materials used aluminum, nickel/iron, and titanium would have all melted due to the extreme radiation and temperatures.The radiation would not cause it to melt. That is just pure nonsense.
Our measurments show that the maximum radiation level as of 1958 is equivalent to between 10 and 100 roentgens per hour, depending on the still-undetermined proportion of protons to electrons. Since a human being exposed for two days to even 10 roentgens would have only an even chance of survival, the radiation belts obviously present an obstacle to space flight. Unless some practical way can be found to shield space-travelers against the effects of the radiation, manned space rockets can best take off through the radiation-free zone over the poles. A "space station" must orbit below 400 miles or beyond 30 000 miles from the earth. We are now planning a satellite flight that will test the efficacy of various methods of shielding. The hazard of space-travelers may not even end even when they have passed the terrestrial radiation belts... James Van AllenYou really need a better citation for that. Not just "Van Allen".
Do tell where all the O2 was kept for them to breathe, for a scuba divers tank will only last for about an hour without complicated rebreather technology.Do you know why? As there are many factors.
A SCUBA divers tank which holds 80 cubit feet of air would calculate to 13,440 cubic feet of air needed for roughly 7 days just for two people.Based upon the assumption that they need 80 cubic feet of air per 2 hours.
Blazing Saddles, Boyz in the Hood, Star Wars, and Back to the Future are just a few of the hundreds of films collected in the Library of Congress. But we’re to believe NASA can’t preserve the telemetry data from the moon missions. Hahahahahah!!!They have preserved the telemetry, just not on the original media.
ROCKETS CAN'T FLY IN A VACUUM :Unless you want to discard how pressure works and conservation of momentum, they do work in a vacuum.
so feel free to acquaint yourself with their fake excuse by reading just a few excerpts from my "hate speech" video :Youtube shutting down your channel is irreverent to the moon landings.
The only way to prove either side is to get an infinite vacuum and a rocket inside of it (Good luck getting the funding!!).You mean like taking a rocket into space and having it still work?
so when i push against a wall with 50 kg the wall pushes back with 50 kg ????You not liking it means squat.
- A wall is lifeless and can't pusch back (reaction) ??
- something opposite is equal ??
doesn't sound that right does it, when i push against a wall and the wall does not move, it's not pushing back but RESISTING my action from 50 kg and it feels to me as if the wall would be pusching.
2. this time it is a normal football, it won't feel to me as if the football hits my foot with 50 kg but maybe only 25kg so Fr = -Fa x 0.5Pure nonsense.
3. and when i kick and miss the football (resistance = zero / vacuum) i dont feel any force on my foot soSo your foot is not applying a force. Wow, 0=0, who would have thought.
you can also do the same experiment with a wallAnd while different you will get similar results.
Then why do they teach newton's third law as beeing Fr=-Fa and not Fr=-Fa x r (resistance coefficient)Because that is a load of nonsense, not backed up by reality at all.
You are useless.He probably hit a nerve somewhere !!
Is he treathening your sacred ‘munlundings’ ?
Then why do they teach newton's third law as beeing Fr=-Fa and not Fr=-Fa x r (resistance coefficient)For the simple reason that Fr = -Fa and "resistance coefficient" is quite a meaningless concept here!
Well if they don't hide the fact that resistance is needed they can't keep the space myth aliveI hope you realise that most of the thrust of a rocket comes from the (mass flow rate) x (exhaust velocity) and tacking diffusers etc on the end kills most of that!
ACCOMPANYING VIDEO :
ROCKETS CAN'T FLY IN A VACUUM - 2 :
I'm not going to waste time transcribing the relevant parts of a 22 min 59 sec video to find a rusty nail or two.
This one i really like... how many nails does one have to stick in the coffin of Apollo ?
Yes that happens at times.I'm not going to waste time transcribing the relevant parts of a 22 min 59 sec video to find a rusty nail or two.
This one i really like... how many nails does one have to stick in the coffin of Apollo ?
So, you go through it and list the salient point and list them along with their times in the video.
Much obliged!
PS By the way the maker of that video is odiupicku who posts fake photos to "prove ::)" NASA's photos fake ;D!
I'm not going to waste time transcribing the relevant parts of a 22 min 59 sec video to find a rusty nail or two.
So, you go through it and list the salient point and list them along with their times in the video.
Much obliged!
PS By the way the maker of that video is odiupicku who posts fake photos to "prove ::)" NASA's photos fake ;D!
How do you know the temperature on the moon when the astronauts were there? Were YOU there to measure it?I'm not going to waste time transcribing the relevant parts of a 22 min 59 sec video to find a rusty nail or two.
So, you go through it and list the salient point and list them along with their times in the video.
Much obliged!
PS By the way the maker of that video is odiupicku who posts fake photos to "prove ::)" NASA's photos fake ;D!
Do you have an explanation how the operation continued while the survival operation temperature limit was 60 degrees celcius but 107 degrees exist on the moon? Your tears can not cool down the temperature.
The laws of physics asserts that humans and every other living, walking, running, jumping, crawling, flying or swimming creature and all man-made machines that move on wheels, tracks and legs, fly or hover with propellers, rotors, jets or rockets must have the inherent ability to thrust against a separate external resistant force in order to be able to physically move in a chosen direction.Please quote these laws of physics that demand "the inherent ability to thrust against a separate external resistant force in order to be able to physically move in a chosen direction"!
The laws of physics asserts that humans and every other living, walking, running, jumping, crawling, flying or swimming creature and all man-made machines that move on wheels, tracks and legs, fly or hover with propellers, rotors, jets or rockets must have the inherent ability to thrust against a separate external resistant force in order to be able to physically move in a chosen direction.Please quote these laws of physics that demand "the inherent ability to thrust against a separate external resistant force in order to be able to physically move in a chosen direction"!
What happens when a bomb explodes? The pieces that were once part of the bomb fly in all directions. No "separate external resistant force" was needed.
So stop making up your own pretend "Laws od Physics"!
In a rocket the thrust is mainly due to the tonnes of exhaust gas, that was once in the rocket and becomes external, pushed out of the nozzle at hypersonic velocities - get used to it!
The laws of physics asserts that humans and every other living, walking, running, jumping, crawling, flying or swimming creature and all man-made machines that move on wheels, tracks and legs, fly or hover with propellers, rotors, jets or rockets must have the inherent ability to thrust against a separate external resistant force in order to be able to physically move in a chosen direction.
The laws of physics asserts that humans and every other living, walking, running, jumping, crawling, flying or swimming creature and all man-made machines that move on wheels, tracks and legs, fly or hover with propellers, rotors, jets or rockets must have the inherent ability to thrust against a separate external resistant force in order to be able to physically move in a chosen direction.
Citation needed. What law says this?
The laws of physics asserts that humans and every other living, walking, running, jumping, crawling, flying or swimming creature and all man-made machines that move on wheels, tracks and legs, fly or hover with propellers, rotors, jets or rockets must have the inherent ability to thrust against a separate external resistant force in order to be able to physically move in a chosen direction.
Consider this:
Since space is, as we currently understand it, a vacuum with zero air pressure, the only way to make a rocket appear to be able to work in space would be to somehow demonstrate that, (unlike everything else on Earth), a rocket does not require the separate external resistant force of air pressure to thrust against.
Naturally, this premise could only be possible if there was a scientific method of rocket propulsion that looked authentic. A method that seemed so credible it would make people believe a rocket could work, not only in the dense atmosphere of Earth, but also in the airless void of space. A method that was plausible enough to brainwash the entire world into believing a rocket could really work in a vacuum.
And the only way to do that would be to completely disregard the laws of physics, utilise a skewed version of Newton’s third law and then advance the fanciful premise that a rockets thrust could push away from its own rocket and the rocket body could push away from its own thrust, thereby achieving upward motion by becoming self-perpetuating.
To demonstrate this ‘self-perpetuating’ premise, NASA created their ‘bowling ball’ model.
This model asserts that, if you stand on a skateboard with a bowling ball and you throw the ball away from you, the action will cause you and the skateboard to move in the opposite direction to the bowling ball. (Naturally, you would get exactly the same effect standing on a skateboard and pushing against a solid wall).
But does it really prove a rocket can work in a vacuum?
There is no denying that If you stand on a skate board and throw the bowling ball away, you and the skateboard will indeed move in the opposite direction to the bowling ball. This is because, by throwing the bowling ball away, you have basically pushed against a resistant object that is separate from you, (like a solid wall).
So, INERTIA (of the bowling ball) is the magic word (an explanation) that you are looking for (which is behind this fraudulent NASA's "scientific" method.
Do i have to remind you to one other equally fraudulent NASA's "scientific" method that should have looked authentic (dropping a ball in a moving train/airplane)???
I destroyed (for good) this other (dropping a ball within enclosed moving object) NASA's fraudulent method by offering my own irrefutable counter-argument ("CONCORDE" thought experiment).
HERE IT IS : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78814.msg2128697#msg2128697
Now, back on the track :
Pay attention to this very important (exposing) aspect of NASA's fraudulent method (bowling ball) :
In which exact moment does our guy (on the skateboard) starts to move back (in the video posted by sokarul)???
(https://j.gifs.com/7L4J9Q.gif)
BOWLING BALL SLOW MOTION REVEALS NASA'S SCAM :
Long before he extends his arms to the full extent and even much long before he throws the ball (before the ball is fully detached from his hands).
It means that in our "balloon exhausting" kind of experiments we should expect the same result : our toy cars should start being propelled (pushed back) even before the air is exhausted out of the nozzle (drinking straw) into the surrounding environment!!!
That is to say, if we could make the ball to disappear (to vanish into thin air) in the exact same moment when our skateboard guy extends his hands to the full extent (few milliseconds before he throws the ball), he would be still pushed back to the same degree as it is shown in sokarul's video.
Now, all you have to do is to apply this same logic to our "balloon exhausting" experiments and explain to us, why this fraudulent NASA's method doesn't work the same way in both cases???
ACCOMPANYING VIDEO :
ROCKETS CAN'T FLY IN A VACUUM - 3 :
Newton's Third Law - Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
"When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body."
I can give you a hint...”when a BODY exerts force on a SECOND BODY........”
.......let me ask you, what is the second body being acted upon, IN A VACUUM ??!! (near, perfect, partial, pure, or whatever kind of “vacuum” you can IMAGINE UP!!!)
If you figure that out, you”ll understand your mistake... hopefully
No, the “second body” isnt the gases... maybe thats why you’re confused..
... in a rocket launch...the rocket (engine) is the “first body” applying force (expelled gases) to a second body (ground, then atmosphere).. which “pushes back” with equal and opposite force.. on the first body (rocket) forcing it to go up..
what happens in a REAL and INFINITE vacuum, whare there is no “second body” to act upon???
IN ADDITION :
COMBUSTION IS IMPOSSIBLE IN A VACUUM :
The laws of physics asserts that humans and every other living, walking, running, jumping, crawling, flying or swimming creature and all man-made machines that move on wheels, tracks and legs, fly or hover with propellers, rotors, jets or rockets must have the inherent ability to thrust against a separate external resistant force in order to be able to physically move in a chosen direction.
Ckljamas, there's a whole other thread devoted to rocket propulsion, perhaps you could add to that thread?It only adds to the confusion. The picture on the left has a mountain top with a slight downward ''arc'' from left to right, while in the picture on the right the opposite is true.
Dutchy, in the video, the two men are lying.
The backdrop is not identical in the two photos. The mountain shape on right bulges up slightly compared to on the left, and the shadowing is different. When superimposing, the mountains are similar, but not identical. The terrain in the foreground is also different between photos.
Their whole argument rests on the backgrounds being identical and they aren't. The photo on right is taken in front of lunar landing module, and closer to the mountain than in photo on the left, which explains all the differences.
As such, there is no end of set and no front projection involved in the photos. That's an assumption based on their bias.
Have a closer look.
Look closer and you will also see tracks behind the lunar rover. Remember, the tyres were made of aluminium mesh, wire, and titanium blocks, not rubber. Thus, the tracks left, are finer than tracks left by vehicles here on earth in sand.Silver oxide batteries have good performance characteristics at temperature extremes. They can be used up to 55°C(131°F)
The lunar rovers had cooling radiators for the batteries, and built to withstand moon temperature fluctuations of -328 degrees Fahrenheit to 392 degrees Fahrenheit. The batteries were kept within operating temperatures.
Back to the starry moon sky argument again. Armstrong and Collins both say they didn't see stars on the Apollo 11 moon landing. Collins saw stars during the Gemini 7 spacewalk, so why are these pair of fools even comparing what they say about seeing stars?Neil Armstrong EXCLUDED that he (or generally speaking anyone) saw (or could see) stars from the lunar surface, because quote : ''the sky is pitch black and other than the sun the earth is the ONLY visble object''.
...thus, we falsify what you just said, because we are not using bowling balls but air, and we falsify the claim that all work is done before the gas exits, any questions??
Do you have an explanation how the operation continued while the survival operation temperature limit was 60 degrees celcius but 107 degrees exist on the moon? Your tears can not cool down the temperature.Citation needed.
The laws of physics asserts that humans and every other living, walking, running, jumping, crawling, flying or swimming creature and all man-made machines that move on wheels, tracks and legs, fly or hover with propellers, rotors, jets or rockets must have the inherent ability to thrust against a separate external resistant force in order to be able to physically move in a chosen direction.That highly depends upon what you mean by "separate external resistant force".
Since space is, as we currently understand it, a vacuum with zero air pressure, the only way to make a rocket appear to be able to work in space would be to somehow demonstrate that, (unlike everything else on Earth), a rocket does not require the separate external resistant force of air pressure to thrust against.You mean like sending a rocket into space and still having it work, like they have done plenty of times?
And the only way to do that would be to completely disregard the laws of physics, utilise a skewed version of Newton’s third lawYou mean use the actual version of Newton's third law and accept that the gas expelled from the rocket is having a force applied to it by the rocket and thus it in turn provides a force to the rocket?
There is no denying that If you stand on a skate board and throw the bowling ball away, you and the skateboard will indeed move in the opposite direction to the bowling ball. This is because, by throwing the bowling ball away, you have basically pushed against a resistant object that is separate from you, (like a solid wall).Yes, just a like a rocket throwing away the exhaust.
I destroyed (for good) this other (dropping a ball within enclosed moving object) NASA's fraudulent method by offering my own irrefutable counter-argument ("CONCORDE" thought experiment).You mean you were repeatedly refuted by providing a pure nonsense thought experiment which doesn't match reality at all and which you didn't even carry out properly.
Long before he extends his arms to the full extent and even much long before he throws the ball (before the ball is fully detached from his hands).Yes, exactly as expected by mainstream physics.
It means that in our "balloon exhausting" kind of experiments we should expect the same result : our toy cars should start being propelled (pushed back) even before the air is exhausted out of the nozzle (drinking straw) into the surrounding environment!!!Yes, as it is repeatedly observed in any valid experiments, i.e. ones designed to allow the air to escape and act like a rocket rather than the dishonest garbage some people provide to pretend they can't work.
.......let me ask you, what is the second body being acted upon, IN A VACUUM ??!!The first body is the rocket. The second body is the exhaust gas.
If you figure that out, you”ll understand your mistake... hopefullyNo, we understand your mistake.
COMBUSTION IS IMPOSSIBLE IN A VACUUM :No, it is still quite possible, but some forms are very difficult or impossible.
THE CLEVER GUY RESPONDED : Everything you said in every reply is summarized in that passage. Your 'philosophy' is rubbish, and needs to be discarded. There is no half of an explosion etc that you postulate, complete and utter NONSENSE! when an explosion occurs in the nozzle the whole rocket explodes. You need to understand what CONTROLLED COMBUSTION means, it is directional and has a flame front, it does not explode out in all directions and half does one thing and the other half another. Even in car engines the same principle applies.You mean the idiot then says pure garbage?
BOWLING BALL VS AIR: rockets like jets push off airFor Jets, that is the air they suck in and then expel. For rockets that is the "air" that they generate from combustion.
It only adds to the confusion.No, it doesn't add to the confusion at all.
Silver oxide batteries have good performance characteristics at temperature extremes. They can be used up to 55°C(131°F)This applies to the temperature of the batteries, not the outside temperature.
were such that the lunar rover could be easily powered by two silver-oxide batteries.What is the problem with that?
Neil Armstrong EXCLUDED that he (or generally speaking anyone) saw (or could see) stars from the lunar surfaceSo what?
Pay attention to this very important (exposing) aspect of NASA's fraudulent method (bowling ball) :There is nothing wrong with the skateboard starting to move before the ball has left his hand. That is simply conservation of momentum -- the ball is starting to have some momentum to the left, meaning the boy/skateboard has to have equal momentum to the right. If the boy held onto the ball once his arms were fully extended, both the ball and the skateboard would stop. If the boy then pulled the ball back like he pushed it away, the ball and skateboard would return to their original position (approximately because of friction loss).
In which exact moment does our guy (on the skateboard) starts to move back (in the video posted by sokarul)???
(https://j.gifs.com/7L4J9Q.gif)
Do you have an explanation how the operation continued while the survival operation temperature limit was 60 degrees celcius but 107 degrees exist on the moon? Your tears can not cool down the temperature.Citation needed.
What makes you claim the survival operation temperature limit was 60 C?
Do you have an explanation how the operation continued while the survival operation temperature limit was 60 degrees celcius but 107 degrees exist on the moon? Your tears can not cool down the temperature.Citation needed.
What makes you claim the survival operation temperature limit was 60 C?
It is in the video 3. Video number 3 says it is so. I guess they have investigated. If you have a different claim so I am ready to listen you too. Please, do not use magic. :)
No, it doesn't add to the confusion at all.Please.... in highschool in 1982 i was allowed to do arts as a major school subject.
The only source of confusion is people not understanding how perspective works and how the same object will appear different from different angles.
You cannot determine the shape of an object just from one view.It totally depends on the object....
Your argument is based upon assuming a particular shape and then being upset that the view from a different direction doesn't match what you assumed.I am not upset, i am actually very much aware how perspective works
This applies to the temperature of the batteries, not the outside temperature.Yes of course it does, but the car should have been coocking and all batteries with it within a relative short timeframe.
Another similar example is the use of superconducting magnets which need operating temperatures in the liquid nitrogen or liquid helium range.
Yet these work in devices which are sitting in a normal air conditioned room.
They operate because they have cooling in the device to keep the temperature in the required range.
So what?You could not possibly know.
Trying seeing tiny spots of light when you have a massively bright light shining in your face.
Your eyes will adjust for the brightness of the lunar surface/the sun/the bright Earth. That will make the much dimmer stars much harder to see
An easy way to experience this is be out in bright daylight during the middle of the day and then go inside a poorly lit room (very poorly lit).But if you did this experiment and you did see some faint objects in the total black room you would remember for ever and ever ;D ;D
Initially you wont be able to see anything because of how dark the room is. But given time to adjust your eyes will adjust and you will be able to see inside the room just fine. It doesn't mean the objects in the room weren't there. It simply means that you couldn't see them.
Another good example is a phone screen in bright daylight. A dim screen can be quite difficult to see anything on, simply because it isn't bright enough. But take it into a dark room and give your eyes time to adjust and you can easily see it.
Do you have an explanation how the operation continued while the survival operation temperature limit was 60 degrees celcius but 107 degrees exist on the moon? Your tears can not cool down the temperature.Citation needed.
What makes you claim the survival operation temperature limit was 60 C?
It is in the video 3. Video number 3 says it is so. I guess they have investigated. If you have a different claim so I am ready to listen you too. Please, do not use magic. :)
I'm not sure what the upper and lower 'survival' operation limits were (are), but a lot of thought, science and engineering went into creating gear to handle the extreme temperatures of the moon. I thought this was a pretty complete assessment (no magic):
"The first thing to know is that all trips on to the Moon’s surface were carefully planned for lunar dawn, to ensure the surface hadn’t had time to heat up fully to its daytime temperature. It is also important to think about how heat can be transferred to astronauts on the lunar surface.
There are three ways heat can transfer and only two are possible on the Moon. The first is radiation, both directly from the Sun and from the Sun’s reflection on the surface. The astronauts’ spacesuits were designed to reflect almost 90% of the light that reaches it, so very little heat would have transferred to the astronauts.
The second is by conduction from the direct contact their feet had with the surface. This is also an ineffective process as regolith on the lunar surface doesn’t conduct heat well and the astronauts’ boots were insulated, slowing down conduction even further. This shows that even though huge temperature variations occur on the Moon, lunar astronauts were never actually exposed to them."
Do you have an explanation how the operation continued while the survival operation temperature limit was 60 degrees celcius but 107 degrees exist on the moon? Your tears can not cool down the temperature.Citation needed.
What makes you claim the survival operation temperature limit was 60 C?
It is in the video 3. Video number 3 says it is so. I guess they have investigated. If you have a different claim so I am ready to listen you too. Please, do not use magic. :)
I'm not sure what the upper and lower 'survival' operation limits were (are), but a lot of thought, science and engineering went into creating gear to handle the extreme temperatures of the moon. I thought this was a pretty complete assessment (no magic):
"The first thing to know is that all trips on to the Moon’s surface were carefully planned for lunar dawn, to ensure the surface hadn’t had time to heat up fully to its daytime temperature. It is also important to think about how heat can be transferred to astronauts on the lunar surface.
There are three ways heat can transfer and only two are possible on the Moon. The first is radiation, both directly from the Sun and from the Sun’s reflection on the surface. The astronauts’ spacesuits were designed to reflect almost 90% of the light that reaches it, so very little heat would have transferred to the astronauts.
The second is by conduction from the direct contact their feet had with the surface. This is also an ineffective process as regolith on the lunar surface doesn’t conduct heat well and the astronauts’ boots were insulated, slowing down conduction even further. This shows that even though huge temperature variations occur on the Moon, lunar astronauts were never actually exposed to them."
It is just an excuse you try to hide the truth. The lack of heat conduction also meant that there was no combustion, and as a result this would prevent the operation of the rover and other vehicles. how did the rover vehicle magically find oxygen to work in an airless environment? on the other hand, the stars are boiling without air contact. The sun has a temperature of millions of degrees and transmits it to us. but the moon can't do that, can't transmit the heat into the spacecraft, can it? Because you need an excuse.
It is in the video 3. Video number 3 says it is so.So your citation is a conspiracy nut that is happy to lie or blatantly misrepresent reality to pretend there is a problem.
The lack of heat conduction also meant that there was no combustion, and as a result this would prevent the operation of the rover and other vehicles.No, the 2 are fundamentally different.
The sun has a temperature of millions of degrees and transmits it to us.Good job showing very little understanding again.
Because you need an excuse.You are the one looking for excuses here.
So your citation is a conspiracy nut that is happy to lie or blatantly misrepresent reality to pretend there is a problem.Writing a source does not magically be a lie or mispresent anything, without a supportive argument proved by you. Otherwise, we have to accept all your writings are lie and mispresenting.
Do you have a credible citation?Yes. You have been cooked like a chicken at 100 degrees.
No, the 2 are fundamentally different.Yes. It is your mistake of fundamentals. Your mental problems does not magically make anything wrong, but makes yourself so.
The lack of atmosphere meant no normal combustion (but it is still possible if you have your own oxidiser).Even for scuba diving, oxygen is enough for 1 hour. it is certain that the combustion environment required to move a spacecraft will require much more than that. even today we do not have this technology. but your fundamental perspective may make it possible. Please keep your lack fundamentalism to yourself.
The rover was electric and didn't need combustion to work.Even electrik needs oxygen for work.
Good job showing very little understanding again.You have even not show it.
The sun has a core temperature in the millions of degrees. By the time you get to the surface it is only a few thousand. By the time the radiation makes its way to Earth and has Earth in equilibrium, you only have a few hundred K.I can write it too. It does not magically become an argument.
Notice the massive loss in each step?Nope. And you? You are talking like you have measured it, but I don't think you did it. You are reading from somewhere and writing here. You have not your own observations and your own thoughts.
Yes, the moon will radiate heat, but it will not be enough to significantly heat up the space suits, which are also radiating heat.a spacecraft, such as chicken in the oven wrapped with aluminum foil to protect 100 degrees from the heat, no one but the mind of nasa. this is just, obviously, childish.
You I and other NASA workers are looking for excuses here.Corrected for you.
Yes. You have been cooked like a chicken at 100 degrees.So that's a no. No source indicating the temperature of the moon would be a problem.
Yes. It is your mistake of fundamentals.Are you just going to continue this childish crap?
it is certain that the combustion environment required to move a spacecraft will require much more than that.Which will be stored in the rocket. So no problem there.
Even electrik needs oxygen for work.Pure garbage.
Corrected for you.Dishonestly changing what I said so it does not resemble the truth at all is not correcting. Grow up.
Electric motors do not need oxygen to work.Prove.
So that's a no. No source indicating the temperature of the moon would be a problem.This is not an argument. Your saying No source indicating the temperature of the moon would be a problem does not magically convert problems to a none problem. Your astro'nots are still cooked at 100 degrees.
Are you just going to continue this childish crap?"childish crap" is reported. You have not a right to insult me because you can not find enough argument. Obviously insulting isn't an argument. Stop to insult me by using support of your moderator slaves. This behave, ie your being has to insult proves that why the earth is flat. Because you angry globularists has not a chance but insulting after a while when you have cornered. I can't reply you with your language, because if I do it they ban me; but both we know that they can not ban you because of you are their patron, right? Be fair, grow up and stop to childish behaves or agree earth's being flat.
Why do you feel the need to attack basically everything, even things which FE would have no problem with?Why do you feel yourself need to personnel attack by using our own moderation team support? I am not you. I have just tell my thoughts depend on evidences.
Do you also claim that grass isn't green and that water is poison?I don't remember such a claim. Please remind me. I guess you need reset to your factory settings.
Conduction and oxygen are vastly different.I guess we are talking on different things.
Which will be stored in the rocket. So no problem there.Prove how much oxygen has been stored in what kind of containers. And prove that technology was really existed other than your magical dreamings.
Pure garbage.Again, stop to insult me by using your moderation supporter slaves. Normally you do get warn for this type of talkings. But you are free to insult. Is it fair? I don't think so. Where is justice here? Your claiming something pure garbage does not magically them garbage but your own talkings. meanwhile it proves the earth is flat because you have cornered and started to insult.
Batters rely upon electrochemical reactions, with many batteries not being compatible with air.again, oxygen is required to occur in the combustion event. if you used superior electromagnetic technology in your rockets, you should explain it instead of insulting.
Take a charged lithium ion battery and break it open in the air and guess what happens? It bursts into flames.which explains the need for oxygen to turn into flames.
The motors rely upon electromagnetic induction and again have no reliance upon the air.like I said before, I'm talking about rover. I don't think your moon rover is electrical. electric vehicles have just been discovered.
If you are going to assert that electrical vehicles need air to operate you will need vastly more than your baseless assertions.Draw your moon rover's technical details worked in moon at 1969 other than magically your dreamings.
Dishonestly changing what I said so it does not resemble the truth at all is not correcting. Grow up.You who have to grow up. Grow up and give up to write from GSM. Open your computer and use one account. It lets you draw shapes and proves you are not doing any dishonesty. Then it gives you a right to call me acting fair.
You are useless.
Can rockets fly in a vacuum? Be useful (at least once in your whole useless life) and prove that they can... ot?
Don't have to. The generally held consensus is that they do, due the overwhelming evidence available.You are useless.
Can rockets fly in a vacuum? Be useful (at least once in your whole useless life) and prove that they can... ot?
If you are holding a dubious minority theory that they don't, it's up to you to prove it.
You are useless.
Can rockets fly in a vacuum? Be useful (at least once in your whole useless life) and prove that they can... ot?
Don't have to. The generally held consensus is that they do, due the overwhelming evidence available.
If you are holding a dubious minority theory that they don't, it's up to you to prove it.
Your repying him is a proof that the earth is flat, and then globularists cornered and have no chance but use accounts like you to support their weak arguments. Was not it better you introduce yourself in more convenient place of forum; instead of jumping in at the deep end of the issue. Somebody has to prove rockets can work in vacuum before wants to opposite arguments. Because we can not prove something is not exist.
You are useless.
Can rockets fly in a vacuum? Be useful (at least once in your whole useless life) and prove that they can... ot?
Don't have to. The generally held consensus is that they do, due the overwhelming evidence available.
If you are holding a dubious minority theory that they don't, it's up to you to prove it.
Your repying him is a proof that the earth is flat, and then globularists cornered and have no chance but use accounts like you to support their weak arguments. Was not it better you introduce yourself in more convenient place of forum; instead of jumping in at the deep end of the issue. Somebody has to prove rockets can work in vacuum before wants to opposite arguments. Because we can not prove something is not exist.
Hello. My user name here is RomP. I don't believe in a flat earth since it is counter to a) the generally held consensus and evidence that it's a sphere, b) the apparent real world practical issues if the earth wasn't a sphere, and c) the consistency in the all the evidence and experience in the earth being a sphere.
First, and with due respect, I really can not see how you think my response is proof that the earth is flat. All you've done is arrived at an erroneous logical conclusion.
Second, and to reiterate, rockets work in a vacuum. They do so every time. Your response to this seems to be the typical, we say "XXXX, you prove it wrong whilst we sit on our hands doing nothing practical back up our claim".
As you've pointed out, I'm new to the forum. But having lurked for a number of moths, some of my observations on the style of debate seems to be:
- FE claim made.
- Non FEer counters with generally accepted theories and evidence.
- FEer counters by a mixture of a) answering but by avoiding actually providing and answer, b) provides youtube or blog 'evidence' of dubious merit, c) requests evidence which has impractical and impossible thresholds and criteria, d) when evidence is presented waves it away due to wanting the 'next level criteria' to be met or stating it's false.
- And wash, rinse, repeat.
I tip my hat to those with patience for this.
Given that commercial enterprises and other nations are ramping up their space programmes, with the possible consequence that space travel could eventually become cheap enough for many to travel on a rocket, I should think the 'rockets don't work in a vacuum' theory will die down.
There'll still be the diehards though who won't accept this, much like those FErs who still don't accept the evidence of the distances and routes travelled by commercial airlines and ships as well as the charts etc., for the southern hemisphere.
Ckljamas, there's a whole other thread devoted to rocket propulsion, perhaps you could add to that thread?It only adds to the confusion. The picture on the left has a mountain top with a slight downward ''arc'' from left to right, while in the picture on the right the opposite is true.
Dutchy, in the video, the two men are lying.
The backdrop is not identical in the two photos. The mountain shape on right bulges up slightly compared to on the left, and the shadowing is different. When superimposing, the mountains are similar, but not identical. The terrain in the foreground is also different between photos.
Their whole argument rests on the backgrounds being identical and they aren't. The photo on right is taken in front of lunar landing module, and closer to the mountain than in photo on the left, which explains all the differences.
As such, there is no end of set and no front projection involved in the photos. That's an assumption based on their bias.
Have a closer look.
Furthermore the horizon is at a measly 2.43 km. The mountain seems to grow in the right picture.
I think they slightly changed the black sky line..that only makes sense as to why the top of the mountain is shape shifting all of a sudden.
Other than that it's identical.
QuoteLook closer and you will also see tracks behind the lunar rover. Remember, the tyres were made of aluminium mesh, wire, and titanium blocks, not rubber. Thus, the tracks left, are finer than tracks left by vehicles here on earth in sand.Silver oxide batteries have good performance characteristics at temperature extremes. They can be used up to 55°C(131°F)
The lunar rovers had cooling radiators for the batteries, and built to withstand moon temperature fluctuations of -328 degrees Fahrenheit to 392 degrees Fahrenheit. The batteries were kept within operating temperatures.
Again the special ''moon condition'' despite abnormal temperatures well outside the operating window are the only explanation why the two silver-oxide batteries of the lunar rover kept working.
You don't have to repeat the official explaination.
But ain't that handy that despite extreme temperatures the ''moon conditions'' and ''no air molecules'' were such that the lunar rover could be easily powered by two silver-oxide batteries.
I guess the moon was really looking forward to our visit ::)
You are useless.
Can rockets fly in a vacuum? Be useful (at least once in your whole useless life) and prove that they can... ot?
Don't have to. The generally held consensus is that they do, due the overwhelming evidence available.
If you are holding a dubious minority theory that they don't, it's up to you to prove it.
Your repying him is a proof that the earth is flat, and then globularists cornered and have no chance but use accounts like you to support their weak arguments. Was not it better you introduce yourself in more convenient place of forum; instead of jumping in at the deep end of the issue. Somebody has to prove rockets can work in vacuum before wants to opposite arguments. Because we can not prove something is not exist.
Hello. My user name here is RomP. I don't believe in a flat earth since it is counter to a) the generally held consensus and evidence that it's a sphere, b) the apparent real world practical issues if the earth wasn't a sphere, and c) the consistency in the all the evidence and experience in the earth being a sphere.
First, and with due respect, I really can not see how you think my response is proof that the earth is flat. All you've done is arrived at an erroneous logical conclusion.
Second, and to reiterate, rockets work in a vacuum. They do so every time. Your response to this seems to be the typical, we say "XXXX, you prove it wrong whilst we sit on our hands doing nothing practical back up our claim".
As you've pointed out, I'm new to the forum. But having lurked for a number of moths, some of my observations on the style of debate seems to be:
- FE claim made.
- Non FEer counters with generally accepted theories and evidence.
- FEer counters by a mixture of a) answering but by avoiding actually providing and answer, b) provides youtube or blog 'evidence' of dubious merit, c) requests evidence which has impractical and impossible thresholds and criteria, d) when evidence is presented waves it away due to wanting the 'next level criteria' to be met or stating it's false.
- And wash, rinse, repeat.
I tip my hat to those with patience for this.
Given that commercial enterprises and other nations are ramping up their space programmes, with the possible consequence that space travel could eventually become cheap enough for many to travel on a rocket, I should think the 'rockets don't work in a vacuum' theory will die down.
There'll still be the diehards though who won't accept this, much like those FErs who still don't accept the evidence of the distances and routes travelled by commercial airlines and ships as well as the charts etc., for the southern hemisphere.
Hello mister new globularist.
Rockets can not work in a vacuum. Not only rockets, nothing work in a vacuum. in fact, what we call vacuum is a kind of black hole. it pulls everything around it and breaks it apart. it would only take a few seconds if space had actually been reached. claiming that the rocket works in space proves that you are completely ignorant of physics.
the rest of your claims are just as unfounded as the others, so it's not worth it for now. I recommend that you review the Q&A and believers section before you enter into discussions during your stay here. reading destroys ignorance, but we can't teach you to think.
Rockets can not work in a vacuum. Not only rockets, nothing work in a vacuum. in fact, what we call vacuum is a kind of black hole. it pulls everything around it and breaks it apart. it would only take a few seconds if space had actually been reached. claiming that the rocket works in space proves that you are completely ignorant of physics.
IN ADDITION :
COMBUSTION IS IMPOSSIBLE IN A VACUUM :
Oh, ok - so gunpowder does not ignite in a vacuum - so if I shot a gun in a vacuum the bullets would not work? Let's see you try that!!??
Electric motors do not need oxygen to work.Prove.
7. Why Are There No Real Photos of The Complete Earth? = NASA has never been into space far enough from the Earth to get the whole planet in the frame.
Ckljamas, there's a whole other thread devoted to rocket propulsion, perhaps you could add to that thread?It only adds to the confusion. The picture on the left has a mountain top with a slight downward ''arc'' from left to right, while in the picture on the right the opposite is true.
Dutchy, in the video, the two men are lying.
The backdrop is not identical in the two photos. The mountain shape on right bulges up slightly compared to on the left, and the shadowing is different. When superimposing, the mountains are similar, but not identical. The terrain in the foreground is also different between photos.
Their whole argument rests on the backgrounds being identical and they aren't. The photo on right is taken in front of lunar landing module, and closer to the mountain than in photo on the left, which explains all the differences.
As such, there is no end of set and no front projection involved in the photos. That's an assumption based on their bias.
Have a closer look.
Furthermore the horizon is at a measly 2.43 km. The mountain seems to grow in the right picture.
I think they slightly changed the black sky line..that only makes sense as to why the top of the mountain is shape shifting all of a sudden.
Other than that it's identical.QuoteLook closer and you will also see tracks behind the lunar rover. Remember, the tyres were made of aluminium mesh, wire, and titanium blocks, not rubber. Thus, the tracks left, are finer than tracks left by vehicles here on earth in sand.Silver oxide batteries have good performance characteristics at temperature extremes. They can be used up to 55°C(131°F)
The lunar rovers had cooling radiators for the batteries, and built to withstand moon temperature fluctuations of -328 degrees Fahrenheit to 392 degrees Fahrenheit. The batteries were kept within operating temperatures.
Again the special ''moon condition'' despite abnormal temperatures well outside the operating window are the only explanation why the two silver-oxide batteries of the lunar rover kept working.
You don't have to repeat the official explaination.
But ain't that handy that despite extreme temperatures the ''moon conditions'' and ''no air molecules'' were such that the lunar rover could be easily powered by two silver-oxide batteries.
I guess the moon was really looking forward to our visit ::)QuoteBack to the starry moon sky argument again. Armstrong and Collins both say they didn't see stars on the Apollo 11 moon landing. Collins saw stars during the Gemini 7 spacewalk, so why are these pair of fools even comparing what they say about seeing stars?Neil Armstrong EXCLUDED that he (or generally speaking anyone) saw (or could see) stars from the lunar surface, because quote : ''the sky is pitch black and other than the sun the earth is the ONLY visble object''.
Liars sometimes forget the exact propaganda about what they should see but didn't see when asked for...don't you understand ?
14. *The money the money the money.* Project Apollo was the source of money for the cost of the Vietnam War and CIA black ops all over the world. The cost of the SR71, F15,F16,F14 the XB70 Valkyrie project the B1B project, the Corona spy satellites that were replaced by newer spy satellites, replacing the fleet of WWII Essex class aircraft carriers with the Nimitz class nuclear super carriers, the entire fleet of nuclear submarines, replace the M48 and M60 tanks with the M1A1 battle tank, the Bradley fighting vehicle project to replace the M113 APC. But the old M113 in an upgraded from is still in service, a all services rifle the M16, replaced the BAR with the M60 light machine gun, that was replaced by the M249 SAW anti missile missile systems. The space program was always a military project first and a large number of space missions were a cover for covert spy missions and Apollo was no exception the Pentagon budget just became so large with the short list of projects I have given along with the space shuttle another military project we were stuck in low earth orbit. As we tried to move to man missions to Mars we have had 3 more wars more high tech weapons systems, Reagan's star wars projects. We pay as much on military budgets as the next 10 countries and Trump and Congress wants to spend a lot more on the military. If we cut the Pentagon budget by 15-20% we would still be out spending every other country in the world.
The last paragraph explains the main reason for faking other moon missions (China's, India's, Russian's)!!!
I don't understand why some flat-Earthers think we couldn't have gone to the moon. Going to the moon does not disprove the flatness of the Earth.
Electric motors do not need oxygen to work.Prove.
Have you ever heard of oven mitts?Do you have a credible citation?Yes. You have been cooked like a chicken at 100 degrees.
0c. Batteries are very heavy.. can you imagine the weight of a battery in 1965, big enough to run an air system for a week???????NASA didn't use batteries to run the air system for a week. They used hydrogen-oxygen fuel cells to generate electricity.
@wise: I just wanted to comment on one of your statements upthread: You said that electric vehicles did not exist in 1969 and have "just been discovered." In case you were not aware, the very first automobiles were electric. Before efficient combustion engines were invented. Once gasoline engines became cheap enough and efficient enough, the early car makers stopped making electric cars because gasoline was very cheap and the batteries for electric cars were not very good. But electric cars did exist. Also, golf carts existed and many, if not most, of them were electric. Golfers were using electric golf carts long before Apollo. I even owned a toy electric train set before Apollo, and an electric car or rover is just a much bigger version of that, with batteries.
Also, we've had electric motors for many decades. Fans and water pumps and many other things run on electric motors. All the technology to build an electric rover existed in the 1960's. Batteries were not as good as the ones we have in today's electric cars, but they were good enough for the purpose. And they don't need oxygen.
I'll tell you what had not been invented yet in 1969: Technology good enough to fake the live TV transmission! It could be faked pretty well today, and science fiction shows do that kind of thing all the time. But not way back then.
I don't understand why some flat-Earthers think we couldn't have gone to the moon. Going to the moon does not disprove the flatness of the Earth.
As for the question of heat, here's a thought experiment: Imagine putting your hand in water that's 100 C. You would be burned horribly. But you can sit for five or ten minutes in a dry sauna that's 100 C. This is because water is more dense and therefore holds more heat than air at the same temperature. So heat passes from water to your hand very rapidly, but passes into your body from air at the same temperature very slowly. On the moon there is no atmosphere, so the heat passes to the astronauts' space suites even more slowly, and those suites are insulated, slowing the heat even more. Just like a firefighter who can walk into the intense heat of a burning building wearing insulated firefighting gear and an oxygen tank, the astronauts can walk out into the high temperature but zero density of the moon wearing their space suits and oxygen tank.
Uh a poster named ‘unconvinced’ at page 2 claimed quote: ‘You cannot determine the shape of an object just from one view.’
I don't understand why some flat-Earthers think we couldn't have gone to the moon. Going to the moon does not disprove the flatness of the Earth.
It does if you want to use regular orbital mechanics in the explanation. Or the photos of a clearly spherical earth that were released.
Few more very interesting comments left by my viewers below various APOLLO HOAX videos :Excelent post, please continue about the footprints etc. the more obvious the fakery the more outlandish the ‘moonish’ conditions.
One lie leads to another lie and another until you finally forget what you originally said , hearing these assholenauts is exactly what is happening!
None of these heathens can get the story straight. The problem with telling a lie is that you have to remember the lie to keep it going.
And those footprints are fake as fuck. Footprints like that ONLY occur in WET sand, like on the wet beach line. Also these footprints are so huge and deep. Moon's gravity is 1/6 of earths gravity, they weigh only 20 kg on the moon, and not 200 kg like in the pictures.
Not to mentioned the kinetic energy are the same as on earth. While the gravity pull is different. That is how You will see the scam.
That means You should jump higher than You were just 1/6 as heavy?
I think the real question is why did they even "go" to the moon? You would think that they would make a full documentary and record every moment while they were up there on the surface showing them doing some actual research or exploration but they only have videos of them driving in circles for no reason. People make documentaries here on earth exploring jungles and what not all the time you would think that they would record everything as they ventured to a place no one has ever been to. We send men to another body in our solar system for the first time and what do they concentrate their camera on? the spaceship they flew in from earth. Doesn't that strike you as odd? It would be like sending the Rover to Mars with a camera that just points backwards at the Rover.
In an atmosphere that can KILL you, these guys sure did a LOT of shit that could damage their suits. Could have flipped that rover, got hurt, put a hole in the suit, Wtf ? If I am on the moon, no help to be found I would NOT be joy riding and falling in the ground with rocks all over the place, FAKE
If I fell over on the moon on those small rocks I'd shit myself and check my suit. not NASA, let's practice bouncing on our hands and knees more!
When a team wins the stupid super bowl they parade the players every day for a week and every news outlet asking all of them how does it feel and shit like that and yet these people went to the moon and played golf on it and drove 4wheel dune buggy and yet no hard questioning by random news guy of these people as how was it on the moon ,that alone always bugged me the reclusiveness of the astraunots as though they turned into some kind of a freak like Fantastic four characters.
The internet blew nasas bullshit out of the water. In 1969 they had not planned that. Todays excuses are we lost everything.
Both my parents have worked at NASA for 20+ years. I grew up in kemah, TX. They always stirred away when I asked them about things like this. My Dad always said " quit being a conspiracy theorist " my mom always looked at me like she felt bad for lying to me. They provided me with a great life, great opportunities. But at what expense?
'It's okay if you know it'' you heard it folks,this astronut tells you right on video, he didn't go and he doesn't care that you know it, because he will lie and lie to everyone and its because the liberal mind has no empathy or morals, none at all,just like actors,same exact thing..and when confronted about the lies, they get violent, that is always the last resort..
I crack up sometimes while watching these evaluations as I suddenly realize how the "brains" behind the moon fake could never have anticipated the way we can scrutinize and study these clips. Further, it must be painful for any living astronauts to see their lies repeated in endless loops on youtube. Their fakery shall live in infamy. lol and God help me, but Buzz is just sooo campy. I never tire of his shenanigans, esp the latest while Trump was speaking. Do you think Trump was trolling Buzz? I like to think so!
The specific thing that lead me to entertain that it's all a hoax is that when I would watch atronots being interviewed on tv; what immediately struck me;was that they didn't look or sound intelligent. But as my mind would be telling me something doesn't add up;it's as if another message immediately started playing about how asteonots are the "creme of the crop", highly educated, intelligent, carefully selected" So my initial instinct would be over ridden by that brainwashed thought, and I would continue watching the interviews.
What is funny to me is that grown 40 year old men and women look back at the movies they watch in the movies when they were little and laugh now of how fake they look now as much as they looked so real when they were little. But those same people look at footage of a film that was made 15 or 20 years before they were even conceived and swear on their children that it is a real event and indeed took place on the surface of the moon.
If some robot like Jesus would walk on the Moon in sandals, wrapped in bed shit and NASA would say that was Jesus, I am sure millions would believe it.
I'm loving this series of videos! I too can't figure out how the thousands and thousands of experts in the fields involved wouldn't have caught on to the many oddities that they were seeing. As someone with a liberal arts degree and who knows absolutely nothing about any type of science or math, I can understand why I was fooled. Add ten years of tv programming to that and you've got a sucker. I wasn't the only one in this situation by a long shot. What really gets me though, are the millions of people who now have proof right before their eyes that the moon landings and everything else that comes out of NASA is pure baloney. They are absolutely determined to believe it all and to defend NASA until their last breath. This is one of the very rare occasions in which I can thank heavens for YouTube. Many thanks for the great videos!!!?
Dutchy, dutchy, dutchy. The two men in the video are a pair of hucksters. The background mountain in the two photos are not identical, which means it's not a backdrop, which means it's likely an actual mountain photographed from two different locations. Fancy that, just like the astronauts said. Location 1 with the lunar lander in front, and location 2 in front of the lunar lander, making the mountain appear to grow higher because you're closer to it. It's not that difficult to understand.It's the opposite....magic moon conditions again ? Or camera specialties when moon conditions don't cut it ? ;D ;D
Uh a poster named ‘unconvinced’ at page 2 claimed quote: ‘You cannot determine the shape of an object just from one view.’
I don't understand why some flat-Earthers think we couldn't have gone to the moon. Going to the moon does not disprove the flatness of the Earth.
It does if you want to use regular orbital mechanics in the explanation. Or the photos of a clearly spherical earth that were released.
I guess when it comes to the moonlandings we bend everything in favour of our fantasies.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Rockets can not work in a vacuum. Not only rockets, nothing work in a vacuum. in fact, what we call vacuum is a kind of black hole. it pulls everything around it and breaks it apart. it would only take a few seconds if space had actually been reached. claiming that the rocket works in space proves that you are completely ignorant of physics.Yes, that is your baseless claim that you are yet to back up in any way.
but we can't teach you to think.Yes, you would have to be able to think yourself to do that.
0a. COMBUSTION IS IMPOSSIBLE IN A VACUUMCitation needed.
A) When you look at footage from these lunar rovers, is that the dust behaves as if there is an atmosphere. It forms waves and is resisted by air and it falls back to the ground at the same speed. The dust from the wheelspin should propel 300 feet away.No, it shows you don't understand dust, or are dishonestly presenting it.
The driver NEVER STEERS the wheel.You mean you don't understand how control systems work and think all vehicles need to be steered with wheels.
CGI are possibleNot to the level required at that time.
Michael Collins have pointed out many times that they hadn't been able to see ANY stars from the moon, or from the lunar orbit.Where?
2. YOU ONLY NEED TO PROVE ONE OF THEM TO BE THE SAME PERSON TO PROVE THE THEORYAnd it seems you have gone off into your spam land again. So I will skip the rest.
Going to the moon does not disprove the flatness of the Earth.It destroys the common FE model.
Uh a poster named ‘unconvinced’ at page 2 claimed quote: ‘You cannot determine the shape of an object just from one view.’No, I did. But I don't see how that is relevant in any way.
And no one claiming those magic conditions came closer than 340.000 km of the moon.Well there goes FE with its mere 5000 km away moon.
And those defending the whole saga do so from 340.000 km away as if they were there in 1969.
I am very aware how the different types of perspective work and able to perfectly execute it on a canvas.But can you work backwards?
It totally depends on the object....No, it doesn't depend on the object at all.
If that were true the first ‘blue marble’ a single shot from earth was not enough for you to accept the earth to be a sphere
And you did not comment on the ‘growing mountain on the right’What growing mountain?
Yes of course it does, but the car should have been coocking and all batteries with it within a relative short timeframe.Why?
And i don’t believe how they handled the cooling properly, using change-of-phase wax thermal capacitor packages and reflective, upward-facing radiating surfaces.Then demonstrate that it doesn't work.
That’s the power of scientific jargon..... that’s why startrek was such a success.No, the "scientific jargon" used in startrek is complete crap.
You could not possibly know.No, I could know quite easily, because I actually understand how our eyes will adjust to the environment, changing how bright an object needs to be in order for us to see it.
Somehow you are continiously avoiding the obvious.No, the obvious is what I stated above. You would not see the stars.
The extremely faint stars should be strongly engraved in the memory BECAUSE they were hard to seeNo, they wouldn't be, as they would be used to seeing the stars on Earth at night.
Dutchy, dutchy, dutchy. The two men in the video are a pair of hucksters. The background mountain in the two photos are not identical, which means it's not a backdrop, which means it's likely an actual mountain photographed from two different locations. Fancy that, just like the astronauts said. Location 1 with the lunar lander in front, and location 2 in front of the lunar lander, making the mountain appear to grow higher because you're closer to it. It's not that difficult to understand.It's the opposite....magic moon conditions again ? Or camera specialties when moon conditions don't cut it ? ;D ;D
(https://www.aulis.com/jackimages/17tallshortmountain.jpg)
0a. COMBUSTION IS IMPOSSIBLE IN A VACUUM:
0b. The airlocks between the lunar rover and the outside, none. NONE!!! Fantasy the lot.Why should there be any "airlocks between the lunar rover and the outside"?
Strangely, when I put any combination of the number tagged to this photo (A17 14722492 pan) from the meme into search, nothing comes up:I actually found it easier to find that one.
0a. COMBUSTION IS IMPOSSIBLE IN A VACUUM ...
Going to the moon does not disprove the flatness of the Earth.It destroys the common FE model.
Strangely, when I put any combination of the number tagged to this photo (A17 14722492 pan) from the meme into search, nothing comes up:I actually found it easier to find that one.
Here is the fully assembled panorama:
(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17pan1174743.jpg)
The main images used all start with AS17-147-, and then there is 22493 through to 22495 and 22517 through to 22520.
For the other they all start with AS17-134- and then go 22437 through to 22446.
The strange part is the 2 are labelled in significantly different ways.
The close shot is labelled based upon magazine number and the number of the first picture.
The far one is labelled based upon the time.
Why?
Perhaps the best comparison would be comparing AS17-134-20441 with AS17-147-22518.
This shows they are quite similar, but definitely a 3D object taken from different angles.
Yes. The common model is flawed. We need an uncommon model. I admit to being disappointed in those FEers who are so inflexible in their model that they are forced to invent silly conspiracy theories to back up their flawed model, rather than revising the model to be more in line with reality.The problem is that the only way to make it consistent with reality is to make Earth round, or to manipulate reality to such an extent that reality is pretending Earth is round. (But then Gaussian curvature gets in the way and Says Earth is round anyway).
Incredible. The crazy part is the disingenuous desperation: Take images, slated for panoramas and such, blow them up, place them side by side, create a meme, all saying "How can this be?!?" Completely out of context and out of the reality. All to forward a notion that fakery is involved. Maybe if one is a conspiracy theorist it's ok to fudge evidence because you think it serves the greater good of what you're sure of, exposing conspiracy?The issue is do those making it actually believe?
Going to the moon does not disprove the flatness of the Earth.It destroys the common FE model.
Yes. The common model is flawed. We need an uncommon model. I admit to being disappointed in those FEers who are so inflexible in their model that they are forced to invent silly conspiracy theories to back up their flawed model, rather than revising the model to be more in line with reality.
Notably, the duration of a conspiracy is inversely related to the number of people involved. A conspiracy of five people, if they are careful and lucky, can be maintained for a few years. A conspiracy of a hundred people might last a few weeks or a month. A conspiracy of a thousand people will fall apart within a day. And a conspiracy of ten thousand people won't last for five minutes. There's no way that all the world's governments and space agencies, or even just NASA, could maintain a conspiracy overnight.
I'm not going to get into the old fruitless argument, but a correct model of FE must be one that does not stand upon a belief in a massive conspiracy. The common model fails this test. An uncommon model is needed.
Incredible. The crazy part is the disingenuous desperation: Take images, slated for panoramas and such, blow them up, place them side by side, create a meme, all saying "How can this be?!?" Completely out of context and out of the reality. All to forward a notion that fakery is involved. Maybe if one is a conspiracy theorist it's ok to fudge evidence because you think it serves the greater good of what you're sure of, exposing conspiracy?The issue is do those making it actually believe?
I have always held that the majority of people making this "evidence" don't believe at all and know what they are saying is built upon lies. They aren't doing it to promote the truth but to try to have people rebel and overthrow the government, or to simply line their pockets. They are like snake oil salesmen.
One I found particularly stupid was someone claiming the ISS had to be fake because an astronaut dissolves as they leave the room, where the footage was a loop of this repeatedly playing, with a dissolve effect added to complete the loop.
Both my parents have worked at NASA for 20+ years. I grew up in kemah, TX. They always stirred away when I asked them about things like this. My Dad always said " quit being a conspiracy theorist " my mom always looked at me like she felt bad for lying to me. They provided me with a great life, great opportunities. But at what expense?
(https://www.aulis.com/jackimages/17tallshortmountain.jpg)
(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-147-22517HR.jpg)
(https://s.yimg.com/aah/mcmahanphoto/apollo-17-astronaut-shadow-lm-on-moon-photo-print-18.jpg)
So what is the trickery supposedly ?
Then the mountain top will shapeshift on the offical NASA pictures.(https://www.aulis.com/jackimages/17tallshortmountain.jpg)
(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-147-22517HR.jpg)
(https://s.yimg.com/aah/mcmahanphoto/apollo-17-astronaut-shadow-lm-on-moon-photo-print-18.jpg)
So what is the trickery supposedly ?
You've been taken in by a meme of three altered images baked inside a loss of objectivity cake that tastes good going down without being able to see the breadth and depth of all the images from all the angles.
Then the mountain top will shapeshift on the offical NASA pictures.(https://www.aulis.com/jackimages/17tallshortmountain.jpg)
(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-147-22517HR.jpg)
(https://s.yimg.com/aah/mcmahanphoto/apollo-17-astronaut-shadow-lm-on-moon-photo-print-18.jpg)
So what is the trickery supposedly ?
You've been taken in by a meme of three altered images baked inside a loss of objectivity cake that tastes good going down without being able to see the breadth and depth of all the images from all the angles.
If you claim another angle which i agree the mountaintopn changes dramatically.
Envision a proper rotated LEM from one picture to the other. How many degrees would that be ?Then the mountain top will shapeshift on the offical NASA pictures.(https://www.aulis.com/jackimages/17tallshortmountain.jpg)
(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-147-22517HR.jpg)
(https://s.yimg.com/aah/mcmahanphoto/apollo-17-astronaut-shadow-lm-on-moon-photo-print-18.jpg)
So what is the trickery supposedly ?
You've been taken in by a meme of three altered images baked inside a loss of objectivity cake that tastes good going down without being able to see the breadth and depth of all the images from all the angles.
If you claim another angle which i agree the mountaintopn changes dramatically.
I've been looking a bunch of A17 images trying to see what matches what and what doesn't match what. The angles are all over the place so it's hard to cohesively string things together. So I get why people would be like, "Hey, that doesn't really match..." etc. But I'm trying to do the work to see how it all fits together. Personally, I loathe the slapdash meme thing where it seems, in this case, images are manipulated to "make a case". I much prefer the naked truth.
All the FE models have some massive issues.
Envision a proper rotated LEM from one picture to the other. How many degrees would that be ?Then the mountain top will shapeshift on the offical NASA pictures.(https://www.aulis.com/jackimages/17tallshortmountain.jpg)
(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-147-22517HR.jpg)
(https://s.yimg.com/aah/mcmahanphoto/apollo-17-astronaut-shadow-lm-on-moon-photo-print-18.jpg)
So what is the trickery supposedly ?
You've been taken in by a meme of three altered images baked inside a loss of objectivity cake that tastes good going down without being able to see the breadth and depth of all the images from all the angles.
If you claim another angle which i agree the mountaintopn changes dramatically.
I've been looking a bunch of A17 images trying to see what matches what and what doesn't match what. The angles are all over the place so it's hard to cohesively string things together. So I get why people would be like, "Hey, that doesn't really match..." etc. But I'm trying to do the work to see how it all fits together. Personally, I loathe the slapdash meme thing where it seems, in this case, images are manipulated to "make a case". I much prefer the naked truth.
No way the background could possible match.
We still see the same parts of the LEM in both pictures so our rotation has a certain limitation.. just need to rotate the hypthetical background to match the view.
With any amount of creativity the changing background is utterly impossible.
If so please enlighten me .
All the FE models have some massive issues.
Which is why I don't have a model. People invent a model, or hitch a ride on someone else's model, and when that model doesn't work they either have to admit they're wrong, or paint themselves into a corner trying to defend it. It's really much easier not to have a model. That way there's nothing that needs defending.
This whole moon thing is a great example of this: If your FE model says the moon is, say, one mile across and 20 miles up, then you have to argue the moon landings never happened, when you'd have to have a screw loose to believe that. But there's no reason why a FE would demand the moon to be one mile across and 20 miles high. Or that other thread where some FEers are claiming rockets can't work in space. There's no reason why a FE would mean that rockets couldn't work in space. But they've hitched themselves to a FE model that doesn't work if we sent men to the moon, so they have to claim we didn't, and denying that rockets work in space is just one more rickety leg they've built under their model.
No, it's better not to have a model.
I call on all my fellow flat-Earthers to discard all models. None of them work and none of them is necessary. We can have a flat Earth just because we say so. We're in the minority now, but politics has seen some dramatic reversals and we could be in the majority one day. But all these defective models hurt our cause, because ordinary people can see the flaws in them. It's only by discarding all models that we can unify our movement and spread our message.
Envision a proper rotated LEM from one picture to the other. How many degrees would that be ?Then the mountain top will shapeshift on the offical NASA pictures.(https://www.aulis.com/jackimages/17tallshortmountain.jpg)
(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-147-22517HR.jpg)
(https://s.yimg.com/aah/mcmahanphoto/apollo-17-astronaut-shadow-lm-on-moon-photo-print-18.jpg)
So what is the trickery supposedly ?
You've been taken in by a meme of three altered images baked inside a loss of objectivity cake that tastes good going down without being able to see the breadth and depth of all the images from all the angles.
If you claim another angle which i agree the mountaintopn changes dramatically.
I've been looking a bunch of A17 images trying to see what matches what and what doesn't match what. The angles are all over the place so it's hard to cohesively string things together. So I get why people would be like, "Hey, that doesn't really match..." etc. But I'm trying to do the work to see how it all fits together. Personally, I loathe the slapdash meme thing where it seems, in this case, images are manipulated to "make a case". I much prefer the naked truth.
No way the background could possible match.
We still see the same parts of the LEM in both pictures so our rotation has a certain limitation.. just need to rotate the hypthetical background to match the view.
With any amount of creativity the changing background is utterly impossible.
If so please enlighten me .
So what is the trickery supposedly ?That is quite simple:
Even when you claim the angle of the LEM is different than another problem occurs. The mountain top is different !That isn't a problem.
Envision a proper rotated LEM from one picture to the other. How many degrees would that be ?Quite a few.
No way the background could possible match.Good thing they don't match.
Which is why I don't have a model.Yes, I know. You don't want to have a model because people can then use that to show your model is wrong.
It's really much easier not to have a model. That way there's nothing that needs defending.Not having a model is not enough.
But there's no reason why a FE would demand the moon to be one mile across and 20 miles high.While the exact numbers are wrong there is a reason.
We can have a flat Earth just because we say so.You mean you can recognise that FE does not match reality but reject reality anyway.
0b. The airlocks between the lunar rover and the outside, none. NONE!!! Fantasy the lot.Why should there be any "airlocks between the lunar rover and the outside"?
The lunar rover is only driven by astronauts wearing spacesuits (Extravehicular Mobility Units) so why would airlocks be needed?
When entering the LM from the CM the airlock is part of the CM (one hatch on the CM and one on the LM).
On the surface, the LM was depressurised before exit and repressurised after re-entry.
The LM atmosphere was pure oxygen atmosphere at only 5 psi, about one-third the pressure of the air.
So you, cikljamas, might not be able to understand these simple issues but that in no way proves it is "Fantasy the lot" it just proves that you are too lazy to investigate and understand it!
Now care to answer the very simple question yet?
What force acts on the gas to make it move in a particular direction when exiting the rocket and what body is providing this force?
Again, the only rational answer is that the rocket is providing a force to the gas to move it backwards due to the way it is partially contained.
That means rockets would work in a vacuum.
So....what mechanism allows a force to be transferred to the rocket from an exhaust molecule hitting an air molecule?Resistance!
If I say I believe the earth is flat because that's what the bible says according to my interpretation, that would be a valid worldview as any other, but then I can't say that I believe in science. That would be like saying that the earth is flat and round at the same time. It's a contradiction.
However, images and video of the lunar ascent and descent modules (LM), allegedly taken from the surface of the moon and from the Apollo Command/Service Module (C/SM), do not show flame or exhaust.I take it this means you now fully accept that rockets do in fact work in space and that your prior objects were nothing more than nonsense.
You still haven't watched this video :Unless you are showing a rocket not working in space, the video is irrelevant.
No, the “second body” isnt the gasesDo the gasses remain with the rocket?
Or do i have to copy/paste this portion of my previous post (again), as well :Copying and pasting the same refuted garbage wont help you.
You are claiming the mountain is magically shrinking, and using a photo with a different scale to pretend it has shrunk.He isn't telling this. Stop to use your imagination as an example to represent thoughts of others. You are not a witch.
You have no actual basis for your claim that the closer shot has a smaller mountain.There is. Your denying simple phsics does not magically events how you want they to be. You deny it because it contradicts to your predicted arguments have produced in a cave.
That isn't a problem.It is a great problem. Your closing your eyes or digging your head to sand does not magically make it not exist.
As it is viewed from a different angle you would expect the mountain to appear different.It seems same. Your thoughts for only object for honor of objection.
If I say I believe the earth is flat because that's what the bible says according to my interpretation, that would be a valid worldview as any other, but then I can't say that I believe in science. That would be like saying that the earth is flat and round at the same time. It's a contradiction.
I have guaranteed you that science definitely isn't telling the earth's being round. people who claim to represent science today do not represent science in any way, nor do they use scientific methodology. only flat earthers are doing it.
You don't want to have a model because people can then use that to show your model is wrong.Nope. The wrong model is globularist model and you have feel honored to use that wrong model while you know its being wrong. So your thesis is debunked.
The moon alone is proof (enough to convince any sane person) that Earth is round.The moon and the earth are quite different things. Your example like comparison the table is rectangle so the earth has to be rectangle. Do everything has a hole has to be blackhole?
If you make a claim, like claiming Earth is flat, then that needs defending.And we are defending it well. Your baseless claims do not change that fact.
Even without having a model, it needs defending.There is a well known model, flat earth model. Your baselessly denying it does not magically make it disappear.
If I say I believe the earth is flat because that's what the bible says according to my interpretation, that would be a valid worldview as any other, but then I can't say that I believe in science. That would be like saying that the earth is flat and round at the same time. It's a contradiction.
I have guaranteed you that science definitely isn't telling the earth's being round. people who claim to represent science today do not represent science in any way, nor do they use scientific methodology. only flat earthers are doing it.
Read the pinned comment (pay attention to the passage FLAT EARTH HOAX - links listed from A to Z) below this video :
Ever heard ofSo....what mechanism allows a force to be transferred to the rocket from an exhaust molecule hitting an air molecule?Resistance!
Newton's Third Law - Identifying Action and Reaction Force PairsEver heard ofSo....what mechanism allows a force to be transferred to the rocket from an exhaust molecule hitting an air molecule?Resistance!There's no mention if "Resistance" anywhere.
- "A body at rest will remain at rest, and a body in motion will remain in motion unless it is acted upon by an external force."
- force = mass x acceleration or the more general case where mass might vary force = rate of change of momentum and
- "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
THE ROCKET (ENGINE) = FIRST BODY
FORCE = EXPELLED GASSES
GROUND/ATMOSPHERE = SECOND BODY
No, the “second body” isnt the gases...in a rocket launch...the rocket (engine) is the “first body” applying force (expelled gases) to a second body (ground, then atmosphere).. which “pushes back” with equal and opposite force.. on the first body (rocket) forcing it to go up..
what happens in a REAL and INFINITE vacuum, where there is no “second body” to act upon???
THE ROCKET (ENGINE) = FIRST BODY
FORCE = EXPELLED GASSES
GROUND/ATMOSPHERE = SECOND BODY
The second body is the tonnes of exhaust gas expelled at hypersonic velocity by the rocket.Newton's Third Law - Identifying Action and Reaction Force PairsEver heard ofSo....what mechanism allows a force to be transferred to the rocket from an exhaust molecule hitting an air molecule?Resistance!There's no mention if "Resistance" anywhere.
- "A body at rest will remain at rest, and a body in motion will remain in motion unless it is acted upon by an external force."
- force = mass x acceleration or the more general case where mass might vary force = rate of change of momentum and
- "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
"When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body."
”When a BODY exerts force on a SECOND BODY” let me ask you, what is the second body being acted upon, IN A VACUUM ??!!
Both my parents have worked at NASA for 20+ years. I grew up in kemah, TX. They always stirred away when I asked them about things like this. My Dad always said " quit being a conspiracy theorist " my mom always looked at me like she felt bad for lying to me. They provided me with a great life, great opportunities. But at what expense?
No, the “second body” isnt the gases...in a rocket launch...the rocket (engine) is the “first body” applying force (expelled gases) to a second body (ground, then atmosphere).. which “pushes back” with equal and opposite force.. on the first body (rocket) forcing it to go up..
what happens in a REAL and INFINITE vacuum, where there is no “second body” to act upon???
THE ROCKET (ENGINE) = FIRST BODY
FORCE = EXPELLED GASSES
GROUND/ATMOSPHERE = SECOND BODY
Gas is gas. It has properties of matter- mass, density, temperature, state, momentum.
It’s not a force, but can be used to apply a force. Through pressure or momentum.
You seem to be happy for gas (atmosphere) to be the second body in the case of aircraft propellers, and even rockets in atmosphere.
So why do you think gas is somehow a completely different thing when expelled from a rocket? It’s still gas, no?
When a bomb explodes what was originally all part of one object separates and the parts fly in all directions - surely you don't claim that a bomb won't explode on a vacuum?
To be fair, resistance (friction) is a force.Ever heard ofSo....what mechanism allows a force to be transferred to the rocket from an exhaust molecule hitting an air molecule?Resistance!There's no mention if "Resistance" anywhere.
- "A body at rest will remain at rest, and a body in motion will remain in motion unless it is acted upon by an external force."
- force = mass x acceleration or the more general case where mass might vary force = rate of change of momentum and
- "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
If I throw a baseball at a wall, it doesn’t propel me.So....what mechanism allows a force to be transferred to the rocket from an exhaust molecule hitting an air molecule?Resistance!
Magellanclavicord, I say the world is made of chocolate, and so it is so! Presto! Everywhere I go, I break off pieces of delicious chocolate and eat it, drink it, sniff it, wash myself in it, and inject it. That's the thing though, the chocolate isn't brown, but it's still chocolate. Maybe I should start the chocolate earth society, ey magellanclavicord? You can bring your rainbows and lollipops.
Which is why I don't have a model.Yes, I know. You don't want to have a model because people can then use that to show your model is wrong.
If I say I believe the earth is flat because that's what the bible says according to my interpretation, that would be a valid worldview as any other, but then I can't say that I believe in science. That would be like saying that the earth is flat and round at the same time. It's a contradiction.
Good thing they don't match.(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-147-22517HR.jpg)
They are close, but not a match.
There is nothing impossible about this. If you think there is please enlighten us all as to just what this problem is.
Don't be vague, be very specific.
You are having trouble visualizing a 3d system presented in 2d photos.Only from a different angle towards the LEM....but both LEMS are viewed from approximately the same angle.
This might help some.Keep in mind I drew a 2d line on a 3d system. You should be able to see how the top of the lander can line up with the mountain.
(https://i.imgur.com/eFC1CDu.jpg)
No, the “second body” isnt the gases...in a rocket launch...the rocket (engine) is the “first body” applying force (expelled gases) to a second body (ground, then atmosphere).. which “pushes back” with equal and opposite force.. on the first body (rocket) forcing it to go up..
what happens in a REAL and INFINITE vacuum, where there is no “second body” to act upon???
THE ROCKET (ENGINE) = FIRST BODY
FORCE = EXPELLED GASSES
GROUND/ATMOSPHERE = SECOND BODY
Gas is gas. It has properties of matter- mass, density, temperature, state, momentum.
It’s not a force, but can be used to apply a force. Through pressure or momentum.
You seem to be happy for gas (atmosphere) to be the second body in the case of aircraft propellers, and even rockets in atmosphere.
So why do you think gas is somehow a completely different thing when expelled from a rocket? It’s still gas, no?
Very good question!
It's still gas (flame), of course, however rocket's gas (flame) does it's work when expelled from a rocket, not before. Now you have to ask yourself : Why it does it's work as soon as it is expelled from a rocket, and not before (while still in rocket chamber)?
Is it because when expelled from a rocket, gas (flame) is no longer part of a rocket or is it because it exerts it's force on the second body (the air)?
Is there a spatial/physical gap between a flame expelled and a rocket?
No, there isn't, that is to say, once an expelled flame is dissipated (wasted/consumed) then (and only then) rocket gas (flame) "becomes" "spatially/physically separated" from the body of a rocket.
But what is the true meaning of this phrase (in this particular case) : being physically separated from the body of a rocket???
In this particular case it means that at this point in time there is no longer any rocket gas (flame) to which we could refer, since it's already completely gone (vanished into thin air) out of existence.
So, we figuratively say that body of a rocket becomes separated from an expelled flame, we don't mean it, literally, because an expelled flame ceased to exist at this point of time.
If all space missions are fake, I wonder why the Soviets never landed on the moon, after all all they had to do is a few fake picturesThe Chinese ''men in outerspace'' was fake as fuck.
They are indeed using a small area with a relative small mountain backdrop.
The backdrop mountains change their position dramatically in relation to the LEM whenever a picture was taken from a slightly different angle. Whereas in real life ,really big mountains in the far distance move much more smoothly relative to an object.
You should ask NASA..how should i know which combi's they used when and where ?
They are indeed using a small area with a relative small mountain backdrop.
The backdrop mountains change their position dramatically in relation to the LEM whenever a picture was taken from a slightly different angle. Whereas in real life ,really big mountains in the far distance move much more smoothly relative to an object.
Hang on. Just to clarify, what are you proposing this “backdrop” actually is?
Are we talking paintings, projections, or a real physical body?
You should ask NASA..how should i know which combi's they used when and where ?
They are indeed using a small area with a relative small mountain backdrop.
The backdrop mountains change their position dramatically in relation to the LEM whenever a picture was taken from a slightly different angle. Whereas in real life ,really big mountains in the far distance move much more smoothly relative to an object.
Hang on. Just to clarify, what are you proposing this “backdrop” actually is?
Are we talking paintings, projections, or a real physical body?
It looks beyond fake and rediculous compared to any photograph on earth...
But like i said the beautifull NASA ''moon conditions'' do their magic again.
Details on the moon do not fade out like on earth in the distance, because the lack of an atmosphere prevents details from washing out like on earth.
And allthaugh the mountains appear near and small , that's because it appears that way on the moon without an atmosphere.
How conveniant again.... ::)
Didn't you read the rest of my posts ?.
If all space missions are fake, I wonder why the Soviets never landed on the moon, after all all they had to do is a few fake pictures
Yeah, dutchy. No atmosphere on the moon. That’s just a fact.Evil conspired with NASA.
I’m sorry if you find it too “convenient” for us. Is reality in on the hoax too? Maybe God conspired with NASA?
(https://www.aulis.com/jackimages/17tallshortmountain.jpg)
(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-147-22517HR.jpg)
(https://s.yimg.com/aah/mcmahanphoto/apollo-17-astronaut-shadow-lm-on-moon-photo-print-18.jpg)
So what is the trickery supposedly ?
Even when you claim the angle of the LEM is different than another problem occurs. The mountain top is different !
So we are at an agreement. Nothing is wrong with the photos.You are having trouble visualizing a 3d system presented in 2d photos.Only from a different angle towards the LEM....but both LEMS are viewed from approximately the same angle.
This might help some.Keep in mind I drew a 2d line on a 3d system. You should be able to see how the top of the lander can line up with the mountain.
(https://i.imgur.com/eFC1CDu.jpg)
Yeah, dutchy. No atmosphere on the moon. That’s just a fact.Evil conspired with NASA.
I’m sorry if you find it too “convenient” for us. Is reality in on the hoax too? Maybe God conspired with NASA?
What evil would give nazi rocket scientists a ''new'' life with all the ''goodies'' ?
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!Yes, like the interaction between a rocket and the gas it creates.
”When a BODY exerts force on a SECOND BODY” let me ask you, what is the second body being acted upon, IN A VACUUM ??!!You sure seem to love asking questions that have already been answered.
In the context of a bowling ball experiment :Only with reality.
The guy on a skateboard = FIRST BODY
FORCE = Motion of his arms that pushes off a heavy ball
A MEDICINE BALL = SECOND BODY
It's still gas (flame), of course, however rocket's gas (flame) does it's work when expelled from a rocket, not before. Now you have to ask yourself :So what you are saying is the gas inside the rocket is still part of the rocket, and it is only when it leaves the rocket that it becomes a second body.
Is it because when expelled from a rocket, gas (flame) is no longer part of a rocket or is it because it exerts it's force on the second body (the air)?
Is there a spatial/physical gap between a flame expelled and a rocket?Is there a spatial/physical gap between a medicine ball and the hands?
It can coagulate in your veins and act like a blood clotThat is just your model of how chocolate works.
Close, but not quite: It is premature to assert a model before you know what model really withstands the tests.Not in the slightest.
I don't have a model of the FE because, as with the car engine, I don't know the details so if I adopted a model, or invented one of my own, it would be wrong, just as my model of a car engine would be wrong.Your position is more comparable to claiming a car engines works using pixies. Even without a model, you are still wrong.
That's the mistake so many FEers makeThere is a much bigger mistake before that, assuming Earth is flat.
Not quite. The Nazi rocket scientists designed and built the rockets. They didn't launch the rockets or pick the targets. Would you call Eugene Stoner evil for designing and building the AR-15/M-16 (which has probably killed far more people than the V2)?Yeah, dutchy. No atmosphere on the moon. That’s just a fact.Evil conspired with NASA.
I’m sorry if you find it too “convenient” for us. Is reality in on the hoax too? Maybe God conspired with NASA?
What evil would give nazi rocket scientists a ''new'' life with all the ''goodies'' ?
Like a college athlete caught with murder, but let off the hook because the college team validates his sporting talents so much.
The mountain backdrop top plateau in photo 2 and 4 is further to the left.You mean taking photos from different angles can make background objects appear to move relative to foreground objects?
Only from a different angle towards the LEM....but both LEMS are viewed from approximately the same angle.No they aren't.
It looks beyond fake and rediculous compared to any photograph on earth...So far all we have for that is your baseless assertion.
Evil conspired with NASA.
What evil would give nazi rocket scientists a ''new'' life with all the ''goodies'' ?
<...snip...>
Were they "war criminals"? Who tried and convicted them - dutchy?Evil conspired with NASA.The United States taking in Nazi war criminals, letting them get off without punishment for their crimes, and giving them good jobs to boot, is a shameful and long-known page in United States history.
What evil would give nazi rocket scientists a ''new'' life with all the ''goodies'' ?
<...snip...>
But NASA did not exist at the time. So NASA had nothing to do with that. And our shameful deals with the Nazis has no bearing on whether or not men walked on the moon.
Don”t think this has been posted before, but if it has then apologies. Basically it’s a filmmaker explaining that they couldn’t have faked the film sequences, because they didn’t have the technology to do so.Of course dutchy thinks himself far more knowledgeable than S G Collins on film production (and everything else) :P.
Don”t think this has been posted before, but if it has then apologies. Basically it’s a filmmaker explaining that they couldn’t have faked the film sequences, because they didn’t have the technology to do so.Of course dutchy thinks himself far more knowledgeable than S G Collins on film production (and everything else) :P.
If you want to read some for/against have a look at
International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories Camera work of Apollo 17, page 3 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=314678&page=3).
The rest might be worth reading: International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories Camera work of Apollo 17, page 1 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=314678&page=1).
And living in Australia I know for certain that the Ice-Wall map is total crap when it comes to east-west distances.Don”t think this has been posted before, but if it has then apologies. Basically it’s a filmmaker explaining that they couldn’t have faked the film sequences, because they didn’t have the technology to do so.Of course dutchy thinks himself far more knowledgeable than S G Collins on film production (and everything else) :P.
If you want to read some for/against have a look at
International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories Camera work of Apollo 17, page 3 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=314678&page=3).
The rest might be worth reading: International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories Camera work of Apollo 17, page 1 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=314678&page=1).
Thanks for that. I dip into the international skeptics forum quite often, but usually the current events etc., threads. The links you gave will give me some reading for this evening.
I understand you’re in Australia. One of the best reasons for the moon landings not able to have been faked, as told me by a colleague, was that the Australians would have spilled the beans on it since if the ‘dish’ they had didn’t pick up the signals from the moon, they just wouldn’t have kept quiet. Probably due to their irreverent nature, apparently, so i’m told.
And living in Australia I know for certain that the Ice-Wall map is total crap when it comes to east-west distances.Don”t think this has been posted before, but if it has then apologies. Basically it’s a filmmaker explaining that they couldn’t have faked the film sequences, because they didn’t have the technology to do so.
Of course dutchy thinks himself far more knowledgeable than S G Collins on film production (and everything else) :P.
If you want to read some for/against have a look at
International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories Camera work of Apollo 17, page 3 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=314678&page=3).
The rest might be worth reading: International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories Camera work of Apollo 17, page 1 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=314678&page=1).
Thanks for that. I dip into the international skeptics forum quite often, but usually the current events etc., threads. The links you gave will give me some reading for this evening.
I understand you’re in Australia. One of the best reasons for the moon landings not able to have been faked, as told me by a colleague, was that the Australians would have spilled the beans on it since if the ‘dish’ they had didn’t pick up the signals from the moon, they just wouldn’t have kept quiet. Probably due to their irreverent nature, apparently, so i’m told.
How's that for irreverence?
I skipped over the insults if you don’t mind but you are wrong.....some pictures are taken from approxemately the same angle only a slightly varying height and different lens settings.The mountain backdrop top plateau in photo 2 and 4 is further to the left.These photos are taken from different angles.
As such, you will end up with parallax issues where the background does not line up.
Here is a very simplified top down view to demonstrate that.Yeah indeed ‘ no way it is accurate’ because it shows exagerated angles.
In no way is it intended to be accurate.
(https://i.imgur.com/2jJwu9w.png)
Notice how taking the photo from a different position results in the mountain appearing in a different location relative to the LM?
Yeah please do !!!
So no, they were not viewing the LM from the same angle. The angles are vastly different.
Do I need to make a picture of the 2 side by side for you to see this?
Tremendous amount of twisted logic, ludicrous claims and utter stupidity...
I skipped over the insults if you don’t mind but you are wrong.....some pictures are taken from approxemately the same angle only a slightly varying height and different lens settings.The mountain backdrop top plateau in photo 2 and 4 is further to the left.These photos are taken from different angles.
As such, you will end up with parallax issues where the background does not line up.
Still the background moves. Not that i imply that they moved the LEM, but their extremely close backdrop is in error and moves way to fast when viewing items in front of the backdrop instead of far away huge mountains......
That’s the panorama Mesdag effect what we are wittnessing.
QuoteHere is a very simplified top down view to demonstrate that.Yeah indeed ‘ no way it is accurate’ because it shows exagerated angles.
In no way is it intended to be accurate.
(https://i.imgur.com/2jJwu9w.png)
Notice how taking the photo from a different position results in the mountain appearing in a different location relative to the LM?QuoteYeah please do !!!
So no, they were not viewing the LM from the same angle. The angles are vastly different.
Do I need to make a picture of the 2 side by side for you to see this?
From picture 1 and.... 2 and 3( same angle pictures) and what mountains are supposedly behind picture 1 please elaborate where and what the mountains are compared to the other photographs in photo 1.
Tremendous amount of twisted logic, ludicrous claims and utter stupidity...
In the context of a bowling ball experiment :
The guy on a skateboard = FIRST BODY
FORCE = Motion of his arms that pushes off a heavy ball
A MEDICINE BALL = SECOND BODY
Heaviness of a medicine ball (INERTIA) enables our guy to be pushed off of a heavy ball.
Heaviness of a medicine ball (INERTIA) imitates/simulates THE AIR
Lightness of some light object (which our guy could have used in his second hypothetical try) imitates/simulates A VACUUM
Thanks for that. I dip into the international skeptics forum quite often, but usually the current events etc., threads. The links you gave will give me some reading for this evening.
I understand you’re in Australia. One of the best reasons for the moon landings not able to have been faked, as told me by a colleague, was that the Australians would have spilled the beans on it since if the ‘dish’ they had didn’t pick up the signals from the moon, they just wouldn’t have kept quiet. Probably due to their irreverent nature, apparently, so i’m told.
Tremendous amount of twisted logic, ludicrous claims and utter stupidity...
In the context of a bowling ball experiment :
The guy on a skateboard = FIRST BODY
FORCE = Motion of his arms that pushes off a heavy ball
A MEDICINE BALL = SECOND BODY
Heaviness of a medicine ball (INERTIA) enables our guy to be pushed off of a heavy ball.
Heaviness of a medicine ball (INERTIA) imitates/simulates THE AIR
Lightness of some light object (which our guy could have used in his second hypothetical try) imitates/simulates A VACUUM
No, you are doing it again... Above you note that the medicene ball is the second body, because it's HEAVY.
But you forget that the expelled gasses also have mass and thus constitute the second body.
Your problem is that you think that gas is light so it's can't have mass - but of course it does.
Tremendous amount of twisted logic, ludicrous claims and utter stupidity...
In the context of a bowling ball experiment :
The guy on a skateboard = FIRST BODY
FORCE = Motion of his arms that pushes off a heavy ball
A MEDICINE BALL = SECOND BODY
Heaviness of a medicine ball (INERTIA) enables our guy to be pushed off of a heavy ball.
Heaviness of a medicine ball (INERTIA) imitates/simulates THE AIR
Lightness of some light object (which our guy could have used in his second hypothetical try) imitates/simulates A VACUUM
on earth if you sit in a chair that has wheels on it and throw a heavy ball you would
move back, and guess why of course because of gravity; see gravity makes the ball weigh something but if you did the same thing in space you wouldnt move because you and the ball weigh nothing at all.
Tremendous amount of twisted logic, ludicrous claims and utter stupidity...
In the context of a bowling ball experiment :
The guy on a skateboard = FIRST BODY
FORCE = Motion of his arms that pushes off a heavy ball
A MEDICINE BALL = SECOND BODY
Heaviness of a medicine ball (INERTIA) enables our guy to be pushed off of a heavy ball.
Heaviness of a medicine ball (INERTIA) imitates/simulates THE AIR
Lightness of some light object (which our guy could have used in his second hypothetical try) imitates/simulates A VACUUM
No, you are doing it again... Above you note that the medicene ball is the second body, because it's HEAVY.
But you forget that the expelled gasses also have mass and thus constitute the second body.
Your problem is that you think that gas is light so it's can't have mass - but of course it does.
Some more food for thought :
the reason why thrust cant work is simple
thrust equals = weight in order to have weight we need gravity.
see its like this in space everything weighs nothing so i would say a rocket weighs 0
or put like this rocket =0
thrust=0 because without gravity there is no weight behind the thrust
to cause a reaction so no movement would take place.
on earth if you sit in a chair that has wheels on it and throw a heavy ball you would
move back, and guess why of course because of gravity; see gravity makes the ball weigh something but if you did the same thing in space you wouldnt move because you and the ball weigh nothing at all.
Oh yes as long as we are within the earths atmosphere the rocket engine which is chucking out thrust, weight, pounds more than it weighs to get up there is acting with two important things Gravity is needed to give the thrust weight, imagine seeing a flame out the back of a rocket with no weight no substance behind it just like a blow torch a flame without any force behind it that's not going to move much is it .then we come to the next important thing its called air or atmospheric gasses. the thrust of a rocket engine has to have something to push against it cant push against its self. That would be like bolting an engine with a prop on it to a boat and pointing it at the sail do you think the boat would move? Of course it wouldn't we have created a sealed circuit where no reaction can take place. so in orbit the elements needed for trust to produce momentum still exist, but in true space or outside higher orbit there is a vacuum no air no gasses no gravity not much of anything for thrust to push against and, so a rocket can't push against its self using Newton’s third law.
Get it?
Both my parents have worked at NASA for 20+ years. I grew up in kemah, TX. They always stirred away when I asked them about things like this. My Dad always said " quit being a conspiracy theorist " my mom always looked at me like she felt bad for lying to me. They provided me with a great life, great opportunities. But at what expense?
Thanks for that. I dip into the international skeptics forum quite often, but usually the current events etc., threads. The links you gave will give me some reading for this evening.
I understand you’re in Australia. One of the best reasons for the moon landings not able to have been faked, as told me by a colleague, was that the Australians would have spilled the beans on it since if the ‘dish’ they had didn’t pick up the signals from the moon, they just wouldn’t have kept quiet. Probably due to their irreverent nature, apparently, so i’m told.
Mike# Boy 2 years ago
@ odiupicku this is mind bending for me, hey went and check with my own eyes to see this honeysuckle nasa tracking dish it's a 22 metre dish, Apollo rd, near Canberra there nothing there just a concrete slab and it is ridiculous sign boards saying they went to the moon? What about parks its a 64 metre radio telescope dish i kid you not apparently parks dish received lunar and modular transmission. What going on???Apparently honeysuckle was commissioned 1967 and decommissioned 1981 hey just saying these magnetic tapes that went missing 700 so boxes. I do not get it, honeysuckle dish was a massive step for mankind, so they dismantle it. WTF?
Mike# Boy 2 years ago
@ odiupicku, bro we are on the same page, just a guess i suspect you are smarter then me, but it is not important just saying, anyway Apollo program brought me here i hate NASA they lied and deceive me just saying. My dad who has pass many years ago 18 to be precise, he was in the australian air force, radar and communication. He said to me 1969 the transmission where impossible there is not enough wattage. He new, but i did not, i told him that's silly it's on tv and it's live from outer space. Odiupicku you are right it's just a show to fool the world and it worked like a treat. I am ashamed i did believe my father and yes i am educated. What awoke me 18 months ago, when a buddy talk about bill clinton autobiography book " the old carpenter, he must have been ahead of his time" I was blown. I am not a big fan of Mr Clinton he should have been impeached for lying to the American people. Hey i know you are busy and its time consuming to make theses vids i commend you, it's passion......Cheers bro.
P.s my dad did teach me this pseudo maths..
I will try to post or write the impossible transmission with links or the maths, wish me luck i also have passion.
I am calling the Apollo program as total B... S....dad got something right do not use profanities
So, i am told...
explaining and adding to the Apollo footage as why they look so fake.Really? Where?
But never a decorated photographer or Hollywood filmmaker of name burns his hands on openly claiming he went through all the Apollo imagery and came to the conclusion it was as ’moonish’ as it gets.Maybe that is because they realise there is no point. Those who reject the moon landings wont listen. Anyone that would listen to them would likely already accept the landings are real.
I skipped over the insults if you don’t mindNo insults, just pointing out how ridiculous your argument was and how completely inconsistent it is with someone who has done arts as a major school subject.
some pictures are taken from approxemately the same angle only a slightly varying height and different lens settings.Says you.
Still the background moves.
but their extremely close backdrop is in error and moves way to fast when viewing items in front of the backdrop instead of far away huge mountains......And you are basing this on what?
Yeah indeed ‘ no way it is accurate’ because it shows exagerated angles.No it doesn't.
Yeah please do !!!Here you go:
From picture 1 and.... 2 and 3( same angle pictures)
Incorrect! That is total crap!Tremendous amount of twisted logic, ludicrous claims and utter stupidity...
Gas pressure requires molecules to be in contact with each other, bouncing off each other, causing millions of collisions per second, etc… If you release gas into the vacuum of space, the first molecule that pops out will shoot off into the distance at a constant speed, so will the one behind that, never catching up with the first one. The third, fourth, etc… all fly off into the distance trying to fill the vacuum by finding their empty corner. So no matter how much gas you produce none of it will ever change the pressure under a space ship. None it if will ever push a spaceship. To push a spaceship there must be some locally high pressure under it, which is impossible since the pressure in space is 0 everywhere.
Great job showing you have no rational counter to what I said.Tremendous amount of twisted logic, ludicrous claims and utter stupidity...
Gas pressure requires molecules to be in contact with each other, bouncing off each other, causing millions of collisions per second, etc… If you release gas into the vacuum of space, the first molecule that pops out will shoot off into the distance at a constant speedThis requires you to "release" them in a highly specific direction with a specific velocity (which requires forcing them to go in that particular direction).
To push a spaceship there must be some locally high pressure under it, which is impossible since the pressure in space is 0 everywhere.No, the pressure is 0 no where. It is quite low in most locations, but in the rocket engine and in the exhaust near the rocket, it is quite high.
Think about a fire hose shooting water. A force comes directly back against the column of water shooting out. Why?Because water, like gas, has inertia and thus the hose needs to apply a force to direct the water.
Since the molecules leaving the combustion chamberDon't start there. Start with the molecules in the combustion chamber. If you start with them already out they have already force the rocket away and the rocket has forced them away.
This is also known as Joule Expansion.That requires expansion in all directions, not going out of the nozzle in a particular direction.
So, once again, just for you Jack :Repeating the same lie wont help you.
thrust equals = weight in order to have weight we need gravity.No it doesn't.
Isn’t it sad that the only pro Apollo expert on film and photography is SG Collins who we all know as mister ‘lightguy’ because he vastly overplayed his hand when addressing Apollo and the means of fakery in 1969 ?
And we have , what i call, lots of amatures defending, explaining and adding to the Apollo footage as why they look so fake.
The leader of the pro Apollo bandwagen surely is Jay Windley from Clavius who freely dedicated his life ::) for more than a decade to defend Apollo.
Then you have Astrobrant (2), Phill Plait, onebigmonkey ( used to post here) and a handfull of names responsible for the pro Apollo commentary on the www other than NASA and mainstream media articles.
But never a decorated photographer or Hollywood filmmaker of name burns his hands on openly claiming he went through all the Apollo imagery and came to the conclusion it was as ’moonish’ as it gets.
While Massimo Mazzucco let Toni Thorimbert, Aldo Fallai, Oliviero Toscani and Peter Lindbergh do some real PROFESSIONAL talking on the Apollo imagery.
Not only that, the most intelligent, most skilled pro Apollo person Jay Windley has been giving lots of airtime in the ‘American moon’ docu from Massimo Mazzucci.
Steadily (after the anniversary avalange is over) people will come to grips with this moon nonsense.
Rabinoz knows he his loosing his grip therefor his arguments gets worse by the day and often aimed at me as a personal dig.....
cikljamas .. I asked you this question earlier, perhaps you missed it.
Both my parents have worked at NASA for 20+ years. I grew up in kemah, TX. They always stirred away when I asked them about things like this. My Dad always said " quit being a conspiracy theorist " my mom always looked at me like she felt bad for lying to me. They provided me with a great life, great opportunities. But at what expense?
So you grew up right next to Johnson Space Center (Houston). I'm interested in what sort of work did your parents do at NASA?
I'm from Australia!Thanks for that. I dip into the international skeptics forum quite often, but usually the current events etc., threads. The links you gave will give me some reading for this evening.
I understand you’re in Australia. One of the best reasons for the moon landings not able to have been faked, as told me by a colleague, was that the Australians would have spilled the beans on it since if the ‘dish’ they had didn’t pick up the signals from the moon, they just wouldn’t have kept quiet. Probably due to their irreverent nature, apparently, so i’m told.
Mike# Boy 2 years ago
@ odiupicku this is mind bending for me, hey went and check with my own eyes to see this honeysuckle nasa tracking dish it's a 22 metre dish, Apollo rd, near Canberra there nothing there just a concrete slab and it is ridiculous sign boards saying they went to the moon? What about parks its a 64 metre radio telescope dish i kid you not apparently parks dish received lunar and modular transmission. What going on???Apparently honeysuckle was commissioned 1967 and decommissioned 1981. I do not get it, honeysuckle dish was a massive step for mankind, so they dismantle it. WTF?
<< Ignored until you sort out your rocket in a vacuum rubbish! >>
cikljamas .. I asked you this question earlier, perhaps you missed it.
Both my parents have worked at NASA for 20+ years. I grew up in kemah, TX. They always stirred away when I asked them about things like this. My Dad always said " quit being a conspiracy theorist " my mom always looked at me like she felt bad for lying to me. They provided me with a great life, great opportunities. But at what expense?
So you grew up right next to Johnson Space Center (Houston). I'm interested in what sort of work did your parents do at NASA?
Attempt number 5 .. I'm beginning to think cikljamas can't actually read..cikljamas .. I asked you this question earlier, perhaps you missed it.
Both my parents have worked at NASA for 20+ years. I grew up in kemah, TX. They always stirred away when I asked them about things like this. My Dad always said " quit being a conspiracy theorist " my mom always looked at me like she felt bad for lying to me. They provided me with a great life, great opportunities. But at what expense?
So you grew up right next to Johnson Space Center (Houston). I'm interested in what sort of work did your parents do at NASA?
Attempt number 5 .. I'm beginning to think cikljamas can't actually read..cikljamas .. I asked you this question earlier, perhaps you missed it.
Both my parents have worked at NASA for 20+ years. I grew up in kemah, TX. They always stirred away when I asked them about things like this. My Dad always said " quit being a conspiracy theorist " my mom always looked at me like she felt bad for lying to me. They provided me with a great life, great opportunities. But at what expense?
So you grew up right next to Johnson Space Center (Houston). I'm interested in what sort of work did your parents do at NASA?
They produced coke bottles :
That isn't food for thought. It is food to avoid thought.O.K., for the sake of truth i will agree with you on that one (and only on that one) issue!!!
Thrust=force=mass*acceleration.
You don't need weight, you need mass.
Many people confuse weight and mass, but the 2 are very different.
The nail in the coffin of all NASA crapola is the idea of sending a video image 200K miles away...LOL....With analog equipment and no repeater stations...I installed communications systems in the USAF...The most powerful and far reaching communications we had was HF radio...Which uses the Ionosphere like Ham Radio, Only our transmitters were 5000 watts...You would need a billion watts and repeater amplifier stations between the earth and moon...Entropy of signal physics.That's total crap by someone who has no idea about radio communication!
Now some sensible answers on thrust = (mass flow rate) × (exhaust velocity) please!That isn't food for thought. It is food to avoid thought.<< Repeated crap deleted >>
Thrust=force=mass*acceleration.
You don't need weight, you need mass.
Many people confuse weight and mass, but the 2 are very different.
The nail in the coffinIs that you are running away to yet another topic after failing to defend your prior claims.
As for the core of the issue, i am 100 % right, and you know that, so i am going to repeat this just once more for everyone who will ever read this thread :No, I know you are wrong. I am fairly certain you know that as well.
Isn’t it sad that the only pro Apollo expert on film and photography is SG Collins who we all know as mister ‘lightguy’ because he vastly overplayed his hand when addressing Apollo and the means of fakery in 1969 ?
And we have , what i call, lots of amatures defending, explaining and adding to the Apollo footage as why they look so fake.
The leader of the pro Apollo bandwagen surely is Jay Windley from Clavius who freely dedicated his life ::) for more than a decade to defend Apollo.
Then you have Astrobrant (2), Phill Plait, onebigmonkey ( used to post here) and a handfull of names responsible for the pro Apollo commentary on the www other than NASA and mainstream media articles.
But never a decorated photographer or Hollywood filmmaker of name burns his hands on openly claiming he went through all the Apollo imagery and came to the conclusion it was as ’moonish’ as it gets.
While Massimo Mazzucco let Toni Thorimbert, Aldo Fallai, Oliviero Toscani and Peter Lindbergh do some real PROFESSIONAL talking on the Apollo imagery.
Not only that, the most intelligent, most skilled pro Apollo person Jay Windley has been giving lots of airtime in the ‘American moon’ docu from Massimo Mazzucci.
Steadily (after the anniversary avalange is over) people will come to grips with this moon nonsense.
Rabinoz knows he his loosing his grip therefor his arguments gets worse by the day and often aimed at me as a personal dig.....
The sun being far away, it cannot go diagonally. The shadows must be parallel at such a distance.
I have demonstrated my honesty by admitting (every single time) that i was wrong whenever i noticed a mistake that i had made. However, this simple concept (of admitting your obvious mistakes) is totally strange and incomprehensible to you and to Jack Black. Whenever it comes to my mind to tell you "shame on you", the next thought comes to my mind in a nanosecond : They have no idea what the word "shame" designates, and they have no idea what "a shame" is, because they haven't got a clue what the word "honesty" means.Now some sensible answers on thrust = (mass flow rate) × (exhaust velocity) please!That isn't food for thought. It is food to avoid thought.<< Repeated crap deleted >>
Thrust=force=mass*acceleration.
You don't need weight, you need mass.
Many people confuse weight and mass, but the 2 are very different.
Isn’t it sad that the only pro Apollo expert on film and photography is SG Collins who we all know as mister ‘lightguy’ because he vastly overplayed his hand when addressing Apollo and the means of fakery in 1969 ?
And we have , what i call, lots of amatures defending, explaining and adding to the Apollo footage as why they look so fake.
The leader of the pro Apollo bandwagen surely is Jay Windley from Clavius who freely dedicated his life ::) for more than a decade to defend Apollo.
Then you have Astrobrant (2), Phill Plait, onebigmonkey ( used to post here) and a handfull of names responsible for the pro Apollo commentary on the www other than NASA and mainstream media articles.
But never a decorated photographer or Hollywood filmmaker of name burns his hands on openly claiming he went through all the Apollo imagery and came to the conclusion it was as ’moonish’ as it gets.
While Massimo Mazzucco let Toni Thorimbert, Aldo Fallai, Oliviero Toscani and Peter Lindbergh do some real PROFESSIONAL talking on the Apollo imagery.
Not only that, the most intelligent, most skilled pro Apollo person Jay Windley has been giving lots of airtime in the ‘American moon’ docu from Massimo Mazzucci.
Steadily (after the anniversary avalange is over) people will come to grips with this moon nonsense.
Rabinoz knows he his loosing his grip therefor his arguments gets worse by the day and often aimed at me as a personal dig.....
What’s sad is that your hero Mazzucco says things like this:Quote from: Massimo MazzucciThe sun being far away, it cannot go diagonally. The shadows must be parallel at such a distance.
When reality begs to differ:
(https://comps.canstockphoto.com/sunset-road-stock-photo_csp16256027.jpg)
It’s sad that several other fashion photographers said the same thing, while reality begs to differ.
It’s sad that I presented this to you before and you refused to address my criticisms, except to call me an amateur.
It’s sad you still bang on about about your “top photography experts” as if they hadn’t made total fools of themselves by being just plain wrong in one of the most obvious ways possible.
You still haven't watched this video :
This force pushing a rocket cannot be pushing on the inside of the rocket any more than you can push with your feet upwards against the inside of a cardboard box you are within to stop it from falling from a height. It sounds absurd but that is what NASA claims happens in a rocket.
Back the the Nozzle and the Massflow equation F=MA on earthNo. Air is about 784 times less dense than water (https://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/216/). As far as the water is concerned, the air might just as well not even be there.
Think about a fire hose shooting water. A force comes directly back against the column of water shooting out. Why? Because the first drop of water has to pas through air, which is dense, causing many collisions, slowing down the drop of water.
I have demonstrated my honesty by admitting (every single time) that i was wrong whenever i noticed a mistake that i had made.
The nail in the coffin of all NASA crapola is the idea of sending a video image 200K miles away...LOL....With analog equipment and no repeater stations...I installed communications systems in the USAF...The most powerful and far reaching communications we had was HF radio...Which uses the Ionosphere like Ham Radio, Only our transmitters were 5000 watts...You would need a billion watts and repeater amplifier stations between the earth and moon...Entropy of signal physics.
The nail in the coffin of all NASA crapola is the idea of sending a video image 200K miles away...LOL....With analog equipment and no repeater stations...I installed communications systems in the USAF...The most powerful and far reaching communications we had was HF radio...Which uses the Ionosphere like Ham Radio, Only our transmitters were 5000 watts...You would need a billion watts and repeater amplifier stations between the earth and moon...Entropy of signal physics.
I think your example could be done in photoshop when you are setting the drop shadow effect on an layer, uncheck the "Use Global Light" checkbox. Uncheck the "Use Global Light" checkbox in the Drop Shadow dialog.Isn’t it sad that the only pro Apollo expert on film and photography is SG Collins who we all know as mister ‘lightguy’ because he vastly overplayed his hand when addressing Apollo and the means of fakery in 1969 ?
And we have , what i call, lots of amatures defending, explaining and adding to the Apollo footage as why they look so fake.
The leader of the pro Apollo bandwagen surely is Jay Windley from Clavius who freely dedicated his life ::) for more than a decade to defend Apollo.
Then you have Astrobrant (2), Phill Plait, onebigmonkey ( used to post here) and a handfull of names responsible for the pro Apollo commentary on the www other than NASA and mainstream media articles.
But never a decorated photographer or Hollywood filmmaker of name burns his hands on openly claiming he went through all the Apollo imagery and came to the conclusion it was as ’moonish’ as it gets.
While Massimo Mazzucco let Toni Thorimbert, Aldo Fallai, Oliviero Toscani and Peter Lindbergh do some real PROFESSIONAL talking on the Apollo imagery.
Not only that, the most intelligent, most skilled pro Apollo person Jay Windley has been giving lots of airtime in the ‘American moon’ docu from Massimo Mazzucci.
Steadily (after the anniversary avalange is over) people will come to grips with this moon nonsense.
Rabinoz knows he his loosing his grip therefor his arguments gets worse by the day and often aimed at me as a personal dig.....
What’s sad is that your hero Mazzucco says things like this:Quote from: Massimo MazzucciThe sun being far away, it cannot go diagonally. The shadows must be parallel at such a distance.
When reality begs to differ:
(https://comps.canstockphoto.com/sunset-road-stock-photo_csp16256027.jpg)
It’s sad that several other fashion photographers said the same thing, while reality begs to differ.
It’s sad that I presented this to you before and you refused to address my criticisms, except to call me an amateur.
It’s sad you still bang on about about your “top photography experts” as if they hadn’t made total fools of themselves by being just plain wrong in one of the most obvious ways possible.
I think your example could be done in photoshop when you are setting the drop shadow effect on an layer, uncheck the "Use Global Light" checkbox. Uncheck the "Use Global Light" checkbox in the Drop Shadow dialog.Isn’t it sad that the only pro Apollo expert on film and photography is SG Collins who we all know as mister ‘lightguy’ because he vastly overplayed his hand when addressing Apollo and the means of fakery in 1969 ?
And we have , what i call, lots of amatures defending, explaining and adding to the Apollo footage as why they look so fake.
The leader of the pro Apollo bandwagen surely is Jay Windley from Clavius who freely dedicated his life ::) for more than a decade to defend Apollo.
Then you have Astrobrant (2), Phill Plait, onebigmonkey ( used to post here) and a handfull of names responsible for the pro Apollo commentary on the www other than NASA and mainstream media articles.
But never a decorated photographer or Hollywood filmmaker of name burns his hands on openly claiming he went through all the Apollo imagery and came to the conclusion it was as ’moonish’ as it gets.
While Massimo Mazzucco let Toni Thorimbert, Aldo Fallai, Oliviero Toscani and Peter Lindbergh do some real PROFESSIONAL talking on the Apollo imagery.
Not only that, the most intelligent, most skilled pro Apollo person Jay Windley has been giving lots of airtime in the ‘American moon’ docu from Massimo Mazzucci.
Steadily (after the anniversary avalange is over) people will come to grips with this moon nonsense.
Rabinoz knows he his loosing his grip therefor his arguments gets worse by the day and often aimed at me as a personal dig.....
What’s sad is that your hero Mazzucco says things like this:Quote from: Massimo MazzucciThe sun being far away, it cannot go diagonally. The shadows must be parallel at such a distance.
When reality begs to differ:
(https://comps.canstockphoto.com/sunset-road-stock-photo_csp16256027.jpg)
It’s sad that several other fashion photographers said the same thing, while reality begs to differ.
It’s sad that I presented this to you before and you refused to address my criticisms, except to call me an amateur.
It’s sad you still bang on about about your “top photography experts” as if they hadn’t made total fools of themselves by being just plain wrong in one of the most obvious ways possible.
I special wideangle objective can create the same illusion ?
The top photographers in the docu understand the same camera's of the Apollo era and have worked with them.
Photoshop wasn't around like now in 1969.
But when you go to a dessert or flat bright area with your car and other items and try to replicate the multiple shadows cast in different directions as shown in the Apollo footage you are a very capable man..... using an old fashioned camera.
Not in a million years you'll succeed.
Ps the Apollo specialists out there are allready commenting in blogs and reviews about 'American Moon'
Not one of them has your silly shadow argument.
To the contrary, they praise their indisputable expertise on earth.
Their only argument us that those top photographers are not familiar with the moon conditions of a bright sun, reflective rigolet and earth.
Your argument about them being stupid photographers who simply don't understand the basics of how shadows behave says a lot more about you..
You honestly believe that electric motors need air to operate? Why?Electric motors do not need oxygen to work.Prove.
I am chuiffed that people are using the EME example, about which I started a thread recently ...The nail in the coffin of all NASA crapola is the idea of sending a video image 200K miles away...LOL....With analog equipment and no repeater stations...I installed communications systems in the USAF...The most powerful and far reaching communications we had was HF radio...Which uses the Ionosphere like Ham Radio, Only our transmitters were 5000 watts...You would need a billion watts and repeater amplifier stations between the earth and moon...Entropy of signal physics.
The amateur radio record for 10 Ghz EME was recently broken, some guys bounced a 10Ghz signal off the moon and established 2 way contact between New Zealand and England. That was with 10 watts, and a 1 meter diameter dish.
For comparison the Honeysuckle Creek ground station had 22,000 watts on 2 Ghz, and a 26 meter diameter dish.
I have demonstrated my honesty by admitting (every single time) that i was wrong whenever i noticed a mistake that i had made.No you haven't.
Here’s a simple explanation as to why rockets won’t work in space:It is the gas in the chamber that is important.
What pushes a rocket upwards through the air? Expanding gasses in the combustion chamber shooting out the back.
But if they’re shooting out the back towards the ground how can they be pushing the rocket upwards?
Oh, some of the gas is still in the chamber and that gas is pushing up against the rocket (what the people at Physics Today claim)
Since I have shownYou have only shown that all you can do is appeal to pure magic.
But when you go to a dessert or flat bright area with your car and other items and try to replicate the multiple shadows cast in different directions as shown in the Apollo footage you are a very capable man..... using an old fashioned camera.Are you referring to the slight variations caused by perspective?
Not in a million years you'll succeed.
I refuse to debate anyone that makes accusations like that, thank you, Mr Cikljamas.I have demonstrated my honesty by admitting (every single time) that i was wrong whenever i noticed a mistake that i had made. However, this simple concept (of admitting your obvious mistakes) is totally strange and incomprehensible to you and to Jack Black. Whenever it comes to my mind to tell you "shame on you", the next thought comes to my mind in a nanosecond : They have no idea what the word "shame" designates, and they have no idea what "a shame" is, because they haven't got a clue what the word "honesty" means.Now some sensible answers on thrust = (mass flow rate) × (exhaust velocity) please!That isn't food for thought. It is food to avoid thought.<< Repeated crap deleted >>
Thrust=force=mass*acceleration.
You don't need weight, you need mass.
Many people confuse weight and mass, but the 2 are very different.
The amateur radio record for 10 Ghz EME was recently broken, some guys bounced a 10Ghz signal off the moon and established 2 way contact between New Zealand and England. That was with 10 watts, and a 1 meter diameter dish.
It is very impressive but is helped by there being very little atmospheric path loss - far less that between distant points on earth.The amateur radio record for 10 Ghz EME was recently broken, some guys bounced a 10Ghz signal off the moon and established 2 way contact between New Zealand and England. That was with 10 watts, and a 1 meter diameter dish.
That's very impressive!
What mode were they using? CW? I once worked Perth from the middle of the U.S. on 10 Mhz CW with a dipole and 80 watts input. This would have been some time around the early 1980's. EME with 10 watts, even on 10 Ghz, is really impressive.You used a dipole with a gain of no more than 2 dB but the EME link could use 2 or 3 m dishes with gains in the 45 to 48 dB region.
I just can't get over how some folks can't understand that the thrust of a rocket comes from the hot gas pushing against the rocket engine, not from it pushing on air after it has left the engine and can no longer have any effect on the rocket.Neither can I.
You still haven't watched this video :
Your argument about them being stupid photographers who simply don't understand the basics of how shadows behave says a lot more about you..But they still seem to claim that a single distant light source must cast parallel shadows and this is a complete fallacy!
Your argument about them being stupid photographers who simply don't understand the basics of how shadows behave says a lot more about you..But they still seem to claim that a single distant light source must cast parallel shadows and this is a complete fallacy!
Perspective alone can make shadows appear to be at angle to each other.
(https://www.dave.co.nz/space/moon-hoax/images/converging-shadows-dave2.jpg)
And uneven terrain can cause the shadows to be far from parallel.
(https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2017/10/11/03/46/trees-2839835_960_720.jpg)
When asked about the boy and bowling he says that the bowling ball has "inertia".You still haven't watched this video :
Your best evidence of why rockets can't propel in the vacuum of space is this guy, who claims to be a mechanical engineer, standing in a conference room with a poorly rendered depiction of a rocket on a whiteboard in front of maybe two people. One of which somehow has a balloon handy to aid in his demonstration. He punches the air a couple of times followed by more randomly strung together words then proceeds to the break-room and uses a quad copter to demo why rockets can't do what they do?
Seriously? This is the evidence/explanation you hang your hat on? Wow.
When asked about the boy and bowling he says that the bowling ball has "inertia".You still haven't watched this video :
Your best evidence of why rockets can't propel in the vacuum of space is this guy, who claims to be a mechanical engineer, standing in a conference room with a poorly rendered depiction of a rocket on a whiteboard in front of maybe two people. One of which somehow has a balloon handy to aid in his demonstration. He punches the air a couple of times followed by more randomly strung together words then proceeds to the break-room and uses a quad copter to demo why rockets can't do what they do?
Seriously? This is the evidence/explanation you hang your hat on? Wow.
Doesn't he think that the tonnes of exhaust gas ejected from an F-1 has inertia? I find it incomprehensible that a "scientist" can ignore that.
Here’s a simple explanation as to why rockets won’t work in space:It is the gas in the chamber that is important.
What pushes a rocket upwards through the air? Expanding gasses in the combustion chamber shooting out the back.
But if they’re shooting out the back towards the ground how can they be pushing the rocket upwards?
Oh, some of the gas is still in the chamber and that gas is pushing up against the rocket (what the people at Physics Today claim)
Causing this gas to shoot out the back is what forces the rocket.
The gas is one body which is forced out the back of the rocket. The other body is the rocket, being forced forwards by the ground.
You repeatedly ignoring that will not help you.
Stop just saying the gas is coming out the back, you need to explain why it does so in the first place.
On Earth, shooting something causes friction with the thing being shot. Least of all, air all around us. The shooter will be effected by the action of shooting. However, in a vacuum, there being no friction with anything, shooting something just wastes that thing and sends it soaring uselessly into the void.
But if that's true, then you're saying a gun (by a magic gunman and gun that can exist and fire in a perfect vacuum) would not be pushed back by the bullet, it would just eject the bullet without an effect on the gun or the arm of the gunman? Simply because of a lack of air pressure and friction and so on?
So there is no jet propulsion that would work because any explosive reaction that could even occur in space would be wasted in it completely.
I think I see what you mean. To try to put this in unnecessarily simple layman's terms: because the vacuum is just complete void, it can freely take on just about an infinite amount of anything, at any rate, without actually anything significant happening. Hence, we hold on to the idea that mass exiting a craft into a vacuum would actually cause any motion in the craft only because we are used to such behavior in a non-vacuum.
The nail in the coffin of all NASA crapola is the idea of sending a video image 200K miles away...LOL....With analog equipment and no repeater stations...I installed communications systems in the USAF...The most powerful and far reaching communications we had was HF radio...Which uses the Ionosphere like Ham Radio, Only our transmitters were 5000 watts...You would need a billion watts and repeater amplifier stations between the earth and moon...Entropy of signal physics.
I was born in 1960.
In late 70s I was member of YU1AFX radio club.
When we used radio waves to measure distance to the Moon, I was a teenager.
If I remember correctly, our 432MHz (70 cm) transceiver was 350 Watts, or something like that.
Not the "billions" (or even thousands).
We didn't have Kenwood, older members made the transceiver themselves.
(When I joined the club it was already there.)
You occasionally send short beep and hope to receive it.
(You have to point and adjust the antenna set, ofcourse.)
When you finally do, you put your mic close to the receiving speaker, beep again, adjust the volume and make it resend.
When you set everything well, your initial beep will make series of beeps with about 2.5 sec difference.
Then you measure time for, say, 12 of them.
(They were more and more distorted in noise but still distinguished as pulses.)
If the time was 31 sec, you know the one beep time was 2.58333 sec.
That way the signal trip length would be (31 / 12) s x 300 000 km/s = 775 000 km there and back.
So, the distance to the Moon was 387 500 km.
~~~~~
Not only power affects the wave propagation.
Frequency does too.
Your 5000 Watts using Ionosphere was meant to establish reliable communication and at different frequencies.
To reach "around a corner", not directly the Moon in the line of sight.
THE PROPER ANSWER TO OBJECTION ABOVE :
Short answer: Yes a gun recoils in space. No, the analogy does not apply to rockets.
Longer version: Shooting a gun in space would happen theoretically as follows: pressurized gas accelerates the bullet through the barrel until the bullet leaves the muzzle. At that point the gas that was pushing the bullet escapes without doing any more work i.e. via free expansion. The energy of the bullet (its momentum) travels with the bullet and the gun recoils by principle of conservation of momentum.
The gun analogy does not apply to a NASA-type space rocket as their pressurized gas escapes without doing any work at all. A NASA rocket is a gun without a bullet.
The nail in the coffin of all NASA crapola is the idea of sending a video image 200K miles away...LOL....With analog equipment and no repeater stations...I installed communications systems in the USAF...The most powerful and far reaching communications we had was HF radio...Which uses the Ionosphere like Ham Radio, Only our transmitters were 5000 watts...You would need a billion watts and repeater amplifier stations between the earth and moon...Entropy of signal physics.
I was born in 1960.
In late 70s I was member of YU1AFX radio club.
When we used radio waves to measure distance to the Moon, I was a teenager.
If I remember correctly, our 432MHz (70 cm) transceiver was 350 Watts, or something like that.
Not the "billions" (or even thousands).
We didn't have Kenwood, older members made the transceiver themselves.
(When I joined the club it was already there.)
You occasionally send short beep and hope to receive it.
(You have to point and adjust the antenna set, ofcourse.)
When you finally do, you put your mic close to the receiving speaker, beep again, adjust the volume and make it resend.
When you set everything well, your initial beep will make series of beeps with about 2.5 sec difference.
Then you measure time for, say, 12 of them.
(They were more and more distorted in noise but still distinguished as pulses.)
If the time was 31 sec, you know the one beep time was 2.58333 sec.
That way the signal trip length would be (31 / 12) s x 300 000 km/s = 775 000 km there and back.
So, the distance to the Moon was 387 500 km.
~~~~~
Not only power affects the wave propagation.
Frequency does too.
Your 5000 Watts using Ionosphere was meant to establish reliable communication and at different frequencies.
To reach "around a corner", not directly the Moon in the line of sight.
1. What is your point?
2. You are an adult person and you still believe in moon-landing fairytale?
3. So, you openly admit the veracity of your notorious diagnose (the nature of your "illness") : NASA shill???
<< Read the following! >>You dare post accusations like this:
I have demonstrated my honesty by admitting (every single time) that i was wrong whenever i noticed a mistake that i had made. However, this simple concept (of admitting your obvious mistakes) is totally strange and incomprehensible to you and to Jack Black. Whenever it comes to my mind to tell you "shame on you", the next thought comes to my mind in a nanosecond : They have no idea what the word "shame" designates, and they have no idea what "a shame" is, because they haven't got a clue what the word "honesty" means.Now firstly please point out where either JackBlack or I made mistakes we should admit to.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .It starts with the question, "How would earth look from the moon?" And at 0:30 in that video we find this image:
*4.* Feel free to explain away the conundrum pointed out in the last part of this video :
EIFFEL TOWER PROOF :
EDIT: Even if you could make people forget or discard the Moon landing,
it wouldn't make Moon any closer than it actually is:
more or less around 380 000 km from Earth.
I can understand your frustration that caused your reaction like this, but changing the past is impossible.
Deal with it.
2. Astronauts who were at the Moon also were adult when they went there, mission control who sent them were also all adults.No retro-reflector mirrors are needed to have been placed on the Moon to reflect back signals to Earth.
None of them see it as your "fairytale" either.
Some astronauts also installed the retro-reflectors on the Moon that are still in use today.
1. My point is that my personal experience saves me from being convinced into some incorrect "need of billions of Watts to reach Moon".
3. Your attempt to declare it "illness" (or whatever you believe could "discredit it") is based on
your bias / strong desire to delete the Moon landing reality from the history and the list of facts.
<< Some response thank you! >>Why have you used "Photoshopped" images in your videos?
Well, maybe you want continue to discuss this issue with an author of the following OP :
[ADMIN: This topic was started due to our recent discussions — in multiple threads — about the subject of rocketry.
Specifically, there seems to be a growing skeptical understanding of the science of rocketry and just what is wrong with it, and why it doesn't work in the manner NASA says it does. (i.e.; bad physics used to back up their special effects publicity stunts like Apollo, "Mars missions", etc.)
In memory and honor of Bill Kaysing (or perhaps we'd better just say in honor of good sense) let's present the science here that shames the Wernher von Brauns of our world into coughing up the truth: their rocket programs are full of hot air. - hp]
After seeing the evidence of fakery in NASA pictures and videos in this forum I decided to investigate the theoretical basis of rockets in space. What I found on the Internet were mainly tricks, frauds and sleights of hand, name-calling and attacks used to confuse the issue and hide the facts. Bypassing all of that and doing original research I have come to the conclusion that rockets cannot function in space according the descriptions/formulas used by NASA and related parties.
With neither theory on its side nor reliable, verifiable, repeatable scientific experiments on its side the idea of rocket thrust in my estimation remains a fiction presented to the world as an achievement: a modern day Marco Polo story.
I will try to present my findings with a minimum of math and formulae as these are often used to drawn us into traps, causing us to argue the minutiae of red herrings or chase ghosts. These ruses remind me of the joke about on which side of the barn roof the rooster’s egg will fall. How often do people forget that rooster’s don’t lay eggs?
There are 4 major ideas on presented on the Internet, including NASA web sites, as to how rockets generate thrust in space
1. Newton’s 3rd Law : for every force there is an equal and opposite
2. Newtons’s 2nd Law : Force = Mass x Acceleration
3. Conservation of Momentum
4. The use of a specialized nozzle to accelerate the gas inside the ship, concentrate and aim the gas jet
I will address each of these issues showing why they are invalid. In addition I will review the results (and lack thereof) of the founders of space rocketry Hermann Oberth (who designed most of the rocket science for the Fritz Lang film Woman in the Moon), Goddard, who was the first to claim an experimental result proving vacuum thrust and Clarke, a champion of Newton’s 3rd law.
There’s obviously too much to cover in one post so I’ll start by addressing the most popular response to those who question how rockets operate in the vacuum of space: Newton’s 3rd Law, that is to say that a rocket when it exhausts propellant will be pushed in the opposite direction.
The problem with applying Newton’s 3rd is that the rocket’s propellant does not generate force in a vacuum according to the laws of physics and chemistry. If the force of the propellant is 0 then Newton’s 3rd states that
Force on Rocket=-Force of Gas.
If Force of Gas = 0 the rocket does not move.
Why doesn’t the propellant generate any force, it's expanding, right?
There is something known as “Free Expansion” or the “Joule-Thomson” effect, named after James Prescott Joule and J.J. Thompson two of the founders of the field of Physical Chemistry.
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html
Free Expansion states that when a pressurized gas is exposed to a vacuum the gas expanding into the vacuum without any work being done. The gas is not “pulled” or “sucked” into the vacuum nor is it “pushed” out of the high-pressure container. In other words no work is done, no heat or energy is lost.
This result has been experimentally verified numerous times since its discovery in the 1850’s.
[for example a paper in the Journal of Physical Chemistry from 1902: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002]
<< Some response thank you! >>Why have you used "Photoshopped" images in your videos?
See HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum) « Reply #215 on: Today at 10:10:07 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2190550#msg2190550).
I thought you admitted you mistakes!
The problem with applying Newton’s 3rd is that the rocket’s propellant does not generate force in a vacuum according to the laws of physics and chemistry. If the force of the propellant is 0 then Newton’s 3rd states thatHave you ever seen the exhaust gasses coming out of a rocket engine? Are you saying that those gasses are not being forced out of the engine?
Force on Rocket=-Force of Gas.
If Force of Gas = 0 the rocket does not move.
Why doesn’t the propellant generate any force, it's expanding, right?Actually, it's expanding in an enclosed space (the combustion chamber) that restricts the expansion and directs the flow of the combustion gasses.
There is something known as “Free Expansion” or the “Joule-Thomson” effect, named after James Prescott Joule and J.J. Thompson two of the founders of the field of Physical Chemistry.You will also notice that the free expansion only applies to closed systems (an insulated pressurized chamber connected to an insulated vacuum chamber). A rocket engine in space is not a closed system, therefore free expansion does not apply. Also, the simple act of burning the propellant is work, so please stop saying that no work is done.
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html
Free Expansion states that when a pressurized gas is exposed to a vacuum the gas expanding into the vacuum without any work being done. The gas is not “pulled” or “sucked” into the vacuum nor is it “pushed” out of the high-pressure container. In other words no work is done, no heat or energy is lost.
@ MarkJoDoes the gas have mass? Can mass be accelerated without a force being applied to it?
1. When a rocket's combustion chamber is filled with accelerated gas opening the nozzle to expel the gasses into the vacuum of space does not generate a force against the ship. This is due to the principle of free expansion.
2. No amount of combustion or pressure inside the space ship can move the ship until that combustive force or pressure is exchanged with some object, entity, or field outside of the ship (a space ship is a closed system).
3. Based on 1 and 2 there is no way to move the ship by releasing gas and no way to move the ship by keeping the gas inside. A space ship cannot generate force with a gas based propulsion system. Space rockets are the stuff of fantasies not science or physics.Since 1 and 2 are wrong, so is your conclusion.
4. It is my understanding that liquid can't exist inside a vacuum. Any liquid exposed to a vacuum is immediately converted to gas and any gas is immediately spread out into the void. So any combustion would have to take place in a sealed container and hence not in a vacuum in the strict sense.Once the liquid propellant is converted to a gas, then the chamber is no longer a strict vacuum, is it?
Regarding the possibility of opening one side of a container, exposing it to the vacuum, while combusting gasses inside the container. In this case we have to consider that combustion can't occur anywhere near the opening because any liquids in that area are being instantly converted to gas by the vacuum and spread out into the void via free expansion. When combustion occurs at the far side of the container the force is going to push the remaining liquid out before it can be combusted. This seems like a terribly inefficient use of fuel as the combustion itself is forcing unspent fuel into space.That's why the igniter is located near the fuel and oxidizer injectors at the back of the engine and the de Laval nozzle pinches to restrict the flow of the gasses and build chamber pressure.
Another problem is that gas enters a vacuum at an average speed of about 2,000 meters a second. A 25 meter long Saturn 5 stage 2 fuel tank with over 1,000,000 liters of fuel would have it's contents drained in about 1/100 of a second if exposed to the vacuum of space.That's why the liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen are pumped to the rocket engines at a controlled rate.
Speaking of Saturn V rockets, after looking at some data provided by the Smithsonian I have some questions...The 38 and 77 miles that you cite are altitude, not downrange (horizontal) distances traveled. If you ever watch a Saturn V (or just about any other orbital rocket) launch, then you should notice that the rocket begins to pitch over shortly after lift off. This is because the 17,500 mph speed needed is horizontal speed, not vertical.
Times and distances traveled by a Saturn V
Stage 1: 912 mph (38 miles in 2.5 minutes)
Stage 2: 770 mph (77 miles in 6 minutes)
Stage 3: 17,500 mph (achieved in 2.75 minutes) an acceleration of nearly 372,000 m/h^2
Questions:
A. Why does the rocket slow down between stages 1 and 2? I would expect it to pick up speed if it were powered by thrust because
a. the thinner atmosphere reduces wind resistance
b. it is now lighter, having discarded stage 1
c. the pull of gravity against it's climb is reduced the higher it goes
d. ...what is the point of stage 2 if does not increase the speed of the rocket?
B. How does stage 3 accelerate at such a tremendous rate without
a. killing the astronauts?
b. ripping apart the capsule?
5. Goddard's flawed test of the theory of rockets in a vacuum.As has been explained many times before, if the propellant can burn in a vacuum, then it can provide thrust in a vacuum.
Physicist Robert Goddard (for whom the Goddard Space Center is named) was one of the first to claim that rockets would work in the vacuum of space.
The New York times mocked his ideas in a 1920 editorial.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times/Robert_Goddard
In response Goddard set up the following experiment to prove the NYT wrong:
Inside a vacuum tube he attached a .22 caliber revolver, loaded with a blank cartridge, to a rod that turns .
There is no film of the experiment but first hand reports claim that when he fired the gun it spun around four times. Thus Goddard declared his theory experimentally proven.
http://www.clarku.edu/research/archives/goddard/faq.cfm
I claim that his experiment was not a test of rocket thrust in a vacuum for the following reasons:
Rabinoz, feel free to scrutinize (with your analytic mind) this APOLLO conundrum :
James Donaghy 2 years ago
@odiupicku Good job. Here's the thing though, there is a much more obvious problem with apollo- the heat.
It's such an obvious problem that it is amazing that it has been overlooked for so long. We all know the story of Icarus, but does everyone know the story of Leonov? He is the original spacewalker. He said, "It was so hot I thought I was frightened i was going to die."
Leonov is one of the bravest creatures on this planet which is partly why he was picked for this work.
So how does NASA explain his account of the incredible heat of the sun?
It is very impressive but is helped by there being very little atmospheric path loss - far less that between distant points on earth.The amateur radio record for 10 Ghz EME was recently broken, some guys bounced a 10Ghz signal off the moon and established 2 way contact between New Zealand and England. That was with 10 watts, and a 1 meter diameter dish.
That's very impressive!Quote from: magellanclavichordWhat mode were they using? CW? I once worked Perth from the middle of the U.S. on 10 Mhz CW with a dipole and 80 watts input. This would have been some time around the early 1980's. EME with 10 watts, even on 10 Ghz, is really impressive.You used a dipole with a gain of no more than 2 dB but the EME link could use 2 or 3 m dishes with gains in the 45 to 48 dB region.
EDIT: Even if you could make people forget or discard the Moon landing,
it wouldn't make Moon any closer than it actually is:
more or less around 380 000 km from Earth.
Who says it would?
I can understand your frustration that caused your reaction like this, but changing the past is impossible.
Deal with it.
Reaction like this? What reaction? I am perfectly calm, cool and steady, and in this perfect stability of my mind i tell you : You are nothing else than infamous NASA shill. So, you are right : changing the past is impossible, that is to say NASA liars will always be remembered as one of the greatest rascals in the history of this insane world. Deal with it (with your infamous NASA-nutthead reputation).
2. Astronauts who were at the Moon also were adult when they went there, mission control who sent them were also all adults.No retro-reflector mirrors are needed to have been placed on the Moon to reflect back signals to Earth.
None of them see it as your "fairytale" either.
Some astronauts also installed the retro-reflectors on the Moon that are still in use today.
National Geographic Vol. 130 No. 6 December 1966
'The Lasers Bright Magic' by Thomas Meloy
Page 876
"Four years ago (1962) a ruby laser considerably smaller than those now available, shot a series of pulses at the Moon, 240000 miles away. The beams illuminated a spot less than two miles in diameter, and were reflected back to Earth with enough strength to be measured by ultra sensitive electronic equipment."
1. My point is that my personal experience saves me from being convinced into some incorrect "need of billions of Watts to reach Moon".
At 5min in this video you will stumble upon the answer to your stupidity :
3. Your attempt to declare it "illness" (or whatever you believe could "discredit it") is based on
your bias / strong desire to delete the Moon landing reality from the history and the list of facts.
The moon landing hoax has been deleted from the history of alleged facts long time ago.
This is one of the best illustrations how obvious and brazen liars you NASA shills really are :
I had a lot of references on it but haven't tracked them down yet.It is very impressive but is helped by there being very little atmospheric path loss - far less that between distant points on earth.The amateur radio record for 10 Ghz EME was recently broken, some guys bounced a 10Ghz signal off the moon and established 2 way contact between New Zealand and England. That was with 10 watts, and a 1 meter diameter dish.
That's very impressive!Quote from: magellanclavichordWhat mode were they using? CW? I once worked Perth from the middle of the U.S. on 10 Mhz CW with a dipole and 80 watts input. This would have been some time around the early 1980's. EME with 10 watts, even on 10 Ghz, is really impressive.You used a dipole with a gain of no more than 2 dB but the EME link could use 2 or 3 m dishes with gains in the 45 to 48 dB region.
So, what mode did they use? I quit actively doing ham radio about the time the first digital modes were just starting to appear on the amateur bands. So CW, with its very narrow bandwidth, seems like the obvious choice to me, but I don't know if one of the digital modes would work better.
OK, but a gas still has mass and by conservation of momentum, the rocket expelling gas will recoil...
A. A blank cartridge expels a plug of paper called a wad. The wad is expelled with enough force to kill a person. If a gun propels an object conservation of momentum applies and the gun will recoil. Rockets in space do not shoot bullets, wads or any such solids. They only expel gas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blank_%28cartridge%29
https://io9.gizmodo.com/why-a-gun-loaded-with-blanks-can-still-kill-you-5972313
Well, maybe you want continue to discuss this issue with an author of the following OPIf they want to come here and argue, then they can, otherwise I will continue with you, as you are the one in this thread claiming rockets can't work in a vacuum and you refusing to answer a very simple question.
To recap: Newton’s 3rd Law, the number one response on the Internet to how a rocket generates thrust in space, is invalid in this context.Newton's 3rd law applies universally.
What mistakes? Even guys who believe that we landed on the moon admit that there is huge amount of altered (photoshopped) "apollo" images.Yes, 3 main kinds:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sure, "No retro-reflector mirrors are needed to have been placed on the Moon to reflect back signals to Earth."Some astronauts also installed the retro-reflectors on the Moon that are still in use today.No retro-reflector mirrors are needed to have been placed on the Moon to reflect back signals to Earth.
National Geographic Vol. 130 No. 6 December 1966, 'The Lasers Bright Magic' by Thomas Meloy, Page 876Have you looked at the precision of the measurements before and after retro-reflectors were installed on the moon?
"Four years ago (1962) a ruby laser considerably smaller than those now available, shot a series of pulses at the Moon, 240000 miles away. The beams illuminated a spot less than two miles in diameter, and were reflected back to Earth with enough strength to be measured by ultra sensitive electronic equipment."
In the next two and a half centuries astronomers used measurements of optical parallax and simultaneous observations of stellar occultations to reduce the uncertainty in the Earth-Moon distance to about 2 miles.
Beginning in 1957, conventional radar techniques were used to determine the Moon’s distance from the Earth to within 0.7 mile.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
It was in May of 1962 that a group from MIT reported a weak photon echo from a pulsed laser that was fired at the Moon—which they published with the clever title: “Project Lunar See.”
Finally, three years later in 1965, a Russian group used a 104-inch (2.6-meter) telescope to transmit and detect pulses of 50-nanosecond duration produced by a Q-switched (short pulse) ruby laser. This experiment achieved enough accuracy to improve our knowledge of the Earth-Moon distance to about 180 m. At this accuracy, lunar topology was beginning to spread in time the reflected pulse.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
On August 3, the Goddard laser system was operated successfully for nearly two hours and achieved a range accuracy of 6 meters.
. . .
The Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment which began with the July 20th placing of the array of optical corner cubes on the surface of the Moon (Fig. 6) by the Apollo 11 astronauts has made possible a dramatic change in our ability to measure the distance between the Earth and its moon—initially, with an accuracy of some tens of centimeters; and today, four additional retroreflector packages and 40 years later, with an accuracy of millimeters!
There is nothing of any merit in that to demonstrate that "need of billions of Watts to reach Moon".1. My point is that my personal experience saves me from being convinced into some incorrect "need of billions of Watts to reach Moon".At 5min in this video you will stumble upon the answer to your stupidity :
Incorrect! Only in the minds of conspiritards like yourself!3. Your attempt to declare it "illness" (or whatever you believe could "discredit it") is based onThe moon landing hoax has been deleted from the history of alleged facts long time ago.
your bias / strong desire to delete the Moon landing reality from the history and the list of facts.
This is one of the best illustrations how obvious and brazen liars you NASA shills really are :Really?
I had a lot of references on it but haven't tracked them down yet.It is very impressive but is helped by there being very little atmospheric path loss - far less that between distant points on earth.The amateur radio record for 10 Ghz EME was recently broken, some guys bounced a 10Ghz signal off the moon and established 2 way contact between New Zealand and England. That was with 10 watts, and a 1 meter diameter dish.
That's very impressive!Quote from: magellanclavichordWhat mode were they using? CW? I once worked Perth from the middle of the U.S. on 10 Mhz CW with a dipole and 80 watts input. This would have been some time around the early 1980's. EME with 10 watts, even on 10 Ghz, is really impressive.You used a dipole with a gain of no more than 2 dB but the EME link could use 2 or 3 m dishes with gains in the 45 to 48 dB region.
So, what mode did they use? I quit actively doing ham radio about the time the first digital modes were just starting to appear on the amateur bands. So CW, with its very narrow bandwidth, seems like the obvious choice to me, but I don't know if one of the digital modes would work better.
This possibly has most: Moonbounce on a Budget By Bob DeVarney W1ICW, Winter 2013. (http://www.hamclass.net/ranv/moonbounce.pdf)
I had a lot of references on it but haven't tracked them down yet.It is very impressive but is helped by there being very little atmospheric path loss - far less that between distant points on earth.The amateur radio record for 10 Ghz EME was recently broken, some guys bounced a 10Ghz signal off the moon and established 2 way contact between New Zealand and England. That was with 10 watts, and a 1 meter diameter dish.
That's very impressive!Quote from: magellanclavichordWhat mode were they using? CW? I once worked Perth from the middle of the U.S. on 10 Mhz CW with a dipole and 80 watts input. This would have been some time around the early 1980's. EME with 10 watts, even on 10 Ghz, is really impressive.You used a dipole with a gain of no more than 2 dB but the EME link could use 2 or 3 m dishes with gains in the 45 to 48 dB region.
So, what mode did they use? I quit actively doing ham radio about the time the first digital modes were just starting to appear on the amateur bands. So CW, with its very narrow bandwidth, seems like the obvious choice to me, but I don't know if one of the digital modes would work better.
This possibly has most: Moonbounce on a Budget By Bob DeVarney W1ICW, Winter 2013. (http://www.hamclass.net/ranv/moonbounce.pdf)
Thanks for that link. So hams were doing moonbounce more than a decade before I was a ham myself. I'm going to guess that back then CW would have been the mode used, just because it requires so much less power. But one page in that link talking about more recent times refers to digital modes.
The antennas in those pictures are humongous!!! I used to envy people who had a three-element yagi on a tower. Those things boggle the mind. I'm not surprised they could do moonbounce on 2,000 watts input with those antennas back in the day, on ten or fifteen meters.
I thought I heard of moonbounce back then, but until reading that article I thought I was misremembering. I remember when the ARRL put up the first (I think it was the first) amateur radio satellite. But I never had any interest in that myself. I talked to the locals on two-meter FM and I worked the HF bands on CW.
@ MarkJoNo, it is not "the principle of free expansion".
1. When a rocket's combustion chamber is filled with accelerated gas opening the nozzle to expel the gasses into the vacuum of space does not generate a force against the ship. This is due to the principle of free expansion.
| (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Entropie.png) | Upper: before expansion the CoG of the gas is in the centre of the left box. Lower: after expansion the CoG of the gas is in the centre of the combined boxes. Hence the whole system must move left because the CoG of an isolated system cannot be changed by internal action. |
2. No amount of combustion or pressure inside the space ship can move the ship until that combustive force or pressure is exchanged with some object, entity, or field outside of the ship (a space ship is a closed system).Totally untrue! The tonnes of burnt fuel become another system when they have felt the engine.
3. Based on 1 and 2 there is no way to move the ship by releasing gas and no way to move the ship by keeping the gas inside. A space ship cannot generate force with a gas based propulsion system. Space rockets are the stuff of fantasies not science or physics.Irrelevant because your 1. and 2. are not valid
4. It is my understanding that liquid can't exist inside a vacuum. Any liquid exposed to a vacuum is immediately converted to gas and any gas is immediately spread out into the void. So any combustion would have to take place in a sealed container and hence not in a vacuum in the strict sense.Your understanding is incorrect. A liquid will evaporate in a vacuum but for some liquids that might take a long time.
Regarding the possibility of opening one side of a container, exposing it to the vacuum, while combusting gasses inside the container. In this case we have to consider that combustion can't occur anywhere near the opening because any liquids in that area are being instantly converted to gas by the vacuum and spread out into the void via free expansion.Combustion in a rocket engine is in the combustion chamber and that is isolated from the vacuum by a choked converging-diverging (de Laval) nozzle.
When combustion occurs at the far side of the container the force is going to push the remaining liquid out before it can be combusted. This seems like a terribly inefficient use of fuel as the combustion itself is forcing unspent fuel into space.What on earth are you talking about? The fuel and oxidiser are fed at controlled rates by massive turbine driven fuel pumps.
Another problem is that gas enters a vacuum at an average speed of about 2,000 meters a second. A 25 meter long Saturn 5 stage 2 fuel tank with over 1,000,000 liters of fuel would have it's contents drained in about 1/100 of a second if exposed to the vacuum of space.What sort of rubbish is that? The fuel pumps control the rate of fuel flow.
Speaking of Saturn V rockets, after looking at some data provided by the Smithsonian I have some questions...Try again! You miles are miles of altitude not distance travelled so so calculations are meaningless!
Times and distances traveled by a Saturn V
Stage 1: 912 mph (38 miles in 2.5 minutes)
Stage 2: 770 mph (77 miles in 6 minutes)
Stage 3: 17,500 mph (achieved in 2.75 minutes) an acceleration of nearly 372,000 m/h^2
Questions:It doesn't "slow down between stages 1 and 2"!
A. Why does the rocket slow down between stages 1 and 2? I would expect it to pick up speed if it were powered by thrust because
It doesn't "accelerate at such a tremendous rate"!a. the thinner atmosphere reduces wind resistance
b. it is now lighter, having discarded stage 1
c. the pull of gravity against it's climb is reduced the higher it goes
d. ...what is the point of stage 2 if does not increase the speed of the rocket?
B. How does stage 3 accelerate at such a tremendous rate without
a. killing the astronauts?
b. ripping apart the capsule?
5. Goddard's flawed test of the theory of rockets in a vacuum.And you certainly have not proved Robert Goddard wrong, have you? ;D
Physicist Robert Goddard (for whom the Goddard Space Center is named) was one of the first to claim that rockets would work in the vacuum of space.
]I don't put much weight in the words of someone who puts "Photoshopped" images in his videos that try to prove that NASA lies!
The New York times mocked his ideas in a 1920 editorial.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times/Robert_Goddard
In response Goddard set up the following experiment to prove the NYT wrong:
<< I can't be bothered with more of your twaddle! >>
I had a lot of references on it but haven't tracked them down yet.It is very impressive but is helped by there being very little atmospheric path loss - far less that between distant points on earth.The amateur radio record for 10 Ghz EME was recently broken, some guys bounced a 10Ghz signal off the moon and established 2 way contact between New Zealand and England. That was with 10 watts, and a 1 meter diameter dish.
That's very impressive!Quote from: magellanclavichordWhat mode were they using? CW? I once worked Perth from the middle of the U.S. on 10 Mhz CW with a dipole and 80 watts input. This would have been some time around the early 1980's. EME with 10 watts, even on 10 Ghz, is really impressive.You used a dipole with a gain of no more than 2 dB but the EME link could use 2 or 3 m dishes with gains in the 45 to 48 dB region.
So, what mode did they use? I quit actively doing ham radio about the time the first digital modes were just starting to appear on the amateur bands. So CW, with its very narrow bandwidth, seems like the obvious choice to me, but I don't know if one of the digital modes would work better.
This possibly has most: Moonbounce on a Budget By Bob DeVarney W1ICW, Winter 2013. (http://www.hamclass.net/ranv/moonbounce.pdf)
Thanks for that link. So hams were doing moonbounce more than a decade before I was a ham myself. I'm going to guess that back then CW would have been the mode used, just because it requires so much less power. But one page in that link talking about more recent times refers to digital modes.
The antennas in those pictures are humongous!!! I used to envy people who had a three-element yagi on a tower. Those things boggle the mind. I'm not surprised they could do moonbounce on 2,000 watts input with those antennas back in the day, on ten or fifteen meters.
I thought I heard of moonbounce back then, but until reading that article I thought I was misremembering. I remember when the ARRL put up the first (I think it was the first) amateur radio satellite. But I never had any interest in that myself. I talked to the locals on two-meter FM and I worked the HF bands on CW.
These days for EME it's mostly digital modes, QRA64D JT4 and such see https://www.physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/wsjtx.html for more details if you are interested.
A rifle fires a bullet in one direction and the stock of the rifle kicks your shoulder hard (i.e. it pushes you) in the other direction. A molecule of gas is like a teeny tiny bullet that the rocket engine fires out the back, getting a teeny tiny kick in the other direction (forward). A liter of rocket fuel has something like 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules. The Saturn V rocket burned about a million liters of fuel in the first few minutes of flight and every one of those liters was 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 teeny tiny little bullets fired out the back, each giving its teeny tiny rifle "kick."
Instead of thinking of it as a gas, think of it as a shitload of little bullets. Gas seems like "just air" but it's really a lot of hard, solid, chunks, each with some mass and momentum.
And it's very like the second answer in:
A rifle fires a bullet in one direction and the stock of the rifle kicks your shoulder hard (i.e. it pushes you) in the other direction. A molecule of gas is like a teeny tiny bullet that the rocket engine fires out the back, getting a teeny tiny kick in the other direction (forward). A liter of rocket fuel has something like 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules. The Saturn V rocket burned about a million liters of fuel in the first few minutes of flight and every one of those liters was 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 teeny tiny little bullets fired out the back, each giving its teeny tiny rifle "kick."
Instead of thinking of it as a gas, think of it as a shitload of little bullets. Gas seems like "just air" but it's really a lot of hard, solid, chunks, each with some mass and momentum.
Hmm - that's just what I said in my post #213 above!
Physics Stack Exchange: Rocket/Thrust/Gas/Free Expansion of Gas (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/91789/rocket-thrust-gas-free-expansion-of-gas)And goes on with nice diagrams.
When you're considering the properties of gases there are often two ways to look at the problem. The first is to use the continuum approximation leading to the usual laws like Boyle's law, Charles' law etc. The second is to treat the gas as many tiny particles (i.e. the gas atoms/molecules) and use Newtonian mechanics. In this case I think the second way is to understand what's going on.
EDIT: Even if you could make people forget or discard the Moon landing,
it wouldn't make Moon any closer than it actually is:
more or less around 380 000 km from Earth.
Who says it would?I can understand your frustration that caused your reaction like this, but changing the past is impossible.
Deal with it.
Reaction like this? What reaction? I am perfectly calm, cool and steady, and in this perfect stability of my mind i tell you : You are nothing else than infamous NASA shill. So, you are right : changing the past is impossible, that is to say NASA liars will always be remembered as one of the greatest rascals in the history of this insane world. Deal with it (with your infamous NASA-nutthead reputation).2. Astronauts who were at the Moon also were adult when they went there, mission control who sent them were also all adults.No retro-reflector mirrors are needed to have been placed on the Moon to reflect back signals to Earth.
None of them see it as your "fairytale" either.
Some astronauts also installed the retro-reflectors on the Moon that are still in use today.
National Geographic Vol. 130 No. 6 December 1966
'The Lasers Bright Magic' by Thomas Meloy
Page 876
"Four years ago (1962) a ruby laser considerably smaller than those now available, shot a series of pulses at the Moon, 240000 miles away. The beams illuminated a spot less than two miles in diameter, and were reflected back to Earth with enough strength to be measured by ultra sensitive electronic equipment."1. My point is that my personal experience saves me from being convinced into some incorrect "need of billions of Watts to reach Moon".
At 5min in this video you will stumble upon the answer to your stupidity :3. Your attempt to declare it "illness" (or whatever you believe could "discredit it") is based on
your bias / strong desire to delete the Moon landing reality from the history and the list of facts.
The moon landing hoax has been deleted from the history of alleged facts long time ago.
This is one of the best illustrations how obvious and brazen liars you NASA shills really are :
A rifle fires a bullet in one direction and the stock of the rifle kicks your shoulder hard (i.e. it pushes you) in the other direction. A molecule of gas is like a teeny tiny bullet that the rocket engine fires out the back, getting a teeny tiny kick in the other direction (forward). A liter of rocket fuel has something like 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules. The Saturn V rocket burned about a million liters of fuel in the first few minutes of flight and every one of those liters was 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 teeny tiny little bullets fired out the back, each giving its teeny tiny rifle "kick."
Instead of thinking of it as a gas, think of it as a shitload of little bullets. Gas seems like "just air" but it's really a lot of hard, solid, chunks, each with some mass and momentum.
Hmm - that's just what I said in my post #213 above!
1. Here are my two cents about rocket propulsion - a line of reasoning using NASA's own data. As you will notice, I am not even mentioning the question of vacuum - only of ever-decreasing air pressure with increasing altitudes - something I trust we can all agree about.
(https://i.postimg.cc/7L112934/HOW-HIGH-CAN-ROCKET-FLY.jpg)
Source of graphics used for above diagram:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine
NOTE : interesting tidbits from that Wiki article:
"Rockets become progressively more underexpanded as they gain altitude."
and...
"The shape of the plume varies from the design altitude, at high altitude all rockets are grossly under-expanded, and a quite small percentage of exhaust gases actually end up expanding forwards".
2. THE MAGDEBURG HEMISPHERES experiment (1654)
Back in 1654, Otto Von Guericke, the inventor of the air pump (to simulate vacuum on Earth) performed a spectacular experiment. He had 16 horses trying to pull apart (in vain) two empty hemispheres held together only by the force of vacuum:
(https://i.postimg.cc/nVdLLmQP/EXPERIMENT.jpg)
QUOTE - from a scientific CERN article:
"By this experiment he demonstrated that it is impossible to pull the two halves apart against the air pressure, even by using 2 X 8 horses (the counter-pressure by air in the interior of the sphere is missing). During this time, it became clear that we are living on the bottom of a huge ocean of air and that the mass of the atmosphere corresponds to a pressure of about 1kg per cm² or 10 tons on an area of 1m². The reason why we don’t feel anything of this tremendous pressure is simply that there is the same pressure inside our body." http://www.cientificosaficionados.com/libros/CERN/vacio1-CERN.pdf
Indeed, folks: we are living on the bottom of a huge ocean of air - and that is something we all tend to forget. Imagine that: "10 tons on an area of 1m²". Pretty heavy stuff, huh? Draw a big breath of air and you'll feel it! Of course, this air surrounding us (our atmosphere) has a certain density. And so has, for instance, water. And so has vacuum. So let's take a look at this table, at present. I have highlighted in blue the densities which are of interest to us right now:
(https://i.postimg.cc/q795wjY5/DENSITY-TABLE.jpg)
As you can readily see, the two densities that NASA's rockets supposedly traverse as they rise up to the skies are hugely different.
(Just to put all this into perspective, on the other side of the spectrum we see that a "black hole" - considered by scientists as the highest imaginable pressure known to mankind - is 10 ^+27. In other words, one could say that the density gap/difference between VACUUM <vs> AIR is almost as large as the difference between WATER <vs> "BLACK HOLES". Food for thought, anyway.)
Now, remember: NASA tells us that their rockets perform below max efficiency at sea level, at optimal efficiency somewhat higher in the atmosphere (as the rocket pressure equalizes with the external air pressure) and then start losing efficiency again as they ascend into ever thinner air. Note: NASA says so - not me. http://www.septclues.com/SPACE_STATION/RocketExpansionDiagram1.jpg
But the BIG question is: just HOW MUCH power would a rocket lose as it enters into near-vacuum?
Well, consider this: no honest scientists will deny that, when opening a valve between two containers (one containing air at high pressure - and the other only vacuum) the pressures in the two containers will equalize in a fraction of a second, the vacuum container 'sucking' the air to itself with tremendous, almost explosive force. (see the above density figures to understand why.)
Imagine now the high pressure emitted by any rocket from its (always open) nozzle. As it enters the vacuum of outer space, the very same - almost explosively rapid - pressure equalization is bound to occur. The rocket will be emptied of all of its pressurized fuel in a flash - by the overwhelmingly superior power of the vacuum itself. No matter how powerful the rocket (propelled by any fuel known to man / and designed to perform in our 0,001 atmosphere) - the very laws of physics will not allow it to ascend any further into the void of space. It will haplessly tumble back to Earth.
This insurmountable 'little problem' may have been understood back in the heydays of early rocket research - thus paving the way for the ridiculous NASA circus and its clowns to take over and --explore- exploit outer space ... financially.
Well, consider this: no honest scientists will deny that, when opening a valve between two containers (one containing air at high pressure - and the other only vacuum) the pressures in the two containers will equalize in a fraction of a second, the vacuum container 'sucking' the air to itself with tremendous, almost explosive force. (see the above density figures to understand why.)
Imagine now the high pressure emitted by any rocket from its (always open) nozzle. As it enters the vacuum of outer space, the very same - almost explosively rapid - pressure equalization is bound to occur. The rocket will be emptied of all of its pressurized fuel in a flash - by the overwhelmingly superior power of the vacuum itself. No matter how powerful the rocket (propelled by any fuel known to man / and designed to perform in our 0,001 atmosphere) - the very laws of physics will not allow it to ascend any further into the void of space. It will haplessly tumble back to Earth.
1. Here are my two cents about rocket propulsion - a line of reasoning using NASA's own data. As you will notice, I am not even mentioning the question of vacuum - only of ever-decreasing air pressure with increasing altitudes - something I trust we can all agree about.
(https://i.postimg.cc/7L112934/HOW-HIGH-CAN-ROCKET-FLY.jpg)
Source of graphics used for above diagram:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine
NOTE : interesting tidbits from that Wiki article:
"Rockets become progressively more underexpanded as they gain altitude."
and...
"The shape of the plume varies from the design altitude, at high altitude all rockets are grossly under-expanded, and a quite small percentage of exhaust gases actually end up expanding forwards".
2. THE MAGDEBURG HEMISPHERES experiment (1654)
Back in 1654, Otto Von Guericke, the inventor of the air pump (to simulate vacuum on Earth) performed a spectacular experiment. He had 16 horses trying to pull apart (in vain) two empty hemispheres held together only by the force of vacuum:
(https://i.postimg.cc/nVdLLmQP/EXPERIMENT.jpg)
QUOTE - from a scientific CERN article:
"By this experiment he demonstrated that it is impossible to pull the two halves apart against the air pressure, even by using 2 X 8 horses (the counter-pressure by air in the interior of the sphere is missing). During this time, it became clear that we are living on the bottom of a huge ocean of air and that the mass of the atmosphere corresponds to a pressure of about 1kg per cm² or 10 tons on an area of 1m². The reason why we don’t feel anything of this tremendous pressure is simply that there is the same pressure inside our body." http://www.cientificosaficionados.com/libros/CERN/vacio1-CERN.pdf
Indeed, folks: we are living on the bottom of a huge ocean of air - and that is something we all tend to forget. Imagine that: "10 tons on an area of 1m²". Pretty heavy stuff, huh? Draw a big breath of air and you'll feel it! Of course, this air surrounding us (our atmosphere) has a certain density. And so has, for instance, water. And so has vacuum. So let's take a look at this table, at present. I have highlighted in blue the densities which are of interest to us right now:
(https://i.postimg.cc/q795wjY5/DENSITY-TABLE.jpg)
As you can readily see, the two densities that NASA's rockets supposedly traverse as they rise up to the skies are hugely different.
(Just to put all this into perspective, on the other side of the spectrum we see that a "black hole" - considered by scientists as the highest imaginable pressure known to mankind - is 10 ^+27. In other words, one could say that the density gap/difference between VACUUM <vs> AIR is almost as large as the difference between WATER <vs> "BLACK HOLES". Food for thought, anyway.)
Now, remember: NASA tells us that their rockets perform below max efficiency at sea level, at optimal efficiency somewhat higher in the atmosphere (as the rocket pressure equalizes with the external air pressure) and then start losing efficiency again as they ascend into ever thinner air. Note: NASA says so - not me. http://www.septclues.com/SPACE_STATION/RocketExpansionDiagram1.jpg
But the BIG question is: just HOW MUCH power would a rocket lose as it enters into near-vacuum?
Well, consider this: no honest scientists will deny that, when opening a valve between two containers (one containing air at high pressure - and the other only vacuum) the pressures in the two containers will equalize in a fraction of a second, the vacuum container 'sucking' the air to itself with tremendous, almost explosive force. (see the above density figures to understand why.)
Imagine now the high pressure emitted by any rocket from its (always open) nozzle. As it enters the vacuum of outer space, the very same - almost explosively rapid - pressure equalization is bound to occur. The rocket will be emptied of all of its pressurized fuel in a flash - by the overwhelmingly superior power of the vacuum itself. No matter how powerful the rocket (propelled by any fuel known to man / and designed to perform in our 0,001 atmosphere) - the very laws of physics will not allow it to ascend any further into the void of space. It will haplessly tumble back to Earth.
This insurmountable 'little problem' may have been understood back in the heydays of early rocket research - thus paving the way for the ridiculous NASA circus and its clowns to take over and --explore- exploit outer space ... financially.
Without reading 9 pages of the same thing over and over, have we gotten to the "springboard" physics lesson yet?
A rifle fires a bullet in one direction and the stock of the rifle kicks your shoulder hard (i.e. it pushes you) in the other direction. A molecule of gas is like a teeny tiny bullet that the rocket engine fires out the back, getting a teeny tiny kick in the other direction (forward). A liter of rocket fuel has something like 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules. The Saturn V rocket burned about a million liters of fuel in the first few minutes of flight and every one of those liters was 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 teeny tiny little bullets fired out the back, each giving its teeny tiny rifle "kick."
Instead of thinking of it as a gas, think of it as a shitload of little bullets. Gas seems like "just air" but it's really a lot of hard, solid, chunks, each with some mass and momentum.
Hmm - that's just what I said in my post #213 above!
I just thought that maybe I could put it into words that would make the rifle/bullet analogy easier to understand. Some folks here have a hard time grasping the concept that a gas is made up of small pieces of "solid" stuff.
Rocket graveyard
Pritchett explained that his company had permits from the state of Florida to explore seven areas off the coast of Cape Canaveral, where the wrecks were found — an area littered with debris from rocket test launches at the U.S. Air Force base at Cape Canaveral, southeast of NASA's Kennedy Space Center.
"We've found hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of U.S. Air Force rockets that they were testing from 1948 forwards, and also shrimp boats, airplane engines, airplanes, " Pritchett said.
"We have found some of the actual rocket engines, and lots of rocket tubes — some of these things are 30, 40 feet long," he said. "Some are sticking halfway out on the surface, or sticking straight up out of the sand — there are literally thousands of them out there. We GPS and photograph everything we find, and we turn that stuff over to the U.S. Air Force, because one day, it will be valuable to someone for a historical reason."
It is interesting to note that De Forest, inventor of the Audion (a vacuum tube that takes relatively weak electrical signals and amplifies them) was a space travel skeptic while, on the other hand, firmly believed that transoceanic television would be possible with "the skillful location of relay stations" and by taking advantage of the waves reflected by the ionosphere. In other words - without the need for launching costly telecommunication satellites into orbit...
(https://i.postimg.cc/MG4nk0DR/DE-FOREST-SPACE-TRAVEL-IS-IMPOSSIBLE.jpg)
Perhaps unsurprisingly, for all his achievements and in spite of being considered in his time as "the father of radio and television", De Forest never rose to international fame and died relatively poor, with just $1,250 in his bank account. Here's just how important his vacuum tube invention https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/jpatos19&div=62&id=&page=
It is interesting to note that De Forest, inventor of the Audion (a vacuum tube that takes relatively weak electrical signals and amplifies them) was a space travel skeptic while, on the other hand, firmly believed that transoceanic television would be possible with "the skillful location of relay stations" and by taking advantage of the waves reflected by the ionosphere. In other words - without the need for launching costly telecommunication satellites into orbit...
(https://i.postimg.cc/MG4nk0DR/DE-FOREST-SPACE-TRAVEL-IS-IMPOSSIBLE.jpg)
Perhaps unsurprisingly, for all his achievements and in spite of being considered in his time as "the father of radio and television", De Forest never rose to international fame and died relatively poor, with just $1,250 in his bank account. Here's just how important his vacuum tube invention https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/jpatos19&div=62&id=&page=
Rocket graveyard
Pritchett explained that his company had permits from the state of Florida to explore seven areas off the coast of Cape Canaveral, where the wrecks were found — an area littered with debris from rocket test launches at the U.S. Air Force base at Cape Canaveral, southeast of NASA's Kennedy Space Center.
"We've found hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of U.S. Air Force rockets that they were testing from 1948 forwards, and also shrimp boats, airplane engines, airplanes, " Pritchett said.
"We have found some of the actual rocket engines, and lots of rocket tubes — some of these things are 30, 40 feet long," he said. "Some are sticking halfway out on the surface, or sticking straight up out of the sand — there are literally thousands of them out there. We GPS and photograph everything we find, and we turn that stuff over to the U.S. Air Force, because one day, it will be valuable to someone for a historical reason."
Rocket graveyard
Pritchett explained that his company had permits from the state of Florida to explore seven areas off the coast of Cape Canaveral, where the wrecks were found — an area littered with debris from rocket test launches at the U.S. Air Force base at Cape Canaveral, southeast of NASA's Kennedy Space Center.
"We've found hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of U.S. Air Force rockets that they were testing from 1948 forwards, and also shrimp boats, airplane engines, airplanes, " Pritchett said.
"We have found some of the actual rocket engines, and lots of rocket tubes — some of these things are 30, 40 feet long," he said. "Some are sticking halfway out on the surface, or sticking straight up out of the sand — there are literally thousands of them out there. We GPS and photograph everything we find, and we turn that stuff over to the U.S. Air Force, because one day, it will be valuable to someone for a historical reason."
Ummm, yeah, and...
A rocket boneyard of testing rockets since 1948....oooo...mysteries abound. Seriously? This is evidence of what exactly? NASA has been lying to us and telling us they've been launching shrimp boats into space for the past 70 years when in actuality, they all landed in the ocean?
And geez, what is with you people? Do you understand why rockets slated for space arc? Understand what you are arguing against before you make up arguments about stuff you have no knowledge of.
As you will notice, I am not even mentioning the question of vacuum - only of ever-decreasing air pressure with increasing altitudes - something I trust we can all agree about.And you extrapolate based upon what?
Well, consider this: no honest scientists will deny that, when opening a valve between two containers (one containing air at high pressure - and the other only vacuum) the pressures in the two containers will equalize in a fraction of a second, the vacuum container 'sucking' the air to itself with tremendous, almost explosive force. (see the above density figures to understand why.)Stop lying. No honest scientist would ever say that.
Imagine now the high pressure emitted by any rocket from its (always open) nozzle. As it enters the vacuum of outer space, the very same - almost explosively rapid - pressure equalization is bound to occur.Sure "explosively rapid", with the rocket being pushed away by this explosion.
I'm afraid I'll have to cite Newton's Third Law once again.No, that is what we have been citing repeatedly and you have been ignoring/avoiding repeatedly.
Perhaps Newton's third law should have specified (and highlighted the importance of) the relative masses of the two bodies involved. The bodies need to be of equal mass in order for the "equal in magnitude" part of this law to be true.Pure BS.
To attain the so-called escape velocity of 8km/s with "recoil power" only, this is what NASA's rockets would have to do: they'd have to shoot out from behind their rockets, all at once (like a bullet from a gun) a mass equal to the mass of the vessel itself - at a velocity of 8km/s.While you observed Newton's third law in your diagram, the argument completely rejects it.
Please note that I have respectfully observed Newton's Third Law in my above diagram.
It is interesting to note that ... was a space travel skepticNo it isn't.
Without reading 9 pages of the same thing over and over, have we gotten to the "springboard" physics lesson yet?
It is interesting to note that De Forest, inventor of the Audion (a vacuum tube that takes relatively weak electrical signals and amplifies them) was a space travel skeptic while, on the other hand, firmly believed that transoceanic television would be possible with "the skillful location of relay stations" and by taking advantage of the waves reflected by the ionosphere. In other words - without the need for launching costly telecommunication satellites into orbit...
(https://i.postimg.cc/MG4nk0DR/DE-FOREST-SPACE-TRAVEL-IS-IMPOSSIBLE.jpg)
Perhaps unsurprisingly, for all his achievements and in spite of being considered in his time as "the father of radio and television", De Forest never rose to international fame and died relatively poor, with just $1,250 in his bank account. Here's just how important his vacuum tube invention https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/jpatos19&div=62&id=&page=
<< I want a response as to why you use "Photoshopped photos". I'll tackle your post elsewhere. >>Please explain your source of these photos that you use to attempt to prove that NASA lies!
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/kj5aohud8gu7lrs/How%20would%20earth%20look%20from%20the%20moon.jpg?dl=1)I thought you admitted your mistakes?
How would earth look from the moon by cikljamas
The inset in the lower right is obviously a composite of two NASA photos. This "photo":
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/j0v58fzlrmhqhtj/Earth%20from%20Moon%2C%20odiupicku%20%235.jpg?dl=1)
Photoshopped "Earth from Moon", by odiupicku
Then at 5:56 in that video I find the following image which I know is a composite of two NASA photos. This "photo":
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/gitimar1o14xf6s/How%20would%20earth%20look%20from%20the%20moon%20%28Faked%29.jpg?dl=1)
Of course the light comes from different directions! That is not a genuine NASA photo.
Now, Mr Cikljamas, either YOU show me the originals of those photos in the official NASA archives or admit to your deception.
If you are going to accuse NASA of lying that you should use genuine NASA photos and not ones "Photoshopped" to look obviously wrong!
Your response and apology would be greatly appreciated!
When Joule-Thomson was invoked, I thought that Papa Legba was back.Without reading 9 pages of the same thing over and over, have we gotten to the "springboard" physics lesson yet?
Maybe we should ask Heiwa to join the discussion...
VACUUM MEETS AIR :Totally irrelevant because, as you been told before, the "fuel in a rocket tank" does meet a vacuum!
Vacuum meets air. They tend to equalize very quickly.
Imagine if the air in that lab was pressurized like the fuel in a rocket tank.
Rabinoz, feel free to scrutinize (with your analytic mind) this APOLLO conundrum :I see no answer in that to
Why have you used "Photoshopped" images in your videos?<< Some response thank you! >>Why have you used "Photoshopped" images in your videos?
See HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum) « Reply #215 on: Today at 10:10:07 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2190550#msg2190550).
I thought you admitted you mistakes!
I think the moon hoax people have beans in their ears.
1. Here are my two cents about rocket propulsion - a line of reasoning using NASA's own data. As you will notice, I am not even mentioning the question of vacuum - only of ever-decreasing air pressure with increasing altitudes - something I trust we can all agree about.If you are such an expert why haven't you offered your services to the space-industry and made a fortune?
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/g2r6pdrvibthpnc/HOW-HIGH-CAN-ROCKET-FLY%20Head.jpg?dl=1)Get this straight!
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/jkfbh1h8es9k5yr/HOW-HIGH-CAN-ROCKET-FLY%20-%20Fig%201.jpg?dl=1)
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/sbeq3gu839mhlt1/HOW-HIGH-CAN-ROCKET-FLY%20-%20Fig%202.jpg?dl=1)As a result of the above this optimal performance will be met at only one altitude but the penalty for using the non-optimal expansion ratio is not very great.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/icue2oaifsanl5d/HOW-HIGH-CAN-ROCKET-FLY%20-%20Fig%203.jpg?dl=1)Yes, if the rocket bell is under-expanded the bell can be made larger which reduces the exhaust pressure but increases the exhaust velocity and increases the thrust.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/l8f45mktk81ttw8/HOW-HIGH-CAN-ROCKET-FLY%20-%20Fig%204.jpg?dl=1)Here is where your total ignorance comes to the fore! You imagined critical "zenith" is classic cikljamas stupidity!
Source of graphics used for above diagram:So and why is that a problem? Please explain! You obviously have no understanding of rocket thrust do you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine
NOTE : interesting tidbits from that Wiki article:
"Rockets become progressively more underexpanded as they gain altitude."
and...And why is that a problem? No thrust is gained from exhaust gases "expanding forwards"!
"The shape of the plume varies from the design altitude, at high altitude all rockets are grossly under-expanded, and a quite small percentage of exhaust gases actually end up expanding forwards".
So, how many more times are you going to put forward this kind of stupid questionsIf that is addressed to me, there is nothing stupid about it.
Escape Velocity has only to do with the speed away from the center of the earth, not any particular method of application.Actually, it is just velocity relative to Earth. Direction isn't important.
Disregarding any and all applications which any space agency claims to use, how would you describe this image if you had to put it into a sentence?I would say something along the lines of:
So, how many more times are you going to put forward this kind of stupid questions : why is that problem, so what is the importance of this, what is the importance of that? What a funny parrots you are...Answered in:
Rabinoz, what is the importance of this :
The far more important issues are:You might also do a "Google search" on the "Isaac Newton cannonball escape velocity calculations" that Tom Bishop alludes to.The escape velocity does not have to be directly away from centre of the earth. It can and usually is a tangential velocity.
- The usually quoted escape velocity, be it from earth or higher, assumed that no further thrust will be applied.
It is quite feasible to escape from the earth by first achieving Low Earth Orbit and then applying a small continuous thrust.- When a single large thrust is applied to escape the direction does not matter as long as the craft does not impinge on the atmosphere or worse impact the planetary body:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/btroyd2ohfsktq3/CalcTool%20Escape%20velocity%20Calculator.jpg?dl=1)
From: CalcTool: Escape velocity Calculator (http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/astronomy/escape_velocity)
And "Note that a powered object may escape the gravity of a body at any velocity desired.".
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I see no answer in that toWhy have you used "Photoshopped" images in your videos?<< Some response thank you! >>Why have you used "Photoshopped" images in your videos?
See HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum) « Reply #215 on: Today at 10:10:07 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2190550#msg2190550).
I thought you admitted you mistakes!
An answer, thank you!
So, how many more times are you going to put forward this kind of stupid questions : why is that problem, so what is the importance of this, what is the importance of that? What a funny parrots you are...
Rabinoz, what is the importance of this :
Tom Bishop says :
<snip>
<< Some response thank you! >>Why have you used "Photoshopped" images in your videos?
See HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum) « Reply #215 on: Today at 10:10:07 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2190550#msg2190550).
I thought you admitted you mistakes!
Jack, Rabinoz, and co., all you have to do is to put Tom Bishop's argument (Escape Velocity a.k.a. Flight Direction : Strictly Away from the center of the Earth) in this particular perspective :
DANSITY TABLE :
(https://i.postimg.cc/q795wjY5/DENSITY-TABLE.jpg)
As you can readily see, the two densities that NASA's rockets supposedly traverse as they rise up to the skies are hugely different.
Apollo was not a hoax, but a straight up con of epic proportions.
Moon landing propaganda is like software code being installed on people's brains. And it's purpose is to utterly warp a person's perception of their reality and their senses, to the point that they are likely to believe all manner of nonsense because once you accept that men have gone to the moon, a feat which I'm not even convinced will ever be within the realms of possibility seeing as there isn't even any evidence the moon is actually this rock in space that humans can fly to and land on, but once you accept this garbage you are much more likely to accept other totally unproven "facts" from these deceivers. Suddenly you have people believing unquestioningly the universe started with a big bang explosion from absolutely nothing that happened 14 billion years ago (impossible to know what happened 50,000 years ago let alone 14 BILLION, talk about total insanity) or that people evolved from bacteria in the ocean, all utter nonsense that can never ever be demonstrated, tested or proven in any way. Just math equations and computer models that are entirely made up. But once a person accepts just one of their mind warping propaganda programs, they inevitably end up believing them all.
I think the apollo missions play a big part in how people form their beliefs about the world and the universe so much so that accepting them as hoax would cause their worldviews to collapse and I don’t think most people today are ready to face that kind of a fundamental change in their lives. It changes everything. The apollo missions are nasa’s way of proving to people that they got all the answers and that everything is the way they claim it is because they’re the only ones that have been out there. Now you have billions of people in the world who believe in them and their doctrine and anyone who disagrees with them is portrayed as an insane paranoid conspiracy theorist. The technique used by narcissists to destroy the credibility of their victims.
Simple OFFICIAL science debunks the moon landing. - It's called Van Allen Belt, the radiation would kill everyone and all electronics. The materials used aluminum, nickel/iron, and titanium would have all melted due to the extreme radiation and temperatures.
How could they survive the radiation and high temperature, WITH THAT SUITE. i think that a bunch of fan could never handle that, cause that (include all things on back pack) will broken and become unusable on such a hot temperatures...Just how... is it calculated to know the temperature on the moon? Being the moon is some 1/4 million miles away? The temps calculated for the earth are not always accurate, let-alone to tell us the temps on the moons surface are such. Are they shooting a beam to the moon such as one checking the temp of his steak on the grill? A 1/4 million miles away. Forgive—a thermometer was stuck in the soil upon arrival.
Our measurments show that the maximum radiation level as of 1958 is equivalent to between 10 and 100 roentgens per hour, depending on the still-undetermined proportion of protons to electrons. Since a human being exposed for two days to even 10 roentgens would have only an even chance of survival, the radiation belts obviously present an obstacle to space flight. Unless some practical way can be found to shield space-travelers against the effects of the radiation, manned space rockets can best take off through the radiation-free zone over the poles. A "space station" must orbit below 400 miles or beyond 30 000 miles from the earth. We are now planning a satellite flight that will test the efficacy of various methods of shielding. The hazard of space-travelers may not even end even when they have passed the terrestrial radiation belts... James Van Allen
Do you really not see a problem with this logic?
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.Psalm 19:1
Do you really not see a problem with this logic?
Do you really not see a problem with a bunch of elephants in your room :
<Gish Gallop>
Jack, Rabinoz, and co., all you have to do is to put Tom Bishop's argument (Escape Velocity a.k.a. Flight Direction : Strictly Away from the center of the Earth) in this particular perspectiveNo, we don't.
As you can readily see, the two densities that NASA's rockets supposedly traverse as they rise up to the skies are hugely different.You are aware basically nothing of man's has gone into interstellar space?
Jack, Rabinoz, and co., all you have to do is to put Tom Bishop's argument (Escape Velocity a.k.a. Flight Direction : Strictly Away from the center of the Earth) in this particular perspective:
I have demonstrated my honesty by admitting (every single time) that i was wrong whenever i noticed a mistake that i had made. However, this simple concept (of admitting your obvious mistakes) is totally strange and incomprehensible to you and to Jack Black. Whenever it comes to my mind to tell you "shame on you", the next thought comes to my mind in a nanosecond : They have no idea what the word "shame" designates, and they have no idea what "a shame" is, because they haven't got a clue what the word "honesty" means.Now firstly please point out where either JackBlack or I made mistakes we should admit to and then answer why you, yourself, are so deceptive!.
EIFFEL TOWER PROOF :It starts with the question, "How would earth look from the moon?" And at 0:30 in that video we find this image:
| The inset in the lower right is obviously a composite of two NASA photos. (https://www.dropbox.com/s/j0v58fzlrmhqhtj/Earth%20from%20Moon%2C%20odiupicku%20%235.jpg?dl=1) Photoshopped "Earth from Moon", by odiupicku | Then at 5:56 in that video I find the following image which I know is a composite of two NASA photos[/size]. (https://www.dropbox.com/s/gitimar1o14xf6s/How%20would%20earth%20look%20from%20the%20moon%20%28Faked%29.jpg?dl=1) Of course the light comes from different directions! That is not a genuine NASA photo. |
Jack, Rabinoz, and co., all you have to do is to put Tom Bishop's argument (Escape Velocity a.k.a. Flight Direction : Strictly Away from the center of the Earth) in this particular perspective :Rubbish! Your "particular perspective" is totally ludicrous as i show below,
DANSITY TABLE :I am not answering all that in one go but first the total misoperation in you "density table". But why on earth do you use those funny cgs units and not SI units?
(https://i.postimg.cc/q795wjY5/DENSITY-TABLE.jpg)
As you can readily see, the two densities that NASA's rockets supposedly traverse as they rise up to the skies are hugely different.
(Just to put all this into perspective, on the other side of the spectrum we see that a "black hole" - considered by scientists as the highest imaginable pressure known to mankind - is 10 ^+27. In other words, one could say that the density gap/difference between VACUUM <vs> AIR is almost as large as the difference between WATER <vs> "BLACK HOLES". Food for thought, anyway.)
And it appears that you missed out on arithmetic in school because the difference between two numbers say A and B is A - B and NOT A/B.
It appears that you do not know even the simplest rules of arithmetic!
So the difference between (air density) and the (density of free space) is simply only 10-3 - 10-24 = 10-3 gm/cm3.
You might post drunk but I don't drink and drive, drink and post and I even forget the the last time I drank any alcohol at all.And it appears that you missed out on arithmetic in school because the difference between two numbers say A and B is A - B and NOT A/B.LOL
It appears that you do not know even the simplest rules of arithmetic!
So the difference between (air density) and the (density of free space) is simply only 10-3 - 10-24 = 10-3 gm/cm3.
Rab, isn't it too early (in Australia) to drink so much?
Now, Mr Cikljamas, you have two options either:
- YOU show me the originals of those photos in the official NASA archives (with AS numbers) or
- admit to your deception in using fake photos in which you deceive people in you vain attempt show that NASA are liars.
Well, then you have to change your local drug dealer! lolYou might post drunk but I don't drink and drive, drink and post and I even forget the the last time I drank any alcohol at all.And it appears that you missed out on arithmetic in school because the difference between two numbers say A and B is A - B and NOT A/B.LOL
It appears that you do not know even the simplest rules of arithmetic!
So the difference between (air density) and the (density of free space) is simply only 10-3 - 10-24 = 10-3 gm/cm3.
Rab, isn't it too early (in Australia) to drink so much?
<< >>I would like some rational answers to the following, thank you Mr Photoshop Posting Cikljamas.
If you ridicule that the difference between (air density) and the (density of free space) is simply only 10-3 - 10-24 = 10-3 gm/cm3 would you please post your own.
Maybe you could understand it better as 0.001 - 0.000000000000000000000001 = 0.000999999999999999999999 gm/cm3
I suggest that 0.000999999999999999999999 Is close enough to 0.001 for even you.
Any objections?
By the way do you still post deceptive videos with "Photoshopped" images in your attempt to prove that NASA posts deceptive photos and videos?
Pot, kettle and a very sooty black springs to mind, Mr Arithmetically Challenged Cikljamas!Now, Mr Cikljamas, you have two options either:
- YOU show me the originals of those photos in the official NASA archives (with AS numbers) or
- admit to your deception in using fake photos in which you deceive people in you vain attempt show that NASA are liars.
PS Please learn that the difference between A and B is A - B and that A/B is A divided by B! Did you miss primary school or simply fail?
Cikljamas, your video about remembering hot days in 1969 and therefore it was too hot for Apollo 11 to go to the moon, so it was all hoaxed, is comedy gold!I don't remember that one. Was it a ridiculous thermosphere "proof"?
You haven't seen the Apollo 11 documentary doing the rounds in cinemas? Do yourself a favor and go see it. All this silly moon landing hoax evidence will drop away as your jaw drops.
Do you really not see a problem with a bunch of elephants in your room :Not in my room! And are you sure yours aren't mice or pink elephants. The Dunning-Kruger Syndrome sure is strong in this one.
Apart from an elephants in which direction you have been pointed in my two previous posts above, there are quite a few other huge elephants in your room :Where did they say "that they hadn't been able to see ANY stars . . . . from the lunar orbit"?
For example :
1. Neil Armstrong and especially Michael Collins have pointed out many times that they hadn't been able to see ANY stars from the moon, or from the lunar orbit.
3. Is the Founder of Modern Rocket Science trying to tell us something?Sure! He knew, as I do, that "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork" and why is that a problem?
(http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/assets/img/von-braun/image-06-large.jpg)QuoteThe heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.Psalm 19:1
4. Some more elephants in your room :Really? You would know the difference between an elephant and a mouse! Don't you mean more points that illustrate your own ignorance?
The lunar ascent module engine had a 15000 N (3500 lb) thrust. The attitude control thrusters for the Apollo C/SM and LM (which had four sets of quadruple thrusters) had 490 N (110 lb) of thrust each. In comparison, the 38 thrusters for shuttle orbit control each have a nominal thrust of 3870 N (880 lb), with a range from 3114 N to 5338 N. Why is the exhaust visible from the 3870 N shuttle thruster but not from the 15000 N lunar ascent module engine?Point #1 illustrating your own ignorance!
Why is there no exhaust from the LM’s ascent rocket engine? (http://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/2017/07/612-why-is-there-no-exhaust-from-lms.html)
IN A NUTSHELL: Because there shouldn’t be. Rocket motors don’t generate a fiery exhaust in the vacuum of space. Rockets that use the same propellant as the Lunar Module don’t generate a visible plume even in the Earth’s atmosphere.
It's impossible to find any images or video footage of any visible flame or exhaust coming from any of the four quadruple clusters used for attitude control of the lunar module, or from the main engines of the ascent and descent modules.Because from rocket engines using those fuels there should be no exhaust plume!
However, official NASA artists' drawings do show a considerable amount of flame and exhaust emanating from the main engine :I see no "official NASA artists' drawings" but if you do ask the artists. I would simply say "artistic licence" to show the engine is running.
(https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/images/pao/AS11/10075184.jpg)
(https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/images/pao/AS11/10075186.jpg)
In the films To The Edge And Back covering Apollo 13 and Apollo 13, animation shows the LM main engine emitting a bright flame for the various burns between the earth and the moon. In Apollo 13, animation shows visible flame from the LM thrusters during SM separation from the CM and LM.The LM descent engine used the same Aerozine 50 fuel/nitrogen tetroxide oxidizer as the ascent stage.
In the 30-minute documentary Houston, We've Got A Problem covering Apollo 13, an image of the service module shows the panel blown off :But exactly how bright is the SM? Whether stars show or not depends entirely on the exposure used. Where in that video is the bit you refer to?
(https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/images/pao/AS13/10075514.jpg)
The SM is bright and takes up a good portion of the screen. On the remainder of the screen stars appear to be indistiguishable from debris. Photographs taken from the surface of the moon do not show stars in the sky.
In For All Mankind by the National Geographic Society, astronauts are shown suiting up. In their launch suits, the astronauts do arm exercises and wave to the crowd. From these scenes the Apollo suits do not appear to have bearings at the joints like the space shuttle extra vehicular suits, which do have bearings at the elbow, shoulder, wrist, hip, knee, and ankle joints. How were the Apollo astronauts able to bend their joints, especially their finger joints, on the moon if their suits were pressurized?I believe that the Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) used on the moon had a protective over-suit over the pressure suit.
APOLLO-PRESSURIZED-SUITS (https://i.postimg.cc/kXpDfZkz/APOLLO-PRESSURIZED-SUITS.jpg)
Pressurized suits give a rigid balloon-like appearance which the moon astronauts did not appear to have
The For All Mankind video shows the ground when the lunar module is landing. As dust is being kicked up from the main engine, a dark shadow of the module appears. The ground in the lunar module shadow does not show any reflection or brightness from any main engine exhaust flame.Possibly because the engine was shut-off before touchdown and even before that was throttled right back.
Why were there were no emergencies or problems from the temperature extremes of -100 to -150 degrees Fahrenheit to +215F? A study paper for a proposed moonbase uses a noon-time worst case of 375 K (102 C, or 215 F) for a lunar surface temperature.Why should there be?
In For All Mankind, ground control announced that the temperature in the shade was -100 to -150 degrees Fahrenheit. Were the batteries of the lunar rover in the shade, and if so, how were they protected against these temperature extremes?NASA and any competent engineer knows far more than you about the temperatures reached and the material properties.
At temperatures less than -40F (-40C) a lot of materials start becoming very brittle. Electrical items do not work as well. Batteries produce less current. The extreme temperature variations from shadow to sunlight would cause significant material contraction and expansion and would make equipment breakdown and failure very likely.
Why did the one-sixth gravity cause the astronauts to alternate between hopping and walking? We all saw many sequences where an astronauts looked like they were flexing their knees pretty good to jump but they did not travel any higher than 40 cm. Why? The astronauts were not hopping any farther than what the typical person could hop here on Earth.How far can you hop when wearing a bulky EMU with mass 115 kg that restricts movement?
There a number of times in Apollo footage when the astronauts were landing pretty hard on their knees. Were they not running a huge risk of puncturing their pressurized suits? According to an article in the Dec. 1, 1969 issue of Aviation Week and Space Technology, Apollo mission planners were worried about suit puncture and cutting.It was obviously a concern but the outer suit was a protective suit over the inner pressure suit and the pressure was only 4.3 psi.
After an Apollo 14 astronaut sets up and lets go of the flag, the flag flutters, is still, and then flutters again. This may be viewed on the Apollo Interactive CD-ROM by Simitar Entertainment.You claim it does then you prove it.
HOW MUCH EXTRA ROOM HAS LEFT IN YOUR OVERCROWDED "ROOM"There are no elephants in my room, not even tail-less mice.
This one:
Is this comedian actually you, cikljamas?
Comedy gold! Why do we have snow on mountains? Why do people freeze to death on Mt Everest?This one:
Is this comedian actually you, cikljamas?
This is literally the best bit of video evidence posted here in a long time. "I remember, was it June? 1969...It was 84 degrees Fahrenheit, ummm, at 8 o'clock in the morning...it gets warmer the higher up you go...those things you pull down on an airplane window, hot sun...too hot for Apollo..."
cikljamas, give us more just like this!
It's impossible to find any images or video footage of any visible flame or exhaust coming from any of the four quadruple clusters used for attitude control of the lunar module, or from the main engines of the ascent and descent modules.Because from rocket engines using those fuels there should be no exhaust plume!
I am here to laugh at you!!!Well that seems to be one of the few things you are capable of.
Last time you destroyed me at page 11 (remember?) :I am here to laugh at you!!!This one question destroys your position:
Hey, NASA paid shills, how many of you are freemasons?I know for an absolute certainty that I get no pay from NASA or anybody for this and don't even know anyone who might be a freemason!
You dare post accusations like this when you prove your own deception by using "Photoshopped" photos and refusing to even admit to it when pointed out:I have demonstrated my honesty by admitting (every single time) that i was wrong whenever i noticed a mistake that i had made. However, this simple concept (of admitting your obvious mistakes) is totally strange and incomprehensible to you and to Jack Black. Whenever it comes to my mind to tell you "shame on you", the next thought comes to my mind in a nanosecond : They have no idea what the word "shame" designates, and they have no idea what "a shame" is, because they haven't got a clue what the word "honesty" means.Now firstly please point out where either JackBlack or I made mistakes we should admit to and then answer why you, yourself, are so deceptive!.
But it would appear that you do not simply "make mistakes" you used at least two obviously "Photoshopped" images in one of the few of your videos I've bothered to watch, the EIFFEL TOWER PROOF:EIFFEL TOWER PROOF :It starts with the question, "How would earth look from the moon?" And at 0:30 in that video we find this image:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/kj5aohud8gu7lrs/How%20would%20earth%20look%20from%20the%20moon.jpg?dl=1)
How would earth look from the moon by cikljamas
The inset in the lower right is obviously a composite of two NASA photos.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/j0v58fzlrmhqhtj/Earth%20from%20Moon%2C%20odiupicku%20%235.jpg?dl=1)
Photoshopped "Earth from Moon", by odiupickuThen at 5:56 in that video I find the following image which I know is a composite of two NASA photos
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/gitimar1o14xf6s/How%20would%20earth%20look%20from%20the%20moon%20%28Faked%29.jpg?dl=1)
Of course the light comes from different directions! That is not a genuine NASA photo.
Now, Mr Cikljamas, you have two options either:
- YOU show me the originals of those photos in the official NASA archives (with AS numbers) or
- admit to your deception in using fake photos in which you deceive people in you vain attempt show that NASA are liars.
Your continual ignoring of this just goes to show that you know you are being deceptive in your own videos!
Your response and apology would be greatly appreciated!
You forgot half of JackBlack's post so I restored it! No need to thank me I do these little things just to be helpful.I am here to laugh at you!!!Well that seems to be one of the few things you are capable of.
You are certainly yet to present any rational argument to back up your nonsense.
This one question destroys your position:
What force causes the gas to leave the rocket and what other body is involved?
The only options are to reject physics or accept rockets work in space.
Last time you destroyed me at page 11 (remember?) :You mean this post:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=80229.300
Get use to this :Get used to this:
Stop spamming the thread with irrelavent nonsense.
Stop making completely false claims about the HC model.
Start dealing with the refutations of your claims.
If you are unwilling to defend your claims then stop making them.
Now what do you have to say about the stellar day vs sidereal day?
No, the options aren't to reject physics. The option is to reject explanations that are not based on genuine physics but bullied into the psyche of the masses.I am here to laugh at you!!!Well that seems to be one of the few things you are capable of.
You are certainly yet to present any rational argument to back up your nonsense.
This one question destroys your position:
What force causes the gas to leave the rocket and what other body is involved?
The only options are to reject physics or accept rockets work in space.
The Flat Earth Society is a controlled opposition group that mixes lies with satire to discredit genuine geocentric, anti-NASA research, a job they have been doing for a long time now. Founded in 1970 by Leo Ferrari, a suspected Freemason and philosophy professor at St. Thomas' University, Leo spent his life making a mockery of the legitimate subject of our geocentric Earth. Though he passed away in 2010, his Flat Earth Society still exists today online as a website/forum which, still true to form, purports extremely stupid flat-Earth arguments (in contrast to somewhat less stupid flat-Earth arguments) and treats the entire subject of geocentric truth (disguised in flat-earth theory), as well as of anti-NASA SPACE TRAVELLING FRAUD truth, anti-BIG BANG COSMOLOGY truth, anti-EINSTEINIAN PHYSICS truth, anti-DARWINISTIC truth, anti 9/11 OFFICIAL STORY truth, anti GLOBAL WARMING truth, etc... as a dead-pan joke.
1. Do you believe in evolution?
2. Do you believe in Relativity physics?
3. Do you believe in anthropogenic climate change?
4. And while I'm asking, how old do believe the Earth to be? Either exact or approximate is fine.
5. Is the Earth flat or is it a ball?
Thanks in advance for clarifying your views.
The Flat Earth Society is a controlled opposition group that mixes lies with satire to discredit genuine geocentric, anti-NASA research, a job they have been doing for a long time now. Founded in 1970 by Leo Ferrari, a suspected Freemason and philosophy professor at St. Thomas' University, Leo spent his life making a mockery of the legitimate subject of our geocentric Earth. Though he passed away in 2010, his Flat Earth Society still exists today online as a website/forum which, still true to form, purports extremely stupid flat-Earth arguments (in contrast to somewhat less stupid flat-Earth arguments) and treats the entire subject of geocentric truth (disguised in flat-earth theory), as well as of anti-NASA SPACE TRAVELLING FRAUD truth, anti-BIG BANG COSMOLOGY truth, anti-EINSTEINIAN PHYSICS truth, anti-DARWINISTIC truth, anti 9/11 OFFICIAL STORY truth, anti GLOBAL WARMING truth, etc... as a dead-pan joke.
The above is so convoluted that I actually cannot tell whether you support or deny Darwin, Einstein, 9/11, and climate change.
I get it that you believe in a geocentric universe, and you don't like the Flat-Earth Society, but I cannot figure out now whether you believe that the Earth is flat or a ball.
Would you please clarify your positions for me?:
Is the Earth flat or is it a ball?
Do you believe in evolution?
Do you believe in Relativity physics?
Do you believe in anthropogenic climate change?
And while I'm asking, how old do believe the Earth to be? Either exact or approximate is fine.
Thanks in advance for clarifying your views.
So, let's see: my 'vessel' (i.e. the midget soldier and his machine gun & ammunition) is :You mean the Ariane is 3.3 times faster.
About 4.5 X superior (more efficient) in terms of mass expelled per second / vs vessel weight
About 3.3 X times inferior (slower) in terms of 'muzzle / exhaust exit velocity'.
The option is to reject explanations that are not based on genuine physics but bullied into the psyche of the masses.No, the physics being discussed are based firmly upon reality and confirmed by mountains of evidence.
1. Do you believe in evolution?
2. Do you believe in Relativity physics?
3. Do you believe in anthropogenic climate change?
4. And while I'm asking, how old do believe the Earth to be? Either exact or approximate is fine.
5. Is the Earth flat or is it a ball?
Thanks in advance for clarifying your views.
1. No, i know it's bullshit
2. No, i know it's bullshit
3. No, i know it's bullshit
4. Approximately 10 - 20 000 years
5. It's a ball!!!
Would you also be so kind to clarify your position, mage?
Is the Earth flat or is it a ball?
Do you believe in evolution?
Do you believe in Relativity physics?
Do you believe in anthropogenic climate change?
And while I'm asking, how old do believe the Earth to be? Either exact or approximate is fine.
Something I have noticed in various forums discussing the subject of space propulsion is exemplified by this other comment - by "alancalverd", a supporter of PmbPhy's arguments on the Naked Scientists forum. At one point, alancalverd says :Incorrect! The Arianne 5 has a central core and two booster with a total Mass of fuel ejected per second 3658 kg/sec.
"Have you ever fired a rifle? The recoil force is exactly the same whether you fire it under water or in air. Recoil force is independent of the surrounding medium. Conservation of momentum is demonstrated in many ways: billiard balls, "Newton's Cradle", spinning tops and skaters.... and in no case is there any requirement of "something to push against". Rockets work by conservation of momentum, nothing else. You chuck stuff out of the back and the rocket moves forward so that the net change in momentum is zero."
In fact, I have often seen this 'bullet-recoil' argument being brought up by folks convinced by the feasibility of space propulsion - and I remember reading on some other forum that burning rocket fuel basically works like the flow of bullets fired out of a machine gun: what propels a spacecraft, it is argued, is the mass of the exploding fuel recoiling against the combustion chamber coupled with the momentum of the exhausts rapidly expelled out of the nozzle, yet - ( and this is clearly / strongly argued ) - these same, supersonic exhausts do no work whatsoever as they impact the atmosphere (not even at sea-level). As it is, the consensus among these people seems to be that rockets work exclusively by 'recoil effect' and 'rapid mass / momentum transfer' - and that no analogy whatsoever can be made between a jet engine and a rocket engine - as far as the very nature of their propulsion forces is concerned.
Fair enough. So with this theory in mind, I have decided to set up an experiment. On the beach.
THE MIDGET-SOLDIER ROCKET PROJECT
I have this midget soldier (my little Italian trooper only weighs in at 50kg or so) that I wish to launch and briefly propel upwards (in the atmosphere, that is - i am not even thinking of reaching the 'vacuum' of space for now!). Looking around for the 'world's fastest machine gun' I have also found this remarkable Russian machine gun, the "SKHAS Ultra" used in WWII - capable of firing 3000 (yes, three-thousand) rounds per minute - i.e. 50 rounds per second.
ShKAS machine gun specifications: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ShKAS_machine_gun
<< No need for a picture: RUSSIAN-SOLDIER-ROCKETRUSSIAN-SOLDIER-ROCKET (https://i.postimg.cc/3xgxzVDz/RUSSIAN-SOLDIER-ROCKET.jpg) >>
Now, the basic specifications of the Ariane 5 rocket :
<< No need for a picture: ARIANE-5 (https://i.postimg.cc/qvdkcwZw/ARIANE-5.jpg) >>
Weight of Ariane 5 rocket: 760.000 kgMass of fuel ejected per second : 2000 kg / s
Ratio of fuel-weight expelled per second / vs vessel weight: 1/380Incorrect!
(in other words, 0.263 % of total vessel weight is expelled every second)
Exhaust velocity (at sea level) : 2749 m/s
Incorrect! The mass of the 7.62 mm projectile is only 9.6 grams.
As compared to :
Weight of midget soldier + machine gun + 650 rounds of ammunition: 50+10+40 = 100 kg
Mass of 50 rounds (of24g each) fired per second :1.2 kg
Ratio of rounds expelled each second / vs soldier+gun assembly: 1/83No, your midget soldier will not take off at all because the thrust generated, (mass ejected per second) x (velocity of that mass), is insufficient to lift him!
(in other words, 1.2 % of total vessel weight is expelled every second)
Muzzle exit velocity : 825 m/s
So, let's see: my 'vessel' (i.e. the midget soldier and his machine gun & ammunition) is :
About 4.5 X superior (more efficient) in terms of mass expelled per second / vs vessel weight
About 3.3 X times inferior (slower) in terms of 'muzzle / exhaust exit velocity'.
By the looks of it - and since my mass-ejected-per-second-ratio is 4.5 X superior to that of the Ariane rocket - this looks promising, yet I'm a bit worried that my exit velocity (of my 'rocket fuel' - i.e. the bullets of my machine gun) is inferior to the Ariane rocket's.
I'm currently stuck at a more profound / momentous question:
Will my midget soldier take off at all - and briefly soar up in the skies? If not - WHY NOT?
7.62 mm ammunition specificationsSo NOT of "of 24g each" but only of 9.6 grams each - quite a difference I'd say!
- Bullet weight: 148 grains (9.6 grams)
- Round weight: 370 grains (24 grams)
| You claim this: Mass of 50 rounds (of 24g each) fired per second : 1.2 kg Ratio of rounds expelled each second / vs soldier+gun assembly: 1/83 (in other words, 1.2 % of total vessel weight is expelled every second) Muzzle exit velocity: 825 m/s | But I find that: Mass of 50 rounds (of 9.6g each) fired per second: 0.48 kg Ratio of mass-expelled each second/soldier+gun assembly: (0.48 kg/100 kg) = 1/83 - not that it means anything! (in other words, 1.2 % of total vessel weight is expelled every second) Muzzle exit velocity: 825 m/s |
Ariane 5 utilizes two solid boosters, each standing more than 30 meters tall with 237.8 metric tons of propellant. The boosters are ignited on the launchpad once the main cryogenic stage’s Vulcain engine has stabilized its thrust output. They deliver more than 90 percent of the launcher’s total thrust at the start of flight and burn for 130 sec. before they are separated over a designated zone of the Atlantic Ocean.Each burns "237.8 metric tons of propellant" in "130 sec" or an average total fuel burn rate of (2 x 237.8/130) = 3658 kg/sec with an effective exhaust velocity of 2459 m/s.
There is absolutely NO WAY you can believe in a flat earth and NASA moonlandings!
There is absolutely NO WAY you can believe in a flat earth and NASA moonlandings!
There is absolutely NO WAY you can believe in a flat earth and NASA moonlandings!
If this is what you think, you do not understand the workings of the human brain.
Ok, cool. So, you are happy man walked on the moon, but that all the photos taken from the moon of the earth which unmistakably shows the earth in all it's roundness, is fake. Am I on the right track?You misunderstand him.
1. Do you believe in evolution?
2. Do you believe in Relativity physics?
3. Do you believe in anthropogenic climate change?
4. And while I'm asking, how old do believe the Earth to be? Either exact or approximate is fine.
5. Is the Earth flat or is it a ball?
Thanks in advance for clarifying your views.
1. No, i know it's bullshit
2. No, i know it's bullshit
3. No, i know it's bullshit
4. Approximately 10 - 20 000 years
5. It's a ball!!!
Thank you for the clarification.
Would you also be so kind to clarify your position, mage?
Is the Earth flat or is it a ball?
Do you believe in evolution?
Do you believe in Relativity physics?
Do you believe in anthropogenic climate change?
And while I'm asking, how old do believe the Earth to be? Either exact or approximate is fine.
Happy to clarify my views on the same subject. (Though I will not engage in arguments over them, since I have no agenda to convince you or anyone else.)
1. It's flat.
2. All life on Earth evolved from earlier forms by the process of natural selection. I lean towards Stephen Jay Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium, that most evolution occurs during geologically brief episodes, separated by relatively long periods of stasis.
3. Relativity physics is correct, though incomplete since it breaks down at quantum length scales. For the very big, the very fast, and the very massive, it correctly describes how stuff works.
4. The climate is changing in ways that are disastrous for humans, and human activity is responsible for nearly all of it.
5. The Earth is around 4.5 billion years old, give or take a few hundred million.
And while I'm at it, Neil Armstrong and several others over the course of the latter Apollo missions, walked on the moon. Considering that they and NASA thought that their chances of making it back alive were around 50/50, I would not have wanted to go in their place. These were brave men indeed, as are all the men and women who have gone into space.
Happy to state my views. I know you regard them as incompatible. I feel no need to defend them. I respect everybody's views.
P.S. And clearly rockets work in space because otherwise Armstrong and the others could not have gotten to the moon.
Why do you feel the earth to be flat when you also claim all (mainstream) science is correct EXCEPT when it comes to the shape of the planet?
Why do you feel the earth to be flat when you also claim all (mainstream) science is correct EXCEPT when it comes to the shape of the planet?
Why do you feel the earth to be flat when you also claim all (mainstream) science is correct EXCEPT when it comes to the shape of the planet?
We've been through this before: I'm happy to state my position. I have no interest in arguing or justifying it to anyone. :)
Why do you feel the earth to be flat when you also claim all (mainstream) science is correct EXCEPT when it comes to the shape of the planet?
Subjective reality?
Anyway, some have the view that the it's space itself that is curved giving the appearance of being spherical ( oblate or otherwise ) when it's really flat.
Something to do with orbiting satellites travelling in straight lines, if I recall correctly. I probably explained that wrong.
On another note, silk pajamas has more than a few problems coping with reality, I'd suggest, go easy on him he's trying to understand the world in terms that he can relate to. He's allowed to be wrong if he wants to, likewise I'm sure none of us is ever "right" all the time.
What was asked was to clarify my position on five points. I did.
There is absolutely NO WAY you can believe in a flat earth and NASA moonlandings!
It’s a tragic and cautionary tale.
Once there was a regular flat earther and a regular regular person. No one remembers their original names.
They tried to combine their knowledge of science and pseudo science together to create a matter transporter. All was looking good until they stepped into the pods themselves.
What came out were scrambled versions of their former selves.
cikljamas belives everything flat earthers believe, except the bit about the earth being flat.
magellanclavichord belives the earth is flat, but none of the other stuff.
Why do you feel the earth to be flat when you also claim all (mainstream) science is correct EXCEPT when it comes to the shape of the planet?
We've been through this before: I'm happy to state my position. I have no interest in arguing or justifying it to anyone. :)
There is absolutely NO WAY you can believe in a flat earth and NASA moonlandings!
It’s a tragic and cautionary tale.
Once there was a regular flat earther and a regular regular person. No one remembers their original names.
They tried to combine their knowledge of science and pseudo science together to create a matter transporter. All was looking good until they stepped into the pods themselves.
What came out were scrambled versions of their former selves.
cikljamas belives everything flat earthers believe, except the bit about the earth being flat.
magellanclavichord belives the earth is flat, but none of the other stuff.
R.Sungenis: Of course, since we see that Mr. MacAndrew didn’t get past page 263 in his reading of GWW, he is prone to make his own straw man to beat up. If he read toward the end of Volume 1, and into Volume 2, he would have found out why I say these things. (But in MacAndrew’s world it is better to jump to conclusions and name‐call your opponent than read his notes).That sounds like total guesswork about nothing more than a hypothesis.
We know that the Planck aether reacts with EM activity because we see fringe shifts in all the interferometer experiments, particularly the 1887 and 1925 Michelson experiments (something that neither SRT or GRT can answer, since the fringe shifts discredit both SRT and GRT). Fringe shifts mean that something is interacting with the light beams. In fact, the very reason the light beams move at 3 x 10^8 m/s is because that is the only speed allowed in the Planck medium (unless the Planck medium is altered in some way, as it is when it has more tension).
As for gravity and the Planck aether, since the density of the Planck aether is so great (10^94g/cm^3) it can:
(1) penetrate all baryonic matter. But since it cannot replace baryonic matter, the baryonic/Planck combination (as occurs, for example, in a typical planet) will create a huge vacuum against the pure Planck aether in space. This vacuum will attempt to compensate by pulling in any object that has less of a baryonic/Planck combination (less because it is smaller than the planet), and this is what we understand as gravity.
(2) Additionally, the Planck aether solves the gravity speed problem (Einstein limited gravity to c because of the demands of his SRT, but that slow speed for gravity simply doesn’t work). In a Planck aether universe, the speed of gravity is practically unlimited. Since the Planck aether is so dense, it can carry longitudinal waves or compression waves over the entire universe in a split second (about 10^‐11 seconds).
(3) Additionally, the Planck aether solves the “action‐at‐a‐distance” problem of Newton’s physics, as well as the problem of “entanglement.” Newton had the problem that his theory of gravity required non‐locality, that is, gravity had to act upon objects instantaneously that were huge distances apart. This problem is solved by the instantaneous speed of gravity allowed by a Planck aether. In “entanglement” an electron in one place has a coupling with an electron in a different place. This instantaneous communication between electrons is allowed by the Planck aether.
Geocentrism Debunked: Aether, Springs, and Light: Physics Blunders in Galileo Was Wrong (https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/aether-springs-light-sungenis-fails/)Only someone who had no understanding of physics could be fooled by the ideas put forward by Robert Sungenis.
1 Introduction
I sometimes browse Mr Robert Sungenis’s Facebook page here (https://www.facebook.com/groups/574635989349745/), the one called Ask Robert Sungenis about Geocentrism, because the spectacle of a man virtually devoid of education in science giving absurd answers to earnest scientific questions posed by his undiscerning admirers can be very funny.
As it is on the Facebook page here (https://www.facebook.com/groups/574635989349745/permalink/759335194213156/)[1], where Sungenis answered a question about the propagation of light in a “rotating universe”. There is much wrong with his reply, which we’ll get to later, but one very elementary mistake jumped out at me. His reply depends on the existence of a speculative medium, the “geocentric aether”, which he invented and which he believes is needed for the propagation of light. He claimed, among other things, that the speed of light depends on the tension in the aether (don’t worry, we’ll come back later to these claims about how light travels) and he provided an analogy for how he thinks this works.
<< Read the rest to see how laughably wrong Robert Sungenis is in simple physics. >>
The bottom line is that rotary motion, such as the earth's rotation, can be and is regularly measured.The bottom line is this :
So no, GC and HC are not equally correct.
HC works with the current laws of physics and has explanation for things.
GC relies upon pure magic, with no actual explanations.
3. Now, let's see once more how your friend Macarios responded to my ZIGZAG argument :Nothing!
GEOCENTRIC SCENARIO (according to Macarios) :If Space is orbiting Earth then we calculate relative to Earth:
Sun moves (2*Pi*149.6e6)/24 = 39 165 188.4 km/h
Moon moves (2*Pi*384 400)/24 - 3679.5 = 96 956.2 km/h
Now:
Closer observer: Sun ARCTAN(39165188.4 / 1496e6) = 14.67 degrees per hour ; Moon ARCTAN(96956.2 / 381800) = 14.245 degrees per hour ; difference 0.425
Farther observer: Sun ARCTAN(39165188.4 / 1496e6) = 14.67 degrees per hour ; Moon ARCTAN(96956.2 / 387000) = 14.065 degrees per hour ; difference 0.605
Angular speed difference between observers 0.18 degrees per hour.
HELIOCENTRIC SCENARIO (according to Macarios) :If Earth is orbiting Sun, then we calculate relative to Sun:
Earth moves (2*Pi*149.6e6)/(365.25*24) = 107 232.5 km/h
Moon moves 107 232.5 ± (2*Pi*384 400)/(27.35*24) = 107 232.5 ± 3679.5 km/h
During solar eclipse it is minus, so we have 97 553 km/h.
Two observers in polar circle, one at closer end and another at farther end will travel 107 232.5 ± (2*Pi*2600)/24 = 107 232.5 ± 681 km/h
Closer observer 106 551.5 km/h, farther observer 107 913.5 km/h.
Now:
Closer observer: 106 551.5 - 97 553 = 8998.5 km/h ; ARCTAN(8998.5/381800) = 1.35 degrees per hour.
Farther observer: 107 913.5 - 97 553 = 10 360.5 km/h ; ARCTAN(10360.5/387000) = 1.53 degrees per hour
Angular speed difference between observers 0.18 degrees per hour.
Now if you change his number 681 km/h (which he got by dividing circumference of Arctic circle by 24 hours) with 434 km/h (which i got by dividing diameter of Arctic circle by 12 hours AND THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO SO TO COMPLY WITH THE CORE OF MY ZIGZAG ARGUMENT) then you get even worse (for you) result (greater discrepancy = smaller number for HC scenario) than i got in the following calculation :
HELIOCENTRIC SCENARIO :
3500 km (diameter of the Moon)
434 km (the distance which an observer at the Arctic circle crosses in one hour (46,8*111km = 5194,8 km/12 = 432,9)
5200 km (the diameter of the Arctic circle)
CLOSER OBSERVER : 3500-434 = 3066 km/h
FARTHER OBSERVER : 3500+434 = 3934 km/h
CLOSER OBSERVER = 3066/380 000 = 0,00806 (ctg) = 0,462
FARTHER OBSERVER = 3934/385 200 = 0,01021 (ctg) = 0,5851
THE DIFFERENCE = 0,123
So, what do you have to say on this???
Well, since you are keeping your head in the send, then obviously you can't see shit.P.S. Rabinoz, Jack, you are such a great comedians,Still nothing of value, I see.but you are no match to this guy:
---The only acceptable conclusion that can be drawn from these two experiments, Michelson–Morley, on the one hand, and Michelson–Gale, on the other hand, is that the hypothesis of the existence of a medium of propagation for light is not tenable, unless we accept geocentric implications from the combined effect of both experiments (MM and MGP). In the classical context, it is clear that the Sagnac effect cannot at all be explained, unless we admit that the earth is at rest while the whole universe rotates around the stationary earth.Completely wrong.
Firstly, it wouldn't matter if Earth was rotating with the aether at rest, Earth was at rest with the aether rotating around Earth, or both rotating around the axis of Earth. All three would produce the same result.
But more importantly, that ignores stellar aberration, which makes sense in the context of Earth having a speed of roughly 30 km/s.
The detection of stellar aberration combined with the MM experiment refutes the aether model entirely.
You forgot number 4.
4. Let’s consider aether doesn’t exist.
Why did you omit this?
In GC model we can (by speeding up the stars, or slowing down the sun) achieve two sidereal annual rotations, and in HC we can't! Ask Alpha2Omega if you don't believe me!However, in GC model, we (God) can speed up the rotation of the stars (or slow down sun's daily orbit around the earth) in order to lengthen the difference between sidereal and synodic times.And that will be no different to doing so in the HC model.
You will still get a difference of 1 day.
And this quote:Here again, you have taken it right out of context. For a start Edwin Hubble did not write, "Redshifts would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe".
"Redshifts would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth[. . . ],
This hypothesis cannot be disproved"Edwin Hubble
He wrote, "Such a condition would imply that we occupy . . . . " and the "Such a condition" obviously was "a distribution in which the density increases with distance, symmetrically in all directions" and not "Redshifts".
:QuoteThe assumption of uniformity has much to be said in its favour. If the distribution were not uniform, it would either increase with distance, or decrease. But we would not expect to find a distribution in which the density increases with distance, symmetrically in all directions. Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance.And note he that did not simply say, "This hypothesis cannot be disproved" but said "The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance."
You might read, Misquoting Hubble by Dr. Danny R. Faulkner on September 26, 2018 (https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/cosmology/misquoting-hubble/)
And this might be relevant too, Geocentric gobbledegook: A review of The Earth is not Moving by Marshall Hall, Fair Education Foundation, Cornelia, Georgia, 1991 by Danny Faulkner (https://creation.com/geocentric-gobbledegook)
8. Rabinoz, have you ever seen this before :
We must understand the mechanism of the tides, he insist, and the way to begin to do
this is to have a laboratory scale model of the tides. Galileo invites his readers to
consider a rectangular shallow flat bottomed basin of water: 'just like' the water in the
ocean basin. Galileo asks: “What happens if I rhythmically push the basin forward and
pull the basin back?” If the rhythm is correct, Galileo states you will get an oscillating
wall of water moving back and forth, which is a model of the tides. This motion is the
alternate acceleration and deceleration of the water. But how is this alternately
accelerating and decelerating motion of the seas and oceans produced on Earth?
In figure 1, we look down on the orbit of the Earth and the spinning Earth’s north pole.
We shall assign speeds to the Earth’s motions: its orbital speed around the Sun, Vo,
and its speed of axial daily rotation Vd. Now consider a point on the surface of the
Earth at noon time. What is the speed of that point in space at noon? It is Vo+Vd.
What about at midnight when the same point has moved around with the spinning
Earth? What is the speed of that point in space? It is Vo-Vd. So, your maximum speed
is at noon time and the minimum speed is at midnight. And every day every point on
the Earth undergoes a variation of speed from a maximum Vo+Vd to a minimum Vo-
Vd If every point on the Earth goes from a maximum to minimum speed once every 24
hours that means that every point on Earth is alternately accelerated and decelerated,
accelerated and decelerated, and so on. And Galileo’s conclusion is that in the oceans
and seas, subjected to this daily alternation of acceleration and deceleration, you would
get the sloshing of the tides!
(https://i.postimg.cc/W4kjbV4w/GALILEO-FIGURE-1.jpg)
This theory is wrong in terms of the later Newtonian physics, and Galileo was also
wrong in the eyes of his friends who would not accept his theory of the tides. One of
the reasons Galileo’s theory was not convincing was that there were other theories of
the tides. For example, Kepler said “The Moon affects the oceans and causes the tides”.
Galileo disagreed with Kepler, asking how this occurred, by some 'magical' action at a
distance. Another person to dispute his theories was the magician, alternative Natural
Philosopher and Dominican, Tommaso Campanella who asked why humans, trees and
houses, were not accelerated and decelerated all the time. Galileo’s motion of the tides
also completely contradicts his inertial motion theory. So, his theory of the tides did not
convince many people.
Now what about the meaning of the Galileo affair? There are certain points that are
true in this affair for observers of varied persuasions: Firstly, Galileo was presenting a
fragmentary set of arguments against an established world view. Galileo was not a
Natural Philosopher in the systematic sense of say, Aristotle or later on Newton, or
Descartes. Galileo had his telescope, his theory of the tides and his theory of motion --
his physics. He could persuade people of his theory but he could not replace, system for
system, the existing total picture. This is one of the drawbacks for Galileo.
Yet, we must also consider that it was perfectly reasonable in 1633 that Tycho’s system
could be proved right and that Aristotle's could be patched up to agree with the
Tychonic system. Galileo’s trial comes down to a political value judgement and the
balance of the judgement was something like this: Do you follow Galileo without a
system into a new view which may have religious or political repercussions. Or, do you
stick with an old view, which is under criticism, but which has not been overthrown and
which seems to be successful in helping to solidify the political and institutional order
on the Catholic side. These were value judgements. A frame-ups of Galileo aside, it
would seem perfectly reasonable to have adopted the latter position.
There was no reason in some supposed scientific method, or 'the nuggety facts' that would seem to
have favoured one or the other position in 1633, and that is the fundamental point that
we have been trying to come to grips with in these two Chapters on the Galileo affair.
The bottom line is this :No, the bottom line is this:
Not interested until you face up to your own deception!The bottom line is that rotary motion, such as the earth's rotation, can be and is regularly measured.
In closing, I must ask why are you afraid to admit to your own deception when you use "Photoshopped" images in a video that tries to prove NASA's deception.
See again: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum) « Reply #300 on: July 28, 2019, 09:54:18 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2191157#msg2191157).
That's blatant dishonesty and hypocrisy in my book.
I'll take your refusal to answer as a tacit admission of your gullt!
Get use to this :Not interested until you face up to your own deception!
In closing, I must ask why are you afraid to admit to your own deception when you use "Photoshopped" images in a video that tries to prove NASA's deception.
See again: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum) « Reply #300 on: July 28, 2019, 09:54:18 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2191157#msg2191157).
That's blatant dishonesty and hypocrisy in my book.
I'll take your refusal to answer as a tacit admission of your gullt!
This, and the previous posts are just full of seemingly cherry picked quotes and verbiage. The usual stuff posted to weave and establish doubt in those who have absolutely no idea of the science and facts involved.
So where is the actual hard evidence of a planned and executed hoax?
The rotation rpm of the earth doesn’t change at night.So, according to you, Galileo was utterly stupid person??? It is beyond me how anybody can be such a loser...
If we put an accelerometer at the equator, why at night we do not see an acceleration and a deceleration by day if the earth really rotates?
The dark side of the earth away from the sun is moving faster of course (relative to the sun) as it is shooting forward. And the sunny side is moving 'backward" or at least slower than the dark side.
So... 65,000 mph around the sun.
Dark side moving at 66,000mph.
Light side moving at 64,000mph.
So... In 12 hours from midnight to mid day, YOU should reduce in speed my 2000mph around the sun. This means that every min in that 12 hours, you are slowing down 2.777777 mph. Very small amount. A human cannot feel this. But an accelerometer TOTALLY can. This mean I should be able to put my cellphone on a table and see the accelerometer showing a reading.
Right?
care to respond to this challenge :Your challenge has already been met repeatedly.
Since you refuse to even reply to MY challenge I must assume you admit your deception in using "Photoshopped" image in your videos. Right, got that!This, and the previous posts are just full of seemingly cherry picked quotes and verbiage. The usual stuff posted to weave and establish doubt in those who have absolutely no idea of the science and facts involved.
So where is the actual hard evidence of a planned and executed hoax?
Why is that a problem for you? The earth is rotating on its axis and that rotation is a constant magnitude acceleration directed towards the centre of the earth.
Wow, you are certainly "not" one of those who have absolutely no idea of the science and facts involved, are you? LOL
Since you referred to my post #337 (regarding Galileo's wrong conception of the mechanism of tides), then as one of those who have idea of the science and facts involved, care to respond to this challenge :
If we put an accelerometer at the equator, why at night we do not see an acceleration and a deceleration by day if the earth really rotates?
The dark side of the earth away from the sun is moving faster of course (relative to the sun) as it is shooting forward. And the sunny side is moving 'backward" or at least slower than the dark side.
So... 65,000 mph around the sun.
Dark side moving at 66,000mph.
Light side moving at 64,000mph.
So... In 12 hours from midnight to mid day, YOU should reduce in speed my 2000mph around the sun. This means that every min in that 12 hours, you are slowing down 2.777777 mph. Very small amount. A human cannot feel this. But an accelerometer TOTALLY can. This mean I should be able to put my cellphone on a table and see the accelerometer showing a reading.No, your phone will not show a reading!
Right?
This, and the previous posts are just full of seemingly cherry picked quotes and verbiage. The usual stuff posted to weave and establish doubt in those who have absolutely no idea of the science and facts involved.
So where is the actual hard evidence of a planned and executed hoax?
Wow, you are certainly "not" one of those who have absolutely no idea of the science and facts involved, are you? LOL
Since you referred to my post #337 (regarding Galileo's wrong conception of the mechanism of tides), then as one of those who have idea of the science and facts involved, care to respond to this challenge :
If we put an accelerometer at the equator, why at night we do not see an acceleration and a deceleration by day if the earth really rotates?
The dark side of the earth away from the sun is moving faster of course (relative to the sun) as it is shooting forward. And the sunny side is moving 'backward" or at least slower than the dark side.
So... 65,000 mph around the sun.
Dark side moving at 66,000mph.
Light side moving at 64,000mph.
So... In 12 hours from midnight to mid day, YOU should reduce in speed my 2000mph around the sun. This means that every min in that 12 hours, you are slowing down 2.777777 mph. Very small amount. A human cannot feel this. But an accelerometer TOTALLY can. This mean I should be able to put my cellphone on a table and see the accelerometer showing a reading.
Right?
As a simple approach you can use the rocket thrust equation and ignore the pressure term.
So just taking your numbers for the machine gun, the force will be 1.2 kg/s * 825 m/s = 990 N.
Assuming it is going straight up, then the force it needs to provide just needs to counter gravity, and thus for a 100 kg load needs to be roughly 980 N.
But quickly checking, your numbers are off. The bullet weight isn't 24 g. That is the weight of the entire round, including the gas and cartridge which would be ejected at much slower speeds.
The actual bullet, which is what leaves at the quoted speed is only 9.6 g, or 0.4 times the mass you used. That means the thrust would be roughly 0.4 times the previously calculated thrust or 396 N.
That isn't even enough to lift your 50 kg person.
If you have a correct percentage you can also simplify it a bit.
If the percentage mass flow rate multiplied by the velocity is greater than g (roughly 9.8 m/s^2), it can fly.
Sticking in the original numbers you gave for the gun person that gives 9.9. Correcting it to the actual bullet (0.48%) you only get 3.96. So you aren't going to fly.
A bunch of HC crackpots just don't get itNo, we get it.
No! Galileo was a frail sick blind old man threatened by the Inquisition of the Roman Catholic Church!The rotation rpm of the earth doesn’t change at night.So, according to you, Galileo was utterly stupid person??? It is beyond me how anybody can be such a loser...
Aging, ailing and threatened with torture by the Inquisition, Galileo recanted on April 30, 1633. Because of his advanced years, he was permitted house arrest in Siena. Legend has it that as Galileo rose from kneeling before his inquisitors, he murmured, "e pur, si muove" -- "even so, it does move."
I suppose you got so pissed off after reading for the first time the following Galileo's open geocentric admission, so that now even your HC icon (falsely proclaimed as such, given his subsequent HC recantation) Galileo, has been added to your list of crackpots : :No! Pissed off be deceivers like you supporting the evils of the the Inquisition of the Roman Catholic Church!.
| The image below is obviously a composite of two NASA photos. (https://www.dropbox.com/s/j0v58fzlrmhqhtj/Earth%20from%20Moon%2C%20odiupicku%20%235.jpg?dl=1) Photoshopped "Earth from Moon", by odiupicku | And I know following image is also a composite of two NASA photos: (https://www.dropbox.com/s/gitimar1o14xf6s/How%20would%20earth%20look%20from%20the%20moon%20%28Faked%29.jpg?dl=1) Of course the light comes from different directions! That is not a genuine NASA photo. |
A bunch of HC crackpots just don't get it : They are in dispute with Galileo himself, not with me (not only with me, at least)!!!No! Just with Tom Bishop and others interpretation of what NASA wrote!
They are in dispute with NASA, also :
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2191005#msg2191005
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82503.msg2191590#msg2191590
They are in dispute with NASA and Newton :Rubbish! Just in dispute with the total crap and utter distortion that you write!
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2191013#msg2191013
They are in dispute with common sense :Don't be ridiculous! Your "THE MIDGET-SOLDIER ROCKET PROJECT" was proven quite unable "to fly" by both JackBlack and myself.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2191172#msg2191172
Rabinoz, haven't i told you to change your local drug dealer?
What kind of drug are you on?
It seems as if the only thing on NASA paid shill's mind is crack cocaine. If somebody offers NASA shill any of it, he'll jump at it and take it. It's like offering a starving man a loaf of bread...
NASA shills are prepared to do anything (twisting logic, raping common sense, talking all kinds of senseless rubbish... ENDLESSLY) so to get their next fix of coke.
NASA shills are a desperate losers, and a drug addicts, only is hard to tell what exact drug are they on...
Having in mind the degree and the extent of their despair, it must be some special drug....
Hmmpft! I don't see anybody in dispute with Galileo. Galileo supported Copernicus theory that earth rotates around a sun. Where does your dispute assertion originate from, chick?
Galileo was a frail sick blind old man threatened by the Inquisition of the Roman Catholic Church!QuoteAging, ailing and threatened with torture by the Inquisition, Galileo recanted on April 30, 1633.
But, seriously? You guys are arguing heliocentrism vs. geocentrism with a young-Earth creationist. ::)
But, seriously? You guys are arguing heliocentrism vs. geocentrism with a young-Earth creationist. ::)
MacAndrew: Let’s examine other ways in which his hypothesis fails. Across much of his writing Sungenis and his supporters repeatedly fall into what I call the Great Inconsistency, appealing to the conclusions of General Relativity while vehemently rejecting them (see Here Comes the Sun, p.17, and There He Goes Again, p.2).
R.Sungenis: Let’s get some perspective. Mr. MacAndrew knows that the very science he believes in, namely, General Relativity supports geocentrism, but he is too dishonest to give this information to the world. He would rather pretend it doesn’t exist and instead accuse me of “inconsistency” because I point out to the world what he won’t. His goal is to take the focus off his own sleight of hand and put the onus on me. But the truth is, he is very embarrassed that Einstein supported geocentrism.
Nevertheless, let me say once again so that Mr. MacAndrew can finally stop misrepresenting my appeal to GRT: I don’t appeal to GRT because I believe in it, but because Mr. MacAndrew believes in it! What better way to expose the fallacy of your opponent’s position than to point out that his system denies him the very thing he wants to achieve – to deny geocentrism. As St. James says in 1:23‐24: “For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who observes his natural face in a mirror; for he observes himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like.”
MacAndrew: The section from GWW that we are reviewing is no exception. He quotes W G V Rosser’s review of General Relativity approvingly in spite of the fact that he rejects the theory: “As Rosser notes “light can assume ANY NUMERICAL VALUE depending on the strength of the...centrifugal gravitational field” which has “enormous values at large distances.” Sungenis is more interested in the rhetorical capital he can make from Rosser’s statements than he is in adopting a self‐consistent case for geocentrism.
R.Sungenis : MacAndrew is a guy who lives in a glass house (since his own GRT believes in geocentrism) but he keeps throwing stones at me for pointing this out to the world. He then has the audacity to say that we are using GRT because our own theory is not “self‐consistent.” Let’s set the record straight. We don’t believe in GRT. The reason is because it is not consistent. SRT contradicts GRT and GRT contradicts Quantum Mechanics, so we don’t dare use any of them to support geocentrism. Quoting John Wheeler again, here is what he has to say regarding the bankrupt theories of SRT and GRT:
The [Heisenberg] uncertainty principle [of Quantum Mechanics] thus deprives one of any way whatsoever to predict, or even to give meaning to, “the deterministic classical history of space evolving in time.” No prediction of spacetime, therefore no meaning for spacetime, is the verdict of the quantum principle. That object which is central to all of classical general relativity, the four‐dimensional spacetime geometry, simply does not exist, except in a classical approximation.
So what other physics, from the world’s perspective, do we have that does what Einstein’s GRT did for geocentrism? Lo and behold, Newton’s physics does the same thing for geocentrism that Einstein did – he makes it viable. Of course, Newton’s admission has been hidden from us for a long time, but it was finally released. As Steven Weinberg puts it in his latest book, "To Explain the World" :
If we were to adopt a frame of reference like Tycho’s in which the Earth is at rest, then the distant galaxies would seem to be executing circular turns once a year, and in general relativity this enormous motion would create forces akin to gravitation, which would act on the Sun and planets and give them the motions of the Tychonic theory. Newton seems to have had a hint of this. In an unpublished ‘Proposition 43’ that did not make it into the Principia, Newton acknowledges that Tycho’s theory could be true if some other force besides ordinary gravitation acted on the Sun and planets.
Here is what Newton said in Proposition 43:
In order for the Earth to be at rest in the center of the system of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, there is required both universal gravity and another force in addition that acts on all bodies equally according to the quantity of matter in each of them and is equal and opposite to the accelerative gravity with which the Earth tends to the Sun... Since this force is equal and opposite to its gravity toward the Sun, the Earth can truly remain in equilibrium between these two forces and be at rest. And thus celestial bodies can move around the Earth at rest,as in the Tychonic system.
"We have[...] certainty regarding the stability of the Earth, situated in the center, and the motion of the sun around the Earth." - Galileo Galilei in letter to Francesco Rinuccini, March 29th, 1641
Rabinoz, haven't i told you to change your local drug dealer?
What kind of drug are you on?
It seems as if the only thing on NASA paid shill's mind is crack cocaine. If somebody offers NASA shill any of it, he'll jump at it and take it. It's like offering a starving man a loaf of bread...
NASA shills are prepared to do anything (twisting logic, raping common sense, talking all kinds of senseless rubbish... ENDLESSLY) so to get their next fix of coke.
NASA shills are a desperate losers, and a drug addicts, only is hard to tell what exact drug are they on...
Having in mind the degree and the extent of their despair, it must be some special drug....
Rabinoz, haven't i told you to change your local drug dealer?
What kind of drug are you on?
It seems as if the only thing on NASA paid shill's mind is crack cocaine. If somebody offers NASA shill any of it, he'll jump at it and take it. It's like offering a starving man a loaf of bread...
NASA shills are prepared to do anything (twisting logic, raping common sense, talking all kinds of senseless rubbish... ENDLESSLY) so to get their next fix of coke.
NASA shills are a desperate losers, and a drug addicts, only is hard to tell what exact drug are they on...
Having in mind the degree and the extent of their despair, it must be some special drug....
But, seriously? You guys are arguing heliocentrism vs. geocentrism with a young-Earth creationist. ::)
MacAndrew: Let’s examine other ways in which his hypothesis fails. Across much of his writing Sungenis and his supporters repeatedly fall into what I call the Great Inconsistency, appealing to the conclusions of General Relativity while vehemently rejecting them (see Here Comes the Sun, p.17, and There He Goes Again, p.2).
R.Sungenis: Let’s get some perspective. Mr. MacAndrew knows that the very science he believes in, namely, General Relativity supports geocentrism, but he is too dishonest to give this information to the world. He would rather pretend it doesn’t exist and instead accuse me of “inconsistency” because I point out to the world what he won’t. His goal is to take the focus off his own sleight of hand and put the onus on me. But the truth is, he is very embarrassed that Einstein supported geocentrism.
Nevertheless, let me say once again so that Mr. MacAndrew can finally stop misrepresenting my appeal to GRT: I don’t appeal to GRT because I believe in it, but because Mr. MacAndrew believes in it! What better way to expose the fallacy of your opponent’s position than to point out that his system denies him the very thing he wants to achieve – to deny geocentrism. As St. James says in 1:23‐24: “For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who observes his natural face in a mirror; for he observes himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like.”
MacAndrew: The section from GWW that we are reviewing is no exception. He quotes W G V Rosser’s review of General Relativity approvingly in spite of the fact that he rejects the theory: “As Rosser notes “light can assume ANY NUMERICAL VALUE depending on the strength of the...centrifugal gravitational field” which has “enormous values at large distances.” Sungenis is more interested in the rhetorical capital he can make from Rosser’s statements than he is in adopting a self‐consistent case for geocentrism.
R.Sungenis : MacAndrew is a guy who lives in a glass house (since his own GRT believes in geocentrism) but he keeps throwing stones at me for pointing this out to the world. He then has the audacity to say that we are using GRT because our own theory is not “self‐consistent.” Let’s set the record straight. We don’t believe in GRT. The reason is because it is not consistent. SRT contradicts GRT and GRT contradicts Quantum Mechanics, so we don’t dare use any of them to support geocentrism. Quoting John Wheeler again, here is what he has to say regarding the bankrupt theories of SRT and GRT:
The [Heisenberg] uncertainty principle [of Quantum Mechanics] thus deprives one of any way whatsoever to predict, or even to give meaning to, “the deterministic classical history of space evolving in time.” No prediction of spacetime, therefore no meaning for spacetime, is the verdict of the quantum principle. That object which is central to all of classical general relativity, the four‐dimensional spacetime geometry, simply does not exist, except in a classical approximation.
So what other physics, from the world’s perspective, do we have that does what Einstein’s GRT did for geocentrism? Lo and behold, Newton’s physics does the same thing for geocentrism that Einstein did – he makes it viable. Of course, Newton’s admission has been hidden from us for a long time, but it was finally released. As Steven Weinberg puts it in his latest book, "To Explain the World" :
If we were to adopt a frame of reference like Tycho’s in which the Earth is at rest, then the distant galaxies would seem to be executing circular turns once a year, and in general relativity this enormous motion would create forces akin to gravitation, which would act on the Sun and planets and give them the motions of the Tychonic theory. Newton seems to have had a hint of this. In an unpublished ‘Proposition 43’ that did not make it into the Principia, Newton acknowledges that Tycho’s theory could be true if some other force besides ordinary gravitation acted on the Sun and planets.
Here is what Newton said in Proposition 43:
In order for the Earth to be at rest in the center of the system of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, there is required both universal gravity and another force in addition that acts on all bodies equally according to the quantity of matter in each of them and is equal and opposite to the accelerative gravity with which the Earth tends to the Sun... Since this force is equal and opposite to its gravity toward the Sun, the Earth can truly remain in equilibrium between these two forces and be at rest. And thus celestial bodies can move around the Earth at rest,as in the Tychonic system.
"We have[...] certainty regarding the stability of the Earth, situated in the center, and the motion of the sun around the Earth." - Galileo Galilei in letter to Francesco Rinuccini, March 29th, 1641
Why are you using as one of your authorities on astronomy and science, someone who who's training and background is theology and religion, and a charlatan at that it seems:
https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/sungenis-proposition-readers/
Some here will no doubt find it amusing that a heliocentric flat-Earther is arguing with a geocentric round-young-Earth creationist, but your quote from Newton does not mean what you think it means. Newton says, in effect "A stationary Earth would require an unknown force that counteracts gravity" and you conclude that he's arguing for a stationary Earth, when he's actually saying that a stationary Earth is a preposterous notion.
So, an open-loop Sagnac effect proves that there is a rotational motion of an aether around the stationary earth.No it doesn't. An open loop Sagnac can be the consequence of a stationary aether around a rotating Earth, a rotating aether around a stationary Earth, a rotating aether around a rotating Earth or a rotating Earth due to relativity. The only honest conclusion is relativity, as the experiments regarding aether show that aether doesn't exist.
Rabinoz, haven't i told you to change your local drug dealer?Yes, you have thrown out plenty of insults because you have no rational response.
Try again! "MMX experiment in combination with MGPX, and other interferometry experiments" are better explained by no luminiferous aether and relativity.Some here will no doubt find it amusing that a heliocentric flat-Earther is arguing with a geocentric round-young-Earth creationist, but your quote from Newton does not mean what you think it means. Newton says, in effect "A stationary Earth would require an unknown force that counteracts gravity" and you conclude that he's arguing for a stationary Earth, when he's actually saying that a stationary Earth is a preposterous notion.
Maybe we should add to what Newton said in Proposition 43, the following story :So, an open-loop Sagnac effect proves that there is a rotational motion of an aether around the stationary earth.No it doesn't. An open loop Sagnac can be the consequence of a stationary aether around a rotating Earth, a rotating aether around a stationary Earth, a rotating aether around a rotating Earth or a rotating Earth due to relativity. The only honest conclusion is relativity, as the experiments regarding aether show that aether doesn't exist.
As for stationary aether around the rotating earth, this hypothesis has been refuted with MMX experiment in combination with MGPX, and other interferometry experiments...
Firstly it was refuted with Airy's failure experiment that had been conducted in 1871 by Sir George Airy : Water in telescope causes no change in aberration ==> deflection occurs in transit â sideways aether flow.Try again! Airy's null-result experiment that had been conducted in 1871 by Sir George Airy is better explained by no luminiferous aether and relativity.
James Bradley was the guywho showed that stellar aberation could easily be explained by the earth orbiting the sun.
Of course, Airy's water-filled instrument did not deliver the desired proof of the Copernican paradigm. Agreeing with somewhat similar tests already performed by Hoek and Klinkerfusz, the experiment demonstrated exactly the opposite outcome of that which had to be confidently expected. Actually the most careful measurements gave the same angle of aberration for a telescope with water as for one filled with air.Only if you deny relativity. But no matter how you wriggle all aspects of stellar aberration cannot be explained by a stationary earth and motion of the stars.
Airy put water in the telescope to test Bradley's claim that the moving Earth caused aberration; he saw no change in aberration angle with the water
added. This was termed a ‘failure’, since Bradley’s theory of receiver motion predicted a change with the index of refraction – n.
CONCLUSION: The deflection of starlight known as stellar aberration is NOT due to the Earth’s motion, but is an external bending of light before reaching the telescope.Incorrect as has been explained many times!
In order to stress the all-embracing importance of that short-sightedness (with respect to Bradley's fictitious “stellar aberration”), which has been blatantly accepted for nearly two hundred years, it may be well to cite a twentieth-century appraisal of Bradley's and Airy's quandary by the Dutch physicist, J. D. van der Waals, Jr. :No, stellar aberration cannot be explained by "with the supposition that the stars indeed describe circlets."
”Aberration may equally well be squared with the supposition that the stars indeed describe circlets."
<< That seems irrelevant to me! >>
Regarding the proposition of a rotating aether around a rotating Earth, it is refuted by directional gyro experiments, by an absence of a counter-momentum when making loop maneuvers (aviation), and it also can be tested (very easily) with the method which i have proposed earlier in this thread (improved (facilitated) version of an experiment with moving platforms and vertically firing bullets).No! Aircraft Directional Gyro are totally irrelevant here and are simply a device to stabilise the magnetic compass and must be reset often from the magnetic compass.
<< I can't comment on this until I get a chance to read it in more detail.
... aether...
Quote mage:
Some here will no doubt find it amusing that a heliocentric flat-Earther is arguing with a geocentric round-young-Earth creationist,
Yes
I do find it funny.
Please read what JackBlack wrote!As a simple approach you can use the rocket thrust equation and ignore the pressure term.
So just taking your numbers for the machine gun, the force will be 1.2 kg/s * 825 m/s = 990 N.
Assuming it is going straight up, then the force it needs to provide just needs to counter gravity, and thus for a 100 kg load needs to be roughly 980 N.
But quickly checking, your numbers are off. The bullet weight isn't 24 g. That is the weight of the entire round, including the gas and cartridge which would be ejected at much slower speeds.
The actual bullet, which is what leaves at the quoted speed is only 9.6 g, or 0.4 times the mass you used. That means the thrust would be roughly 0.4 times the previously calculated thrust or 396 N.
That isn't even enough to lift your 50 kg person.
If you have a correct percentage you can also simplify it a bit.
If the percentage mass flow rate multiplied by the velocity is greater than g (roughly 9.8 m/s^2), it can fly.
Sticking in the original numbers you gave for the gun person that gives 9.9. Correcting it to the actual bullet (0.48%) you only get 3.96. So you aren't going to fly.
It can fly?
Please read what JackBlack wrote!As a simple approach you can use the rocket thrust equation and ignore the pressure term.
So just taking your numbers for the machine gun, the force will be 1.2 kg/s * 825 m/s = 990 N.
Assuming it is going straight up, then the force it needs to provide just needs to counter gravity, and thus for a 100 kg load needs to be roughly 980 N.
But quickly checking, your numbers are off. The bullet weight isn't 24 g. That is the weight of the entire round, including the gas and cartridge which would be ejected at much slower speeds.
The actual bullet, which is what leaves at the quoted speed is only 9.6 g, or 0.4 times the mass you used. That means the thrust would be roughly 0.4 times the previously calculated thrust or 396 N.
That isn't even enough to lift your 50 kg person.
If you have a correct percentage you can also simplify it a bit.
If the percentage mass flow rate multiplied by the velocity is greater than g (roughly 9.8 m/s^2), it can fly.
Sticking in the original numbers you gave for the gun person that gives 9.9. Correcting it to the actual bullet (0.48%) you only get 3.96. So you aren't going to fly.
It can fly?
"If the percentage mass flow rate multiplied by the velocity is greater than g (roughly 9.8 m/s^2), it can fly."
"Correcting it to the actual bullet (0.48%) you only get 3.96 m/s2. So you aren't going to fly."
Something is fishy around here :Yes, someone made a topic claiming that rockets can't work in a vacuum, and instead of addressing the topic, they have been avoiding it quite a lot, they aren't even answering a single, simple question.
I call bullshit on this!!!You mean it is a classical example of you putting your feelings above reality.
This is the classical example of discordance between math and reality!
According to this video A-10 doesn't decelerate, AT ALL :No, this video shows no clear indication of the speed.
... aether...I am going to speculate that your conviction that the Earth is stationary arises from a literalist reading of the Bible. And that your rejection of Relativity comes because Relativity says that there is no "center." A literalist reading of the Bible will always put you in conflict with science. But I'm reminded of something a Congregational United Church of Christ pastor once said to me, that in her view there is no faith-based reason to assume that Bible was ever meant to be taken literally. And indeed, it was not taken literally until Luther and his doctrine of sola scriptura, which he applied to matters of faith, but which later evangelicals have applied to all matters of knowledge. One problem with this is that there are a nearly unlimited number of ways the Bible can be read "literally," and they cannot all be right. Reading it as allegory eliminates all these problems and allows the sincere believer to accept science without having to accuse God of being a humorless ignorant putz. The funny thing is that people who insist on a literal inerrant Bible are effectively accusing God of being a humorless ignorant putz.
(For clarification, I don't believe in God or gods or anything else supernatural. I think the Bible is a pretty cool book with some adventure, some pornography, and some poetry, but is no more inerrant than 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea.)
According to this video A-10 doesn't decelerate, AT ALL :No, this video shows no clear indication of the speed.
Now care to address my question:
What force accelerates the gas out the back of the rocket and what is the other body involved in this interaction?
Possibly (I haven't bothered checking yet) but:Please read what JackBlack wrote!
"If the percentage mass flow rate multiplied by the velocity is greater than g (roughly 9.8 m/s^2), it can fly."
"Correcting it to the actual bullet (0.48%) you only get 3.96 m/s2. So you aren't going to fly."
Something is fishy around here :
Then we went bigger.
The GAU-8 Avenger fires up to sixty one-pound bullets a second. It produces almost five tons of recoil force, which is crazy considering that it’s mounted in a type of plane (the A-10 “Warthog”) whose two engines produce only four tons of thrust each. If you put two of them in one aircraft, and fired both guns forward while opening up the throttle, the guns would win and you’d accelerate backward.
To put it another way: If I mounted a GAU-8 on my car, put the car in neutral, and started firing backward from a standstill, I would be breaking the interstate speed limit in less than three seconds.[/i]
Let's repeat this sentence :But!
If you put two of them in one aircraft, and fired both guns forward while opening up the throttle, the guns would win and you’d accelerate backward.
GAU-8 Avenger
Rate of fire: 3,900 rpm
Muzzle velocity: 1010 m/s
Projectiles, five-to-one mix of
PGU-14/B Armor Piercing Incendiary mass: 395 grams
PGU-13/B High Explosive Incendiary (HEI) mass: 378 grams
In practice, the cannon is limited to one and two-second bursts to avoid overheating and conserve ammunition.
The average recoil force of the GAU-8/A is 45 kN or 4589 kgf,
which is slightly more than the output of each of the A-10's two TF34 engines of 40.3 kN or 4109 kgf.
While this recoil force is significant, in practice a cannon fire burst slows the aircraft only a few miles per hour in level flight.
Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II
mass: 29000 lbs or 13154 kg
payload: 16000 lbs or 7257 kg
I call bullshit on this!!!Why, you've proven no "discordance between math and reality"
This is the classical example of discordance between math and reality!
That is why we need experiments or thought experiments (in absence of real experiments)...Why 60%? The longest burst is only about 2 seconds and the A-10 have a mass somewhere around the 20,000 kg mark!
The question arises (thought experiment) : When A-10 (in flight) opens fire from his gatling gun (GAU-8) does he decelerate for 60 %???
According to this video A-10 doesn't decelerate, AT ALL :You could not possibly tell from that video that the "A-10 doesn't decelerate, AT ALL".
A-10 Warthog 30mm cannon in action :
GAU-8 Avenger
Rate of fire: 3,900 rpm
Muzzle velocity: 1010 m/s
Projectiles, five-to-one mix of
PGU-14/B Armor Piercing Incendiary mass: 395 grams
PGU-13/B High Explosive Incendiary (HEI) mass: 378 grams
In practice, the cannon is limited to one and two-second bursts to avoid overheating and conserve ammunition.
The average recoil force of the GAU-8/A is 45 kN or 4589 kgf,
which is slightly more than the output of each of the A-10's two TF34 engines of 40.3 kN or 4109 kgf.
... aether...I am going to speculate that your conviction that the Earth is stationary arises from a literalist reading of the Bible. And that your rejection of Relativity comes because Relativity says that there is no "center." A literalist reading of the Bible will always put you in conflict with science. But I'm reminded of something a Congregational United Church of Christ pastor once said to me, that in her view there is no faith-based reason to assume that Bible was ever meant to be taken literally. And indeed, it was not taken literally until Luther and his doctrine of sola scriptura, which he applied to matters of faith, but which later evangelicals have applied to all matters of knowledge. One problem with this is that there are a nearly unlimited number of ways the Bible can be read "literally," and they cannot all be right. Reading it as allegory eliminates all these problems and allows the sincere believer to accept science without having to accuse God of being a humorless ignorant putz. The funny thing is that people who insist on a literal inerrant Bible are effectively accusing God of being a humorless ignorant putz.
(For clarification, I don't believe in God or gods or anything else supernatural. I think the Bible is a pretty cool book with some adventure, some pornography, and some poetry, but is no more inerrant than 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea.)
The geocentric hypotheses of Greek and Islamic cosmology and astronomy were not based on religious beliefs but on solid empirical observations. The religious views of the astronomers and cosmologists who presented those hypotheses did not play a significant role in their work.
However the three main players in the introduction of heliocentric cosmology in the Early Modern Period Copernicus, Kepler and Newton (contrary to popular opinion Galileo only played a very minor role) were all deeply religious and the religious views of two of them did play a highly significant role in their scientific thought. Copernicus was a cannon of a Catholic cathedral. Kepler trained for the priesthood in a Lutheran seminary and remained devotedly religious all of his life believing that he was serving his God through his astronomical work. Newton was by any standards a religious fanatic who believed that he had been special chosen by God to reveal the secrets of His creation.
I didn’t check the calcs but if the force from gun cancels out force from engines for three seconds all it means is the aircraft can’t accelerate. Big deal.QuoteGAU-8 Avenger
Rate of fire: 3,900 rpm
Muzzle velocity: 1010 m/s
Projectiles, five-to-one mix of
PGU-14/B Armor Piercing Incendiary mass: 395 grams
PGU-13/B High Explosive Incendiary (HEI) mass: 378 grams
In practice, the cannon is limited to one and two-second bursts to avoid overheating and conserve ammunition.
The average recoil force of the GAU-8/A is 45 kN or 4589 kgf,
which is slightly more than the output of each of the A-10's two TF34 engines of 40.3 kN or 4109 kgf.
Rabinoz, using your data above (the first passage), you don't get 45 kN... I know where you made a mistake, do you?
However, the average recoil force of the GAU-8/A is 45 kN, indeed...which is slightly more than the output of each of the A-10's two TF34 engines of 40,3 kN.
So, applying 45 kN force in counter direction (for 3 seconds (i counted it)) is equal to losing (instantly) all forward momentum produced by one of two A-10's engines, and 10 % of the thrust of another engine of an airplane (which amounts to losing 56% of the entire thrust power of both A-10's engines).
In another words, we should witness the spectacular sight in the sky, easily noticing by naked eyes as A-10 rapidly slows down while firing it's heavy rounds during these 3 long seconds, shouldn't we?
If your "understanding" of how recoil force works were correct, then an effect of firing A-10's insanely powerful gatling gun would be the same as instantly applying full force of a hypothetical third A-10's engine in counter direction of A-10's flight, or an instant fall off (or an instant blow up) of one of A-10's engines (plus losing 10 % of the thrust of another engine), wouldn't it?
Are you asking if a sailboat can sail against the wind??
Need a translation here!
QuoteGAU-8 Avenger
Rate of fire: 3,900 rpm
Muzzle velocity: 1010 m/s
Projectiles, five-to-one mix of
PGU-14/B Armor Piercing Incendiary mass: 395 grams
PGU-13/B High Explosive Incendiary (HEI) mass: 378 grams
In practice, the cannon is limited to one and two-second bursts to avoid overheating and conserve ammunition.
The average recoil force of the GAU-8/A is 45 kN or 4589 kgf,
which is slightly more than the output of each of the A-10's two TF34 engines of 40.3 kN or 4109 kgf.
Rabinoz, using your data above (the first passage), you don't get 45 kN... I know where you made a mistake, do you?
However, the average recoil force of the GAU-8/A is 45 kN, indeed...which is slightly more than the output of each of the A-10's two TF34 engines of 40,3 kN.
So, applying 45 kN force in counter direction (for 3 seconds (i counted it)) is equal to losing (instantly) all forward momentum produced by one of two A-10's engines, and 10 % of the thrust of another engine of an airplane (which amounts to losing 56% of the entire thrust power of both A-10's engines).
In another words, we should witness the spectacular sight in the sky, easily noticing by naked eyes as A-10 rapidly slows down while firing it's heavy rounds during these 3 long seconds, shouldn't we?
If your "understanding" of how recoil force works were correct, then an effect of firing A-10's insanely powerful gatling gun would be the same as instantly applying full force of a hypothetical third A-10's engine in counter direction of A-10's flight, or an instant fall off (or an instant blow up) of one of A-10's engines (plus losing 10 % of the thrust of another engine), wouldn't it?
Why are you using as one of your authorities on astronomy and science, someone who who's training and background is theology and religion, and a charlatan at that it seems:
https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/sungenis-proposition-readers/
Here is an endorsement dr. Robert Sungenis received from Wolfgang Smith, a professor of physics and mathematics at MIT:
April 2010: “Dear Dr. Sungenis: Since writing to you two days ago to thank you for your letter and the gift of your two-volume treatise, I have had a chance to peruse this work and feel compelled to congratulate you and Dr. Bennett on this outstanding achievement! Though I am not usually a loss for words, I find it hard to express my admiration for this masterpiece, which has no peer and constitutes without a doubt the definitive work on the subject of geocentrism...You are to be congratulated not only on your erudition and command of an incredibly vast subject matter, but also on the logical clarity of your presentation and lucidity of style. At your hands this subject of virtually unimaginable complexity becomes ‘almost’ simple, and certainly understandable (up to a point) to nonspecialists. Let me not swell this letter; perhaps I will get back to you on some specific points. Today I just wanted to express my admiration for your book, which strikes me as epochal in its implications...Yours sincerely in Christ, signed, Wolfgang Smith.”
Now, let me present you mr Wolfgang Smith :
COPERNICAN PRINCIPLE DESTROYED - part 2 :
Still waiting for the slam dunk evidence of documents with NASA stamped all over them outlining their plans for the Apollo landing hoax. Or even any whistleblowers' biographies, kiss and tell stories, leaks, outtakes from the scripted films, the script itself, etc., etc.,
Somehow, I don't think we'll get them.
Are you asking if a sailboat can sail against the wind??
Need a translation here!
Exactly, a direct sail will not allow ships to sail along rivers. And sailing ships really sailed. So tell me, how did they do it? After all, they could not violate all the known laws of physics. Or not?
As for sailboats, the old square riggers probably couldn't get much closer than 60 degrees to the wind, but modern sailboats can get within 45 degrees, maybe closer. This is why sailboats have to tack. But they can beat upwind, with some difficulty. Just not directly into it. This is one reason you won't see sailboats on very narrow rivers. They go on rivers wide enough to allow tacking. Anybody who's ever been on a sailboat knows that they are not limited to sailing downwind. As a matter of fact, a well-designed sailboat is fastest when sailing on a beam reach or close-hauled.
I didn’t check the calcs but if the force from gun cancels out force from engines for three seconds all it means is the aircraft can’t accelerate. Big deal.
Are you asking if a sailboat can sail against the wind??
Need a translation here!
Exactly, a direct sail will not allow ships to sail along rivers. And sailing ships really sailed. So tell me, how did they do it? After all, they could not violate all the known laws of physics. Or not?
Still waiting for the slam dunk evidence of documents with NASA stamped all over them outlining their plans for the Apollo landing hoax. Or even any whistleblowers' biographies, kiss and tell stories, leaks, outtakes from the scripted films, the script itself, etc., etc.,
Somehow, I don't think we'll get them.
I think we’ve moved onto A10 Warthogs don’t exist, now.
I answered this in Reply 366 above:
Quote from: magellanclavichord on August 01, 2019, 01:20:18 PM
As for sailboats, the old square riggers probably couldn't get much closer than 60 degrees to the wind, but modern sailboats can get within 45 degrees, maybe closer. This is why sailboats have to tack. But they can beat upwind, with some difficulty. Just not directly into it. This is one reason you won't see sailboats on very narrow rivers. They go on rivers wide enough to allow tacking. Anybody who's ever been on a sailboat knows that they are not limited to sailing downwind. As a matter of fact, a well-designed sailboat is fastest when sailing on a beam reach or close-hauled.
Sailboats can and do sail against the wind. Just not directly into it. In the days of old sailing ships, they never sailed on narrow rivers. They only sailed on rivers wide enough to tack back and forth to beat against the wind. Visit any large body of water and you will see sailboats beating against the wind with your own eyes.
QuoteI answered this in Reply 366 above:
Quote from: magellanclavichord on August 01, 2019, 01:20:18 PM
As for sailboats, the old square riggers probably couldn't get much closer than 60 degrees to the wind, but modern sailboats can get within 45 degrees, maybe closer. This is why sailboats have to tack. But they can beat upwind, with some difficulty. Just not directly into it. This is one reason you won't see sailboats on very narrow rivers. They go on rivers wide enough to allow tacking. Anybody who's ever been on a sailboat knows that they are not limited to sailing downwind. As a matter of fact, a well-designed sailboat is fastest when sailing on a beam reach or close-hauled.
Sailboats can and do sail against the wind. Just not directly into it. In the days of old sailing ships, they never sailed on narrow rivers. They only sailed on rivers wide enough to tack back and forth to beat against the wind. Visit any large body of water and you will see sailboats beating against the wind with your own eyes.
magellanclavichord
I laugh at my hoof. I laugh for a very long time. You can’t even imagine what you’re talking about! You didn’t answer anything, but showed complete ignorance in this matter. And fool everyone with your ignorance. Sailboats with a direct sail carried very large cargoes, especially upstream, moreover, regardless of the weather. This is a well-known fact in Russia. Although the rivers wriggled all the time changing direction. And being narrow, this did not stop sailing ships with a direct sail from transporting cargo, regardless of the weather. Learn the story of the gentlemen.
I am still waiting for your explanation of how sailboats could circumvent the law of physics. Probably the same as the rockets that fly in space?
QuoteI answered this in Reply 366 above:
Quote from: magellanclavichord on August 01, 2019, 01:20:18 PM
As for sailboats, the old square riggers probably couldn't get much closer than 60 degrees to the wind, but modern sailboats can get within 45 degrees, maybe closer. This is why sailboats have to tack. But they can beat upwind, with some difficulty. Just not directly into it. This is one reason you won't see sailboats on very narrow rivers. They go on rivers wide enough to allow tacking. Anybody who's ever been on a sailboat knows that they are not limited to sailing downwind. As a matter of fact, a well-designed sailboat is fastest when sailing on a beam reach or close-hauled.
Sailboats can and do sail against the wind. Just not directly into it. In the days of old sailing ships, they never sailed on narrow rivers. They only sailed on rivers wide enough to tack back and forth to beat against the wind. Visit any large body of water and you will see sailboats beating against the wind with your own eyes.
magellanclavichord
I laugh at my hoof. I laugh for a very long time. You can’t even imagine what you’re talking about! You didn’t answer anything, but showed complete ignorance in this matter. And fool everyone with your ignorance. Sailboats with a direct sail carried very large cargoes, especially upstream, moreover, regardless of the weather. This is a well-known fact in Russia. Although the rivers wriggled all the time changing direction. And being narrow, this did not stop sailing ships with a direct sail from transporting cargo, regardless of the weather. Learn the story of the gentlemen.
I am still waiting for your explanation of how sailboats could circumvent the law of physics. Probably the same as the rockets that fly in space?
I am still waiting for your explanation of how sailboats could circumvent the law of physics. Probably the same as the rockets that fly in space?
The geocentric hypotheses of Greek and Islamic cosmology and astronomy were not based on religious beliefs but on solid empirical observations.No, it was based entirely upon religious beliefs and baseless assumptions.
I don't have to address your question, because i've proven my point (numerous times) without addressing your question, don't you get it???If you want to be honest, then you do need to address my question.
all i have to do is to prove (show/demonstrate) that A-10 doesn't decelerate (AT ALL, LET ALONE FOR 60 % - roughly), while firing it's heavy rounds at incredibly fast rate!And so far all you have done along those lines is show a video where the speed is not clearly shown.
Rabinoz, using your data above (the first passage), you don't get 45 kNYou are right, you only get roughly 26 kN.
equal to losing (instantly) all forward momentumIt doesn't matter how many times you repeat this nonsense, it won't magically make it true.
and 10 % of the thrust of another engine of an airplane (which amounts to losing 56% of the entire thrust power of both A-10's engines).i.e. it will be down to 40% of the maximum possible thrust from the engine.
i.e. it will be down to 40% of the maximum possible thrust from the engine.
Notice how that doesn't magically mean it should rapidly slow down.
Now you need to calculate the force of the drag on the aircraft to determine just how quickly it should be slowing down.
Until you do that you just have your dramatic over-exaggeration and misunderstanding of physics.
i.e. it will be down to 40% of the maximum possible thrust from the engine.
Notice how that doesn't magically mean it should rapidly slow down.
Now you need to calculate the force of the drag on the aircraft to determine just how quickly it should be slowing down.
Until you do that you just have your dramatic over-exaggeration and misunderstanding of physics.
I’ll just point out here that the A10 is an air to ground attack aircraft, with a fixed cannon.
Seems likely that the cannon is most likely fired with the aircraft pitching down, which will substantially affect the airspeed for a given thrust.
I’ll leave it at that, because discussing weapons of war from a purely technical standpoint leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
i.e. it will be down to 40% of the maximum possible thrust from the engine.
Notice how that doesn't magically mean it should rapidly slow down.
Now you need to calculate the force of the drag on the aircraft to determine just how quickly it should be slowing down.
Until you do that you just have your dramatic over-exaggeration and misunderstanding of physics.
I’ll just point out here that the A10 is an air to ground attack aircraft, with a fixed cannon.
Seems likely that the cannon is most likely fired with the aircraft pitching down, which will substantially affect the airspeed for a given thrust.
I’ll leave it at that, because discussing weapons of war from a purely technical standpoint leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
A10s are awesome.
Also AC-130 Gunships are a better example. Especially when they fire the 105mm howitzer.
I made no mistake!QuoteGAU-8 Avenger
Rate of fire: 3,900 rpm
Muzzle velocity: 1010 m/s
Projectiles, five-to-one mix of
PGU-14/B Armor Piercing Incendiary mass: 395 grams
PGU-13/B High Explosive Incendiary (HEI) mass: 378 grams
In practice, the cannon is limited to one and two-second bursts to avoid overheating and conserve ammunition.
The average recoil force of the GAU-8/A is 45 kN or 4589 kgf,
which is slightly more than the output of each of the A-10's two TF34 engines of 40.3 kN or 4109 kgf.
Rabinoz, using your data above (the first passage), you don't get 45 kN... I know where you made a mistake, do you?
The average recoil force of the GAU-8/A is 10,000 pounds-force (45 kN), which is slightly more than the output of each of the A-10's two TF34 engines of 9,065 lbf (40.3 kN). While this recoil force is significant, in practice a cannon fire burst slows the aircraft only a few miles per hour in level flight.I'm not going to bother over the reason for the difference right now so let's go with the 45 kN.
However, the average recoil force of the GAU-8/A is 45 kN, indeed...which is slightly more than the output of each of the A-10's two TF34 engines of 40,3 kN.It just reduces the nett thrust by 56% for 3 seconds but that will do no more than reduce to airspeed slightly.
So, applying 45 kN force in counter direction (for 3 seconds (i counted it)) is equal to losing (instantly) all forward momentum produced by one of two A-10's engines, and 10 % of the thrust of another engine of an airplane (which amounts to losing 56% of the entire thrust power of both A-10's engines).
In another words, we should witness the spectacular sight in the sky, easily noticing by naked eyes as A-10 rapidly slows down while firing it's heavy rounds during these 3 long seconds, shouldn't we?No! As I, hopefully, showed above the momentum of the plane (2,680,000 kg.m/s) far outstrips that of a 3-second burst (21,450 kg.m/s).
If your "understanding" of how recoil force works were correct, then an effect of firing A-10's insanely powerful gatling gun would be the same as instantly applying full force of a hypothetical third A-10's engine in counter direction of A-10's flight,Yes, but only for not more than 3 seconds, so all that happens is a slight reduction in speed.
or an instant fall off (or an instant blow up) of one of A-10's engines (plus losing 10 % of the thrust of another engine), wouldn't it?No, because the thrust would be restored again after no more than 3 seconds. Why would you suggest anything drastic might happen?
i.e. it will be down to 40% of the maximum possible thrust from the engine.
Notice how that doesn't magically mean it should rapidly slow down.
Now you need to calculate the force of the drag on the aircraft to determine just how quickly it should be slowing down.
Until you do that you just have your dramatic over-exaggeration and misunderstanding of physics.
I’ll just point out here that the A10 is an air to ground attack aircraft, with a fixed cannon.
Seems likely that the cannon is most likely fired with the aircraft pitching down, which will substantially affect the airspeed for a given thrust.
I’ll leave it at that, because discussing weapons of war from a purely technical standpoint leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
A10s are awesome.
Also AC-130 Gunships are a better example. Especially when they fire the 105mm howitzer.
Bah! I may be a shill for the evil satanist military industrial complex run deep state government, but I refuse to get excited about shit that kills people.
Even warthogs ;)!
i.e. it will be down to 40% of the maximum possible thrust from the engine.
Notice how that doesn't magically mean it should rapidly slow down.
Now you need to calculate the force of the drag on the aircraft to determine just how quickly it should be slowing down.
Until you do that you just have your dramatic over-exaggeration and misunderstanding of physics.
I’ll just point out here that the A10 is an air to ground attack aircraft, with a fixed cannon.
Seems likely that the cannon is most likely fired with the aircraft pitching down, which will substantially affect the airspeed for a given thrust.
I’ll leave it at that, because discussing weapons of war from a purely technical standpoint leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
A10s are awesome.
Also AC-130 Gunships are a better example. Especially when they fire the 105mm howitzer.
Bah! I may be a shill for the evil satanist military industrial complex run deep state government, but I refuse to get excited about shit that kills people.
You must have a boring life. Most things can kill you. Like Carcinogens, which can be found in the air we breath.
A serious set of tusks makes one realise why predators will think twice about taking on a large male warthog such as this one.They might look ugly, slow and ungainly but they sport some serious armament and can inflict a frightening among of damage.
The lower tusks – clearly visible here – when combined with a very dense lower jawbone, can pack a real punch, and are actually the seriously dangerous tusks.
if your "understanding" of how recoil force works were correct, then an effect of firing A-10's insanely powerful gatling gun would be quite different than it isNo, it wouldn't.
because it wouldn't be the best way to picture this situation in this way : A-10 engines suddenly simply loose a great portion of their thrust... It would be more like A-10 hypothetical third engine instantly applies it's FULL force in counter direction of A-10 motion...Not only that...The 2 are the same.
What it means?Very little, as speed is not a simple linear function of engine thrust.
Now, let's get back to my midget-soldier midget project.No, lets ditch the stupid thought experiments.
Rabinoz, the momentum of A-10 is pretty high, no doubts about that. However, if your "understanding" of how recoil force works were correct, then an effect of firing A-10's insanely powerful gatling gun would be quite different than it is, despite the huge momentum of A-10, because it wouldn't be the best way to picture this situation in this way :No, my "understanding" of how recoil force works is correct, thank you but the burst I'd only for 3 seconds so the momentum is still not very high.
The speed of the A-100 would only be reduced by about 300/125 = 2.4 mph in agreement with the stated "few mph".The momentum of those (3 × 65) shells of mass 0.393 kg leaving at 1010 m/s is 21,450 kg.m/s.
The loaded A-10 Warthog might have a mass of about 20,000 kg and attacked at about 300 mph or 134 m/s.
So its momentum would have been about 2,680,000 kg.m/s or 125 times the momentum of those shells.
A-10 engines suddenly simply loose a great portion of their thrust... It would be more like A-10 hypothetical third engine instantly applies it's FULL force in counter direction of A-10 motion...Not only that...But even if your guesses were correct it is completely irrelevant because I never used the engine thrust in my calculations.
A-10 operational (average attack) speed is 300 mph = 480 km/h...
A-10 max speed = 450 mph = 720 km/h
So, A-10 operational speed is 66 % of A-10 max speed
What it means?
4 tons of max. thrust of each engine (at 300 mph) is reduced to 2,64 tons of thrust of each engine or 5,28 thrust of both engines.
Since, GAU-8 Avenger produces almost five tons of recoil force, it means that during our 3 long seconds entire thrust of both A-10 engines is canceled out (according to your interpretation of how recoil force works).
Now, let's get back to my midget-soldier midget project.No, let's not!
QuoteI answered this in Reply 366 above:
Quote from: magellanclavichord on August 01, 2019, 01:20:18 PM
As for sailboats, the old square riggers probably couldn't get much closer than 60 degrees to the wind, but modern sailboats can get within 45 degrees, maybe closer. This is why sailboats have to tack. But they can beat upwind, with some difficulty. Just not directly into it. This is one reason you won't see sailboats on very narrow rivers. They go on rivers wide enough to allow tacking. Anybody who's ever been on a sailboat knows that they are not limited to sailing downwind. As a matter of fact, a well-designed sailboat is fastest when sailing on a beam reach or close-hauled.
Sailboats can and do sail against the wind. Just not directly into it. In the days of old sailing ships, they never sailed on narrow rivers. They only sailed on rivers wide enough to tack back and forth to beat against the wind. Visit any large body of water and you will see sailboats beating against the wind with your own eyes.
magellanclavichord
I laugh at my hoof. I laugh for a very long time. You can’t even imagine what you’re talking about! You didn’t answer anything, but showed complete ignorance in this matter. And fool everyone with your ignorance. Sailboats with a direct sail carried very large cargoes, especially upstream, moreover, regardless of the weather. This is a well-known fact in Russia. Although the rivers wriggled all the time changing direction. And being narrow, this did not stop sailing ships with a direct sail from transporting cargo, regardless of the weather. Learn the story of the gentlemen.
I am still waiting for your explanation of how sailboats could circumvent the law of physics. Probably the same as the rockets that fly in space?
I have explained it to you. It is not my fault if you cannot understand it. Sailboats beat into the wind by tacking. No sailboat can sail directly against the wind. Unless, as kabool suggested, they turn the motors on. :)
On narrow rivers and canals, sometimes boats or barges are pulled upstream by people or animals walking on a tow path with ropes.
No sailboat has ever sailed to the moon, however that is not the topic of this thread. The topic is the moon hoax (which is not a hoax) and rockets being unable to fly in a vacuum (which they can do... I almost said "easily," but it's really not easy at all to design and build a rocket... amazingly, though, folks do it, and not just NASA; the Russians do it, the Chinese do it, even the North Koreans do it).
QuoteI answered this in Reply 366 above:
Quote from: magellanclavichord on August 01, 2019, 01:20:18 PM
As for sailboats, the old square riggers probably couldn't get much closer than 60 degrees to the wind, but modern sailboats can get within 45 degrees, maybe closer. This is why sailboats have to tack. But they can beat upwind, with some difficulty. Just not directly into it. This is one reason you won't see sailboats on very narrow rivers. They go on rivers wide enough to allow tacking. Anybody who's ever been on a sailboat knows that they are not limited to sailing downwind. As a matter of fact, a well-designed sailboat is fastest when sailing on a beam reach or close-hauled.
Sailboats can and do sail against the wind. Just not directly into it. In the days of old sailing ships, they never sailed on narrow rivers. They only sailed on rivers wide enough to tack back and forth to beat against the wind. Visit any large body of water and you will see sailboats beating against the wind with your own eyes.
magellanclavichord
I laugh at my hoof. I laugh for a very long time. You can’t even imagine what you’re talking about! You didn’t answer anything, but showed complete ignorance in this matter. And fool everyone with your ignorance. Sailboats with a direct sail carried very large cargoes, especially upstream, moreover, regardless of the weather. This is a well-known fact in Russia. Although the rivers wriggled all the time changing direction. And being narrow, this did not stop sailing ships with a direct sail from transporting cargo, regardless of the weather. Learn the story of the gentlemen.
I am still waiting for your explanation of how sailboats could circumvent the law of physics. Probably the same as the rockets that fly in space?
I have explained it to you. It is not my fault if you cannot understand it. Sailboats beat into the wind by tacking. No sailboat can sail directly against the wind. Unless, as kabool suggested, they turn the motors on. :)
On narrow rivers and canals, sometimes boats or barges are pulled upstream by people or animals walking on a tow path with ropes.
No sailboat has ever sailed to the moon, however that is not the topic of this thread. The topic is the moon hoax (which is not a hoax) and rockets being unable to fly in a vacuum (which they can do... I almost said "easily," but it's really not easy at all to design and build a rocket... amazingly, though, folks do it, and not just NASA; the Russians do it, the Chinese do it, even the North Koreans do it).
Well, well, as always - silence. I am disappointed with you. You not only do not know the story, but also do not want to know anything. Even when I poke your nose at the facts, you scream that you don’t see them. I think your ability to think is lost forever. And further on spot over trifles, instead of going to an understanding of the world. Congratulations to you trade federation - you have beaten in this world. Ships 500 years ago had powerful engines driven by electricity. Compact turbines with electric current created strong air currents that were sent to the sails from technical devices (look for the remaining remnants of the ships in museums - they are visible there). Because sailing was unnecessary was the wind. And yes, mostly ships flew through the air, and not sailed! So they could well fly to the moon! I think that nobody is interested as it was before, because now you have a computer and Wikipedia ...
http://vm.msun.ru/Cad_ship/Sailship/Parusniki.htm
Aaaahaha
Mage just got called out by a brony.
QuoteI answered this in Reply 366 above:
Quote from: magellanclavichord on August 01, 2019, 01:20:18 PM
As for sailboats, the old square riggers probably couldn't get much closer than 60 degrees to the wind, but modern sailboats can get within 45 degrees, maybe closer. This is why sailboats have to tack. But they can beat upwind, with some difficulty. Just not directly into it. This is one reason you won't see sailboats on very narrow rivers. They go on rivers wide enough to allow tacking. Anybody who's ever been on a sailboat knows that they are not limited to sailing downwind. As a matter of fact, a well-designed sailboat is fastest when sailing on a beam reach or close-hauled.
Sailboats can and do sail against the wind. Just not directly into it. In the days of old sailing ships, they never sailed on narrow rivers. They only sailed on rivers wide enough to tack back and forth to beat against the wind. Visit any large body of water and you will see sailboats beating against the wind with your own eyes.
magellanclavichord
I laugh at my hoof. I laugh for a very long time. You can’t even imagine what you’re talking about! You didn’t answer anything, but showed complete ignorance in this matter. And fool everyone with your ignorance. Sailboats with a direct sail carried very large cargoes, especially upstream, moreover, regardless of the weather. This is a well-known fact in Russia. Although the rivers wriggled all the time changing direction. And being narrow, this did not stop sailing ships with a direct sail from transporting cargo, regardless of the weather. Learn the story of the gentlemen.
I am still waiting for your explanation of how sailboats could circumvent the law of physics. Probably the same as the rockets that fly in space?
I have explained it to you. It is not my fault if you cannot understand it. Sailboats beat into the wind by tacking. No sailboat can sail directly against the wind. Unless, as kabool suggested, they turn the motors on. :)
On narrow rivers and canals, sometimes boats or barges are pulled upstream by people or animals walking on a tow path with ropes.
No sailboat has ever sailed to the moon, however that is not the topic of this thread. The topic is the moon hoax (which is not a hoax) and rockets being unable to fly in a vacuum (which they can do... I almost said "easily," but it's really not easy at all to design and build a rocket... amazingly, though, folks do it, and not just NASA; the Russians do it, the Chinese do it, even the North Koreans do it).
Well, well, as always - silence. I am disappointed with you. You not only do not know the story, but also do not want to know anything. Even when I poke your nose at the facts, you scream that you don’t see them. I think your ability to think is lost forever. And further on spot over trifles, instead of going to an understanding of the world. Congratulations to you trade federation - you have beaten in this world. Ships 500 years ago had powerful engines driven by electricity. Compact turbines with electric current created strong air currents that were sent to the sails from technical devices (look for the remaining remnants of the ships in museums - they are visible there). Because sailing was unnecessary was the wind. And yes, mostly ships flew through the air, and not sailed! So they could well fly to the moon! I think that nobody is interested as it was before, because now you have a computer and Wikipedia ...
http://vm.msun.ru/Cad_ship/Sailship/Parusniki.htm
Electric turbines on ships 500 years ago? Blowing wind at the sails? That wouldn't even work! Okay, now I'm certain, you are punking us. You don't actually believe any of what you're saying!
And no, it's not lost on me that kabool has said the same thing to me. :)Aaaahaha
Mage just got called out by a brony.
What's a brony? ???
What the notoriously corrupt United States federal government is claiming is to have sent men to the moon in 1969, on the VERY FIRST attempt ...
What the notoriously corrupt United States federal government is claiming is to have sent men to the moon in 1969, on the VERY FIRST attempt, even though right here on earth Mt. Everest and the South Pole took NUMEROUS tries before success, allegedly accomplishing this amazing feat with 50 YEAR older technology (a cell phone has ONE MILLION times more computing power than ALL of NASA did in 1969), yet 50 YEARS later NASA can now only send astronauts ONE - THOUSANDTH the distance to the moon, even with 5 DECADES more advancements in rockets and computers.Rockets are still largely the same and we don't currently have a heavy lifting booster. Faster computers don't get more weight into space. But thanks for proving you don't really understand the subject.
If Toyota claimed they made a car 50 YEARS ago that could travel 50,000 miles on one gallon of gasoline, yet today their best car can only go 50 miles per gallon, or ONE - THOUSANDTH the distance, would not the forgery of the previous claim be incredibly obvious? If it were not for people's pride and emotional attachment to the 50 YEAR OLD unrepeatable moon landing claim, also with only ONE - THOUSANDTH the distance capable 5 DECADES later, they would otherwise easily recognize this equally preposterous claim as the fraud that it sadly is.
The alleged moon landings are the only technological claim in the entire history of the world, such as the first automobile, airplane, or nuclear power, which was not far surpassed in capability 50 YEARS later, much less not even able to be duplicated by any nation on earth 50 YEARS later. The supposed moon landings are also the only time in history that such claimed expensive technology was deliberately destroyed afterwards (175 BILLION DOLLARS worth), only done so to hide the evidence of the fraud.
Seeing how it is IMPOSSIBLE for technology to go BACKWARDS and today NASA can only send astronauts ONE - THOUSANDTH the distance to the moon as was claimed 50 YEARS ago on the VERY FIRST attempt with 5 DECADES OLDER technology, the only remaining conclusion is that the 1969 claim was a federal government lie. It is that simple and that corrupt.
Award winning filmmaker Bart Sibrel (Sibrel.com) presents his highly acclaimed controversial documentary "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" which debuts newly discovered behind-the-scenes out-takes from the supposed first mission to the moon showing the crew staging the photography of being "halfway to the moon", conclusively proving that they never left earth orbit, as is still NASA's limit today 50 YEARS later.At least that is what Sibrel tells you to believe. Too bad he lies about it all. Most of the footage was broadcast live at the time, none was classified as he likes to say. The footage shows a small Earth that shows signs of rotation, current weather at the time, and it moves around in the window. all of that means they couldn't have been in low Earth orbit, they couldn't have used a circular window (clearly being filmed in a trapezoidal shaped window), they couldn't have used a cardboard cutout or a transparency. Sibrel has suggested all of those, moving from one to the other when shown to be incorrect.
,
At 21min 53 sec in this video a microphone accidentally records an astronaut privately discussing telephoning the CIA to have investigative journalist Bart Sibrel assassinated, something that would not be necessary if Sibrel's discovery of the fraud was not true.so sibrel doesn't have a sense of humor and you don't have any sense. It wasn't a private discussion nor an accident, the son said it in view of Sibrel to play on his paranoia. They knew Sibrel was a convicted stalker that did nothing but annoy astronauts and call them liars just for shock value. Interesting that Sibrel is trying to lie to spin it so he doesn't look as bad.
(https://i.postimg.cc/7YCfx9WM/MITCHELL-S-SON.jpg)
snip irrelevant quotes
What the notoriously corrupt United States federal government is claiming is to have sent men to the moon in 1969, on the VERY FIRST attemptNotice how it was Apollo 11?
50 YEARS later NASA can now only send astronautsA distance based upon the rockets and the like that they have.
I still don't know what you mean by a "direct sail." But, no, a fan blowing into a sail will not workTechnically with enough air being blown through the engine it can work, but it is horrible inefficient and much better to just point the turbine backwards.
What the notoriously corrupt United States federal government is claiming is to have sent men to the moon in 1969, on the VERY FIRST attempt, even though right here on earth Mt. Everest and the South Pole took NUMEROUS tries before success, allegedly accomplishing this amazing feat with 50 YEAR older technology (a cell phone has ONE MILLION times more computing power than ALL of NASA did in 1969), yet 50 YEARS later NASA can now only send astronauts ONE - THOUSANDTH the distance to the moon, even with 5 DECADES more advancements in rockets and computers."First Time" only if you ignore all the flights before Apollo 11 that tested everything except the final touchdown.
If Toyota claimed they made a car 50 YEARS ago that could travel 50,000 miles on one gallon of gasoline, yet today their best car can only go 50 miles per gallon, or ONE - THOUSANDTH the distance, would not the forgery of the previous claim be incredibly obvious? If it were not for people's pride and emotional attachment to the 50 YEAR OLD unrepeatable moon landing claim, also with only ONE - THOUSANDTH the distance capable 5 DECADES later, they would otherwise easily recognize this equally preposterous claim as the fraud that it sadly is.And that is totally irrelevant because everything in the Lunar was quite possible with the then-current technology.
The alleged moon landings are the only technological claim in the entire history of the world, such as the first automobile, airplane, or nuclear power, which was not far surpassed in capability 50 YEARS later, much less not even able to be duplicated by any nation on earth 50 YEARS later.The only reason that crewed missions stopped after Apollo is money, pure and simple,.
That is total garbage! What was lost were the production lines that did not belong to NASA in any case. The plans and even detailed drawings are still on record.
The supposed moon landings are also the only time in history that such claimed expensive technology was deliberately destroyed afterwards (175 BILLION DOLLARS worth), only done so to hide the evidence of the fraud.
Seeing how it is IMPOSSIBLE for technology to go BACKWARDS and today NASA can only send astronauts ONE - THOUSANDTH the distance to the moon as was claimed 50 YEARS ago on the VERY FIRST attempt with 5 DECADES OLDER technology, the only remaining conclusion is that the 1969 claim was a federal government lie. It is that simple and that corrupt.Total rubbish because your earlier claims are totally false. You stress "sending astronauts" yet completely ignore the uncrewed missions to the Sun, Mercury, Venus (including soft landings by Soviet craft), the Moon, Mars, all the other planets, past Pluto and some asteroids.
Award winning filmmaker Bart Sibrel (Sibrel.com) presents his highly acclaimed controversial documentary "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" which debuts newly discovered behind-the-scenes out-takes from the supposed first mission to the moon showing the crew staging the photography of being "halfway to the moon", conclusively proving that they never left earth orbit, as is still NASA's limit today 50 YEARS later.Hardly "an astronaut privately discussing telephoning the CIA" but his son asking a question - there is no discussion!
At 21min 53 sec in this video, a microphone accidentally records an astronaut privately discussing telephoning the CIA to have investigative journalist Bart Sibrel assassinated, something that would not be necessary if Sibrel's discovery of the fraud was not true.
Here is a video in which everything is explained.I see no evidence there that these ships you claim exist actually exist. They don't even show any pictures of them.
In general, as I understand it, there is full censorship of all published scientific developments.You understand wrong.
I still don't know what you mean by a "direct sail." But, no, a fan blowing into a sail will not work, because the fan produces a thrust in the opposite direction. That's what a propeller is: It creates forward lift and blows air out the back. If you have a fan, you point it backwards to push yourself forward, and you don't use a sail, because a sail would (partially) block the effect of the fan.
I still say you're just posting ridiculous things because you think it's funny. Which it is. I'd say the funny picture in your sig file is proof that you're being ridiculous on purpose.
Award winning filmmaker Bart Sibrel (Sibrel.com) presents his highly acclaimed controversial documentary "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" which debuts newly discovered behind-the-scenes out-takes from the supposed first mission to the moon showing the crew staging the photography of being "halfway to the moon", conclusively proving that they never left earth orbit, as is still NASA's limit today 50 YEARS later.At 22:38 in that video your show the following obviously "Photoshopped" image with the moon in the photo of Buzz Aldrin stepping down onto the lunar surface.
And I just noticed that you used another obviously Photoshopped image in that same video!
At 0:43 in your "EIFFEL TOWER PROOF odiupicku" you show this in the lower right corner:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/j0v58fzlrmhqhtj/Earth%20from%20Moon%2C%20odiupicku%20%235.jpg?dl=1)
Photoshopped "Earth from Moon", by odiupicku
Your daring to claim "I have demonstrated my honesty by admitting (every single time) that i was wrong whenever i noticed a mistake that i had made." is the joke of the week!
I have yet to see any apology or even a comment on your obvious deception.
NASA ID: 6900937And it was "Photoshopped" apparently by adding a bit on the left, including the earth, from the Apollo 8 "EarthRise - as08-14-2383".
Keywords: Apollo 11 Moon Landing, Astronaut Aldrin
Center: MSFC
Here is a video in which everything is explained.I see no evidence there that these ships you claim exist actually exist. They don't even show any pictures of them.In general, as I understand it, there is full censorship of all published scientific developments.You understand wrong.
If that was the case, you wouldn't be on the internet.
Award winning filmmaker Bart Sibrel (Sibrel.com) presents his highly acclaimed controversial documentary "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" which debuts newly discovered behind-the-scenes out-takes from the supposed first mission to the moon showing the crew staging the photography of being "halfway to the moon", conclusively proving that they never left earth orbit, as is still NASA's limit today 50 YEARS later.But!
Highly misleading (https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0446557/reviews)Apart from Bart Sibrel's dishonesty/incompetence (you decide!) note that he bases some of his evidence on the astronauts being in LEO but you, Mr Cikljamas, claim that "Rockets can't fly in a vacuum" so which is it?
Writer/Director Bart Sibrel bases his work here around a can of film that he says was mistakenly sent to him by NASA.
He says it shows the astronauts faking the television footage of their trip to the moon by employing camera tricks. The astronauts were in low Earth orbit all the time, and editors on the ground composed this raw footage into just a few seconds of finished film.
Unfortunately Sibrel's research is so slipshod that he doesn't realize his "backstage" footage is really taken in large part from the 30-minute live telecast (also on that reel) that was seen by millions, not hidden away in NASA vaults as he implies. And we have to wonder why Sibrel puts his own conspiratorial narration over the astronauts' audio in the footage, because hearing the astronauts in their own words clearly spells out that the astronauts were just testing the camera, not faking footage.
Finally, anyone can see the raw footage for themselves without having to buy Sibrel's hacked-up version of it. (He shows you more of the Zapruder film of JFK's assassination than of his "smoking gun".) Sibrel thinks he's the only one who's seen it. What's more revealing is the clips from that raw footage that Sibrel chose NOT to use, such as those clearly showing the appropriately distant Earth being eclipsed by the window frames and so forth, destroying his claim that mattes and transparencies were placed in the spacecraft windows to create the illusion of a faraway Earth.
As with most films of this type, Sibrel relies on innuendo, inexpert assumption, misleading commentary, and selective quotation to manipulate the viewer into accepting a conclusion for which there is not a shred of actual evidence.
I found video about more detailed an explanation. Look from 10th minute, there everything is explained at the level of physics.The physics isn't the big issue, history is.
Now, let's get back to my midget-soldier midget project.No let's not until you face up to your use of "Photoshopped" images in your own videos!
I found video about more detailed an explanation. Look from 10th minute, there everything is explained at the level of physics.The physics isn't the big issue, history is.
You need to show that these people had electric turbines.
I understand the physics of redirecting airflow, but that clearly wasn't what was happening on that boat.
That boat had a prop sail and an electric motor underwater.
Regardless, it still makes loads more sense to just use the turbine to push and to forget about the sail.
Now, two interesting questions for Rabinoz and Jack Black :
Q1 : Why would GAU-8 Recoil Flying Broom(stick) "fly" in a vacuum much better than a rocket, (at least IN PRICIPLE)???
Q2 : Why our midget soldier wouldn't manage to fly harnessing GAU-8 Avanger's Recoil Power, turning it into An Effective Flying Broom(stick), here on Earth???
If you asked yourself why i added (at the end of the first question) words in brackets ("at least IN PRINCIPLE"), then the following passage you can use as an explanation (that is to say : the following words will serve as an explanation as to why GAU-8 Avenger will "fly" better in a vacuum than a rocket ONLY IN PRINCIPLE, NOT IN PRACTICE) :
NASA denies that their rockets' propulsion has anything to do with any sort of interaction between their rockets' exhaust-thrust and air/atmosphere. Instead, they appeal to Newton's third law, saying that the exhausts of their rockets push on their own fuel/tank itself - and THAT is where and how the action/reaction occurs. They often compare this with the recoil of a bullet being fired by a shotgun. Of course, this is nonsense. A bullet has very little mass in comparison to a rifle and the man holding the rifle. For example, a bullet fired from an M16 rifle has approx 1763 Joules of kinetic energy as it leaves the muzzle, but the recoil energy exerted on the gun is less than 7 Joules. We may intuitively - and without resorting to complex equations - imagine that "recoil power" alone would not allow a given mass of rocket exhaust to lift a 100.000kg vessel from the ground - let alone propel it at supersonic speeds.
To attain the so-called escape velocity of 8km/s with "recoil power" only, this is what NASA's rockets would have to do: they'd have to shoot out from behind their rockets, all at once (like a bullet from a gun) a mass equal to the mass of the vessel itself - at a velocity of 8km/s. This means that, if this were to be the case (that rockets move due to "recoil action/reaction")- more than half of any rocket's fuel mass would have to be ejected at that speed - as illustrated in this diagram:
cikljamas you're wrong. Rockets calmly fly in space. Just like a ship with a direct sail!Define space!
I still don't know what you mean by a "direct sail."
A direct sail is a straight sail. And not oblique, as they do now. Here is a video in which everything is explained.
Now, let's get back to my midget-soldier midget project.You have already said all that and it still gets you no where.
Saying that in the experiment with a direct sail there was also an underwater screw ... Obviously too much.No, it is a rational conclusion based upon the evidence.
Now, two interesting questions for Rabinoz and Jack Black :I am waiting for your response to:
Now, let's get back to my midget-soldier midget project.No let's not until you face up to your use of "Photoshopped" images in your own videos!
Saying that in the experiment with a direct sail there was also an underwater screw ... Obviously too much.No, it is a rational conclusion based upon the evidence.
The way the sail of the toy boat moves and interacts with the wind makes it quite clear that it is not being propelled by that.
When it goes sideways from the wind the wind goes to blow it over, making it lean quite a bit sideways. Then when it goes into the wind the wind is clearly pushing the sails back.
There is also absolutely no indication of any fan or turbine on it.
So no thanks, I will accept the simple option.
I still don't know what you mean by a "direct sail."
A direct sail is a straight sail. And not oblique, as they do now. Here is a video in which everything is explained.
Thank you for defining "direct sail." I don't think that's what it's normally called in English, but no matter. I have not watched your video because, well, I have no interest in sitting through hours of nonsense video, but more importantly, because the image is in Russian, which I do not speak.
For the rest of it, you are making up such wild fantasy that you should be writing sci-fi for a living. If electric turbines and nuclear weapons had existed 500 years ago there would be abundant evidence of it, and there is not. The things you claim have been proven, have actually been thoroughly debunked, such as your claim of a nuclear explosion before the modern age of nuclear weapons. Your appeal to old histories is long discredited, being based on such vague references that they can easily be interpreted as meaning anything at all.
As Jack pointed out, if you have a turbine, you point it backwards for maximum thrust. You don't point it forward at a sail. Look at jet planes today: Turbine engines pointed toward the rear, to push the plane forward. Or look at a jet-ski: An underwater turbine pointed toward the rear to push the jet-ski forward.
Everything you write is complete and total nonsense.
But I give you credit for imagination, and if you ever publish a science fiction novel in English, post a link to it in the Kindle store and I will buy it. I think it would be really good.
Be honest what you need proofs still?Proof that the sailboat is actually being propelled by a fan when there is absolutely no indication of that, where a start would be taking the model out of the water to show it doesn't have a screw and placing something in front of the fan to see it get blown as the fan is turned on and off.
So after all - what benefit that that to deny everything? The logic does not work here.That's right. What benefit is there to deny how sailings ships actually worked, using the wind to push on them?
I still don't know what you mean by a "direct sail."
A direct sail is a straight sail. And not oblique, as they do now. Here is a video in which everything is explained.
Thank you for defining "direct sail." I don't think that's what it's normally called in English, but no matter. I have not watched your video because, well, I have no interest in sitting through hours of nonsense video, but more importantly, because the image is in Russian, which I do not speak.
For the rest of it, you are making up such wild fantasy that you should be writing sci-fi for a living. If electric turbines and nuclear weapons had existed 500 years ago there would be abundant evidence of it, and there is not. The things you claim have been proven, have actually been thoroughly debunked, such as your claim of a nuclear explosion before the modern age of nuclear weapons. Your appeal to old histories is long discredited, being based on such vague references that they can easily be interpreted as meaning anything at all.
As Jack pointed out, if you have a turbine, you point it backwards for maximum thrust. You don't point it forward at a sail. Look at jet planes today: Turbine engines pointed toward the rear, to push the plane forward. Or look at a jet-ski: An underwater turbine pointed toward the rear to push the jet-ski forward.
Everything you write is complete and total nonsense.
But I give you credit for imagination, and if you ever publish a science fiction novel in English, post a link to it in the Kindle store and I will buy it. I think it would be really good.
I will not be able to meet your desire. And what I opisovat has Etruscan roots. And everything is written on Old Russian - it is not translated into English at all. As it is written images, but not words.
At most that I can allow to read it in Russian. It is full history of people from creation of the world and to today. And it is a real story, but not a fantasy. Here you sort a complete nonsense, without thinking that the world not such. It is not a sphere and not the plane. You do not understand as everything is presented - without understanding work of the 5th measurement.
I still don't know what you mean by a "direct sail."
A direct sail is a straight sail. And not oblique, as they do now. Here is a video in which everything is explained.
Yeah ... the translator is buggy. I didn’t mean it at all. It is not written in Old Russian, namely, I write in Old Russian - something like this. C'mon, you still can’t understand even if I translate into English. If you can understand that geese are gray dogs that are pigs that climbed into the garden. Then I will let you read, and so you will only laugh.
Thank you for defining "direct sail." I don't think that's what it's normally called in English, but no matter. I have not watched your video because, well, I have no interest in sitting through hours of nonsense video, but more importantly, because the image is in Russian, which I do not speak.
For the rest of it, you are making up such wild fantasy that you should be writing sci-fi for a living. If electric turbines and nuclear weapons had existed 500 years ago there would be abundant evidence of it, and there is not. The things you claim have been proven, have actually been thoroughly debunked, such as your claim of a nuclear explosion before the modern age of nuclear weapons. Your appeal to old histories is long discredited, being based on such vague references that they can easily be interpreted as meaning anything at all.
As Jack pointed out, if you have a turbine, you point it backwards for maximum thrust. You don't point it forward at a sail. Look at jet planes today: Turbine engines pointed toward the rear, to push the plane forward. Or look at a jet-ski: An underwater turbine pointed toward the rear to push the jet-ski forward.
Everything you write is complete and total nonsense.
But I give you credit for imagination, and if you ever publish a science fiction novel in English, post a link to it in the Kindle store and I will buy it. I think it would be really good.
I will not be able to meet your desire. And what I opisovat has Etruscan roots. And everything is written on Old Russian - it is not translated into English at all. As it is written images, but not words.
At most that I can allow to read it in Russian. It is full history of people from creation of the world and to today. And it is a real story, but not a fantasy. Here you sort a complete nonsense, without thinking that the world not such. It is not a sphere and not the plane. You do not understand as everything is presented - without understanding work of the 5th measurement.
So you believe a supposed history of the entire world, from a mythological "creation" to the present, written in Old Russian? You're not going to convince anybody with arguments like that. And BTW, "opisovat" is not a word in English.
I do not understand what you are writing because it is such complete nonsense that there isn't even any meaning in half of what you write, and the other half is just plain wrong.
There are two problems here: 1. Your English is defective; and 2. Your ideas are defective. It is not always possible to be certain with any given statement whether you are trying to say something which is complete and utter nonsense, or whether your Russian-to-English translator is taking something sensible and turning it into gibberish. But I suspect that both are true: I think you are attempting to communicate complete and utter nonsense, and your translator is transforming that into gibberish.
There are two problems here: 1. Your English is defective; and 2. Your ideas are defective. It is not always possible to be certain with any given statement whether you are trying to say something which is complete and utter nonsense, or whether your Russian-to-English translator is taking something sensible and turning it into gibberish. But I suspect that both are true: I think you are attempting to communicate complete and utter nonsense, and your translator is transforming that into gibberish.
There are two problems here: 1. Your English is defective; and 2. Your ideas are defective. It is not always possible to be certain with any given statement whether you are trying to say something which is complete and utter nonsense, or whether your Russian-to-English translator is taking something sensible and turning it into gibberish. But I suspect that both are true: I think you are attempting to communicate complete and utter nonsense, and your translator is transforming that into gibberish.
Interesting your fellow flatties face your harsh criticism.
Yet you dont have the balls to share your own views as to why the earth is flat.
I think you're just upset because I don't fit into any of your simple categories. Flat-Earthers are "supposed" to deny science and you're angry that I don't.We have been over this before.
but not all flat-Earthers deny science, and not everyone who denies science is a flat-Earther.In order for them to not deny science, they would need to accept Earth is round.
a round-Earther who does not fit into the normal round-Earth categoryThere is no "normal" RE category.
There are two problems here: 1. Your English is defective; and 2. Your ideas are defective. It is not always possible to be certain with any given statement whether you are trying to say something which is complete and utter nonsense, or whether your Russian-to-English translator is taking something sensible and turning it into gibberish. But I suspect that both are true: I think you are attempting to communicate complete and utter nonsense, and your translator is transforming that into gibberish.
Well... Waved a hoof. Boats with a direct sail floating not on the rivers, and flying by air. Use the law of physics. The third law of Newton for open systems. And rockets fly under the same law... "At the heart of operation of rocket engines – the third law of Newton" So where I wandered from the subject? Just I give expanded information that you thought and not blindly Wikipedia trusted.
Interesting your fellow flatties face your harsh criticism.
Yet you dont have the balls to share your own views as to why the earth is flat.
Are we really going to go over all of that again? I've already told you I have no arguments. All the evidence seems to point to a round Earth and until that changes I have no arguments or "reasons" to offer. Heavenly Breeze promotes a position that I do have arguments against, so I offer them. Silk Pajamas, who, BTW, is a round-Earther, and not a flat-Earther, also promotes ideas that I can make cogent arguments against. And therein lies the difference.
Also, these two members are presenting views that have nothing whatsoever to do with the shape of the Earth. Ancient turbine-powered sailboats, I mean, whaaa? And pi being wrong as C/D? What do either of those things have to do with FET? Of course, that doesn't mean they shouldn't post. But it does mean that they are raising issues I am comfortable arguing about.
I cannot satisfy your demand for "reasons" because even if I thought your request was legitimate, I have no "reasons."
I think you're just upset because I don't fit into any of your simple categories. Flat-Earthers are "supposed" to deny science and you're angry that I don't. Again, please note that Silk Pajamas is a round-Earther who does not fit into the normal round-Earth category, since he denies much of science but believes the Earth is (roughly) a ball.
Trying to fit people into categories is a fool's errand. We're all individuals and we defy categorization. Many flat-Earthers deny science, but not all flat-Earthers deny science, and not everyone who denies science is a flat-Earther.
Well... Waved a hoof. Boats with a direct sail floating not on the rivers, and flying by air. Use the law of physics. The third law of Newton for open systems. And rockets fly under the same law... "At the heart of operation of rocket engines – the third law of Newton".In other words they are helicopters.
Well... Waved a hoof. Boats with a direct sail floating not on the rivers, and flying by air. Use the law of physics. The third law of Newton for open systems. And rockets fly under the same law... "At the heart of operation of rocket engines – the third law of Newton".In other words they are helicopters.
I'm not going to go through 15 pages right now, but since cikljamas used to regularly derail his own derails, has his classic "zigzag" bs come up yet?Not yet but it might not fit with his current Geocentric Globe Hypothesis, probably following Tycho Brahe's modified Geocentric Solar System.
Boats with a direct sail floating not on the rivers, and flying by air.The closest you get to that is a glider.
Use the law of physics.Yes, try using them, they don't support what you claim.
I'm not going to go through 15 pages right now, but since cikljamas used to regularly derail his own derails, has his classic "zigzag" bs come up yet?
If Space is orbiting Earth then we calculate relative to Earth:
Sun moves (2*Pi*149.6e6)/24 = 39 165 188.4 km/h
Moon moves (2*Pi*384 400)/24 - 3679.5 = 96 956.2 km/h
Now:
Closer observer: Sun ARCTAN(39165188.4 / 1496e6) = 14.67 degrees per hour ; Moon ARCTAN(96956.2 / 381800) = 14.245 degrees per hour ; difference 0.425
Farther observer: Sun ARCTAN(39165188.4 / 1496e6) = 14.67 degrees per hour ; Moon ARCTAN(96956.2 / 387000) = 14.065 degrees per hour ; difference 0.605
Angular speed difference between observers 0.18 degrees per hour.
If Earth is orbiting Sun, then we calculate relative to Sun:
Earth moves (2*Pi*149.6e6)/(365.25*24) = 107 232.5 km/h
Moon moves 107 232.5 ± (2*Pi*384 400)/(27.35*24) = 107 232.5 ± 3679.5 km/h
During solar eclipse it is minus, so we have 97 553 km/h.
Two observers in polar circle, one at closer end and another at farther end will travel 107 232.5 ± (2*Pi*2600)/24 = 107 232.5 ± 681 km/h
Closer observer 106 551.5 km/h, farther observer 107 913.5 km/h.
Now:
Closer observer: 106 551.5 - 97 553 = 8998.5 km/h ; ARCTAN(8998.5/381800) = 1.35 degrees per hour.
Farther observer: 107 913.5 - 97 553 = 10 360.5 km/h ; ARCTAN(10360.5/387000) = 1.53 degrees per hour
Angular speed difference between observers 0.18 degrees per hour.
There are two problems here: 1. Your English is defective; and 2. Your ideas are defective. It is not always possible to be certain with any given statement whether you are trying to say something which is complete and utter nonsense, or whether your Russian-to-English translator is taking something sensible and turning it into gibberish. But I suspect that both are true: I think you are attempting to communicate complete and utter nonsense, and your translator is transforming that into gibberish.(https://media.giphy.com/media/9VcFYpZcXExTu0EBMD/giphy.gif)
Hey Silhouette, what's up? Don't be lazy, if you chose to go through 15 pages of this thread you could learn something useful...Only that you have no rational response to the very real fact that rockets do work in a vacuum.
Now, let's see once more how your friend Macarios responded to my ZIGZAG argument :Let's not. It has already been covered in plenty of other threads, with you completley unable to justify it and instead repeating the same mistakes again and again.
Hey Silhouette, what's up? Don't be lazy, if you chose to go through 15 pages of this thread you could learn something useful...Only that you have no rational response to the very real fact that rockets do work in a vacuum.
Unless you have an actual answer to my question?
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?
The zig-zag argument, when done honestly and correctly, only indicates that the celestial objects are far away.
It tells you nothing about which is moving as all that matters is the relative motion which is the same regardless of if Earth is stationary with the moon orbiting, the Earth is rotating with the moon stationary, or the Earth is rotating with the moon orbiting.
I showed mathematically that the 2 situations are equivalent and you had no response.
<< I can't be bothered wasting time playing tin-soldiers with one who use fake photos in videos! >>Except that your "intuitively - and without resorting to complex equations" explanation is total crap! The "kinetic energy" of the bullet has nothing to do with the case!
NASA denies that their rockets' propulsion has anything to do with any sort of interaction between their rockets' exhaust-thrust and air/atmosphere. Instead, they appeal to Newton's third law, saying that the exhausts of their rockets push on their own fuel/tank itself - and THAT is where and how the action/reaction occurs. They often compare this with the recoil of a bullet being fired by a shotgun. Of course, this is nonsense. A bullet has very little mass in comparison to a rifle and the man holding the rifle. For example, a bullet fired from an M16 rifle has approx 1763 Joules of kinetic energy as it leaves the muzzle, but the recoil energy exerted on the gun is less than 7 Joules. We may intuitively - and without resorting to complex equations -
imagine that "recoil power" alone would not allow a given mass of rocket exhaust to lift a 100.000kg vessel from the ground - let alone propel it at supersonic speeds.What on earth are you raving on about? You "recoil power" has nothing to do with the case.
To attain the so-called escape velocity of 8km/s with "recoil power" only, this is what NASA's rockets would have to do: they'd have to shoot out from behind their rockets, all at once (like a bullet from a gun) a mass equal to the mass of the vessel itself - at a velocity of 8km/s. This means that, if this were to be the case (that rockets move due to "recoil action/reaction")- more than half of any rocket's fuel mass would have to be ejected at that speed - as illustrated in this diagram:What are your Mass A and Mass B?
(https://i.postimg.cc/j5QkT9Rn/NEWTON-NASA-1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/g04ZPqfk/NEWTON-NASA-2.jpg)
Haven't you noticed this reply : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2192572#msg2192572
my response to you and to Macarios is right before your long nose Pinocchio!!!Calling me a liar wont help your case.
Should i point out AGAIN why yours math is wrong (invalid in relation to reality) :Go ahead, go back to the thread where I provided the math based upon the angles to show that they would be identical.
When we change your numberI didn't use numbers.
And you have to change that number 681 km with 434 km because using the second number (434 km) is geometrically CORRECT choice, and using the first number (681 km) is geometrically WRONG choice which renders your math INVALID!!!Who cares about your silly "Zig-zag argument"?
Now, two interesting questions for Rabinoz and Jack Black :
Q1 : Why would GAU-8 Recoil Flying Broom(stick) "fly" in a vacuum much better than a rocket, (at least IN PRICIPLE)???
Q2 : Why our midget soldier wouldn't manage to fly harnessing GAU-8 Avanger's Recoil Power, turning it into An Effective Flying Broom(stick), here on Earth???
If you asked yourself why i added (at the end of the first question) words in brackets ("at least IN PRINCIPLE"), then the following passage you can use as an explanation (that is to say : the following words will serve as an explanation as to why GAU-8 Avenger will "fly" better in a vacuum than a rocket ONLY IN PRINCIPLE, NOT IN PRACTICE) :
NASA denies that their rockets' propulsion has anything to do with any sort of interaction between their rockets' exhaust-thrust and air/atmosphere. Instead, they appeal to Newton's third law, saying that the exhausts of their rockets push on their own fuel/tank itself - and THAT is where and how the action/reaction occurs. They often compare this with the recoil of a bullet being fired by a shotgun. Of course, this is nonsense. A bullet has very little mass in comparison to a rifle and the man holding the rifle. For example, a bullet fired from an M16 rifle has approx 1763 Joules of kinetic energy as it leaves the muzzle, but the recoil energy exerted on the gun is less than 7 Joules. We may intuitively - and without resorting to complex equations - imagine that "recoil power" alone would not allow a given mass of rocket exhaust to lift a 100.000kg vessel from the ground - let alone propel it at supersonic speeds.
To attain the so-called escape velocity of 8km/s with "recoil power" only, this is what NASA's rockets would have to do: they'd have to shoot out from behind their rockets, all at once (like a bullet from a gun) a mass equal to the mass of the vessel itself - at a velocity of 8km/s. This means that, if this were to be the case (that rockets move due to "recoil action/reaction")- more than half of any rocket's fuel mass would have to be ejected at that speed - as illustrated in this diagram:
(https://i.postimg.cc/j5QkT9Rn/NEWTON-NASA-1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/g04ZPqfk/NEWTON-NASA-2.jpg)
On the other hand, if you are trying to prove that there is no recoil (?),
then you are trying to say that rockets "don't work in the atmosphere either".
And that will be a little harder to prove, since we all saw those firework rockets in action.
On Earth, shooting something causes friction with the thing being shot. Least of all, air all around us. The shooter will be effected by the action of shooting. However, in a vacuum, there being no friction with anything, shooting something just wastes that thing and sends it soaring uselessly into the void.
But if that's true, then you're saying a gun (by a magic gunman and gun that can exist and fire in a perfect vacuum) would not be pushed back by the bullet, it would just eject the bullet without an effect on the gun or the arm of the gunman? Simply because of a lack of air pressure and friction and so on?
So there is no jet propulsion that would work because any explosive reaction that could even occur in space would be wasted in it completely.
I think I see what you mean. To try to put this in unnecessarily simple layman's terms: because the vacuum is just complete void, it can freely take on just about an infinite amount of anything, at any rate, without actually anything significant happening. Hence, we hold on to the idea that mass exiting a craft into a vacuum would actually cause any motion in the craft only because we are used to such behavior in a non-vacuum.
On the other hand, if you are trying to prove that there is no recoil (?),
then you are trying to say that rockets "don't work in the atmosphere either".
And that will be a little harder to prove, since we all saw those firework rockets in action.
Heavenly Breeze, I take it, you're either a brony or a pegasister. That's totally ok if you are. Each to their own!It's round, how did luna get banished to the moon if the earth was flat?
But, in the cartoon, "My Little Pony", is the world a flat world where helicopters and sailboats are indistinguishable? I don't know, as I don't think I've seen the cartoon.
Recoil force explanation for how rockets fly (in a vacuum) is UTTER NONSENSE AND ANOTHER NASA'S CON OF GIGANTIC PROPORTIONS, and i have proven my point regarding this issue beyond reasonable doubt.No you haven't.
The best indication of validity of my numerous arguments (presented throughout this whole thread) is your inability to respond sanely and DIRECTLY to any of my argumentsYou mean like how you have repeatedly failed to answer a very simple question and instead just brought up pile after pile of nonsense?
1. Free expansion argument + Thermodynamics :Does not apply.
The problem with applying Newton’s 3rd is that the rocket’s propellant does not generate force in a vacuum according to the laws of physics and chemistry.That is a blatant lie.
If the pressure of a system is 0Good job showing you don't understand how expansion works.
Escape velocity problemIs once again, NOT A PROBLEM!
Disregarding any and all applications which any space agency claims to use, how would you describe this image if you had to put it into a sentence?There is no need to ask that.
3. DON'T YOU SEE AN ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM :Yes, you repeatedly lying and avoiding very simple questions.
4. Since JackBlack was unable to answer this question, maybe you will give it a try :No, I am quite able to do so, and have already addressed that, in the relevant thread.
<< I can't be bothered wasting time playing tin-soldiers with one who use fake photos in videos! >>Except that your "intuitively - and without resorting to complex equations" explanation is total crap! The "kinetic energy" of the bullet has nothing to do with the case!
NASA denies that their rockets' propulsion has anything to do with any sort of interaction between their rockets' exhaust-thrust and air/atmosphere. Instead, they appeal to Newton's third law, saying that the exhausts of their rockets push on their own fuel/tank itself - and THAT is where and how the action/reaction occurs. They often compare this with the recoil of a bullet being fired by a shotgun. Of course, this is nonsense. A bullet has very little mass in comparison to a rifle and the man holding the rifle. For example, a bullet fired from an M16 rifle has approx 1763 Joules of kinetic energy as it leaves the muzzle, but the recoil energy exerted on the gun is less than 7 Joules. We may intuitively - and without resorting to complex equations -
To attain the so-called escape velocity of 8km/s with "recoil power" only, this is what NASA's rockets would have to do: they'd have to shoot out from behind their rockets, all at once (like a bullet from a gun) a mass equal to the mass of the vessel itself - at a velocity of 8km/s.No! The escape velocity from Earth is about 11.186 km/s NOT your 8km/s but the orbital velocity at 200 km is 7784 m/s - close to your figure.
This means that, if this were to be the case (that rockets move due to "recoil action/reaction")- more than half of any rocket's fuel mass would have to be ejected at that speed - as illustrated in this diagram:What are your Mass A and Mass B?
(https://i.postimg.cc/g04ZPqfk/NEWTON-NASA-2.jpg)
Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, classical rocket equation, or ideal rocket equation (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation)So here you want to achieve a (https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/28563b5d468baab12a7d33b49cac197c2c1ed885) of 7784 + 2600 = 10,384 m/s.
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/f7b5f1134cca290884b493ab8b676936e0d995b3)
where:
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/28563b5d468baab12a7d33b49cac197c2c1ed885) is delta-v – the maximum change of velocity of the vehicle (with no external forces acting).
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/3a6ff51ee949104fe6fae553cfbdfba29d5fac1e) is the initial total mass, including propellant, also known as wet mass.
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/a6b1ed1cca247d7fbe5a237f3c266a4e13850185) is the final total mass without propellant, also known as dry mass.
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/d47f9dd1e1d977eae9f5a42c3bd89b05d884d74a) is the effective exhaust velocity, where:
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/70c0212f1850950d08b956f2162d6ee289e1de2b) is the specific impulse in dimension of time.
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/32d13273b9af4564fa2c421c96d039c414db8628) is standard gravity.
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/c0de5ba4f372ede555d00035e70c50ed0b9625d0) is the natural logarithm function.
(https://i.imgur.com/WmwN1tj.png)
Disregarding any and all applications which any space agency claims to use, how would you describe this image if you had to put it into a sentence?
One way to phrase it is that the object needs to go straight up, or away from the earth, at 7 miles per second. It is simply what needs to be done..
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/btroyd2ohfsktq3/CalcTool%20Escape%20velocity%20Calculator.jpg?dl=1)Read again,
From: CalcTool: Escape velocity Calculator (http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/astronomy/escape_velocity)
The escape velocity does not have to be directly away from centre of the earth. It can and usually is a tangential velocity.
And "Note that a powered object may escape the gravity of a body at any velocity desired."
For this thread you need to answer a very simple question (or 2 if you also want to cling to the nonsense of escape velocity):@Jack, if you want to answer your "clever" questions, why don't you answer them yourself?
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?
What do you think would happen to an object at 400 km altitude which was initially travelling at a velocity of 1000 km/s, initially in a direction perpendicular to "down"?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .There's no news in that!
Indeed, folks: we are living on the bottom of a huge ocean of air - and that is something we all tend to forget. Imagine that: "10 tons on an area of 1m²". Pretty heavy stuff, huh? Draw a big breath of air and you'll feel it! Of course, this air surrounding us (our atmosphere) has a certain density. And so has, for instance, water.
And so has vacuum.Yes, we know all that!
So let's take a look at this table, at present. I have highlighted in blue the densities which are of interest to us right now:To "save space" I deleted the irrelevant bits.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/t7au74irvi7haqi/cikljamas%20-%20DENSITY-TABLE%20-%20Top.jpg?dl=1)
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/6h409o9r4xl44d0/cikljamas%20-%20DENSITY-TABLE%20-%20lower.jpg?dl=1)
As you can readily see, the two densities that NASA's rockets supposedly traverse as they rise up to the skies are hugely different.Really? Different by a whole 1.225 kg/m3 ;D. That doesn't sound so hugely different to me ;D!
<< Irrelevant so deleted! >>But NASA does not say that a rocket starts to lose thrust as they ascend into ever thinner air. They are your words!
Now, remember: NASA tells us that their rockets perform below max efficiency at sea level, at optimal efficiency somewhat higher in the atmosphere (as the rocket pressure equalizes with the external air pressure) and then start losing efficiency again as they ascend into ever thinner air.
Note: NASA says so - not me. http://www.septclues.com/SPACE_STATION/RocketExpansionDiagram1.jpg
But the BIG question is: just HOW MUCH power would a rocket lose as it enters into near-vacuum?Yes, the BIG question is: just HOW MUCH thrust would a rocket lose as it enters into near-vacuum. And the asswer is NONE!
Well, consider this: no honest scientists will deny that, when opening a valve between two containers (one containing air at high pressure - and the other only vacuum) the pressures in the two containers will equalize in a fraction of a second, the vacuum container 'sucking'If course "honest scientists will deny . . . will deny" such a claim! A vacuum does not " 'suck' the air to itself with tremendous, almost explosive force."(see the above density figures to understand why.)
Imagine now the high pressure emitted by any rocket from its (always open) nozzle.There is no "overwhelmingly superior power of the vacuum itself"! That's just rubbish dreamed up by your ignorance.As it enters the vacuum of outer space, the very same - almost explosively rapid - pressure equalization is bound to occur. The rocket will be emptied of all of its pressurized fuel in a flash - by the overwhelmingly superior power of the vacuum itself. No matter how powerful the rocket (propelled by any fuel known to man / and designed to perform in our 0,001 atmosphere) - the very laws of physics will not allow it to ascend any further into the void of space. It will haplessly tumble back to Earth.<< Incorrect as noted above. >>
This insurmountable 'little problem' may have been understood back in the heydays of early rocket research - thus paving the way for the ridiculous NASA circus and its clowns to take over and --explore- exploit outer space ... financially.There was no "insurmountable 'little problem' . . . . . back in the heydays of early rocket research" - that's all in your mind.
@Jack, if you want to answer your "clever" questions, why don't you answer them yourself?I already have.
1. Here are my two cents about rocket propulsion - a line of reasoning using NASA's own data.You mean a baseless extrapolation into fantasy with absolutely nothing to back it up.
I would like to see a man made object that flies at that speed...lolAgain you avoid a very simple question.
So, Jack what do you think would happen to an object at 400 km altitude which was initially travelling at a velocity of 1000 km/s, initially in a direction perpendicular to "down"?That is quite simple.
Jack, Rabinoz, and co., all you have to do is to put Tom Bishop's argument (Escape Velocity a.k.a. Flight Direction : Strictly Away from the center of the Earth) in this particular perspective :Rubbish! Your "particular perspective" is totally ludicrous as i show below,Quote from: cikljamasDANSITY TABLE :I am not answering all that in one go but first the total misoperation in you "density table". But why on earth do you use those funny cgs units and not SI units?
(https://i.postimg.cc/q795wjY5/DENSITY-TABLE.jpg)
As you can readily see, the two densities that NASA's rockets supposedly traverse as they rise up to the skies are hugely different.
(Just to put all this into perspective, on the other side of the spectrum we see that a "black hole" - considered by scientists as the highest imaginable pressure known to mankind - is 10 ^+27. In other words, one could say that the density gap/difference between VACUUM <vs> AIR is almost as large as the difference between WATER <vs> "BLACK HOLES". Food for thought, anyway.)
First of all your "density gap/difference between VACUUM <vs> AIR is almost as large as the difference between WATER <vs> BLACK HOLES" is total garbage!
"Density differences" are quite irrelevant anyway. It is only "pressure differences" that matter though for gasses they are related.
And it appears that you missed out on arithmetic in school because the difference between two numbers say A and B is A - B and NOT A/B.
It appears that you do not know even the simplest rules of arithmetic!
So the difference between (air density) and the (density of free space) is simply only 10-3 - 10-24 = 10-3 gm/cm3.
As far as a rocket's performance goes or the stresses involved in pressurising a crew habitat is make little difference if the pressure outside is one hundredth or one trillionth of normal atmospheric pressure.
And it makes you claim "In other words, one could say that the density gap/difference between VACUUM <vs> AIR is almost as large as the difference between WATER <vs> "BLACK HOLES". Food for thought, anyway.)" totally ludicrous!
But the density gap/difference between AIR vs VACUUM is just 1 while the density gap/difference between "BLACK HOLES" vs WATER is 1027 - not in the same "ball-park"!.
That doesn't have the emotional impact of your ridiculous and meaningless 1060, does it?
But you talk of densities rather misses the point! It is external pressure differences that slightly affect the thrust.
LO AND BEHOLD :Make it: When you subtract 0,00000000000000001 from 1, you get 0,99999999999999999...Jack, Rabinoz, and co., all you have to do is to put Tom Bishop's argument (Escape Velocity a.k.a. Flight Direction : Strictly Away from the center of the Earth) in this particular perspective :Rubbish! Your "particular perspective" is totally ludicrous as i show below,Quote from: cikljamasDANSITY TABLE :I am not answering all that in one go but first the total misoperation in you "density table". But why on earth do you use those funny cgs units and not SI units?
(https://i.postimg.cc/q795wjY5/DENSITY-TABLE.jpg)
As you can readily see, the two densities that NASA's rockets supposedly traverse as they rise up to the skies are hugely different.
(Just to put all this into perspective, on the other side of the spectrum we see that a "black hole" - considered by scientists as the highest imaginable pressure known to mankind - is 10 ^+27. In other words, one could say that the density gap/difference between VACUUM <vs> AIR is almost as large as the difference between WATER <vs> "BLACK HOLES". Food for thought, anyway.)
First of all your "density gap/difference between VACUUM <vs> AIR is almost as large as the difference between WATER <vs> BLACK HOLES" is total garbage!
"Density differences" are quite irrelevant anyway. It is only "pressure differences" that matter though for gasses they are related.
And it appears that you missed out on arithmetic in school because the difference between two numbers say A and B is A - B and NOT A/B.
It appears that you do not know even the simplest rules of arithmetic!
So the difference between (air density) and the (density of free space) is simply only 10-3 - 10-24 = 10-3 gm/cm3.
As far as a rocket's performance goes or the stresses involved in pressurising a crew habitat is make little difference if the pressure outside is one hundredth or one trillionth of normal atmospheric pressure.
And it makes you claim "In other words, one could say that the density gap/difference between VACUUM <vs> AIR is almost as large as the difference between WATER <vs> "BLACK HOLES". Food for thought, anyway.)" totally ludicrous!
But the density gap/difference between AIR vs VACUUM is just 1 while the density gap/difference between "BLACK HOLES" vs WATER is 1027 - not in the same "ball-park"!.
That doesn't have the emotional impact of your ridiculous and meaningless 1060, does it?
But you talk of densities rather misses the point! It is external pressure differences that slightly affect the thrust.
So, what our great mathematician Rabinoz is actually saying is this :
When you subtract 0,0001 from 1, you get 0,9999...Now, since 0,9999 is practically 1, then the difference between 0,0001 and 1 is 1, not 10000!!!
In an example above, according to our Einstein (Rabinoz) the difference between 10^-3 and 10^-24 is 10^-3 because we have to subtract 10^-24 from 10^-3 in order to get the difference...Exactly!
The difference (in literal meaning of this word "the difference") is 10^-3, indeed, but the real question is whether we are interested here in a literal meaning of the word "difference" or are we interested in "for how much (times) one of our numbers (10^-3) is greater than another number (10^-24)?"In this case, we really are interested in the literal meaning of this word "the difference" because the pressure difference is the cause of any forces involved and on the rocket engines performance.
So, the real difference between our two numbers (between density of air and density of vacuum) is 10^21 a.k.a. sextillion a.k.a order of magnitude 21.No, that it the ratio of the two numbers and that is of no importance in this context at all!
NASA is no match to our Einstein (Rabinoz)!!!I see nowhere that I would be on conflict with either NASA or Einstein on a matter like this.
.....and NASA would have experts that would know far more than I on any of this.Now don’t falsely downgrade your own expertise.
On the other hand, if you are trying to prove that there is no recoil (?),
then you are trying to say that rockets "don't work in the atmosphere either".
And that will be a little harder to prove, since we all saw those firework rockets in action.
Recoil force explanation for how rockets fly (in a vacuum) is UTTER NONSENSE AND ANOTHER NASA'S CON OF GIGANTIC PROPORTIONS, and i have proven my point regarding this issue beyond reasonable doubt. The best indication of validity of my numerous arguments (presented throughout this whole thread) is your inability to respond sanely and DIRECTLY to any of my arguments...Let's list a few of them here :
1. Free expansion argument + Thermodynamics :
In memory and honor of Bill Kaysing (or perhaps we'd better just say in honor of good sense) let's present the science here that shames the Wernher von Brauns of our world into coughing up the truth: their rocket programs are full of hot air. - hp]
After seeing the evidence of fakery in NASA pictures and videos in this forum I decided to investigate the theoretical basis of rockets in space. What I found on the Internet were mainly tricks, frauds and sleights of hand, name-calling and attacks used to confuse the issue and hide the facts. Bypassing all of that and doing original research I have come to the conclusion that rockets cannot function in space according the descriptions/formulas used by NASA and related parties.
With neither theory on its side nor reliable, verifiable, repeatable scientific experiments on its side the idea of rocket thrust in my estimation remains a fiction presented to the world as an achievement: a modern day Marco Polo story.
I will try to present my findings with a minimum of math and formulae as these are often used to drawn us into traps, causing us to argue the minutiae of red herrings or chase ghosts. These ruses remind me of the joke about on which side of the barn roof the rooster’s egg will fall. How often do people forget that rooster’s don’t lay eggs?
There are 4 major ideas on presented on the Internet, including NASA web sites, as to how rockets generate thrust in space
1. Newton’s 3rd Law : for every force there is an equal and opposite
2. Newtons’s 2nd Law : Force = Mass x Acceleration
3. Conservation of Momentum
4. The use of a specialized nozzle to accelerate the gas inside the ship, concentrate and aim the gas jet
I will address each of these issues showing why they are invalid. In addition I will review the results (and lack thereof) of the founders of space rocketry Hermann Oberth (who designed most of the rocket science for the Fritz Lang film Woman in the Moon), Goddard, who was the first to claim an experimental result proving vacuum thrust and Clarke, a champion of Newton’s 3rd law.
There’s obviously too much to cover in one post so I’ll start by addressing the most popular response to those who question how rockets operate in the vacuum of space: Newton’s 3rd Law, that is to say that a rocket when it exhausts propellant will be pushed in the opposite direction.
The problem with applying Newton’s 3rd is that the rocket’s propellant does not generate force in a vacuum according to the laws of physics and chemistry. If the force of the propellant is 0 then Newton’s 3rd states that
Force on Rocket=-Force of Gas.
If Force of Gas = 0 the rocket does not move.
Why doesn’t the propellant generate any force, it's expanding, right?
There is something known as “Free Expansion” or the “Joule-Thomson” effect, named after James Prescott Joule and J.J. Thompson two of the founders of the field of Physical Chemistry.
http://www.etomica.org/app/modules/sites/JouleThomson/Background2.html
Free Expansion states that when a pressurized gas is exposed to a vacuum the gas expanding into the vacuum without any work being done. The gas is not “pulled” or “sucked” into the vacuum nor is it “pushed” out of the high-pressure container. In other words no work is done, no heat or energy is lost.
This result has been experimentally verified numerous times since its discovery in the 1850’s.
[for example a paper in the Journal of Physical Chemistry from 1902: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/j150043a002]
As if Free Expansion wasn’t enough to invalidate the theory of rockets producing a force in a vacuum there is also a result from thermodynamics:
Work = Pressure x Change_in_Volume
that is easily found searching for “W=PV”
http://lsc.ucdavis.edu/~ahart/Alicia2B/Thermo.pdf
If the pressure of a system is 0 then the work done by the expanding gas into that system is 0. Gas expanding in a vacuum doing no work agrees with Free Expansion. This can also be understood as the gas meets no resistance as it exits into the vacuum and thus transfers neither heat nor energy to its surroundings. If the gas loses neither heat nor energy then it has done no work.
At this point we have a rocket with high-pressure gas generated from liquid fuel that can release the gas into a vacuum but has no way to produce a force while doing so. As soon as the nozzle is opened the gasses escape without doing any work. Therefore the 3rd Law is rendered useless.
As it turns out NASA does not fall into the 3rd Law trap (nor does it go around correcting all the sites who do) instead claiming that thrust of a space rocket is generated using what I call The Wrong Formula, an egregious farce of Newton's 2nd law which I will address in a later next post.
To recap: Newton’s 3rd Law, the number one response on the Internet to how a rocket generates thrust in space, is invalid in this context. NASA itself avoids using Newton’s 3rd Law as the reason why their rockets work so well in space choosing to use Newton’s 2nd Law instead. I will show in a later post why NASA’s use the 2nd Law is equally invalid and in fact a hideous misrepresentation of the laws of physics that would give a freshman college student a failing grade yet earns NASA an "A" thanks to its pretty pictures, dramatic story lines, and gutsy champions, the astronauts.[/i]
A COMMON OBJECTION :QuoteOn Earth, shooting something causes friction with the thing being shot. Least of all, air all around us. The shooter will be effected by the action of shooting. However, in a vacuum, there being no friction with anything, shooting something just wastes that thing and sends it soaring uselessly into the void.
But if that's true, then you're saying a gun (by a magic gunman and gun that can exist and fire in a perfect vacuum) would not be pushed back by the bullet, it would just eject the bullet without an effect on the gun or the arm of the gunman? Simply because of a lack of air pressure and friction and so on?
So there is no jet propulsion that would work because any explosive reaction that could even occur in space would be wasted in it completely.
THE PROPER ANSWER TO OBJECTION ABOVE :
Short answer: Yes a gun recoils in space. No, the analogy does not apply to rockets.
Longer version: Shooting a gun in space would happen theoretically as follows: pressurized gas accelerates the bullet through the barrel until the bullet leaves the muzzle. At that point the gas that was pushing the bullet escapes without doing any more work i.e. via free expansion. The energy of the bullet (its momentum) travels with the bullet and the gun recoils by principle of conservation of momentum.
The gun analogy does not apply to a NASA-type space rocket as their pressurized gas escapes without doing any work at all. A NASA rocket is a gun without a bullet.
AN EXCERPT FROM ONE OTHER COMMENT POSTED WITHIN THE SAME THREAD :QuoteI think I see what you mean. To try to put this in unnecessarily simple layman's terms: because the vacuum is just complete void, it can freely take on just about an infinite amount of anything, at any rate, without actually anything significant happening. Hence, we hold on to the idea that mass exiting a craft into a vacuum would actually cause any motion in the craft only because we are used to such behavior in a non-vacuum.
THE RESPOND TO THE COMMENT ABOVE :
You are correct, in addition to the gas leaving the ship for "free" (doing no work, exerting no force) the change in the mass of the rocket due to the escaped gas has nothing to do with rocket propulsion. In order for "lost mass" to exert force the ship MUST be accelerating. The formula is:
Force = Mass x Acceleration
If Acceleration is 0 then force is 0 no matter what the mass or how it is changes over time.
Put another way, if the force of the gas (force = 0) exiting the ship didn't cause the ship to move (the ship isn't accelerating) due to free expansion then looking at the problem from the perspective of the mass of the gas leaving the ship won't magically cause the ship to move all of a sudden.
NASA tries to pull this nonsense as well as some other ridiculous fake science stunts to make it seem like their rockets have a chance to function in a vacuum.
2. Escape velocity problem :
So, how many more times are you going to put forward this kind of stupid questions : why is that problem, so what is the importance of this, what is the importance of that? What a funny parrots you are...
Rabinoz, what is the importance of this :
Tom Bishop says :
It clearly says the following on NASA's website.
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s1ch2.htm
"The crew checked out the spacecraft, and, after approximately three hours in Earth orbit, the Saturn IV-B stage was fired for approximately five minutes to accelerate the spacecraft to an Earth-gravity escape velocity of 40 233 km/hr (25 000 mph) to begin its 370 149 km (230 000 mile) coast to the moon. Following the translunar injection maneuver, the Apollo spacecraft was separated from the Saturn IV-B stage."
https://images.nasa.gov/details-0100983.html
"The S-IVB restarted to speed the Apollo spacecraft to escape velocity injecting it and the astronauts into a moon trajectory."
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/50-years-ago-the-journey-to-the-moon-begins
"Two hours and 44 minutes after liftoff, the third stage engine ignited for the six-minute TLI burn, increasing the spacecraft’s velocity to more than 24,000 miles per hour, enough to escape Earth’s gravity."
Apollo 15 Flight Journal https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap15fj/03tde.html
The stack is 40 metres long and 6.6 metres at its widest, weighing over 65 metric tonnes; not an insubstantial load to have propelled away from Earth at escape velocity.
Popular mechanics:
Instead, the remaining structure continued to orbit Earth until a "go/no-go" decision was made by Mission Control in Houston. At that time, the third-stage rocket, technically known as an S-IVB, reignited and achieved "translunar injection." Once escape velocity, the speed needed to overcome Earth's gravity, or 24,500 mph, was achieved, the S-IVB was discarded as well.
...
They are clearly claiming to reach escape velocity of the Earth's gravity to inject into a trans lunar orbit. In order to reach escape velocity, it must be done in relation to the center of the earth.
Escape Velocity has only to do with the speed away from the center of the earth, not any particular method of application.
It is just how we are taught about Escape Velocity. Look at this page from Georgia State:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vesc.html
(https://i.imgur.com/WmwN1tj.png)
Disregarding any and all applications which any space agency claims to use, how would you describe this image if you had to put it into a sentence?
One way to phrase it is that the object needs to go straight up, or away from the earth, at 7 miles per second. It is simply what needs to be done. A description of Escape Velocity as commonly taught and nothing more. I can change the "straight up" in the sentence to "away from the earth" if it makes it more clear.
3. DON'T YOU SEE AN ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM :
There is a synergy (combined deadly effects (inconsistencies)) of three HUGE problems here :
1. Contrary to known rocket's trajectories, they need to end up going seven miles per second away from the center of gravity (center of gravity = center of the earth)!
2. As the rocket climbs ever higher, it will have to exponentially increase its output/thrust (and, of course, its fuel consumption), in order to keep going - and combating the pull of gravity which, contrary to public belief, does NOT decrease exponentially with altitude.
3. To attain the so-called escape velocity of 8km/s with "recoil power" only, this is what NASA's rockets would have to do: they'd have to shoot out from behind their rockets, all at once (like a bullet from a gun) a mass equal to the mass of the vessel itself - at a velocity of 8km/s. This means that, if this were to be the case (that rockets move due to "recoil action/reaction")- more than half of any rocket's fuel mass would have to be ejected at that speed.
[...]
I can't decide whether you actually believe that rockets don't work in a vacuum, or whether this is just fun for you.
...
[...]
I can't decide whether you actually believe that rockets don't work in a vacuum, or whether this is just fun for you.
...
I think he's punking us. He doesn't actually believe anything he says. It isn't possible for anyone who isn't completely divorced from reality to believe that stuff. So it's his idea of a joke, and we've all fallen for it, arguing as if he could be persuaded to drop the act.
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.Psalm 19:1
LO AND BEHOLD :Still no answer to very simple questions.
the real question is whether we are interested here in a literal meaning of the word "difference" or are we interested in "for how much (times) one of our numbers (10^-3) is greater than another number (10^-24)?"I notice you completely skip over even attempting to answer it.
They really think the VAB is a place full of radiation hazards that could get people killed when crossing twice.....silly youngsters ::)Because people care more about radiation these days and they want to go straight through rather than around.
Again:You should be proud of yourself, now, and happy, too, shouldn't you?
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?
I have already provided the rational answer.
Wernher von Braun confirmed that rockets can't leave earth:
[...]
So, what do you have to say on this???Ok, you don't understand how eclipses work.
You should be proud of yourself, now, and happy, too, shouldn't you?I will be "happy" (concerning this) when you either answer the question or stop with your lies.
I also provided answers :No, you repeatedly avoided answering.
[...]
I can't decide whether you actually believe that rockets don't work in a vacuum, or whether this is just fun for you.
...
I think he's punking us. He doesn't actually believe anything he says. It isn't possible for anyone who isn't completely divorced from reality to believe that stuff. So it's his idea of a joke, and we've all fallen for it, arguing as if he could be persuaded to drop the act.
Is the Founder of Modern Rocket Science trying to tell us something?
(http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/assets/img/von-braun/image-06-large.jpg)QuoteThe heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.Psalm 19:1
Wernher von Braun confirmed that rockets can't leave earth :
From the 1953 book called "Conquest of the Moon" (Wernher von Braun, Fred L. Whipple, Willy Ley - page 14 :
(https://i.postimg.cc/hGNMpHRd/Wernher-Von-Braun-page-14-X.jpg)
Vladimir Markin, a former spokesman for the government's official Investigative Committee, said the committee had called for an inquiry to find out what happened to the original footage of the first moon landing in 1969 and also lunar rock, brought back to Earth during the several "missions".
He said: "We are not contending that they did not fly [to the moon], and simply made a film about it. But all of these scientific — or perhaps cultural — artefacts are part of the legacy of humanity, and their disappearance without a trace is our common loss. An investigation will reveal what happened."
In 2009, NASA said it "erased" the original video recordings of the first moon landing among 200,000 other tapes in order to save money. LOL
It has since said restored copies of the landing had been put together using recordings from news footage at the time. LOL
NASA claims because of restoration work undertaken during this, the recordings' quality is better than the original which is no longer available. LOL
In 2001 David McKay, chief scientist for planetary science and exploration at NASA's Johnson Space Center, said most of the soil and rock removed from the Moon was stored there, but is is unclear where it all is now, 46 years on. LOL
[...]
I can't decide whether you actually believe that rockets don't work in a vacuum, or whether this is just fun for you.
...
I think he's punking us. He doesn't actually believe anything he says. It isn't possible for anyone who isn't completely divorced from reality to believe that stuff. So it's his idea of a joke, and we've all fallen for it, arguing as if he could be persuaded to drop the act.
The closest you get is saying if that was the case they would need to eject half their mass at 8 km/s, and appealing to free expansion.Didn't i? Well, maybe i didn't, but there is someone who has certainly accomplished your challenging mission (you yourself), and you should be proud of yourself for achieving such a demanding goal, shouldn't you?
No where did you actually address the question.
Yes, he is telling us that he believed that, "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork."Is the Founder of Modern Rocket Science trying to tell us something?I think he's punking us. He doesn't actually believe anything he says. It isn't possible for anyone who isn't completely divorced from reality to believe that stuff. So it's his idea of a joke, and we've all fallen for it, arguing as if he could be persuaded to drop the act.[...]I can't decide whether you actually believe that rockets don't work in a vacuum, or whether this is just fun for you.
...
(http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/assets/img/von-braun/image-06-large.jpg)QuoteThe heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.Psalm 19:1
Wernher von Braun confirmed that rockets can't leave earth:He said nothing of the sort!
From the 1953 book called "Conquest of the Moon" (Wernher von Braun, Fred L. Whipple, Willy Ley - page 14 :Note that the book was dated 1953 so it would have only covered Wernher von Braun's ideas from before then.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/mrplgdrxw4lfnj4/cikljamas%2C%20From%20the%201953%20book%20called%20Conquest%20of%20the%20Moon%27%20-%20Wernher-Von-Braun-page-14-X.jpg?dl=1)
Vladimir Markin, a former spokesman for the government's official Investigative Committee, said the committee had called for an inquiry to find out what happened to the original footage of the first moon landing in 1969 and also lunar rock, brought back to Earth during the several "missions".You might read:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
No, they weren't!QuoteApollo 11 missing tapes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes)
The Apollo 11 missing tapes were those that were recorded from Apollo 11's slow-scan television (SSTV) telecast in its raw format on telemetry data tape at the time of the first Moon landing in 1969 and subsequently lost. The data tapes were recorded as a backup in case the live television broadcasts failed for any reason.
To broadcast the SSTV transmission on standard television, NASA ground receiving stations performed real-time scan conversion to the NTSC television format. The moonwalk's converted video signal was broadcast live around the world on July 21, 1969 (2:56 UTC). At the time, the NTSC broadcast was recorded on many videotapes and kinescope films. Many of these low-quality recordings remain intact. The SSTV signal was recorded on telemetry data tapes as a backup in the event that real-time conversion and broadcast failed. As the real-time broadcast worked and was widely recorded, preservation of the backup video was not deemed a priority in the years immediately following the mission.[1] In the early 1980s, NASA's Landsat program was facing a severe data tape shortage and it is likely the tapes were erased and reused at this time.
The reason they were reused was that . . . the method of manufacturing the tapes had changed and the emulsion of the new tapes flaked off so NASA taped over some of the Apollo 11 tapes for the more important LandSat data!
He said: "We are not contending that they did not fly [to the moon], and simply made a film about it. But all of these scientific — or perhaps cultural — artefacts are part of the legacy of humanity, and their disappearance without a trace is our common loss. An investigation will reveal what happened."You might read:
In 2009, NASA said it "erased" the original video recordings of the first moon landing among 200,000 other tapes in order to save money.
It has since said restored copies of the landing had been put together using recordings from news footage at the time.
NASA claims because of restoration work undertaken during this, the recordings' quality is better than the original which is no longer available.
In 2001 David McKay, chief scientist for planetary science and exploration at NASA's Johnson Space Center, said most of the soil and rock removed from the Moon was stored there, but is unclear where it all is now, 46 years on.Really? Some might be missing and some given away to other countries but try looking here for the place where most is very carefully stored and catalogued.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
NASA has not "left them all over the place, no real inventory".
Where does NASA keep the Moon Rocks? - Smarter Every Day 220 by SmarterEveryDay
There's no answer there!Again:You should be proud of yourself, now, and happy, too, shouldn't you?
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?
I have already provided the rational answer.
I also provided answers :
Here : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2192572#msg2192572
Here : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2192568#msg2192568There's no answer there!
Here : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2193258#msg2193258There are no valid answers there that have not been refuted many times but you refuse to even address the issues!
Here : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2193471#msg2193471. . . ditto . . .
Here : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2193689#msg2193689Answered many times including:
Wernher von Braun confirmed that rockets can't leave earth:
[...]
And then you paste a quote where von Braun says that rockets can and will leave the Earth.
He goes on to say it will take three rockets to get to the moon, because otherwise it would take a very big rocket. Note that at the time, nobody could have imagined a rocket as humongous as the Saturn V. And that one operated in stages, dropping off used stages when they were no longer needed. Even the lander left its base stage sitting on the moon, and used a lighter stage to return to the orbiter.
In any case, read what YOU posted: von Braun says rockets can and will leave the Earth.
To expect von Braun to have anticipated the Saturn V rocket would be like expecting Henry Ford to have anticipated top-fuel dragsters.
I'm not sure what to think of you when you disprove your own statement right in the same post.
[...]
I can't decide whether you actually believe that rockets don't work in a vacuum, or whether this is just fun for you.
...
I think he's punking us. He doesn't actually believe anything he says. It isn't possible for anyone who isn't completely divorced from reality to believe that stuff. So it's his idea of a joke, and we've all fallen for it, arguing as if he could be persuaded to drop the act.
Now, two interesting questions for Rabinoz and Jack Black :Because GAU-8 Recoil Flying Broom(stick) will not "fly" in a vacuum much better than a rocket.
Q1 : Why would GAU-8 Recoil Flying Broom(stick) "fly" in a vacuum much better than a rocket, (at least IN PRICIPLE)???
Q2 : Why our midget soldier wouldn't manage to fly harnessing GAU-8Because it would be useless!Avanger'sAvenger's Recoil Power, turning it into An Effective Flying Broom(stick), here on Earth???
Didn't i? Well, maybe i didn'tThen why lie and say you did?
but there is someone who has certainly accomplished your challenging mission (you yourself)It isn't challenging to me or any sane person as I (and they) fully accept that rockets can work in space. It is not any significant accomplishment. It is merely being able to apply VERY SIMPLE physics. A child could do it.
Let's try once again (and this will be the last time) :Repeating the same nonsense, which has already been addressed, will not help your case.
1. When a rocket's combustion chamber is filled with accelerated gas opening the nozzle to expel the gasses into the vacuum of space does not generate a force against the ship. This is due to the principle of free expansion.Wrong.
2. No amount of combustion or pressure inside the space ship can move the ship until that combustive force or pressure is exchanged with some object, entity, or field outside of the ship (a space ship is a closed system).Stop lying,
3. Based on 1 and 2Which are pure lies and thus cannot be used as the basis for any rational conclusion.
4. Any liquid exposed to a vacuum is immediately converted to gas and any gas is immediately spread out into the void.Another blatant lie.
Another problem is that gas enters a vacuum at an average speed of about 2,000 meters a second.Citation needed.
A 25 meter long Saturn 5 stage 2 fuel tank with over 1,000,000 liters of fuel would have it's contents drained in about 1/100 of a second if exposed to the vacuum of space.This is literally you just pulling numbers from no where.
Well, consider this: no honest scientists will deny that, when opening a valve between two containers (one containing air at high pressure - and the other only vacuum) the pressures in the two containers will equalize in a fraction of a second, the vacuum container 'sucking' the air to itself with tremendous, almost explosive force.And that is just another lie.
\No, it shouldn't have as the relative masses are completely irrelevant to the third law.
Perhaps Newton's third law should have specified (and highlighted the importance of) the relative masses of the two bodies involved.
they'd have to shoot out from behind their rockets, all at onceAgain, PURE BS that you are yet to substantiate at all.
In fact it is the man's hand that represents the rocket exhaust, whilst the brick represents the atmosphere.Yet another lie.
In SummaryAll you have done is spouted lie after lie, completley ignoring the reality of the situation.
they need to end up going seven miles per second away from the center of gravityAnd another lie.
As the rocket climbs ever higher, it will have to exponentially increase its output/thrust (and, of course, its fuel consumption), in order to keep going - and combating the pull of gravity which, contrary to public belief, does NOT decrease exponentially with altitude.And another lie.
Now, let's get back to my midget-soldier midget project.Again, why should we?
... a wall of cut and paste text ...
NASA often use the analogy of a man sitting in a boat throwing bricks out the back to demonstrate how their rockets work; according to them the brick represents the rocket exhaust.
This is false.
In fact it is the man's hand that represents the rocket exhaust, whilst the brick represents the atmosphere.
When we change your number 681 km/h (which he got by dividing circumference of Arctic circle by 24 hours) with 434 km/h (which i got by dividing diameter of Arctic circle by 12 hours AND THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO SO TO COMPLY WITH THE CORE OF MY ZIGZAG ARGUMENT) then you get CORRECT result!!!
And you have to change that number 681 km with 434 km because using the second number (434 km) is geometrically CORRECT choice, and using the first number (681 km) is geometrically WRONG choice which renders your math INVALID!!!
- propeller pushing air backwards
- propeller pushing air backwards
Although a propeller does push air backwards, its main thrust comes from lift: The propeller blade is an airfoil, and the air in back of the spinning propeller presses harder on the back side of the blades that the air in front presses on the forward side. The same effect that causes lift on the wings causes thrust on the propeller. A rocket engine (which does work in a vacuum) operates on different principles than a propeller.
- propeller pushing air backwards
Although a propeller does push air backwards, its main thrust comes from lift: The propeller blade is an airfoil, and the air in back of the spinning propeller presses harder on the back side of the blades that the air in front presses on the forward side. The same effect that causes lift on the wings causes thrust on the propeller. A rocket engine (which does work in a vacuum) operates on different principles than a propeller.
If you want to look like that, then:
In front of the propeller you have pressure lower than the atmospheric and behind it pressure higher than the atmospheric.
In front of the rocket in vacuum you have pressure zero and behind (in the combustion chamber and in the nozzle) you have the pressure of the expanding exhaust.
In both cases there is the difference in pressure that pushes forward.
- propeller pushing air backwards
Although a propeller does push air backwards, its main thrust comes from lift: The propeller blade is an airfoil, and the air in back of the spinning propeller presses harder on the back side of the blades that the air in front presses on the forward side. The same effect that causes lift on the wings causes thrust on the propeller. A rocket engine (which does work in a vacuum) operates on different principles than a propeller.
If you want to look like that, then:
In front of the propeller you have pressure lower than the atmospheric and behind it pressure higher than the atmospheric.
In front of the rocket in vacuum you have pressure zero and behind (in the combustion chamber and in the nozzle) you have the pressure of the expanding exhaust.
In both cases there is the difference in pressure that pushes forward.
Very different mechanisms operating on very different physical principles. Note that propellers and fanjets do not work in a vacuum but rockets do. A propeller is an airfoil creating lift. A rocket operates by shooting hot gas out the back.
... a wall of cut and paste text ...
cikljamas normally pastes text. In the von Braun quote he appears to have pasted an image of text. The difference being that he cannot run that through Google Translate, so he doesn't actually know what it is that he pasted.
I find it amusing that this thread is still going on after 17 pages. Yes, I share responsibility for that. But 'jamas just posts complete nonsense and then asserts that it proves his point. It's like if I posted the poem Jabberwocky and then said that it proves that elephants are made of cheese. It makes me wonder who's more nuts: 'jamas, or the rest of us for taking the time to argue with someone who's either punking us (most likely) or else completely off his nut.
Another problem is that gas enters a vacuum at an average speed of about 2,000 meters a second.Citation needed.
I find varying speeds depending on the rocket
There is no "BIG question"! A rocket loses no thrust as it enters into a near-vacuum and in fact gradually gains thrust all the way!But the BIG question is: just HOW MUCH power would a rocket lose as it enters into near-vacuum?Another problem is that gas enters a vacuum at an average speed of about 2,000 meters a second.Citation needed.
I find varying speeds depending on the rocket
You are right, a straight imaginary line that connects two points (at the edge of the Arctic circle) between which our hypothetical observer (at the edge of the Arctic circle) travels in one hour is not so much shorter (434 km, that is to say : for the whole 247 km) in comparison with a curved line (681 km). I suppose that the difference is somewhere between 30 - 50 km, which value (when included in our equation) doesn't produce expected (by me) difference (for HC scenario) in comparison to GC scenario.When we change your number 681 km/h (which he got by dividing circumference of Arctic circle by 24 hours) with 434 km/h (which i got by dividing diameter of Arctic circle by 12 hours AND THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO SO TO COMPLY WITH THE CORE OF MY ZIGZAG ARGUMENT) then you get CORRECT result!!!
And you have to change that number 681 km with 434 km because using the second number (434 km) is geometrically CORRECT choice, and using the first number (681 km) is geometrically WRONG choice which renders your math INVALID!!!
Observer standing at the edge of the Arctic circle while the Earth rotates (relative)
does not move along the diameter of the circle.
He goes along the circumference of the circle.
Projection of the speed on the diameter is not linear it is cosine function and in the middle you have value far away from the average.
Very far away.
So, you have to take numbers from reality, not from what you wish.
You surely would love to have 434 instead of the 681.
And we would all love to have wings.
Unfortunately, neither matches the reality around us.
Exhaust velocity of Ariana 5 rocket (at sea level) : 2749 m/sAgain, citation needed.
So 2749-2740 = 7 m/s = 15 miles per kmAnd what the hell is this meant to be?
I can run faster than Ariana 5 rocket can fly in a Vacuum!
Given the following illustration i can run much faster than Ariana 5 rocket can fly in a Vacuum :You have already brought up that diagram plenty of times, and had it refuted plenty of times.
But the BIG question is: just HOW MUCH power would a rocket lose as it enters into near-vacuum?Yes, that is a big question, which you are yet to address in any meaningful way. Instead you just assert that it loses all power.
Rabinoz, you don't even know when you have to apply division instead of subtractionNo, that would be you, claiming a difference (which is subtraction) uses division.
I suppose that the difference is somewhere between 30 - 50 km, which value (when included in our equation) doesn't produce expected (by me) difference (for HC scenario) in comparison to GC scenario.Again, if you want to discuss your zig-zag BS which proves the sun and moon are far away and is incapable of proving which is moving, do so in the existing thread.
Rabinoz, you don't even know when you have to apply division instead of subtraction...Once again, just for you :I most certainly do know "when you have to apply division instead of subtraction".
Remember: NASA tells us that their rockets perform below max efficiency at sea level, at optimal efficiency somewhat higher in the atmosphere (as the rocket pressure equalizes with the external air pressure) and then start losing efficiency again as they ascend into ever thinner air. Note: NASA says so - not me.Please note exactly what NASA said:
and then start losing efficiency again as they ascend into ever thinner airThe rocket engine starts "losing efficiency" NOT losing thrust. In other words, a little more thrust could be obtained by using a larger nozzle.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I was comparing the rocket's thrust not the "efficiency" and as I've said before a little more thrust (and hence efficiency) could in principle be achieved by using a larger nozzle.
There is no "BIG question"! A rocket loses no thrust as it enters into a near-vacuum and in fact gradually gains thrust all the way!
Look again at "Goddard's" rocket thrust equation: (https://www.dropbox.com/s/e63c0hkzoyx1604/Goddard%20Rocket%20Equation%20-%20alone.png?dl=1)
The lower the outside pressure, Po, the higher the thrust, F.
What are the differences between a standard Merlin engine and the Merlin Vacuum engine? (https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/8806/what-are-the-differences-between-a-standard-merlin-engine-and-the-merlin-vacuum)That's what a nozzle for a vacuum engine looks like. I tried to scale the two photos correctly.
This pic is said to be, left to right: Falcon 1 Merlin 1C, Falcon 9 1C (different mounting), and Falcon 9 2nd stage 1C vacuum -- without the extension nozzle, so it's a shorter, fatter nozzle than the others.
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/0A9SH.jpg)
And here's what the extension nozzle looks like by itself:
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/YC9rw.jpg)
Exhaust velocity of Ariana 5 rocket (at sea level) : 2749 m/s
So 2749-2740 = 7 m/s = 15 miles per km
I can run faster than Ariana 5 rocket can fly in a Vacuum!
Given the following illustration i can run much faster than Ariana 5 rocket can fly in a Vacuum
I fail to see the relevance of your quote to how fast an Arianne 5 could fly. It has nothing to do with the case!Another problem is that gas enters a vacuum at an average speed of about 2,000 meters a second.Citation needed.
I find varying speeds depending on the rocket
(https://i.postimg.cc/rwwsgQYy/VELOCITY-OF-GAS-EXPANSION-IN-A-VACUUM-XXX.jpg)
Exhaust velocity of Ariana 5 rocket (at sea level) : 2749 m/s
So 2749-2740 = 7 m/s = 15 miles per km
I can run faster than Ariana 5 rocket can fly in a Vacuum!
Given the following illustration i can run much faster than Ariana 5 rocket can fly in a Vacuum :There is nothing in that "illustration" that shows that you "can run much faster than Ariana 5 rocket can fly in a Vacuum".
Remember: NASA tells us that their rockets perform below max efficiency at sea level, at optimal efficiency somewhat higher in the atmosphere (as the rocket pressure equalizes with the external air pressure) and then start losing efficiency again as they ascend into ever thinner air. Note: NASA says so - not me. (https://www.dropbox.com/s/l8f45mktk81ttw8/HOW-HIGH-CAN-ROCKET-FLY%20-%20Fig%204.jpg?dl=1)As explained numerous times rockets "start losing efficiency again as they ascend into ever thinner air" but they gain thrust!
The escape velocity from Earth is about 11.186 km/s NOT your 8km/s but the orbital velocity at 200 km is 7784 m/s - close to your figure.
But to even get into a 200 km orbit from the ground a rocket must overcome gravity and air-resistance till it leaves the atmosphere.
Without more details that cannot be calculated but to get to LEO requires approximately the equivalent of an extra 2.6 km/s velocity.
So we'll see if your rocket might even get to LEO.
So here you want to achieve a (https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/28563b5d468baab12a7d33b49cac197c2c1ed885) of 7784 + 2600 = 10,384 m/s.
There are various factors contributing to the performance of an aircraft between take-off and landing.We aren't talking about aircraft. We are talking about rockets.
So 2740-2740 = 0 m/s = 0 miles per HOURAgain, all you are doing is making up numbers.
If the speed of dissipation (velocity of gas expansion in a vacuum) is equal or greater than exhaust velocity of a rocket, then thrust efficiency is ZERO.Pure fantasy.
Without more details that cannot be calculated but to get to LEO requires approximately the equivalent of an extra 2.6 km/s velocity.And yet another baseless assertion.
Yes, but 7784 m/s is the orbital velocity at 200 km, however contrary to known rocket's trajectories, they need to end up going 7 miles per second away from the center of gravity (center of gravity = center of the earth)!Stop just repeating the same lie.
[zig-zag]Like I said, if you want to discuss your repeatedly refuted zigzag argument, go back to one of the threads it has already been refuted in and ask there, or make a new thread.
Problems with formulasWhat do these formulas have to do with anything?
Therefore the velocity of sound on the air or gas.So what? How could Newton have known about adiabatic expansion etc?
μ = √P/S
This is Newton’s formula for the velocity of sound in air (or gas).
At NTP,
P = 1.01 × 105 N/m2
S = 1.29 kg/m3
μ = 1.01 × 105 / (1.29) = 281 m/s
Experimentally, velocity of the sound in the air is about 332ms at NTP. This means the velocity of the sound given by Newton’s formula did not agree with experimental value. Therefore, there must be something wrong in Newton’s formula which is called by Laplace.
Laplace and the Speed of Sound (https://www3.nd.edu/~powers/ame.20231/finn1964.pdf)And it wasn't until 1802 that Laplace resolved the dilemma. Nut one can hardly blame Newton because the experiments of J. L. Gay-Lussac etc had not been performed until long after Newton's death!
FOR A CENTURY and a quarter after Isaac Newton initially posed the problem in the Principia, there was a very apparent discrepancy of almost 20 per cent between theoretical and experimental values of the
speed of sound.
Problems with formulas :
(https://notes.tyrocity.com/wp-content/uploads/Velocity-of-sound-in-air-or-gas.png)
Newton’s formula for the velocity of sound in the gas medium is given by,
μ = √K/S
Where k is bulk modulus of medium (gasair) and s be the density of medium.
According to the newton’s sound waves travels through the air of gas. Isothermally i.e. the vibration of the temperature in the region of compression and rarefaction are negligible or an isothermal process Boyle’s law holds true.
i.e. pv = constant
Differentiating with respect to v,
(https://notes.tyrocity.com/wp-content/uploads/Velocity-of-sound-in-air-or-gas.png)
Due to the propagation of sound wave.
Here, dv/v represents the volumetric strain and dp represents the force applied by wave per unit area of medium.
(https://notes.tyrocity.com/wp-content/uploads/Velocity-of-sound-in-air-or-gas1.png)
Therefore the velocity of sound on the air or gas.
μ = √P/S
This is the Newton’s formula for the velocity of sound in air (or gas).
At NTP,
P = 1.01 × 105 N/M2
S = 1.29 Kg/m3
μ = 1.01 × 105 / (1.29) = 281 m/s
Experimentally, velocity of the sound in the air is about 332ms at NTP. This means the velocity of the sound given by Newton’s formula did not agree with experimental value. Therefore, there must be something wrong in Newton’s formula which is called by Laplace.
Exhaust velocity of Ariana 5 rocket (at sea level) : 2749 m/sNone of that has the slightest relevance to an Ariana 5 rocket flying in a vacuum and you've never shown that "no rocket can fly in a vacuum".
So 2740-2740 = 0 m/s = 0 miles per HOUR
If the speed of dissipation (velocity of gas expansion in a vacuum) is equal or greater than exhaust velocity of a rocket, then thrust efficiency is ZERO.
So, I really can run faster than Ariana 5 rocket can fly in a Vacuum, since no rocket can fly in a vacuum, whatsoever!
Rabinoz says :No! A spacecraft does not "need to end up going 7 miles per second away from the center of gravity (center of gravity = center of the earth)!"QuoteThe escape velocity from Earth is about 11.186 km/s NOT your 8km/s but the orbital velocity at 200 km is 7784 m/s - close to your figure.
But to even get into a 200 km orbit from the ground a rocket must overcome gravity and air-resistance till it leaves the atmosphere.
Without more details that cannot be calculated but to get to LEO requires approximately the equivalent of an extra 2.6 km/s velocity.
So we'll see if your rocket might even get to LEO.
So here you want to achieve a (https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/28563b5d468baab12a7d33b49cac197c2c1ed885) of 7784 + 2600 = 10,384 m/s.
Yes, but 7784 m/s is the orbital velocity at 200 km, however contrary to known rocket's trajectories, they need to end up going 7 miles per second away from the center of gravity (center of gravity = center of the earth)! So, alleged orbital velocity (even if it were real phenomena, and i doubt it, since i know that the earth is stationary) would still be of no use due to the wrong direction of motion, which is perpendicular wrt needed/demanding direction (away from the center of gravity)!!!
Since I know that the rocket does not need to go straight UP I would look further and find the whole diagram as in:Read again,(https://www.dropbox.com/s/btroyd2ohfsktq3/CalcTool%20Escape%20velocity%20Calculator.jpg?dl=1)
From: CalcTool: Escape velocity Calculator (http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/astronomy/escape_velocity)
The escape velocity does not have to be directly away from centre of the earth. It can and usually is a tangential velocity.
And "Note that a powered object may escape the gravity of a body at any velocity desired."
It says right in the notes section that it's the distance from the body center of mass.Yes, it says that in the box for calculating the speed and in the notes as "from its current distance from the body center of mass" but read the rest of the notes.
The "escape velocity" of an unpowered object with respect to a massive body is the speed that the object needs to be traveling at in order to escape the gravitational field of the body from its current distance from the body center of mass.The "current distance from the body center of mass" is only needed to calculate the speed necessary.
It is independent of the object mass or direction of movement (and therefore is not truly a 'velocity' at all).
It says right in the notes section that it's the distance from the body center of mass.Yes, the distance.
Wernher von Braun confirmed that rockets can't leave earth
If you really know what you are saying, then you have to be able to expand on this a little bit...I would say that there is no practical limit to how fast the exhaust can move in a vacuum because no exhaust can move so fast as gas is expanding in a vacuum...If that was your point then you hit the nail on the head...Exhaust velocity of Ariana 5 rocket (at sea level) : 2749 m/sThere is no practical limit to how fast the exhaust as can move in a vacuum.
So 2740-2740 = 0 m/s = 0 miles per HOUR
If the speed of dissipation (velocity of gas expansion in a vacuum) is equal or greater than exhaust velocity of a rocket, then thrust efficiency is ZERO.
So, I really can run faster than Ariana 5 rocket can fly in a Vacuum, since no rocket can fly in a vacuum, whatsoever!
It other words the gasses do instantly disperse into the "infinite vacuum".
That exhaust gas has been sent far from the Ariana 5 by the and the Ariana 5 is long gone.
QuoteThe escape velocity from Earth is about 11.186 km/s NOT your 8km/s but the orbital velocity at 200 km is 7784 m/s - close to your figure.
But to even get into a 200 km orbit from the ground a rocket must overcome gravity and air-resistance till it leaves the atmosphere.
Without more details that cannot be calculated but to get to LEO requires approximately the equivalent of an extra 2.6 km/s velocity.
So we'll see if your rocket might even get to LEO.
So here you want to achieve a (https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/28563b5d468baab12a7d33b49cac197c2c1ed885) of 7784 + 2600 = 10,384 m/s.QuoteYes, but 7784 m/s is the orbital velocity at 200 km, however contrary to known rocket's trajectories, they need to end up going 7 miles per second away from the center of gravity (center of gravity = center of the earth)! So, alleged orbital velocity (even if it were real phenomena, and i doubt it, since i know that the earth is stationary) would still be of no use due to the wrong direction of motion, which is perpendicular wrt needed/demanding direction (away from the center of gravity)!!!
The escape velocity does not have to be directly away from centre of the earth. It can and usually is a tangential velocity.
And "Note that a powered object may escape the gravity of a body at any velocity desired."
Read again,
It is independent of the object mass direction of movement."
In addition, please explain what you think would happen to an object going at 100 000 km/s in a direction perpendicular to directly away.
Do you think it will magically be held to Earth?
If you really know what you are saying, then you have to be able to expand on this a little bitIt is quite simple:
Yes, a lot of contradictionsThe only contradicts are between reality and the nonsense you are claiming.
regarding ZIGZAG problemAgain, go put them in the zig-zag thread. They don't belong here.
I notice you still avoid a nice simple question.In addition, please explain what you think would happen to an object going at 100 000 km/s in a direction perpendicular to directly away.
Do you think it will magically be held to Earth?
In addition, please explain what you think would happen to an object going at 11 km/s in a direction perpendicular to directly away from the center of the earth.Good job contradicting yourself.
Nothing would happen, even if that object was already 400 km above the surface of the earth :
6800 km^2 = 46 240 000
11 km^2 = 121
sqrt. 46 240 121 = 6800,008897
So, our 11 km/s moving object in a direction perpendicular to directly away from the center of the earth would move 8,897 m/s directly away from the center of the earth.
So, Jack what do you thinkAs shown with other questions I already know. If you are happy to accept my answer, then stop spouting the same BS.
Beware, Super-Jack is pissed off!!!No, I am just sick of you repeating the same lies again and again and refusing to even attempt to address the question.
Sure, happy to oblige ;). For a start the lower the mass of each particle of the exhaust stream the higher it's velocity can be.If you really know what you are saying, then you have to be able to expand on this a little bit.Exhaust velocity of Ariana 5 rocket (at sea level) : 2749 m/sThere is no practical limit to how fast the exhaust as can move in a vacuum.
So 2740-2740 = 0 m/s = 0 miles per HOUR
If the speed of dissipation (velocity of gas expansion in a vacuum) is equal or greater than exhaust velocity of a rocket, then thrust efficiency is ZERO.
So, I really can run faster than Ariana 5 rocket can fly in a Vacuum, since no rocket can fly in a vacuum, whatsoever!
Ion Propulsion: Farther, Faster, Cheaper (https://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/technology/Ion_Propulsion1.html)Now according to the rocket thrust equation, (https://www.dropbox.com/s/0c7ice3pw4egizz/Rocket%20Thrust%20Equation.png?dl=1), the thrust per unit mass of propellant ie almost propertional to the exhaust velocity.
Ion thrusters, the propulsion of choice for science fiction writers have become the propulsion of choice for scientists and engineers at NASA. The ion propulsion system's efficient use of fuel and electrical power enable modern spacecraft to travel farther, faster and cheaper than any other propulsion technology currently available. Chemical rockets have demonstrated fuel efficiencies up to 35 percent, but ion thrusters have demonstrated fuel efficiencies over 90 percent. Currently, ion thrusters are used to keep communication satellites in the proper position relative to Earth and for the main propulsion on deep space probes. Several thrusters can be used on a spacecraft, but they are often used just one at a time. Spacecraft powered by these thrusters can reach speeds up to 90,000 meters per second (over 200,000 mph). In comparison, the Space Shuttles can reach speeds around 18,000 mph.
The trade-off for the high top speeds of ion thrusters is low thrust (or low acceleration). Current ion thrusters can provide only 0.5 newtons (or 0.1 pounds) of thrust, which is equivalent to the force you would feel by holding 10 U.S. quarters in your hand. These thrusters must be used in a vacuum to operate at the available power levels, and they cannot be used to put spacecraft in space because large amounts of thrust are needed to escape Earth's gravity and atmosphere.
The first satellite powered entirely by ion engines is online. (https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/214206-the-first-satellite-powered-entirely-by-ion-engines-is-online)And that's just the start.
Getting a satellite into orbit is only the first step in making it a useful piece of equipment. It also needs to arrive in the correct orbit and stay there, known as station-keeping. In the past this was accomplished with chemical propulsion, but more modern satellites have relied upon a mix of chemical and electric propulsion. Now Boeing has announced the first all-electric ion propulsion satellite is fully operational.
The satellite in question doesn’t have a snappy name — it’s a communications satellite called ABS-3A 702SP. It was launched last March aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket. It has just recently been handed over to its owner, Bermuda-based telecommunications company ABS. Because ABS-3A is a communications satellite, it needs to remain in a geosynchronous orbit. Thus, station-keeping is essential. When it can no longer maintain its orbit, it will cease being useful. Ion thrusters make a lot of sense in this scenario.
Sorry, but it's not my "wild imagination" but current reality.It other words the gasses do instantly disperse into the "infinite vacuum".Only in your wild imagination which is obviously too wild for grasping very simple concepts so not that you can't see the wood for the trees, you actually can't see the tree for the wood! (In croatian we use both versions in everyday speech, and it seems to me that in english there is only one version of this proverb)..
That exhaust gas has been sent far from the Ariana 5 by the and the Ariana 5 is long gone.
Would you care to make a bigger fool of yourself by list some of these so-called contradictions the I and "today's scientists" have made?Yes, a lot of contradictions, i can write a book 1000 pages thick by quoting contradictory claims of today's scientists.QuoteThe escape velocity from Earth is about 11.186 km/s NOT your 8km/s but the orbital velocity at 200 km is 7784 m/s - close to your figure.
But to even get into a 200 km orbit from the ground a rocket must overcome gravity and air-resistance till it leaves the atmosphere.
Without more details that cannot be calculated but to get to LEO requires approximately the equivalent of an extra 2.6 km/s velocity.
So we'll see if your rocket might even get to LEO.
So here you want to achieve a (https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/28563b5d468baab12a7d33b49cac197c2c1ed885) of 7784 + 2600 = 10,384 m/s.QuoteYes, but 7784 m/s is the orbital velocity at 200 km, however contrary to known rocket's trajectories, they need to end up going 7 miles per second away from the center of gravity (center of gravity = center of the earth)! So, alleged orbital velocity (even if it were real phenomena, and i doubt it, since i know that the earth is stationary) would still be of no use due to the wrong direction of motion, which is perpendicular wrt needed/demanding direction (away from the center of gravity)!!!
The escape velocity does not have to be directly away from centre of the earth. It can and usually is a tangential velocity.
And "Note that a powered object may escape the gravity of a body at any velocity desired."
Read again,
It is independent of the object mass direction of movement."
For example : they claim that directional gyro is rigid in space, and then they claim that directional gyro drifts 15 degrees per hour even if an airplane doesn't move at all (on a runway) while waiting permission to take off... Only they can't explain how they can use such an instrument for that (directional-compass) purpose (in the first place) if it drifts 15 degrees per hour even when an airplane is at rest.Nothing contradictory there as you would learn if you bothered to read the instructions to pilots.
It means that you have to take into consideration "directional gyro problem," that is to say : If directional gyro maintains rigidity in space, then you have to explain to us : how come that we can't simply direct our gyro towards the sun (or even better - towards some fixed star) so that we can observe rotational motion of the earth.There is no "directional gyro problem" other thst in your imagination! But:
It says right in the notes section that it's the distance from the body center of mass.Yes, it says that in the box for calculating the speed and in the notes as "from its current distance from the body center of mass" but read the rest of the notes.QuoteThe "escape velocity" of an unpowered object with respect to a massive body is the speed that the object needs to be traveling at in order to escape the gravitational field of the body from its current distance from the body center of mass.The "current distance from the body center of mass" is only needed to calculate the speed necessary.
It is independent of the object mass or direction of movement (and therefore is not truly a 'velocity' at all).
It is "independent of the . . . direction of movement" and the diagram "(note: direction not matter)"
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/5xxbm9tq6buerfp/CalcTool%20Escape%20velocity%20Calculator%20-%20diagram.jpg?dl=1)
How could it be stated more explicitly?
I wouldn't know, nor care greatly, how it's taught in school. I'm more concerned with how things work in practice.It says right in the notes section that it's the distance from the body center of mass.Yes, it says that in the box for calculating the speed and in the notes as "from its current distance from the body center of mass" but read the rest of the notes.QuoteThe "escape velocity" of an unpowered object with respect to a massive body is the speed that the object needs to be traveling at in order to escape the gravitational field of the body from its current distance from the body center of mass.The "current distance from the body center of mass" is only needed to calculate the speed necessary.
It is independent of the object mass or direction of movement (and therefore is not truly a 'velocity' at all).
It is "independent of the . . . direction of movement" and the diagram "(note: direction not matter)"
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/5xxbm9tq6buerfp/CalcTool%20Escape%20velocity%20Calculator%20-%20diagram.jpg?dl=1)
How could it be stated more explicitly?
Escape Velocity is taught in high school. It's in relation from the center of mass. I would suggest educating yourself on this matter by looking for several definitions online.
Why does escape velocity not depend on the angle of projection? (https://www.quora.com/Why-does-escape-velocity-not-depend-on-the-angle-of-projection)That is just one answer. There are a number of longer ones.
Escape velocity does not depend on the angle of projection because it is not a vector. Itis an expression of the relationship between kinetic energy and potential energy — theseare not vectors. It's just like how it takes the same amount of work to climb to a certain height no matter what path you take.
So, after 8 hours or so, you finally end up going directly away from the center of the earth??? lolYes, and once in orbit the thrust is no longer required. That's pretty much the whole point of going to orbit.
THE PROBLEM No 1 : What kind of a rocket can provide enough thrust, so that it can fly for 8,25 hours continually, pushing itself off of their own ejected gasses? After liftoff, it takes about 10 minutes before the main rocket stages burn out (depends on the rocket used). After that, the spacecraft is in zero G. The trip from the surface to low Earth orbit is a matter of about 10 minutes under thrust.
THE PROBLEM No 3 : To attain the so-called escape velocity of 8km/s with "recoil power" only, this is what NASA's rockets would have to do: they'd have to shoot out from behind their rockets, all at once (like a bullet from a gun) a mass equal to the mass of the vessel itself - at a velocity of 8km/s. This means that, if this were to be the case (that rockets move due to "recoil action/reaction")- more than half of any rocket's fuel mass would have to be ejected at that speed.Actually, about 90% or so of a rocket's mass is propellant. However, the exhaust velocity has very little to do with forward velocity of the rocket. It has more to do with the efficiency of the thrust produced (A.K.A. specific impulse (https://www.scienceabc.com/pure-sciences/specific-impulse-definition-formula-and-units.html)).
It is no longer required? Really? So, then you are at loss of 3,5 km/s and you simply stay in Low earth's orbit, let alone that orbital speed itself is dubious concept having in mind everything that i wrote in the previous post.So, after 8 hours or so, you finally end up going directly away from the center of the earth??? lolYes, and once in orbit the thrust is no longer required. That's pretty much the whole point of going to orbit.
THE PROBLEM No 1 : What kind of a rocket can provide enough thrust, so that it can fly for 8,25 hours continually, pushing itself off of their own ejected gasses? After liftoff, it takes about 10 minutes before the main rocket stages burn out (depends on the rocket used). After that, the spacecraft is in zero G. The trip from the surface to low Earth orbit is a matter of about 10 minutes under thrust.
So, according to your ludicrous logic, exhaust velocity has very little to do even with the efficiency of the thrust produced, since efficiency of thrust produced has everything to do with forward velocity of the rocket.THE PROBLEM No 3 : To attain the so-called escape velocity of 8km/s with "recoil power" only, this is what NASA's rockets would have to do: they'd have to shoot out from behind their rockets, all at once (like a bullet from a gun) a mass equal to the mass of the vessel itself - at a velocity of 8km/s. This means that, if this were to be the case (that rockets move due to "recoil action/reaction")- more than half of any rocket's fuel mass would have to be ejected at that speed.Actually, about 90% or so of a rocket's mass is propellant. However, the exhaust velocity has very little to do with forward velocity of the rocket. It has more to do with the efficiency of the thrust produced (A.K.A. specific impulse (https://www.scienceabc.com/pure-sciences/specific-impulse-definition-formula-and-units.html)).
No, I didn't say any of that.So, according to your ludicrous logic, exhaust velocity has very little to do even with the efficiency of the thrust produced, since efficiency of thrust produced has everything to do with forward velocity of the rocket.THE PROBLEM No 3 : To attain the so-called escape velocity of 8km/s with "recoil power" only, this is what NASA's rockets would have to do: they'd have to shoot out from behind their rockets, all at once (like a bullet from a gun) a mass equal to the mass of the vessel itself - at a velocity of 8km/s. This means that, if this were to be the case (that rockets move due to "recoil action/reaction")- more than half of any rocket's fuel mass would have to be ejected at that speed.Actually, about 90% or so of a rocket's mass is propellant. However, the exhaust velocity has very little to do with forward velocity of the rocket. It has more to do with the efficiency of the thrust produced (A.K.A. specific impulse (https://www.scienceabc.com/pure-sciences/specific-impulse-definition-formula-and-units.html)).
Exhaust velocity of Ariana 5 rocket (at sea level) : 2749 m/sWhen the rocket is starting from zero, obviously the exhaust velocity is going to greater than the rocket speed. That's shouldn't surprise anyone.
Look at the velocity of a real Arianne 5 rocket in this video:
https://www.youtube.co/watch?v=nMFotrkgF-w
So, exhaust velocity is greater than rocket speed, which is in favor of my argument!
Since you need additional 3,5 km/s (on top of orbital speed) to leave low earth orbit (going directly away from the center of the earth), you can't even count on 2749 m/s (exhaust velocity of Ariana 5), all you can count on is about 2,3 km/s at best...First of all, it's already been pointed out that escape velocity doesn't need to be directly away from the center of the earth. Secondly, the first stage of the rocket won't be the stage that's propelling the payload out of orbit.
However :Incorrect. The exhaust gasses do most of their work inside the combustion chamber and exhaust nozzle. What the gasses do after they leave the nozzle is of little concern.
1. If the speed of dissipation (velocity of gas expansion in a vacuum) is equal or greater than exhaust velocity of a rocket, then thrust efficiency is ZERO.
Escape Velocity is taught in high school. It's in relation from the center of mass. I would suggest educating yourself on this matter by looking for several definitions online.Good advice. You should follow it.
So, after 8 hours or so, you finally end up going directly away from the center of the earth???No, it still isn't going directly away.
THE PROBLEM No 1 : What kind of a rocket can provide enough thrust, so that it can fly for 8,25 hours continually, pushing itself off of their own ejected gasses?You mean the irrelevant strawman you put up to pretend there is a problem?
THE PROBLEM No 2 : As the rocket climbs ever higher, it will have to exponentially increase its output/thrustYou mean blatant lie.
THE PROBLEM No 3 : To attain the so-called escape velocity of 8km/s with "recoil power" only, this is what NASA's rockets would have to do:And another blatant lie.
@Super-JackNot Super-Jack here just plain old RABinOZ to put you straight in case JackBlack is too busy doing real work.
So, after 8 hours or so, you finally end up going directly away from the center of the earth??? lol
Yes, the distance.
This distance determines the velocity required.
Notice how nowhere does it say the velocity must be directed away from the centre of mass?
Notice how instead it says that direction does not matter (i.e. it is independent from the direction of movement)?
THE PROBLEM No 1 : What kind of a rocket can provide enough thrust, so that it can fly for 8,25 hours continually, pushing itself off of their own ejected gasses? After liftoff, it takes about 10 minutes before the main rocket stages burn out (depends on the rocket used). After that, the spacecraft is in zero G. The trip from the surface to low Earth orbit is a matter of about 10 minutes under thrust.Why would any such chemical high thrust rocket have to fly "for 8,25 hours continually, pushing itself off of their own ejected gasses?" That's a ridiculous question.
THE PROBLEM No 2 : As the rocket climbs ever higher, it will have to exponentially increase its output/thrust (and, of course, its fuel consumption), in order to keep going - and combating the pull of gravityNo, it would NOT! Once achieving escape velocity no extra thrust is needed! That is from the definition of escape velocity.
which, contrary to public belief, does NOT decrease exponentially with altitude.I doubt that the public believes that gravity "decreases exponentially with altitude".
Now, remember: NASA tells us that their rockets perform below max efficiency at sea level, at optimal efficiency somewhat higher in the atmosphere (as the rocket pressure equalizes with the external air pressure) and then start losing efficiency again as they ascend into ever thinner air. Note: NASA says so - not me.As I've asked before, "Are you totally incapable of learning!" We've been over this numerous times!
THE PROBLEM No 3 : To attain the so-called escape velocity of 8km/s with "recoil power" only, this is what NASA's rockets would have to do: they'd have to shoot out from behind their rockets, all at once (like a bullet from a gun) a mass equal to the mass of the vessel itself - at a velocity of 8km/s. This means that, if this were to be the case (that rockets move due to "recoil action/reaction")- more than half of any rocket's fuel mass would have to be ejected at that speed.Where did you dig that up from? Rockets do "move due to 'recoil action/reaction' " but do not expel all their fuel at once. A machine gun does not expel its full load all at once either!
@ Jack, first of all, you have to get over the fact that we live in a geocentric universe :Can I have a go too, as long as JackBlack does not mind?
10. Within HC model geostationary satellites (at 37 000 km distance) are very far away from the last frontier of earth's atmosphere, and despite that their orbital speed is perfectly synchronized with the speed of earth's rotation. Isn't that too good to be true?You mean that "famous geocentrist Robert Sungenis"
Within GC model geostationary satellites are again at 37 000 km distance and have to be motionless in the same way as the earth is motionless. I can show you how famous geocentrist Robert Sungenis explains the mechanics of that motionless geostationary satellites. He uses assumption of mechanical motion of space and then introduce roulette wheel and a ball example to illustrate how a ball (satellite) can stay fixed in space above certain point above the earth by the force of moving roulette wheel (rotating shell of the universe)...
I don't claim geostationary satellites don't exist for sure but since an explanation of Robert Sungenis is pretty odd, and since i know for sure that the earth is at rest (which means that HC explanation for geostationary satellites is 100 % fraudulent), then i still choose to remain suspicious about the very existence of geostationary satellites...Yes, I agree that the "explanation of Robert Sungenis is pretty odd", very odd in fact!
11.HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ANYTHING AS FAKE AS THIS:I've seen many things much more fake than that - in other words, what is wrong with it?
Thirdly, once you figure out how deep your rabbit hole really is, then (and only then) you will be able to think clearly...And when you start to think clearly your whole world (including "rockets can fly in a vacuum" myth) will crumble like a house of cards...Sorry, Mr Cikljamas, but I see no "rabbit hole" other than the one you are rapidly digging yourself into.
@ Jack, first of all, you have to get over the fact that we live in a geocentric universe :No, I don't need to get over your fake facts.
Macarios, feel free to answer these few easy questions :
The earth and the atmosphere are both spinning at the same rate (according to the heliocentric model) with high speeds at the equator and lesser speeds towards the poles.
To skim the Earth’s atmosphere in orbit, your spacecraft has to travel at least as fast as 7.8 km/s, or about 17,500 mph. The Earth itself, with its atmosphere, is spinning eastward below you, at around 1,000 mph. So, you can reduce your re-entry speed by orbiting in the same direction that the Earth spins. However, that only helps a bit. Your spacecraft still has to travel at 16,500 mph relative to our atmosphere to stay in orbit.
1. How ISS gained (and maintains) it's incredible orbital velocity (7,66 km/s = 27 600 km/h)???
2. How Space Shuttle gained it's incredible orbital velocity (7,66 km/s)???
3. Where does the space shuttle reenters earth’s atmosphere and is the space shuttle following the spin of the earth? If not wouldn’t it be impossible to reenter the earth due to the fact that the atmosphere would hit the shuttle with the strength of a tornado that blows 26 000 km/h (which would be the difference between Space Shuttle's orbital velocity and rotational velocity of earth's atmosphere?
(https://i.postimg.cc/qqzGPZ2C/HURRICANE-SPEEDS.jpg)
So, Space Shuttle had to sustained strength of a hurricane which blows 85 times faster than the fastest winds ever recorded on earth?
--- Wiki quote : "This is the reason why satellites fall out of orbit. Hundreds of miles up, it is to all intents and purposes a hard vacuum, but there are still enough air molecules to generate drag on a satellite, slowing it down until it plunges into the lower layers and burns up. But how far out does the atmosphere actually go?"
5. In a hard vacuum, there are still enough air molecules to generate drag on a satellite??? In a hard vacuum???
Macarios, feel free to answer these few easy questions :They have already been addressed in threads were that was the topic.
Macarios, feel free to answer these few easy questions :I'm not as smart as Macarios but even I might answer trivia like this stuff ;D.
The earth and the atmosphere are both spinning at the same rate (according to the heliocentric model) with high speeds at the equator and lesser speeds towards the poles.1,000 mph is hardly a "high speed" in this context but it helps. So, what's the problem?
To skim the Earth’s atmosphere in orbit, your spacecraft has to travel at least as fast as 7.8 km/s, or about 17,500 mph. The Earth itself, with its atmosphere, is spinning eastward below you, at around 1,000 mph. So, you can reduce your re-entry speed by orbiting in the same direction that the Earth spins. However, that only helps a bit. Your spacecraft still has to travel at 16,500 mph relative to our atmosphere to stay in orbit.
1. How ISS gained (and maintains) it'sRockets. The first part was launched by a "left-over" Saturn V. If the Saturn V were started in space, away from earth, it could reach a speed of about 18 km/sec or 64,500 km/h.incredibleorbital velocity (7,66 km/s = 27 600 km/h)???
2. How Space Shuttle gained it'sRockets engines.incredibleorbital velocity (7,66 km/s)???
3. Where does the space shuttle reenters earth’s atmosphere and is the space shuttle following the spin of the earth? If not wouldn’t it be impossible to reenter the earth due to the fact that the atmosphere would hit the shuttle with the strength of a tornado that blows 26 000 km/h (which would be the difference between Space Shuttle's orbital velocity and rotational velocity of earth's atmosphere?Yes. That's why Rocket Science is hard and not for kiddies like you. But, since you seem to get your information from Wikipedia you might read:
<< Irrelevant >>HURRICANE-SPEEDS (https://i.postimg.cc/qqzGPZ2C/HURRICANE-SPEEDS.jpg)
So, Space Shuttle had to sustained strength of a hurricane which blows 85 times faster than the fastest winds ever recorded on earth?
--- Wiki quote : "This is the reason why satellites fall out of orbit. Hundreds of miles up, it is to all intents and purposes a hard vacuum, but there are still enough air molecules to generate drag on a satellite, slowing it down until it plunges into the lower layers and burns up.Very far out ;D! Read a bit about it in: Rocket & Space Technology: ATMOSPHERIC MODELS (http://www.braeunig.us/space/atmmodel.htm).
But how far out does the atmosphere actually go?"
5. In a hard vacuum, there are still enough air molecules to generate drag on a satellite??? In a hard vacuum???It might be classed as a hard vacuum by the standards of the vacuum qualities generated on earth but even a thousand km up "there are still enough air molecules to generate drag on a satellite".
@Super-Jack
So, after 8 hours or so, you finally end up going directly away from the center of the earth??? lol
THE PROBLEM No 1 : What kind of a rocket can provide enough thrust, so that it can fly for 8,25 hours continually, pushing itself off of their own ejected gasses? After liftoff, it takes about 10 minutes before the main rocket stages burn out (depends on the rocket used). After that, the spacecraft is in zero G. The trip from the surface to low Earth orbit is a matter of about 10 minutes under thrust.
THE PROBLEM No 2 : As the rocket climbs ever higher, it will have to exponentially increase its output/thrust (and, of course, its fuel consumption), in order to keep going
- and combating the pull of gravity which, contrary to public belief, does NOT decrease exponentially with altitude.
Now, remember: NASA tells us that their rockets perform below max efficiency at sea level, at optimal efficiency somewhat higher in the atmosphere (as the rocket pressure equalizes with the external air pressure) and then start losing efficiency again as they ascend into ever thinner air. Note: NASA says so - not me.
THE PROBLEM No 3 : To attain the so-called escape velocity of 8km/s with "recoil power" only, this is what NASA's rockets would have to do: they'd have to shoot out from behind their rockets, all at once (like a bullet from a gun) a mass equal to the mass of the vessel itself - at a velocity of 8km/s. This means that, if this were to be the case (that rockets move due to "recoil action/reaction")- more than half of any rocket's fuel mass would have to be ejected at that speed.
Everything looks nice in NASA cartoons, however, NASA have been caught in lie(s) so many times it isn't even funny any more...
1. Neil De Grass Tyson explains that at the edge of an atmosphere you can see stars even with the sun in the sky, doesn't it mean that when the sun is not in the sky then the view of the stars is much more spectacular (the stars are much brighter) then here on the earth? Following this logic i suppose that in space you wouldn't even have to use long exposure technique in order to catch the stars while taking the photo of the night sky. ACCOMPANYING VIDEO :
According to Neil De Grass Tyson when you get at the edge of the atmosphere all of a sudden the view becomes totally spectacular. So, as i already pointed out : following his (Neil De Grass Tyson) logic stars wouldn't be just a little brighter, they would be much brighter.
Michael Collins contradicting himself : During famous Apollo 11 conference he claimed that he wasn't able to see *ANY* star from the lunar orbit...However in his book he claims that he was very able to observe countless stars from earth' orbit...How about that??? You see, this is an example where the same person asserts two totally contradictory claims (in two different occasions).
What could disable Michael Collins to see the stars from the lunar orbit? If there was anything that could obscure the stars while he was in lunar orbit, that very same reason (an obstacle) would disable him to see the stars TO EVEN A GREATER EXTENT while he was in earth's orbit since according to NeilDeGrass Tyson the only reason why we can't see the stars from the earth (during the day) is the presence of earth's atmosphere which is a glow with scattered light from the sun!!! If you take away the atmosphere, the sun will still be there but the sky goes dark! That is what folks get when they get to the edge of the atmosphere, the atmosphere is no longer between you and the rest of the universe and the stars would reveal themselves just as they would at night! Plain and simple!!!
2. YOU ONLY NEED TO PROVE ONE OF THEM TO BE THE SAME PERSON TO PROVE THE THEORY : LUNACY - PART 2 :
3. When the first crew who landed on the moon did a world tour ,they presented the Dutch premier with a piece of moon rock ,,,when he died a few years ago the university of Utrecht in Holland did some experiments on what they thought was moon rock ,,and it was found to be worthless petrified wood ,,?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html
4. No tyre tracks from rover : Even guys who believe that we landed on the moon admit that there is huge amount of altered (photoshopped) "apollo" images.--- MOON FAKERY - 3 : http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2010/192/moon-fakery-3.htm
Says
5. Set of excerpts of "docking" : You must be a genuine idiot so to be unable to recognize obvious fakery in this cheap animation : once again : 100% proof moon landing Hoax in a 1 minute clip :
6. In 60 years of all of NASA or any other organizations outer space video footage... there does not exist a single video clip of someone panning the camera 360 degrees!!! HOW COME???
7. Does anybody have a link to a rocket launch with rear facing cameras, where the rocket continues out into space eventually showing the whole globe????
8. How about live streaming of the earth by using camera mounted on a geostationary satellite?
---The alleged speed of a geostationary satellite is about 10 000 km/h (height = 37 000 km)
---The alleged speed of ISS is about 28 000 km/h (height = 400 km)
9. How high must one get before the atmospheric rotation does not exist? For if all rotates it must have to stop somewhere. I figure at mt Everest you have one third less air at top so wouldn't that mean at 100,000 feet, if mt Everest is at 28000 ft, no air or no atmosphere? So why not simple make airplanes outfitted for 110000 ft go up and then come down and let the earth spin underneath to arrive at ur destination. Well, how about numerous footages (countless of which are available on youtube) taken by cameras (attached to a baskets of a balloons that can go as high as 125 000 feet) in which we can clearly see perfectly still earth underneath??? U know why they don't, because it's all Bullshit???
Now, something very interesting regarding the point 9 :
Sagnac effect proves that the earth is stationary and that an aether rotates 24h/day around motionless earth.
However, aether's rotation is subtle, that is to say, we can detect that with interferometer kind of experiments (MMX, SAGNAC, MGP, ring-laser gyros, etc...), but aether's rotation doesn't produce such an effect which could be detected with directional gyros (heading indicators). However, if earth rotated heading indicators would indicate (detect) that motion. Not only that, your HC friends claim that mechanical heading indicators indeed detect earth's motion. But you as a pilot very well know that it is a blatant lie. They can claim whatever they want, but it doesn't matter what they claim, the only thing that matters is IS WHAT THEY CLAIM TRUE OR NOT, isn't that so??? Now, if earth rotated then mechanical heading indicators would detect earth's motion while we firmly stand on the rigid earth, and fly within earth's atmosphere, but that ability (of mechanical heading indicators) of detection of motion of the earth (and atmosphere) would come to a stop at higher altitudes (beyond earth's atmosphere). Where is (at what altitude) that boundary?
Now, even within geocentric scenario we would have the problem with that boundary, because unlike in HC scenario, within which going beyond that boundary means entering motionless space, within GC scenario, going beyond that boundary means entering *MECHANICALLY* (NOT AETHERLY) MOVING SPACE!!!
10. Within HC model geostationary satellites (at 37 000 km distance) are very far away from the last frontier of earth's atmosphere, and despite that their orbital speed is perfectly synchronized with the speed of earth's rotation. Isn't that too good to be true?
Within GC model geostationary satellites are again at 37 000 km distance and have to be motionless in the same way as the earth is motionless. I can show you how famous geocentrist Robert Sungenis explains the mechanics of that motionless geostationary satellites. He uses assumption of mechanical motion of space and then introduce roulette wheel and a ball example to illustrate how a ball (satellite) can stay fixed in space above certain point above the earth by the force of moving roulette wheel (rotating shell of the universe)...
I don't claim geostationary satellites don't exist for sure but since an explanation of Robert Sungenis is pretty odd, and since i know for sure that the earth is at rest (which means that HC explanation for geostationary satellites is 100 % fraudulent), then i still choose to remain suspicious about the very existence of geostationary satellites...
11. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ANYTHING AS FAKE AS THIS :
3. When the first crew who landed on the moon did a world tour, they presented the Dutch premier with a piece of moon rock ,,,when he died a few years ago the university of Utrecht in Holland did some experiments on what they thought was moon rock ,,and it was found to be worthless petrified wood ,,?No, they didn't "present the Dutch premier with a piece of moon rock".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html
9.8 How come the Moon rock donated to Holland is fake? (http://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/2017/07/98-how-come-moon-rock-donated-to.html)Nowhere does it does not state that the fake rock was a "moon-rock" and anyone could tell at a glance that it wasn't a moon-rock.
IN A NUTSHELL: Because it’s not a NASA Moon rock. Everything points to a mistake or to a hoax orchestrated by two Dutch artists in 2006. NASA has never authenticated the “rock” (there are no documents tracing its origins), it’s far too big to be a donated lunar sample, and its background story is nonsensical. It was reportedly donated privately in 1969 to a retired prime minister instead of being given, as was customary, to a representative of the then-current Dutch government; it wasn’t put on public display as a Moon rock would have deserved; and real donated Moon rocks were encapsulated in transparent plastic, while this one is not.
THE DETAILS:* In August 2009, several media outlets began reporting that the curators of the Dutch national museum in Amsterdam, the Rijksmuseum, had discovered that an exhibit that had been presented for years as an Apollo 11 Moon rock was actually a chunk of petrified wood (Figure 9.8-1).
* I am indebted to Diego Cuoghi for sharing his research into many of the details of this story.. . . . . . . . .
Figure 9.8-1. The fake “Moon rock” and its descriptive card.
Van Gelder also noted that the history of the item was suspicious. Real samples would be donated by the US government to the people of a country through a representative of the then-current government, not to a former prime minister who in 1969 had been out of office for eleven years. The US ambassador explained that he had received the exhibit from the US State Department, but he could not recall the details of the matter.
In addition to its inconsistent and implausible history, the fakery, if intended, wasn’t particularly subtle. The reddish color of the item was completely different from the usual color of lunar samples. Petrologist Wim van Westrenen, of the Amsterdam Free University, reported that he was immediately aware that something was wrong. Spectroscopic and microscopic inspection of a fragment taken from the item found quartz and cell-like structures typical of petrified wood.
Further anomalies become evident if the item is compared with a real sample donated to the Netherlands and stored at the Boerhaave museum (Figure 9.8-2).
Figure 9.8-2. At the top, encapsulated in clear plastic, a genuine sample of Moon rock
donated to the Netherlands by the US. Credit: Museumboerhaave.nl.
The real Dutch sample is encapsulated in plastic and accompanied by a national flag and by plaques that clearly identify it as fragments of Moon rocks retrieved by Apollo 11 and “presented to the people of the Kingdom of the Netherlands by Richard Nixon, President of the United States of America”. Specifically, the plaque states that “this flag of your nation was carried to the Moon and back by Apollo 11, and this fragment of the Moon’s surface was brought to Earth by the crew of that first manned lunar landing.”
<< Read the rest at the link >>
Looks fine to me. How do you think it should look? You're obviously an expert on how things should lookThere's a lot of anti-MOON HOAX material in MOON HOAX: DEBUNKED! DEBUNKING DOUBTERS AND LUNATICS. (http://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/)
Ah, that's enough, lifes too short ;)
Flat earth society overcrowded with rocket scientists, professional NASA shills, and astronomers supporting each other, and noone to support my geocentric view...Doesn't it strike you as odd (to say the least)???
So, i've got a message for all Flat Earthers, here (and there) :
Gas pressure requires molecules to be in contact with each other, bouncing off each other, causing millions of collisions per second, etc… If you release gas into the vacuum of space, the first molecule that pops out will shoot off into the distance at a constant speed, so will the one behind that, never catching up with the first one. The third, fourth, etc… all fly off into the distance trying to fill the vacuum by finding their empty corner. So no matter how much gas you produce none of it will ever change the pressure under a space ship. None of it if will ever push a spaceship. To push a spaceship there must be some locally high pressure under it, which is impossible since the pressure in space is 0 everywhere.
Back the the Nozzle and the Massflow equation F=MA on earth
Think about a fire hose shooting water. A force comes directly back against the column of water shooting out. Why? Because the first drop of water has to pas through air, which is dense, causing many collisions, slowing down the drop of water. The second drop, directly behind the first, will not be slowed down by the air so it will collide with the first drop, the third drop hits the second drop and so on, the fast water coming through the hose pushing through the slower water outside causes Newton’s 3rd Law to push back on the column of water. This is why you need people holding the hose to add an unbalanced force otherwise the hose would not be able to push water through that column anymore, the water column would be diverted and the hose would flop around. It is obvious that one drop of water does not push back on the hose, you need a fast moving column.
The nozzle and the Massflow equation in space
Since the molecules leaving the combustion chamber and entering the vacuum never slow down, never collide with any outside objects, nor with each other, their force is always moving forward, away from the ship. There is no way for that force to be returned to the ship. There is no way for the force of the moving molecules to be extracted and used for propulsion. Their force is carried off into the far corners of space. This is also known as Joule Expansion. Remember that as soon as the nozzle is opened, the combustion chamber becomes part of the vacuum of space as is subject to its laws. A closed chamber is under pressure but not an open one.
NASA is lying at the molecular level
But that’s OK because most people don’t usually look there. The awesome, spectacular and heroic nature of space exploration is enough to cloud the most logical minds. Most respectable engineering schools won’t touch space flight and those who do have tiny departments. If it was really a multi-billion dollar government funded operation, every school in America would have their hands out for government grants like the do with Engineering, Computer Science and Biology. But why train thousands of the best minds of a generation in a field that doesn’t exist?
So, once again, just for you Jack :
Newton's Third Law - Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
"When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body."
”When a BODY exerts force on a SECOND BODY” let me ask you, what is the second body being acted upon, IN A VACUUM ??!!
Flat earth society overcrowded with rocket scientists, professional NASA shills, and astronomers supporting each other, and noone to support my geocentric view...Doesn't it strike you as odd (to say the least)???Yes, odd that you still need to spout such nonsense rather than admit you were wrong or address the questions.
If you release gas into the vacuum of space, the first molecule that pops out will shoot off into the distance at a constant speed, so will the one behind that, never catching up with the first one.No it wont. Do you understand how gasses work at all?
Think about a fire hose shooting water. A force comes directly back against the column of water shooting out. Why?INERTIA.
NASA is lying at the molecular levelNo, that would still be you.
”When a BODY exerts force on a SECOND BODY” let me ask you, what is the second body being acted upon, IN A VACUUM ??!!I have already answered this repeatedly. The exhaust is one body, being forced away from the second body, the rocket.
Gas pressure requires molecules to be in contact with each other, bouncing off each other, causing millions of collisions per second, etc… If you release gas into the vacuum of space, the first molecule that pops out will shoot off into the distance at a constant speed, so will the one behind that, never catching up with the first one. The third, fourth, etc… all fly off into the distance trying to fill the vacuum by finding their empty corner. So no matter how much gas you produce none of it will ever change the pressure under a space ship. None of it if will ever push a spaceship. To push a spaceship there must be some locally high pressure under it, which is impossible since the pressure in space is 0 everywhere.
At 21min 53 sec in this video, a microphone accidentally records an astronaut privately discussing telephoning the CIA to have investigative journalist Bart Sibrel assassinated, something that would not be necessary if Sibrel's discovery of the fraud was not true.Just like the last time you posted this, it was NOT a private converation. Mitchell's son said it right to Sibrel's face to play on his paranoia. It was a joke on a known and convicted stalker.
(https://i.postimg.cc/7YCfx9WM/MITCHELL-S-SON.jpg)
<< Spam deleted >>You seem to believe in the adage falsely attributed the Joseph Goebbels, "A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth!"
[urhttp://www.bbc.com/future/story/20161026-how-liars-create-the-illusion-of-truth]How Liars Create the Illusion of Truth.[/url]And you repeat the same stuff so often that you must subscribe to the same theory!
Repetition makes a fact seem more true, regardless of whether it is or not. Understanding this effect can help you avoid falling for propaganda, says psychologist Tom Stafford.
“Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”, is a law of propaganda often attributed to the Nazi Joseph Goebbels. Among psychologists something like this known as the "illusion of truth" effect. Here's how a typical experiment on the effect works: participants rate how true trivia items are, things like "A prune is a dried plum".
<< Read the rest from the reference >>
The 'illusion of truth' can be a dangerous weapon in the hands of
a propagandist like Joseph Goebbels (Credit: Getty Images)
”When a BODY exerts force on a SECOND BODY” let me ask you, what is the second body being acted upon, IN A VACUUM ??!!I have already answered this repeatedly. The exhaust is one body, being forced away from the second body, the rocket.
Now perhaps you can answer my question:
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?
Flat earth society overcrowded with rocket scientists, professional NASA shills, and astronomers supporting each other, and noone to support my geocentric view...Doesn't it strike you as odd (to say the least)???
No, there's no evidence for a geocentric view, why would anyone support it?
<< Spam deleted >>You seem to believe in the adage falsely attributed the Joseph Goebbels, "A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth!"Quote from: Tom Stafford[urhttp://www.bbc.com/future/story/20161026-how-liars-create-the-illusion-of-truth]How Liars Create the Illusion of Truth.[/url]And you repeat the same stuff so often that you must subscribe to the same theory!
Repetition makes a fact seem more true, regardless of whether it is or not. Understanding this effect can help you avoid falling for propaganda, says psychologist Tom Stafford.
“Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”, is a law of propaganda often attributed to the Nazi Joseph Goebbels. Among psychologists something like this known as the "illusion of truth" effect. Here's how a typical experiment on the effect works: participants rate how true trivia items are, things like "A prune is a dried plum".
<< Read the rest from the reference >>
The 'illusion of truth' can be a dangerous weapon in the hands of
a propagandist like Joseph Goebbels (Credit: Getty Images)
(https://i.postimg.cc/cJytQBdW/einsteinian-reformulation-of-mechanics-2-X.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/NMQynGyP/einsteinian-reformulation-of-mechanics-3-X.jpg)
Flat earth society overcrowded with rocket scientists and astronomers supporting each other, and noone to support my geocentric view...Doesn't it strike you as odd (to say the least)???
Gas pressure requires molecules to be in contact with each other, bouncing off each other, causing millions of collisions per second, etc… If you release gas into the vacuum of space, the first molecule that pops out will shoot off into the distance at a constant speed, so will the one behind that, never catching up with the first one. The third, fourth, etc… all fly off into the distance trying to fill the vacuum by finding their empty corner. So no matter how much gas you produce none of it will ever change the pressure under a space ship. None of it if will ever push a spaceship. To push a spaceship there must be some locally high pressure under it, which is impossible since the pressure in space is 0 everywhere.Sure gas pressure IN "the vacuum of space" is zero but the exit of the nozzle is not IN "the vacuum of space" ans so can have a slight pressure and this leads to the Exhaust Area x (Exhaust Pressure - External Pressure) term in the thrust equation.
Back the the Nozzle and the Massflow equation F=MA on earthNo, the thrust does not come from "one water drop pushing on another" but simply from the rate of change of momentum, as above!
Think about a fire hose shooting water. A force comes directly back against the column of water shooting out. Why? Because the first drop of water has to pas through air, which is dense, causing many collisions, slowing down the drop of water. The second drop, directly behind the first, will not be slowed down by the air so it will collide with the first drop, the third drop hits the second drop and so on, the fast water coming through the hose pushing through the slower water outside causes Newton’s 3rd Law to push back on the column of water. This is why you need people holding the hose to add an unbalanced force otherwise the hose would not be able to push water through that column anymore, the water column would be diverted and the hose would flop around. It is obvious that one drop of water does not push back on the hose, you need a fast moving column.
The nozzle and the Massflow equation in spaceNo, the thrust does not come from "one molecule pushing on another" but simply from the rate of change of momentum, as above!
Since the molecules leaving the combustion chamber and entering the vacuum never slow down, never collide with any outside objects, nor with each other, their force is always moving forward, away from the ship. There is no way for that force to be returned to the ship. There is no way for the force of the moving molecules to be extracted and used for propulsion.
Their force is carried off into the far corners of space. This is also known as Joule Expansion.No, the "Joule Expansion" is completely irrelevant and would simply say that no work can be done on the vacuum - which is obvious!
Remember that as soon as the nozzle is opened, the combustion chamber becomes part of the vacuum of space as is subject to its laws. A closed chamber is under pressure but not an open one.No, it is a complete fallacy that "as soon as the nozzle is opened, the combustion chamber becomes part of the vacuum of space"!
<< Unsupportable accusation deleted >>
[/color]
You repeat the same old material and that does not make t more believable!<< Proving my point that you must be Joseph Goebbels re-incarnated. >><< Spam deleted >>You seem to believe in the adage falsely attributed the Joseph Goebbels, "A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth!"Quote from: Tom StaffordHow Liars Create the Illusion of Truth. (http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20161026-how-liars-create-the-illusion-of-truth)And you repeat the same stuff so often that you must subscribe to the same theory!
Repetition makes a fact seem more true, regardless of whether it is or not. Understanding this effect can help you avoid falling for propaganda, says psychologist Tom Stafford.
“Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”, is a law of propaganda often attributed to the Nazi Joseph Goebbels. Among psychologists something like this known as the "illusion of truth" effect. Here's how a typical experiment on the effect works: participants rate how true trivia items are, things like "A prune is a dried plum".
<< Read the rest from the reference >>
The 'illusion of truth' can be a dangerous weapon in the hands of
a propagandist like Joseph Goebbels (Credit: Getty Images)
Quote(https://i.postimg.cc/cJytQBdW/einsteinian-reformulation-of-mechanics-2-X.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/NMQynGyP/einsteinian-reformulation-of-mechanics-3-X.jpg)
BOTH electrodynamics and mechanics are GALILEAN INVARIANT.
Maxwell's original set of equations is Galilean invariant:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2168036#msg2168036
Only the Heaviside-Lorentz equations are Lorentz invariant.
Einstein had no knowledge of the original set of Maxwell equations which renders relativity useless: his "conjecture" (described pompously as a postulate) is not worth the paper it was printed on.
Moreover, THERE IS NO BOUNDED DYNAMICAL SOLUTION IN EINSTEIN'S TGR:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2194825#msg2194825
This means that the linearized, weak-field approximation is useless: TGR cannot be applied to Mercury's perihelion calculations, or the bending of light or anything else.
Einstein did not provide a proof that his GR equations apply to MANY-BODY problems, a fact which was observed by A. Gullstrand.
In order to obtain a correct bounded dynamic solution, one needs to insert a repulsive gravitation term in the equations, exactly what Reissner, Nordstrom and Weyl did.
This is called the SOLAR GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL PARADOX.
We have the ROTATIONAL solar gravitational potential equation. That is, as the GPS satellites rotate above the Earth, they record the ether drift effect upon the clocks.
However, we also have the ORBITAL solar gravitational potential. And this one is MISSING.
It is NOT recorded/registered by GPS satellites.
GPS satellites also do not record the ORBITAL CORIOLIS EFFECT, not to mention the ROTATIONAL SAGNAC EFFECT.
This means that the hypotheses of the Ruderfer experiment are fulfilled: this is the main reason why relativists are FORCED to accept Lorentz' local-aether model.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846706#msg1846706
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721
THE QUESTION : A geosynchronous satellites have to travel around the earth at 11 000 km/h in order not to fall back on earth. How do they manage that?
According to HC theory the earth and the atmosphere are both spinning at the same rate (according to the heliocentric model) with high speeds at the equator and lesser speeds towards the poles.
To skim the Earth’s atmosphere in orbit, your spacecraft has to travel at least as fast as 7.8 km/s, or about 17,500 mph. The Earth itself, with its atmosphere, is spinning eastward below you, at around 1,000 mph. So, you can reduce your re-entry speed by orbiting in the same direction that the Earth spins. However, that only helps a bit. Your spacecraft still has to travel at 16,500 mph relative to our atmosphere to stay in orbit.
1. How ISS gained (and maintains) it's incredible orbital velocity (7,66 km/s = 27 600 km/h)???
2. How Space Shuttle gained it's incredible orbital velocity (7,66 km/s)???
3. Where does the space shuttle reenters earth’s atmosphere and is the space shuttle following the spin of the earth? If not wouldn’t it be impossible to reenter the earth due to the fact that the atmosphere would hit the shuttle with the strength of a tornado that blows 26 000 km/h (which would be the difference between Space Shuttle's orbital velocity and rotational velocity of earth's atmosphere?
Quote(https://i.postimg.cc/cJytQBdW/einsteinian-reformulation-of-mechanics-2-X.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/NMQynGyP/einsteinian-reformulation-of-mechanics-3-X.jpg)
BOTH electrodynamics and mechanics are GALILEAN INVARIANT.
Maxwell's original set of equations is Galilean invariant:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2168036#msg2168036
Only the Heaviside-Lorentz equations are Lorentz invariant.
Einstein had no knowledge of the original set of Maxwell equations which renders relativity useless: his "conjecture" (described pompously as a postulate) is not worth the paper it was printed on.
Moreover, THERE IS NO BOUNDED DYNAMICAL SOLUTION IN EINSTEIN'S TGR:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2194825#msg2194825
This means that the linearized, weak-field approximation is useless: TGR cannot be applied to Mercury's perihelion calculations, or the bending of light or anything else.
Einstein did not provide a proof that his GR equations apply to MANY-BODY problems, a fact which was observed by A. Gullstrand.
In order to obtain a correct bounded dynamic solution, one needs to insert a repulsive gravitation term in the equations, exactly what Reissner, Nordstrom and Weyl did.
A simple question for you :
Since JackBlack & others rejected validity of the following argument, i would like to here your opinion on the words in blue :
INTRODUCTION :
We must understand the mechanism of the tides, he insist, and the way to begin to do
this is to have a laboratory scale model of the tides. Galileo invites his readers to
consider a rectangular shallow flat bottomed basin of water: 'just like' the water in the
ocean basin. Galileo asks: “What happens if I rhythmically push the basin forward and
pull the basin back?” If the rhythm is correct, Galileo states you will get an oscillating
wall of water moving back and forth, which is a model of the tides. This motion is the
alternate acceleration and deceleration of the water. But how is this alternately
accelerating and decelerating motion of the seas and oceans produced on Earth?
In figure 1, we look down on the orbit of the Earth and the spinning Earth’s north pole.
We shall assign speeds to the Earth’s motions: its orbital speed around the Sun, Vo,
and its speed of axial daily rotation Vd. Now consider a point on the surface of the
Earth at noon time. What is the speed of that point in space at noon? It is Vo+Vd.
What about at midnight when the same point has moved around with the spinning
Earth? What is the speed of that point in space? It is Vo-Vd. So, your maximum speed
is at noon time and the minimum speed is at midnight. And every day every point on
the Earth undergoes a variation of speed from a maximum Vo+Vd to a minimum Vo-
Vd If every point on the Earth goes from a maximum to minimum speed once every 24
hours that means that every point on Earth is alternately accelerated and decelerated,
accelerated and decelerated, and so on. And Galileo’s conclusion is that in the oceans
and seas, subjected to this daily alternation of acceleration and deceleration, you would
get the sloshing of the tides!
(https://i.postimg.cc/W4kjbV4w/GALILEO-FIGURE-1.jpg)
This theory is wrong in terms of the later Newtonian physics, and Galileo was also
wrong in the eyes of his friends who would not accept his theory of the tides. One of
the reasons Galileo’s theory was not convincing was that there were other theories of
the tides. For example, Kepler said “The Moon affects the oceans and causes the tides”.
Galileo disagreed with Kepler, asking how this occurred, by some 'magical' action at a
distance. Another person to dispute his theories was the magician, alternative Natural
Philosopher and Dominican, Tommaso Campanella who asked why humans, trees and
houses, were not accelerated and decelerated all the time. Galileo’s motion of the tides
also completely contradicts his inertial motion theory. So, his theory of the tides did not
convince many people.
Now what about the meaning of the Galileo affair? There are certain points that are
true in this affair for observers of varied persuasions: Firstly, Galileo was presenting a
fragmentary set of arguments against an established world view. Galileo was not a
Natural Philosopher in the systematic sense of say, Aristotle or later on Newton, or
Descartes. Galileo had his telescope, his theory of the tides and his theory of motion --
his physics. He could persuade people of his theory but he could not replace, system for
system, the existing total picture. This is one of the drawbacks for Galileo.
Yet, we must also consider that it was perfectly reasonable in 1633 that Tycho’s system
could be proved right and that Aristotle's could be patched up to agree with the
Tychonic system. Galileo’s trial comes down to a political value judgement and the
balance of the judgement was something like this: Do you follow Galileo without a
system into a new view which may have religious or political repercussions. Or, do you
stick with an old view, which is under criticism, but which has not been overthrown and
which seems to be successful in helping to solidify the political and institutional order
on the Catholic side. These were value judgements. A frame-ups of Galileo aside, it
would seem perfectly reasonable to have adopted the latter position.
There was no reason in some supposed scientific method, or 'the nuggety facts' that would seem to
have favoured one or the other position in 1633, and that is the fundamental point that
we have been trying to come to grips with in these two Chapters on the Galileo affair.
AN ARGUMENT :
If we put an accelerometer at the equator, why at night we do not see an acceleration and a deceleration by day if the earth really rotates?
The dark side of the earth away from the sun is moving faster of course (relative to the sun) as it is shooting forward. And the sunny side is moving 'backward" or at least slower than the dark side.
So... 65,000 mph around the sun.
Dark side moving at 66,000mph.
Light side moving at 64,000mph.
So... In 12 hours from midnight to mid day, YOU should reduce in speed my 2000mph around the sun. This means that every min in that 12 hours, you are slowing down 2.777777 mph. Very small amount. A human cannot feel this. But an accelerometer TOTALLY can. This mean I should be able to put my cellphone on a table and see the accelerometer showing a reading.
RABINOZ LIKES GOEBBELS :
Gas pressureRepeatedly ignoring the question and repeating the same refuted lie wont help your case.
Geosynchronous SatellitesAgreed, geosynchronous and geostationary satellites must orbit the earth once per sidereal day or in close to 23.93 hours.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Geostationary Satellites hover over the same point of the earth because they orbit the earth at the same speed as the earth rotates.
THE QUESTION : A geosynchronous satellites have to travel around the earth at 11 000 km/h in order not to fall back on earth.
How do they manage that?What do you mean by How do they manage that?
According to HC theory the earth and the atmosphere are both spinning at the same rate (according to the heliocentric model) with high speeds at the equator and lesser speeds towards the poles.So? Why is that a problem? It is quite within the capability of modern rockets!
To skim the Earth’s atmosphere in orbit, your spacecraft has to travel at least as fast as 7.8 km/s, or about 17,500 mph. The Earth itself, with its atmosphere, is spinning eastward below you, at around 1,000 mph. So, you can reduce your re-entry speed by orbiting in the same direction that the Earth spins. However, that only helps a bit. Your spacecraft still has to travel at 16,500 mph relative to our atmosphere to stay in orbit.
1. How ISS gained (and maintains) it's incredible orbital velocity (7,66 km/s = 27 600 km/h)???Why "incredible"? But it's been answered numerous times!
Same as the previous question!2. How Space Shuttle gained it's incredible orbital velocity (7,66 km/s)???
3. Where does the space shuttle reenters earth’s atmosphere and is the space shuttle following the spin of the earth? If not wouldn’t it be impossible to reenter the earth due to the fact that the atmosphere would hit the shuttle with the strength of a tornado that blows 26 000 km/h (which would be the difference between Space Shuttle's orbital velocity and rotational velocity of earth's atmosphere?Answered before in, HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum) « Reply #534 on: August 14, 2019, 08:49:30 AM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2194935#msg2194935)
GAU-8 AvengerAnd more dodging of very simple questions I see.
Just to be fair the geocentric model works fine without Newtonian physics.Yes, if you discard physics you can make any model work.
he has handled himself amazinglySo you consider him repeatedly avoiding very simple questions which show his claims to be pure garbage, as well as bringing up the same refuted lies again and again to be handling himself amazingly?
Just to be fair the geocentric model works fine without Newtonian physics.Yes, if you discard physics you can make any model work.he has handled himself amazinglySo you consider him repeatedly avoiding very simple questions which show his claims to be pure garbage, as well as bringing up the same refuted lies again and again to be handling himself amazingly?
GAU-8 Avenger
Rate of fire: 3,900 rpm
Muzzle velocity: 1010 m/s
Projectile weight : 0.7 kg
The GAU-8 itself weighs 620 pounds (280 kg), but the complete weapon, with feed system and drum, weighs 4,029 pounds (1,828 kg) with a maximum ammunition load.
980 N force is needed for lifting 100 kg.
980 * 18,28 = 17,91 kN
------------------------------
Space Shuttle Endeavour :
Weight : 100 000 kg
Main engines : Three Rocketdyne Block IIA SSME, each 1752 MN
Payload : 25 060 kg
Alleged Speed : 7743 m/s (27 875 km/h, 17 321 mi/h)
Weight : 120 000 kg
1200 * 980 = 1,176 000 N = 1,2 MN
Each shuttle main engine has about 418,000 pounds of thrust, and there are three on the vehicle, so that's about 1.2 million.
1 200 000 pounds of force = 545 454 kg = 5 280 000 N
545 454 kg / 120 000 kg = 4,5 (ratio)
In orbit Space Shuttle has to achieve certain speed (7743 m/s) to stay in orbit using recoil power of it's engines.
How much did the Space Shuttle weigh?
The Space Shuttle weighed 74,800 kg empty. Its external tank weighed 35,400 kg empty and its two solid rocket boosters weighed 83,900 kg empty each. Each solid rocket booster held 500,000 kg of fuel. The external tank held 616,432 kg of liquid oxygen and 102,500 kg of liquid hydrogen . The fuel weighed almost 20 times more than the Shuttle. At launch, the Shuttle, external tank, solid rocket boosters and all the fuel combined had a total weight of 2.0 million kg.
GAU-8 AvangerGAU-8 Avenger "propellant load" = 1174 rounds.
65 (rounds per second) * 0,7 kg (weight of projectiles) = 45,5 kg
45,5 kg * 1010 m/s (muzzle velocity) = 45 955 N = 45,9 kN
45 955 N = 10 482 pounds of force = 4764 kg of force
4764 kg / 1828 kg (GAU-8 total weight) = 2,6 (ratio)
So, GAU-8 Avanger (weight = 1,8 tons) ejects 45,5 kg at 1010 m/s! (1010 m/s = 3636 km/h)And runs out of propellant after 18 seconds! Wipe the GAU-8 Avenger!
How fast GAU-8 is going to go using it's own recoil power?
Let's suppose that Space Shuttle's exhaust velocity is 2000 m/sIt isn't!
Where did you drag that from?
It means that main engines of Space Shuttle would have to eject 2640 kg at 2000 m/s!
However, if you want to propel (with recoiling mechanism) Space Shuttle 2000 m/s in a vacuum of space, you have to eject 120 000 kg (not 2640 kg) at 2000 m/s which is the first impossibility right there.How do you work that out?
Second impossibility : Even if you could get around first impossibility, it wouldn't work since the speed of expansion of gasses in a vacuum would be much greater than exhaust velocity of Space Shuttle main engines, which would prevent any work to be done.That is totally irrelevant because the burnt propellant is a very high velocity (4.436 km/sec for the main engines) in the vacuum and then gradually disperses.
Third impossibility : Even if there was a way around first and second impossibility you would still be at loss for 4743 m/s, or to be honest (given the theoretical facts asserted in the following passage), you would be at loss for 3443 m/s :Where is there any "impossibility"?
After the solid rockets are jettisoned, the main engines provide thrust which accelerates the Shuttle from 4,828 kilometers per hour (3,000 mph) to over 27,358 kilometers per hour (17,000 mph) in just six minutes to reach orbit. They create a combined maximum thrust of more than 1.2 million pounds.
When the Solid Rocket Boosters separate at an altitude of approximately 45 kilometers (28 miles),Here is the data on the ascent of STS-121 to a bit over 100 km. It shows altitude , velocity and acceleration at 20 sec intervals. See if that helps:
the orbiter, with the main engines still burning, carries the external tank piggyback to near orbital velocity, approximately 113 kilometers (70 miles) above the Earth.
The now nearly empty tank separates and falls in a preplanned trajectory with the majority of it disintegrating in the atmosphere and the rest falling into the ocean.
WIKI QUOTE :I see a lot of spam there, including a lot blatant misrepresentation or falsehoods.
WIKI QUOTE :Yes, when they are sent to that altitude and given orbital velocity with a rocket! Then that "balloon" becomes a bug reflective sphere!
The U.S. (and for a while, the world) altitude record for unmanned balloons was 51.8 km (170,000 ft) (according to a 1991 edition of Guinness Book of World Records). The vehicle was a Winzen-Balloon with a volume of 1.35 million cubic metres, launched in October 1972 in Chico, California, USA.[citation needed]
During 2002 an ultra-thin-film balloon named BU60-1 made of polyethylene film 3.4 µm thick with a volume of 60,000 m³ was launched from Sanriku Balloon Center at Ofunato City, Iwate in Japan at 6:35 on May 23, 2002. The balloon ascended at a speed of 260 m per minute and successfully reached the altitude of 53.0 km (173,900 ft), breaking the previous world record set during 1972
READ MORE : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record
BALLOONS CAN GO UP TO 1000 MILES - REALLY NOW? :
(https://i.postimg.cc/8ChCRHf1/Balloons-can-go-up-to-1000-miles-REALLY-NOW.jpg)
BALLOONS CAN GO UP TO 1000 MILES - VIDEO :
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7g9tn0
More on Project Echo in:The Earth is flat... now what? « Reply #268 on: July 01, 2017, 09:07:23 AM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70964.msg1924664#msg1924664)Quote from: Plat Terraand set satellites with balloons near 1000 miles up. They inflated the balloon in the vacuum of space, OPPS, no vacuum.Why is that any evidence of "no vacuum"? It was one of the Echo satellites and not held aloft by buoyancy but by orbiting.
Read up on it in: 1st Communication Satellite: A Giant Space Balloon 50 Years Ago. (https://www.space.com/8973-1st-communication-satellite-giant-space-balloon-50-years.html)Quote from: Plat TerraHere is a 1960s broadcast about this amazing technology.And you believe the rubbish in that "Nasa No vacuum in space, balloons can go up to 1000 miles , Project Echo" video?
Why couldn’t a very strong balloon be inflated in a vacuum?
Open minded people who can't understand something research it and learn what they can.
Whereas closed-minded ignoramuses simply ridicule what their small minds can't understand - seems to fit QNFee to a T!
I fail to see why the Echo satellites could not be genuine.
They did, I believe, have initial problems with overinflation due to traces of moisture inside before launch.
You really have little understanding this sort of thing do you?
WIKI QUOTE :I see a lot of spam there, including a lot blatant misrepresentation or falsehoods.
Again:
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?
WIKI QUOTE :I see a lot of spam there, including a lot blatant misrepresentation or falsehoods.
Name one falsehood, and prove your claim! Do i ask too much of you?Again:
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?
Again, just for you Jack :
Newton's Third Law - Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
"When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body."
You still haven't watched this video :
No, the “second body” isn't the gases...in a rocket launch...the rocket (engine) is the “first body” applying force (expelled gases) to a second body (ground, then atmosphere).. which “pushes back” with equal and opposite force.. on the first body (rocket) forcing it to go up..
what happens in a REAL and INFINITE vacuum, where there is no “second body” to act upon???
THE ROCKET (ENGINE) = FIRST BODY
FORCE = EXPELLED GASSES
GROUND/ATMOSPHERE = SECOND BODY
THE PROBLEM No 1. If the speed of dissipation (velocity of gas expansion in a vacuum) is equal or greater than exhaust velocity of a rocket, then thrust efficiency is ZERO.
THE PROBLEM No 2 : What kind of a rocket could provide enough thrust, so that it can fly for 8,25 hours continually, pushing itself off of their own ejected gasses? After liftoff, it takes about 10 minutes before the main rocket stages burn out (depends on the rocket used). After that, the spacecraft is in zero G. The trip from the surface to low Earth orbit is a matter of about 10 minutes under thrust.
THE PROBLEM No 3 : As the rocket climbs ever higher, it will have to exponentially increase its output/thrust (and, of course, its fuel consumption), in order to keep going - and combating the pull of gravity which, contrary to public belief, does NOT decrease exponentially with altitude. Now, remember: NASA tells us that their rockets perform below max efficiency at sea level, at optimal efficiency somewhat higher in the atmosphere (as the rocket pressure equalizes with the external air pressure) and then start losing efficiency again as they ascend into ever thinner air. Note: NASA says so - not me.
THE PROBLEM No 4 : To attain the so-called escape velocity of 8km/s with "recoil power" only, this is what NASA's rockets would have to do: they'd have to shoot out from behind their rockets, all at once (like a bullet from a gun) a mass equal to the mass of the vessel itself - at a velocity of 8km/s. This means that, if this were to be the case (that rockets move due to "recoil action/reaction")- more than half of any rocket's fuel mass would have to be ejected at that speed.
Let's try once again :
1. When a rocket's combustion chamber is filled with accelerated gas opening the nozzle to expel the gasses into the vacuum of space does not generate a force against the ship. This is due to the principle of free expansion.
2. No amount of combustion or pressure inside the space ship can move the ship until that combustive force or pressure is exchanged with some object, entity, or field outside of the ship (a space ship is a closed system).
3. Based on 1 and 2 there is no way to move the ship by releasing gas and no way to move the ship by keeping the gas inside. A space ship cannot generate force with a gas based propulsion system. Space rockets are the stuff of fantasies not science or physics.
4. Any liquid exposed to a vacuum is immediately converted to gas and any gas is immediately spread out into the void. So any combustion would have to take place in a sealed container and hence not in a vacuum in the strict sense.
5. Contrary to known rocket's trajectories, they need to end up going seven miles per second away from the center of gravity (center of gravity = center of the earth)! (see reply #270)
Regarding the possibility of opening one side of a container, exposing it to the vacuum, while combusting gasses inside the container. In this case we have to consider that combustion can't occur anywhere near the opening because any liquids in that area are being instantly converted to gas by the vacuum and spread out into the void via free expansion. When combustion occurs at the far side of the container the force is going to push the remaining liquid out before it can be combusted. This seems like a terribly inefficient use of fuel as the combustion itself is forcing unspent fuel into space.
Another problem is that gas enters a vacuum at an average speed of about 2,000 meters a second. A 25 meter long Saturn 5 stage 2 fuel tank with over 1,000,000 liters of fuel would have it's contents drained in about 1/100 of a second if exposed to the vacuum of space.
Well, consider this: no honest scientists will deny that, when opening a valve between two containers (one containing air at high pressure - and the other only vacuum) the pressures in the two containers will equalize in a fraction of a second, the vacuum container 'sucking' the air to itself with tremendous, almost explosive force.
Imagine now the high pressure emitted by any rocket from its (always open) nozzle. As it enters the vacuum of outer space, the very same - almost explosively rapid - pressure equalization is bound to occur. The rocket will be emptied of all of its pressurized fuel in a flash - by the overwhelmingly superior power of the vacuum itself. No matter how powerful the rocket (propelled by any fuel known to man / and designed to perform in our 0,001 atmosphere) - the very laws of physics will not allow it to ascend any further into the void of space. It will haplessly tumble back to Earth.
In Summary
1. Without free expansion the rocket exhaust will push against space. And off we go!
2. Objects don't accelerate unless they exchange energy with some other object/field. There are no objects or fields in space (I regard them to be so small/weak as to be virtually non-existent).
I'm calling "Poe" on this.WIKI QUOTE :I see a lot of spam there, including a lot blatant misrepresentation or falsehoods.
Name one falsehood, and prove your claim! Do i ask too much of you?Again:
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?
Again, just for you Jack :
Newton's Third Law - Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
"When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body."
You still haven't watched this video :
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7ga9h2
No, the “second body” isn't the gases...in a rocket launch...the rocket (engine) is the “first body” applying force (expelled gases) to a second body (ground, then atmosphere).. which “pushes back” with equal and opposite force.. on the first body (rocket) forcing it to go up..
what happens in a REAL and INFINITE vacuum, where there is no “second body” to act upon???
THE ROCKET (ENGINE) = FIRST BODY
FORCE = EXPELLED GASSES
GROUND/ATMOSPHERE = SECOND BODY
THE PROBLEM No 1. If the speed of dissipation (velocity of gas expansion in a vacuum) is equal or greater than exhaust velocity of a rocket, then thrust efficiency is ZERO.
THE PROBLEM No 2 : What kind of a rocket could provide enough thrust, so that it can fly for 8,25 hours continually, pushing itself off of their own ejected gasses? After liftoff, it takes about 10 minutes before the main rocket stages burn out (depends on the rocket used). After that, the spacecraft is in zero G. The trip from the surface to low Earth orbit is a matter of about 10 minutes under thrust.
THE PROBLEM No 3 : As the rocket climbs ever higher, it will have to exponentially increase its output/thrust (and, of course, its fuel consumption), in order to keep going - and combating the pull of gravity which, contrary to public belief, does NOT decrease exponentially with altitude. Now, remember: NASA tells us that their rockets perform below max efficiency at sea level, at optimal efficiency somewhat higher in the atmosphere (as the rocket pressure equalizes with the external air pressure) and then start losing efficiency again as they ascend into ever thinner air. Note: NASA says so - not me.
THE PROBLEM No 4 : To attain the so-called escape velocity of 8km/s with "recoil power" only, this is what NASA's rockets would have to do: they'd have to shoot out from behind their rockets, all at once (like a bullet from a gun) a mass equal to the mass of the vessel itself - at a velocity of 8km/s. This means that, if this were to be the case (that rockets move due to "recoil action/reaction")- more than half of any rocket's fuel mass would have to be ejected at that speed.
Let's try once again :
1. When a rocket's combustion chamber is filled with accelerated gas opening the nozzle to expel the gasses into the vacuum of space does not generate a force against the ship. This is due to the principle of free expansion.
2. No amount of combustion or pressure inside the space ship can move the ship until that combustive force or pressure is exchanged with some object, entity, or field outside of the ship (a space ship is a closed system).
3. Based on 1 and 2 there is no way to move the ship by releasing gas and no way to move the ship by keeping the gas inside. A space ship cannot generate force with a gas based propulsion system. Space rockets are the stuff of fantasies not science or physics.
4. Any liquid exposed to a vacuum is immediately converted to gas and any gas is immediately spread out into the void. So any combustion would have to take place in a sealed container and hence not in a vacuum in the strict sense.
5. Contrary to known rocket's trajectories, they need to end up going seven miles per second away from the center of gravity (center of gravity = center of the earth)! (see reply #270)
Regarding the possibility of opening one side of a container, exposing it to the vacuum, while combusting gasses inside the container. In this case we have to consider that combustion can't occur anywhere near the opening because any liquids in that area are being instantly converted to gas by the vacuum and spread out into the void via free expansion. When combustion occurs at the far side of the container the force is going to push the remaining liquid out before it can be combusted. This seems like a terribly inefficient use of fuel as the combustion itself is forcing unspent fuel into space.
Another problem is that gas enters a vacuum at an average speed of about 2,000 meters a second. A 25 meter long Saturn 5 stage 2 fuel tank with over 1,000,000 liters of fuel would have it's contents drained in about 1/100 of a second if exposed to the vacuum of space.
Well, consider this: no honest scientists will deny that, when opening a valve between two containers (one containing air at high pressure - and the other only vacuum) the pressures in the two containers will equalize in a fraction of a second, the vacuum container 'sucking' the air to itself with tremendous, almost explosive force.
Imagine now the high pressure emitted by any rocket from its (always open) nozzle. As it enters the vacuum of outer space, the very same - almost explosively rapid - pressure equalization is bound to occur. The rocket will be emptied of all of its pressurized fuel in a flash - by the overwhelmingly superior power of the vacuum itself. No matter how powerful the rocket (propelled by any fuel known to man / and designed to perform in our 0,001 atmosphere) - the very laws of physics will not allow it to ascend any further into the void of space. It will haplessly tumble back to Earth.
In Summary
1. Without free expansion the rocket exhaust will push against space. And off we go!
2. Objects don't accelerate unless they exchange energy with some other object/field. There are no objects or fields in space (I regard them to be so small/weak as to be virtually non-existent).
Hurtling 27600 km/h ISS makes one full circle around the earth in just 1 1/2 hours, so after 45 min ISS accomplishes one half of the full circle around the earth, after 22 1/2 min ISS carries out 1/4 circle around the earth, after less than 12 min ISS makes 1/8 circle around the earth. Now, can anyone point me to the video in which ISS pilots show to us (showing off their devine perspective) in one frame how they can cross (flying above) some discernible part of the earth in just 12 min???
ONE SINGLE VIDEO OF THAT KIND??? ANYONE???
I'm calling "Poe" on this.WIKI QUOTE :I see a lot of spam there, including a lot blatant misrepresentation or falsehoods.
Name one falsehood, and prove your claim! Do i ask too much of you?Again:
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?
Again, just for you Jack :
Newton's Third Law - Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
"When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body."
You still haven't watched this video :
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7ga9h2
No, the “second body” isn't the gases...in a rocket launch...the rocket (engine) is the “first body” applying force (expelled gases) to a second body (ground, then atmosphere).. which “pushes back” with equal and opposite force.. on the first body (rocket) forcing it to go up..
what happens in a REAL and INFINITE vacuum, where there is no “second body” to act upon???
THE ROCKET (ENGINE) = FIRST BODY
FORCE = EXPELLED GASSES
GROUND/ATMOSPHERE = SECOND BODY
THE PROBLEM No 1. If the speed of dissipation (velocity of gas expansion in a vacuum) is equal or greater than exhaust velocity of a rocket, then thrust efficiency is ZERO.
THE PROBLEM No 2 : What kind of a rocket could provide enough thrust, so that it can fly for 8,25 hours continually, pushing itself off of their own ejected gasses? After liftoff, it takes about 10 minutes before the main rocket stages burn out (depends on the rocket used). After that, the spacecraft is in zero G. The trip from the surface to low Earth orbit is a matter of about 10 minutes under thrust.
THE PROBLEM No 3 : As the rocket climbs ever higher, it will have to exponentially increase its output/thrust (and, of course, its fuel consumption), in order to keep going - and combating the pull of gravity which, contrary to public belief, does NOT decrease exponentially with altitude. Now, remember: NASA tells us that their rockets perform below max efficiency at sea level, at optimal efficiency somewhat higher in the atmosphere (as the rocket pressure equalizes with the external air pressure) and then start losing efficiency again as they ascend into ever thinner air. Note: NASA says so - not me.
THE PROBLEM No 4 : To attain the so-called escape velocity of 8km/s with "recoil power" only, this is what NASA's rockets would have to do: they'd have to shoot out from behind their rockets, all at once (like a bullet from a gun) a mass equal to the mass of the vessel itself - at a velocity of 8km/s. This means that, if this were to be the case (that rockets move due to "recoil action/reaction")- more than half of any rocket's fuel mass would have to be ejected at that speed.
Let's try once again :
1. When a rocket's combustion chamber is filled with accelerated gas opening the nozzle to expel the gasses into the vacuum of space does not generate a force against the ship. This is due to the principle of free expansion.
2. No amount of combustion or pressure inside the space ship can move the ship until that combustive force or pressure is exchanged with some object, entity, or field outside of the ship (a space ship is a closed system).
3. Based on 1 and 2 there is no way to move the ship by releasing gas and no way to move the ship by keeping the gas inside. A space ship cannot generate force with a gas based propulsion system. Space rockets are the stuff of fantasies not science or physics.
4. Any liquid exposed to a vacuum is immediately converted to gas and any gas is immediately spread out into the void. So any combustion would have to take place in a sealed container and hence not in a vacuum in the strict sense.
5. Contrary to known rocket's trajectories, they need to end up going seven miles per second away from the center of gravity (center of gravity = center of the earth)! (see reply #270)
Regarding the possibility of opening one side of a container, exposing it to the vacuum, while combusting gasses inside the container. In this case we have to consider that combustion can't occur anywhere near the opening because any liquids in that area are being instantly converted to gas by the vacuum and spread out into the void via free expansion. When combustion occurs at the far side of the container the force is going to push the remaining liquid out before it can be combusted. This seems like a terribly inefficient use of fuel as the combustion itself is forcing unspent fuel into space.
Another problem is that gas enters a vacuum at an average speed of about 2,000 meters a second. A 25 meter long Saturn 5 stage 2 fuel tank with over 1,000,000 liters of fuel would have it's contents drained in about 1/100 of a second if exposed to the vacuum of space.
Well, consider this: no honest scientists will deny that, when opening a valve between two containers (one containing air at high pressure - and the other only vacuum) the pressures in the two containers will equalize in a fraction of a second, the vacuum container 'sucking' the air to itself with tremendous, almost explosive force.
Imagine now the high pressure emitted by any rocket from its (always open) nozzle. As it enters the vacuum of outer space, the very same - almost explosively rapid - pressure equalization is bound to occur. The rocket will be emptied of all of its pressurized fuel in a flash - by the overwhelmingly superior power of the vacuum itself. No matter how powerful the rocket (propelled by any fuel known to man / and designed to perform in our 0,001 atmosphere) - the very laws of physics will not allow it to ascend any further into the void of space. It will haplessly tumble back to Earth.
In Summary
1. Without free expansion the rocket exhaust will push against space. And off we go!
2. Objects don't accelerate unless they exchange energy with some other object/field. There are no objects or fields in space (I regard them to be so small/weak as to be virtually non-existent).
What Edgar Allan Poe has to do with it?
Hurtling 27600 km/h ISS makes one full circle around the earth in just 1 1/2 hours, so after 45 min ISS accomplishes one half of the full circle around the earth, after 22 1/2 min ISS carries out 1/4 circle around the earth, after less than 12 min ISS makes 1/8 circle around the earth. Now, can anyone point me to the video in which ISS pilots show to us (showing off their devine perspective) in one frame how they can cross (flying above) some discernible part of the earth in just 12 min???
ONE SINGLE VIDEO OF THAT KIND??? ANYONE???
In the meantime (while i am waiting to see such a spectacular video), i can show you one other totally spectacular video which proves my point :
HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ANYTHING AS FAKE AS THIS :
(https://i.postimg.cc/R0DNVFtt/HAVE-YOU-EVER-SEEN-ANYTHING-AS-FAKE-AS-THIS.jpg)
HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ANYTHING AS FAKE AS THIS - VIDEO :
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7g9vm0
I think the real question is why did they even "go" to the moon? You would think that they would make a full documentary and record every moment while they were up there on the surface showing them doing some actual research or exploration but they only have videos of them driving in circles for no reason. People make documentaries here on earth exploring jungles and what not all the time you would think that they would record everything as they ventured to a place no one has ever been to. We send men to another body in our solar system for the first time and what do they concentrate their camera on? the spaceship they flew in from earth. Doesn't that strike you as odd? It would be like sending the Rover to Mars with a camera that just points backwards at the Rover.
I think the real question is why did they even "go" to the moon? You would think that they would make a full documentary and record every moment while they were up there on the surface showing them doing some actual research or exploration but they only have videos of them driving in circles for no reason. People make documentaries here on earth exploring jungles and what not all the time you would think that they would record everything as they ventured to a place no one has ever been to. Just my thoughts on the whole "moon" mission.
The question is this : *What heck are they doing up there?* Or to put it another way : Even if you knew nothing about Apollo Space Program Hoax, wouldn't you expect different kinds of alarm turning on in the head of any intelligent person when pondering on the possible purpose of silly apollo-moon games : playing golf on the moon, driving buggy like children in the playground, running (jumping) around like drunk lunatics, drilling holes, performing fraudulent scientific experiments (simultaneously dropping the hammer and feather (made out of metal) etc..)???
1:28 I looked into why they haven't gone back. Excuses such as "we don't have the technology anymore and safety reasons" but they biggest excuse ... "It's really expensive and NASA doesn't have enough funding". Sooo, I researched how much money has been budgeted for NASA.. from 1958-2018 round $601 billion! In 2017,the budget given is $19.653 billion which $628 million above the original request for the agency in the Obama administration. I have also read their expenditures were only 1/5 or around $101 billion. So why again is money an issue?
And who in the f loses or "erases" one of the biggest advances in history due to a shortage of film. I have read it was like 700 boxes of the original moon landing . Really??
If some robot like Jesus would walk on the Moon in sandals, wrapped in bed shit and NASA would say that was Jesus, I am sure millions would believe it.
Once again :
WIKI QUOTE :
The U.S. (and for a while, the world) altitude record for unmanned balloons was 51.8 km (170,000 ft) (according to a 1991 edition of Guinness Book of World Records). The vehicle was a Winzen-Balloon with a volume of 1.35 million cubic metres, launched in October 1972 in Chico, California, USA.[citation needed]
During 2002 an ultra-thin-film balloon named BU60-1 made of polyethylene film 3.4 µm thick with a volume of 60,000 m³ was launched from Sanriku Balloon Center at Ofunato City, Iwate in Japan at 6:35 on May 23, 2002. The balloon ascended at a speed of 260 m per minute and successfully reached the altitude of 53.0 km (173,900 ft), breaking the previous world record set during 1972
READ MORE : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record
BALLOONS CAN GO UP TO 1000 MILES - VIDEO :
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7g9tn0
(https://i.postimg.cc/4NZQVLK3/ISS-HOAX-1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/66VdWrHx/ISS-HOAX-2.jpg)
LUNACY - SPACE SHUTTLE CHALLENGER HOAX - YOU ONLY NEED TO PROVE ONE OF THEM TO BE THE SAME PERSON TO PROVE THE THEORY :
Watch the video above and learn that NASA are PROVEN fraudsters starting with the fake moon landings and carrying on in their tradition of deceit with the Challenger hoax. Folks its time to realize your loving government has been lying to you about nearly EVERYTHING since long before you were born, heck did you know the U.S. is a corporation- that makes you the slave ( just like you always kinda felt in your gut) - google it, its right there but the sheep are too asleep to even care.
CHALLENGER HOAX :
(https://i.postimg.cc/kX2cs6JV/CHALLENGER-HOAX-PICTURE.jpg)
At 21min 53 sec in this video, a microphone accidentally records an astronaut privately discussing telephoning the CIA to have investigative journalist Bart Sibrel assassinated, something that would not be necessary if Sibrel's discovery of the fraud was not true.
(https://i.postimg.cc/7YCfx9WM/MITCHELL-S-SON.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/15jNS4jB/IN-BULLSHIT-WE-TRUST-XXX-1.jpg)
For reuploading this video youtube fascists shut down my channel (instead of nominating me for Nobel peace prize):
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7g5gua
It speaks volumes!!!!
Can you believe this???
Can you???
Shutting down someone's channel for video like this???
Don't compare Youtube with Adolf Hitler it belittles Hitler!!!
What Edgar Allan Poe has to do with it?
If you are not familiar, turtles is referring to Poe's law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law). "Without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the views being parodied."I'm calling "Poe" on this.What Edgar Allan Poe has to do with it?
Hurtling 27600 km/h ISS makes one full circle around the earth in just 1 1/2 hours, so after 45 min ISS accomplishes one half of the full circle around the earth, after 22 1/2 min ISS carries out 1/4 circle around the earth, after less than 12 min ISS makes 1/8 circle around the earth. Now, can anyone point me to the video in which ISS pilots show to us (showing off their divine perspective) in one frame how they can cross (flying above) some discernible part of the earth in just 12 min???
ONE SINGLE VIDEO OF THAT KIND??? ANYONE???
Hurtling 27600 km/h ISS makes one full circle around the earth in just 1 1/2 hours, so after 45 min ISS accomplishes one half of the full circle around the earth, after 22 1/2 min ISS carries out 1/4 circle around the earth, after less than 12 min ISS makes 1/8 circle around the earth. Now, can anyone point me to the video in which ISS pilots show to us (showing off their divine perspective) in one frame how they can cross (flying above) some discernible part of the earth in just 12 min???
ONE SINGLE VIDEO OF THAT KIND??? ANYONE???
In the description of this video you can read this :
Orbit is a real time reconstruction of time lapse photography taken on board the International Space Station by NASA's Earth Science & Remote Sensing Unit.
This 1 h 32 min long video is a reconstruction of time lapse photography. It takes ISS the same time (1 h and 30 min) to make one full circle around the earth, and instead of showing us video shot in one single frame, they show us CGI that lasts 1 h 32 min, that is to say : exactly so long as it would take some astronut to make one full orbit flying over/above the entire surface of the earth...
My question was :
Hurtling 27600 km/h ISS makes one full circle around the earth in just 1 1/2 hours, so after 45 min ISS accomplishes one half of the full circle around the earth, after 22 1/2 min ISS carries out 1/4 circle around the earth, after less than 12 min ISS makes 1/8 circle around the earth. Now, can anyone point me to the video in which ISS pilots show to us (showing off their divine perspective) in one frame how they can cross (flying above) some discernible part of the earth in just 12 min???
Again, just for you Jack :Repeating the same lies wont help you.
2. Objects don't accelerate unless they exchange energy with some other object/field.That is correct. So how does the gas accelerate out of the rocket?
Sorry but Jack's busy right now ;D. Will I do in his place?WIKI QUOTE :I see a lot of spam there, including a lot blatant misrepresentation or falsehoods.
Name one falsehood, and prove your claim! Do i ask too much of you?Again:
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?
Again, just for you Jack:
Newton's Third Law - Identifying Action and Reaction Force PairsAgreed but thousands of kilograms of gas also qualifies as a object, get used to it!
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
"When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body."
You still haven't watched this video :Neither have I watched that video ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D!
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/hs6p9nxtlegyl35/Rockets%20Can%27t%20Fly%20in%20a%20Vacuum%20-%20Publishing%20in%20Progress.png?dl=1)
Rockets Can't Fly in a Vacuum (https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7ga9h2)
No, the “second body” isn't the gases...in a rocket launch...the rocket (engine) is the “first body” applying force (expelled gases) to a second body (ground, then atmosphere).. which “pushes back” with equal and opposite force.. on the first body (rocket) forcing it to go up..That is not only incorrect but it is absolutely impossible unless the rocket is close enough to the ground for the exhaust gases to "bounce back".
what happens in a REAL and INFINITE vacuum, where there is no “second body” to act upon???Incorrect because the interaction is not in any "INFINITE vacuum" but in and at the exit of the bell of the nozzle where there certainly is no vacuum!
THE ROCKET (ENGINE) = FIRST BODYAgain, NO because that is quite impossible!
FORCE = EXPELLED GASSES
GROUND/ATMOSPHERE = SECOND BODY
THE PROBLEM No 1. If the speed of dissipation (velocity of gas expansion in a vacuum) is equal or greater than exhaust velocity of a rocket, then thrust efficiency is ZERO.That is quite irrelevant because the interaction is not "out the back somewhere" but right at the exit! There is no PROBLEM No 1.
THE PROBLEM No 2 : What kind of a rocket could provide enough thrust, so that it can fly for 8,25 hours continually, pushing itself off of their own ejected gasses? After liftoff, it takes about 10 minutes before the main rocket stages burn out (depends on the rocket used). After that, the spacecraft is in zero G. The trip from the surface to low Earth orbit is a matter of about 10 minutes under thrust.An ion drive can provide a small thrust for well over 8.25 hours but not enough to put a rocket into orbit.
THE PROBLEM No 3 : As the rocket climbs ever higher, it will have to exponentially increase its output/thrust (and, of course, its fuel consumption), in order to keep going - and combating the pull of gravity which, contrary to public belief, does NOT decrease exponentially with altitude.
Now, remember: NASA tells us that their rockets perform below max efficiency at sea level, at optimal efficiency somewhat higher in the atmosphere (as the rocket pressure equalizes with the external air pressure) and then start losing efficiency again as they ascend into ever thinner air. Note: NASA says so - not me.And YOU REMEMBER that while rocket engines "start losing efficiency again as they ascend into ever thinner air" that the THRUST always increases as the external pressure decreases!
THE PROBLEM No 4 : To attain the so-called escape velocity of 8km/s with "recoil power" only, this is what NASA's rockets would have to do: they'd have to shoot out from behind their rockets, all at once (like a bullet from a gun) a mass equal to the mass of the vessel itself - at a velocity of 8km/s. This means that, if this were to be the case (that rockets move due to "recoil action/reaction")- more than half of any rocket's fuel mass would have to be ejected at that speed.That might be so if rockets "attained the so-called escape velocity" by being fired vertically as a projectile from a massive Jules Verne cannon:
Let's try once again :Let's not!
Again:
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?
Incorrect! Expansion is not a force!Again:The Expansion!
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?
What law disables rockets (via expansion) from doing any useful work in a vacuum?Incorrect! Joule Free expansion is irrelevant! Learn some thermodynamics,
Free expansion!
What makes "the difference" between the Expansion and Free expansion?Incorrect! Have a look at Thunderbolts Forum: Rockets in Space. (https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=110185&sid=2aa04da5051fa7db659dcc6af1c59bd4)
Density of air/vacuum! Why? Resistance!
What it means?Incorrect! The air, dense or otherwise, cannot cause any interaction with the rocket because the exhaust velocity is super-sonic.
It means that there is resistance in the air because the air is dense, hence : the air is the second body!
On the other hand, there is no resistance in a vacuum, hence : the second body is missing!
Was this helpful in a sense that now you are ready to admit that there is no error in the following explanation :No! Because your explanations are pure hogwash!
Frankly, I can't be bothered! Go and look yourself!
<< Already dealt with! >>
THIRDLY :
Hurtling 27600 km/h ISS makes one full circle around the earth in just 1 1/2 hours, so after 45 min ISS accomplishes one half of the full circle around the earth, after 22 1/2 min ISS carries out 1/4 circle around the earth, after less than 12 min ISS makes 1/8 circle around the earth. Now, can anyone point me to the video in which ISS pilots show to us (showing off their devine perspective) in one frame how they can cross (flying above) some discernible part of the earth in just 12 min???
ONE SINGLE VIDEO OF THAT KIND??? ANYONE???
In the meantime (while i am waiting to see such a spectacular video), i can show you one other totallyIt proves nothing because even moving at 27600 km/h viewing something that is 400 km below to 2300 km away on the horizon the apparent motion is not going quite slow - perspective makes distant things look smaller!spectacularuseless video which proves my point :
<< I haven't a clue what this is supposed to be! (https://i.postimg.cc/R0DNVFtt/HAVE-YOU-EVER-SEEN-ANYTHING-AS-FAKE-AS-THIS.jpg)
HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ANYTHING AS FAKE AS THIS - VIDEO :It proves nothing because even moving at 27600 km/h viewing something that is 400 km below to 2300 km away on the horizon the apparent motion is not going quite slow - perspective makes distant things look smaller!
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7g9vm0
This video is absolutely devastating for NASA, since it shows two totally different speeds of Earth's rotation allegedly filmed from the same altitude (400 km) while our cameramans (astronuts) are moving at the same alleged speed (27600 km/h)!!!![
FOURTHLY :There was no CHALLENGER HOAX. The Challenger was found and the bodies recovered soon after!
Haven't noticed anyone commented (anything) this notorious example of catching busted astronut in a blatant lie :
example #1 - ignored without context![/img]
[url=https://i.postimg.cc/66VdWrHx/ISS-HOAX-2.jpg]example #2 - ignored without context![/img]
FIFTHLY :
LUNACY - SPACE SHUTTLE CHALLENGER HOAX - YOU ONLY NEED TO PROVE ONE OF THEM TO BE THE SAME PERSON TO PROVE THE THEORY (TO DESTROY NASA, FOR GOOD);
[/size][/b][/i][/color]
Does your hatred know no bounds?
[url=https://www.youtube.co/watch?v=onvrXWA3gHk]Odiupicku's LUNACY - part 2 (https://i.postimg.cc/4NZQVLK3/ISS-HOAX-1.jpg)
Watch the video above and learn that NASA are PROVEN fraudsters starting with the fake moon landings and carrying on in their tradition of deceit with the Challenger hoax. Folks its time to realize your loving government has been lying to you about nearly EVERYTHING since long before you were born, heck did you know the U.S. is a corporation- that makes you the slave (just like you always kinda felt in your gut) - google it, its right there but the sheep are too asleep to even care.
Odiupicku lying about fake CHALLENGER HOAX (https://i.postimg.cc/kX2cs6JV/CHALLENGER-HOAX-PICTURE.jpg)
So, you think you can get pressure without the expansion?Incorrect! Expansion is not a force!Again:The Expansion!
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?
Incorrect! The air, dense or otherwise, cannot cause any interaction with the rocket because the exhaust velocity is super-sonic.How so?
Quote from: cikljamasWas this helpful in a sense that now you are ready to admit that there is no error in the following explanation :No! Because your explanations are pure hogwash!
Look at the rocket thrust equation again, developed by folk far more knowledgeable than YOU!
Look at the rocket thrust equation once again! (https://www.dropbox.com/s/e63c0hkzoyx1604/Goddard%20Rocket%20Equation%20-%20alone.png?dl=1)
As the external pressure, Po, decreases,
the thrust, F always increases!
Again:
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?
The Expansion!
What law disables rockets (via expansion) from doing any useful work in a vacuum?
Free expansion!
What makes "the difference" between the Expansion and Free expansion?
Density of air/vacuum!
Why?
Resistance!
What it means?
It means that there is resistance in the air because the air is dense, hence : the air is the second body!
On the other hand, there is no resistance in a vacuum, hence : the second body is missing!
The Expansion!That doesn't answer my question at all.
Think again! You were asked:So, you think you can get pressure without the expansion?Incorrect! Expansion is not a force!Again:The Expansion!
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket . . . ?And I answered that "Expansion is not a force!"
Adiabatic Expansion and Compression (http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au/jw/Adiabatic-expansion-compression.htm)
Hence for an adiabatic process in an ideal gas: (http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au/jw/graphics/adiabatic8.gif)
Do you know nothing about this topic? You try to prove that "Rockets can't fly in a vacuum" but seem to know nothing about the topic - figures!Incorrect! The air, dense or otherwise, cannot cause any interaction with the rocket because the exhaust velocity is super-sonic.How so?
Pressure: transmission through a fluid (https://www.princeton.edu/~asmits/Bicycle_web/pressure.html)
An important property of pressure is that it is transmitted through the fluid. When an inflated bicycle tube is pressed at one point, for example, the pressure increases at every other point in the tube. Measurements show that the increase is the same at every point and equal to the applied pressure. For example, if an extra pressure of 5 psi were suddenly applied at the tube valve, the pressure would increase at every point of the tube by exactly this amount.
This property of transmitting pressure undiminished is a well established experimental fact, and it is a property possessed by all fluids. The transmission does not occur instantaneously, but at a rate that depends on the speed of sound in the medium and the shape of the container. The speed of sound is important because it measures the rate at which pressure disturbances propagate (sound is just a pressure disturbance travelling through a medium). The shape of the container is important because pressure waves refract and reflect of the walls of the container and this increases the distance and time the pressure waves need to travel. This phenomenon should be familiar to anyone who has experienced the imperfect acoustics of a poorly designed concert hall.
So you go and find the "As we shall see latter(sic), maximum thrust occurs when Pe=Pa" and find out what it means.Quote from: cikljamasWas this helpful in a sense that now you are ready to admit that there is no error in the following explanation :No! Because your explanations are pure hogwash!
Look at the rocket thrust equation again, (https://www.dropbox.com/s/0c7ice3pw4egizz/Rocket%20Thrust%20Equation.png?dl=1). It was developed by folk far more knowledgeable than YOU!
As the external pressure, Po, decreases, the thrust, F always increases!
(https://i.postimg.cc/MKF2Y0Vp/ROCKET-PROPULSION-X.jpg)
So, rocketry mathematics doesn't add up?Sure Rocket Science adds up if you don't cherry-pick your little snippets.
Bom Tishop just made a vacuum chamber, I bet he could run a test to settle the debate.
Probably not! Those that claim that "Rockets can't fly in a vacuum" will say that it's not the "Infinite Vacuum of Space" and will cease to be a vacuum once a milligram of the exhaust gasses is released ::).Bom Tishop just made a vacuum chamber, I bet he could run a test to settle the debate.
Probably not! Those that claim that "Rockets can't fly in a vacuum" will say that it's not the "Infinite Vacuum of Space" and will cease to be a vacuum once a milligram of the exhaust gasses is released ::).Bom Tishop just made a vacuum chamber, I bet he could run a test to settle the debate.
It is impossible to convince a "Conspiracy Theorist" but those more open-minded would very much like to see your results.
That 900ft3 is far bigger than any other "Rocket in a Vacuum video" I've seen and the whole set-up is far better that than any of those.Probably not! Those that claim that "Rockets can't fly in a vacuum" will say that it's not the "Infinite Vacuum of Space" and will cease to be a vacuum once a milligram of the exhaust gasses is released ::).Bom Tishop just made a vacuum chamber, I bet he could run a test to settle the debate.
It is impossible to convince a "Conspiracy Theorist" but those more open-minded would very much like to see your results.
Well I was thinking of doing it like this.
Using the smallest rocket I can find. Like the size of a blackcat. Then keeping the pump running on maximum. That is the same setting I would run when doing cold plasma nitriding, which still holds a hard vacuum even with gas flow.
So a combination of that with the tiny nature of a rocket that small in an environment that is about 900ft3 with the pump running at max should squash all doubt I would think.
Also keep a split screen so the control screen can be seen that shows pressure etc.
That 900ft3 is far bigger than any other "Rocket in a Vacuum video" I've seen and the whole set-up is far better that than any of those.Probably not! Those that claim that "Rockets can't fly in a vacuum" will say that it's not the "Infinite Vacuum of Space" and will cease to be a vacuum once a milligram of the exhaust gasses is released ::).Bom Tishop just made a vacuum chamber, I bet he could run a test to settle the debate.
It is impossible to convince a "Conspiracy Theorist" but those more open-minded would very much like to see your results.
Well I was thinking of doing it like this.
Using the smallest rocket I can find. Like the size of a blackcat. Then keeping the pump running on maximum. That is the same setting I would run when doing cold plasma nitriding, which still holds a hard vacuum even with gas flow.
So a combination of that with the tiny nature of a rocket that small in an environment that is about 900ft3 with the pump running at max should squash all doubt I would think.
Also keep a split screen so the control screen can be seen that shows pressure etc.
Robert Goddard did some tests but in a much smaller chamber and only impulsive rockets.
We'll have to see what cikljamas thinks but it would destroy his whole "world view" so I wouldn't hold out much hope - they'll always have some excuse.
But, great work.
Thanks rab, too bad I was so slow in finishing it. It is crazy how much flex is in the unit when pulling down a vacuum. Made me quite nervous the first time I tested it. Everything is within spec, but there is a noticable visable difference to say the least.One problem with little (and big ;D) rockets in a vacuum is igniting them as the igniter material disperses into the vacuum before doing its job.
My friend has some left over fireworks from the forth and he has some small bottle rockets, excluding the stick, about 3 inches or so. That is what I was thinking of using.
Maybe just a plastic arm with a magnet on it that I stick to the side of the chamber. Put it towards the top and extend the arm about dead center.
(https://i.postimg.cc/MKF2Y0Vp/ROCKET-PROPULSION-X.jpg)So you go and find the "As we shall see latter(sic), maximum thrust occurs when Pe=Pa" and find out what it means.
But I'm getting totally sick and tired of explaining simple things like this...
Your [quote] . . . [/quote]s are so screwed up I haven't are clue what you're talking about. For example the above is yours not mine.(https://i.postimg.cc/MKF2Y0Vp/ROCKET-PROPULSION-X.jpg)
So you go and find the "As we shall see latter(sic), maximum thrust occurs when Pe=Pa" and find out what it means.Quote from: cikljamasWas this helpful in a sense that now you are ready to admit that there is no error in the following explanation :No! Because your explanations are pure hogwash!
Look at the rocket thrust equation again, (https://www.dropbox.com/s/0c7ice3pw4egizz/Rocket%20Thrust%20Equation.png?dl=1). It was developed by folk far more knowledgeable than YOU!
As the external pressure, Po, decreases, the thrust, F always increases!
(https://i.postimg.cc/MKF2Y0Vp/ROCKET-PROPULSION-X.jpg)Quote from: cikljamasSo, rocketry mathematics doesn't add up?Sure Rocket Science adds up if you don't cherry-pick your little snippets.
You must remember, however, that it is "Rocket Science ;)" and not for the scientific illiterate cherry-pickers like some we know ;)!
The rocket thrust equation, (https://www.dropbox.com/s/0c7ice3pw4egizz/Rocket%20Thrust%20Equation.png?dl=1), is for one specific expansion ratio(bell exit area/throat area), and the bell exit area can be adjusted to alter the exhaust pressure, Pe.
But I'm getting totally sick and tired of explaining simple things like this to you only for you to respond with things like "So, rocketry mathematics doesn't add up?"
If you don't know just ask politely instead of assuming that someone is trying to deceive you!
The rocket thrust equation, (https://www.dropbox.com/s/0c7ice3pw4egizz/Rocket%20Thrust%20Equation.png?dl=1), is for one specific expansion ratio(bell exit area/throat area), and the bell exit area can be adjusted to alter the exhaust pressure, Pe.
But I'm getting totally sick and tired of explaining simple things like this...
Try stomping your feet and using ALL CAPS.
cikljamas' plan:
1) say something stupid
2) get shot down
3) ignore (2) and repeat same stupid statements
4) get shot down
5.....57) repeat steps (3) and (4) until everyone gets fed up and goes away
58) declare victory
I also want to make an interesting observation of Kepler’s system. It is not as accurate as Mr. Rabinoz has been led to believe.Stop talking utter drivel, Mr Cikljamas! I am under no illusions as to the accuracy of Kepler’s system!
Professor of celestial mechanics at Columbia University, Charles Lane Poor, shows us why:I know why thank, you and I told YOU that in:
But Kepler still had no idea why these elliptical planetary orbits fitted so well. His work was still getting some geometric pattern that fitted the observed motion.You, Mr Cikljamas, seem to have an attention span no better the proverbial gold fish.
It wasn't to after Galileo Galilee's, Robert Hooke's and Isaac Newton's work that led to Newton's Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation that a reason for Kepler's elliptical orbits was found.
But Kepler's Laws are only applicable to a two-bodied system with a small body (a planet) orbiting a large body (the Sun).
The Sun's mass is, however, so large compared to the total of all the other objects in the solar system that the Kepler's laws fitted well for the known inner planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.
It would be incorrect to say that the Solar system is Kepler's system but it does fit Newton's Laws very closely with the only measurable difference being a slight excess in the precession of Mercury's orbit.
And the Kepler solar system is just an approximation to the current heliocentric solar system.Another:
Note that I omitted Kepler because until after the first part of the last century all astronomical calculations, including the predictions of where undiscovered planets might be were based on Newtonian Laws of Motion and Gravitation.
cikljamas' plan:
1) say something stupid
2) get shot down
3) ignore (2) and repeat same stupid statements
4) get shot down
5.....57) repeat steps (3) and (4) until everyone gets fed up and goes away
58) declare victory
If this is the best way to console yourself, why not, go ahead, console yourself, however, the truth (facts) stays the same, because you can't argue against facts, i mean, you can try (since that's all you do all the time, anyway) to delude yourself, but as i said : it doesn't concern the truth, since the facts don't give a damn about your lying yourself...
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe was a German writer and statesman. His works include: four novels; epic and lyric poetry; prose and verse dramas; memoirs; an autobiography; literary and aesthetic criticism; and treatises on botany, anatomy, and colour.Since I wouldn't regard Johann Wolfgang von Goethe as an authority in this matter, I feel no compunction about deleting most of what he said about Newton!
“It may be boldly asked where can the man be found, possessing the extraordinary gifts of Newton." ~Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe
cikljamas' plan:
1) say something stupid
2) get shot down
3) ignore (2) and repeat same stupid statements
4) get shot down
5.....57) repeat steps (3) and (4) until everyone gets fed up and goes away
58) declare victory
If this is the best way to console yourself, why not, go ahead, console yourself, however, the truth (facts) stays the same, because you can't argue against facts, i mean, you can try (since that's all you do all the time, anyway) to delude yourself, but as i said : it doesn't concern the truth, since the facts don't give a damn about your lying yourself...
But I'm getting totally sick and tired of explaining simple things like this...Then stop incorrectly "explaining" simple things like that (which you repeatedly misrepresent with your false extrapolation backed up by nothing at all) and instead focus on the simple question which has repeatedly been asked of you:
Where, may I ask did you "cherry-pick"
“It may be boldly asked where can the man be found, possessing the extraordinary gifts of Newton, who could suffer himself to be deluded by such a hocus-pocus, if he had not in the first instance willfully deceived himself;Only those who know the strength of self-deception, and the extent to which it sometimes trenches on dishonesty, are in a condition to explain the conduct of Newton and of Newton’s school. To support his unnatural theory Newton heaps fiction upon fiction, seeking to dazzle where he cannot convince.
In whatever way or manner may have occurred this business, I must still say that I curse this modern history theory of Cosmology, and hope that perchance there may appear, in due time, some young scientists of genius, who will pick up courage enough to upset this universally disseminated delirium of lunatics. ~Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe
Reddit: "it may be boldly asked where can the man be found" (https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/4vym0l/it_may_be_boldly_asked_where_can_the_man_be_found/)Goethe's attack Newton was quite vindictive and unjustified but it had nothing to do with Newton's Laws of Motion of of Universal Gravitation.
You do realize that Goethe is complaining about Newton's theory of light and color refraction? Goethe had his own competing theory, so what better way to prove his own theory correct than to spill countless pints of ink moaning and complaining about Newton? No, you don't realize that. You found this quote on a flat earth website and immediately turned your brain off.
I also want to make an interesting observation of Kepler’s system. It is not as accurate as Mr. Rabinoz has been led to believe.Stop talking utter drivel, Mr Cikljamas! I am under no illusions as to the accuracy of Kepler’s system!Quote from: cikljamasProfessor of celestial mechanics at Columbia University, Charles Lane Poor, shows us why:I know why thank, you and I told YOU that in:But Kepler still had no idea why these elliptical planetary orbits fitted so well. His work was still getting some geometric pattern that fitted the observed motion.You, Mr Cikljamas, seem to have an attention span no better the proverbial gold fish.
It wasn't to after Galileo Galilee's, Robert Hooke's and Isaac Newton's work that led to Newton's Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation that a reason for Kepler's elliptical orbits was found.
But Kepler's Laws are only applicable to a two-bodied system with a small body (a planet) orbiting a large body (the Sun).
The Sun's mass is, however, so large compared to the total of all the other objects in the solar system that the Kepler's laws fitted well for the known inner planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.
It would be incorrect to say that the Solar system is Kepler's system but it does fit Newton's Laws very closely with the only measurable difference being a slight excess in the precession of Mercury's orbit.
(https://i.postimg.cc/MKF2Y0Vp/ROCKET-PROPULSION-X.jpg)So you go and find the "As we shall see latter(sic), maximum thrust occurs when Pe=Pa" and find out what it means.
In response to the following quote :And again you just spout more and more spam, refusing to address a very simple question which shows beyond any sane doubt that your claims amount to pure garbage.
In response to the following quote :No, Mr Cikljamas, it was not balderdash!
I also want to make an interesting observation of Kepler’s system. It is not as accurate as Mr. Rabinoz has been led to believe. Professor of celestial mechanics at Columbia University, Charles Lane Poor, shows us why:
From the time of Newton, it has been known that Kepler’s laws are mere approximations,
<< No need to keep repeating it! I know it and accept it >>
...Rabinoz quotes this balderdash :
In response to the following quote :Again:
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?
OK, the rocket engine, rocket itself and the remains propellant together form one body and mass of burnt fuel is the other body - no problem there.In response to the following quote :Again:
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?
Thrust is that magic word you are looking for, isn't it?
Now what?
Now i am going to cite Newton's Third Law for umpteenth time in a row :
"When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to that of the first body."
Perhaps Newton's third law should have specified (and highlighted the importance of) the relative masses of the two bodies involved.But, Newton's third law does not specify "the relative masses of the two bodies involved" for the simple reason that it's totally irrelevant.
The bodies need to be of equal mass in order for the "equal in magnitude" part of this law to be true.No, the bodies do not "need to be of equal mass". Stop making up your own "Laws of Motion".
Thrust is that magic word you are looking for, isn't it?Thrust is the second body?
Now i am going to cite Newton's Third Law for umpteenth time in a row :Repeatedly citing the law wont help you.
In response to the following quote :Again:
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?
Thrust is that magic word you are looking for, isn't it?
Now what?
Now i am going to cite Newton's Third Law for umpteenth time in a row :
"When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to that of the first body."
Perhaps Newton's third law should have specified (and highlighted the importance of) the relative masses of the two bodies involved. The bodies need to be of equal mass in order for the "equal in magnitude" part of this law to be true. Or perhaps Newton DID specify that - but NASA has simply decided to ignore this crucial part and are happy to use the above, less-than-accurate phrase in the hope of getting away with their stratospheric lies.
To attain the so-called escape velocity of 11km/s with "recoil power" only, this is what NASA's rockets would have to do: they'd have to shoot out from behind their rockets, all at once (like a bullet from a gun) a mass equal to the mass of the vessel itself - at a velocity of 8km/s.
This means that, if this were to be the case (that rockets move due to "recoil action/reaction")- more than half of any rocket's fuel mass would have to be ejected at that speed - as illustrated in this diagram:
(https://i.postimg.cc/j5QkT9Rn/NEWTON-NASA-1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/g04ZPqfk/NEWTON-NASA-2.jpg)
Of course, this is not the case - and would be quite impossible to do.
Yet, this is basically how NASA 'explains' how their spacecrafts are propelled through air and vacuum. Please note that I have respectfully observed Newton's Third Law in my above diagram. I think our poor friend Isaac is rolling and howling in his grave - seeing how NASA is abusing / distorting his laws in order to fool the world. Sadly, most people seem to keep buying into their shameless skullduggery.
One interesting question for Rabinoz who "knows" how to think for himself (out of the box) :
If exhaust velocity of let's say Ariane 5 rocket is 2,7 km/s, then why don't we see 2,7 km long exhaust trail behind Ariana 5 rocket right after lift off???
Exhaust trail behind Ariana 5 rocket :
(https://i.postimg.cc/sxHVWD8h/ARIANA-5-LIFT-OFF.jpg)
This means that, if this were to be the case (that rockets move due to "recoil action/reaction")- more than half of any rocket's fuel mass would have to be ejected at that speed - as illustrated in this diagram:
(https://i.postimg.cc/j5QkT9Rn/NEWTON-NASA-1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/g04ZPqfk/NEWTON-NASA-2.jpg)
Of course, this is not the case - and would be quite impossible to do.
Why do you think it's not the case? Which part do you think is impossible?
Yet, this is basically how NASA 'explains' how their spacecrafts are propelled through air and vacuum. Please note that I have respectfully observed Newton's Third Law in my above diagram. I think our poor friend Isaac is rolling and howling in his grave - seeing how NASA is abusing / distorting his laws in order to fool the world. Sadly, most people seem to keep buying into their shameless skullduggery.
One interesting question for Rabinoz who "knows" how to think for himself (out of the box) :
If exhaust velocity of let's say Ariane 5 rocket is 2,7 km/s, then why don't we see 2,7 km long exhaust trail behind Ariana 5 rocket right after lift off???
Exhaust trail behind Ariana 5 rocket :
(https://i.postimg.cc/sxHVWD8h/ARIANA-5-LIFT-OFF.jpg)
Why? Why have you arbitrarily choosen "2.7km" as the length of the exhaust trail you want to see? Just because that's the number you saw for the exhaust velocity and it's now stuck in your head? Maybe the trail of hot but not flaming gases is a couple of km long, you just can't see it.
Again:
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?
The Expansion!
What law disables rockets (via expansion) from doing any useful work in a vacuum?
Free expansion!
What makes "the difference" between the Expansion and Free expansion?
Density of air/vacuum!
Why?
Resistance!
What it means?
It means that there is resistance in the air because the air is dense, hence : the air is the second body!
On the other hand, there is no resistance in a vacuum, hence : the second body is missing!
Was this helpful in a sense that now you are ready to admit that there is no error in the following explanation :
Newton's Third Law - Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
"When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body."
You still haven't watched this video :
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7ga9h2
No, the “second body” isn't the gases...in a rocket launch...the rocket (engine) is the “first body” applying force (expelled gases) to a second body (ground, then atmosphere).. which “pushes back” with equal and opposite force.. on the first body (rocket) forcing it to go up..
what happens in a REAL and INFINITE vacuum, where there is no “second body” to act upon???
THE ROCKET (ENGINE) = FIRST BODY
FORCE = EXPELLED GASSES
GROUND/ATMOSPHERE = SECOND BODY
THE PROBLEM No 1. If the speed of dissipation (velocity of gas expansion in a vacuum) is equal or greater than exhaust velocity of a rocket, then thrust efficiency is ZERO.
THE PROBLEM No 2 : What kind of a rocket could provide enough thrust, so that it can fly for 8,25 hours continually, pushing itself off of their own ejected gasses? After liftoff, it takes about 10 minutes before the main rocket stages burn out (depends on the rocket used). After that, the spacecraft is in zero G. The trip from the surface to low Earth orbit is a matter of about 10 minutes under thrust.
THE PROBLEM No 3 : As the rocket climbs ever higher, it will have to exponentially increase its output/thrust (and, of course, its fuel consumption), in order to keep going - and combating the pull of gravity which, contrary to public belief, does NOT decrease exponentially with altitude. Now, remember: NASA tells us that their rockets perform below max efficiency at sea level, at optimal efficiency somewhat higher in the atmosphere (as the rocket pressure equalizes with the external air pressure) and then start losing efficiency again as they ascend into ever thinner air. Note: NASA says so - not me.
THE PROBLEM No 4 : To attain the so-called escape velocity of 11km/s with "recoil power" only, this is what NASA's rockets would have to do: they'd have to shoot out from behind their rockets, all at once (like a bullet from a gun) a mass equal to the mass of the vessel itself - at a velocity of 11km/s. This means that, if this were to be the case (that rockets move due to "recoil action/reaction")- more than half of any rocket's fuel mass would have to be ejected at that speed.
Let's try once again :
1. When a rocket's combustion chamber is filled with accelerated gas opening the nozzle to expel the gasses into the vacuum of space does not generate a force against the ship. This is due to the principle of free expansion.
2. No amount of combustion or pressure inside the space ship can move the ship until that combustive force or pressure is exchanged with some object, entity, or field outside of the ship (a space ship is a closed system).
3. Based on 1 and 2 there is no way to move the ship by releasing gas and no way to move the ship by keeping the gas inside. A space ship cannot generate force with a gas based propulsion system. Space rockets are the stuff of fantasies not science or physics.
4. Any liquid exposed to a vacuum is immediately converted to gas and any gas is immediately spread out into the void. So any combustion would have to take place in a sealed container and hence not in a vacuum in the strict sense.
5. Contrary to known rocket's trajectories, they need to end up going seven miles per second away from the center of gravity (center of gravity = center of the earth)! (see reply #270)
Regarding the possibility of opening one side of a container, exposing it to the vacuum, while combusting gasses inside the container. In this case we have to consider that combustion can't occur anywhere near the opening because any liquids in that area are being instantly converted to gas by the vacuum and spread out into the void via free expansion. When combustion occurs at the far side of the container the force is going to push the remaining liquid out before it can be combusted. This seems like a terribly inefficient use of fuel as the combustion itself is forcing unspent fuel into space.
Another problem is that gas enters a vacuum at an average speed of about 2,000 meters a second. A 25 meter long Saturn 5 stage 2 fuel tank with over 1,000,000 liters of fuel would have it's contents drained in about 1/100 of a second if exposed to the vacuum of space.
Well, consider this: no honest scientists will deny that, when opening a valve between two containers (one containing air at high pressure - and the other only vacuum) the pressures in the two containers will equalize in a fraction of a second, the vacuum container 'sucking' the air to itself with tremendous, almost explosive force.
Imagine now the high pressure emitted by any rocket from its (always open) nozzle. As it enters the vacuum of outer space, the very same - almost explosively rapid - pressure equalization is bound to occur. The rocket will be emptied of all of its pressurized fuel in a flash - by the overwhelmingly superior power of the vacuum itself. No matter how powerful the rocket (propelled by any fuel known to man / and designed to perform in our 0,001 atmosphere) - the very laws of physics will not allow it to ascend any further into the void of space. It will haplessly tumble back to Earth.
In Summary
1. Without free expansion the rocket exhaust will push against space. And off we go!
2. Objects don't accelerate unless they exchange energy with some other object/field. There are no objects or fields in space (I regard them to be so small/weak as to be virtually non-existent).
SECONDLY :
WIKI QUOTE :
The U.S. (and for a while, the world) altitude record for unmanned balloons was 51.8 km (170,000 ft) (according to a 1991 edition of Guinness Book of World Records). The vehicle was a Winzen-Balloon with a volume of 1.35 million cubic metres, launched in October 1972 in Chico, California, USA.[citation needed]
During 2002 an ultra-thin-film balloon named BU60-1 made of polyethylene film 3.4 µm thick with a volume of 60,000 m³ was launched from Sanriku Balloon Center at Ofunato City, Iwate in Japan at 6:35 on May 23, 2002. The balloon ascended at a speed of 260 m per minute and successfully reached the altitude of 53.0 km (173,900 ft), breaking the previous world record set during 1972!
READ MORE : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record
So, according to Wikipedia, altitude record for unmanned balloons is 53 km, however, according to this old NASA documentary BALLOONS CAN GO UP TO 1000 MILES - How so? :
BALLOONS CAN GO UP TO 1000 MILES - VIDEO :
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7g9tn0
THIRDLY :
Hurtling 27600 km/h ISS makes one full circle around the earth in just 1 1/2 hours, so after 45 min ISS accomplishes one half of the full circle around the earth, after 22 1/2 min ISS carries out 1/4 circle around the earth, after less than 12 min ISS makes 1/8 circle around the earth. Now, can anyone point me to the video in which ISS pilots show to us (showing off their devine perspective) in one frame how they can cross (flying above) some discernible part of the earth in just 12 min???
ONE SINGLE VIDEO OF THAT KIND??? ANYONE???
In the meantime (while i am waiting to see such a spectacular video), i can show you one other totally spectacular video which proves my point :
HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ANYTHING AS FAKE AS THIS :
(https://i.postimg.cc/R0DNVFtt/HAVE-YOU-EVER-SEEN-ANYTHING-AS-FAKE-AS-THIS.jpg)
HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ANYTHING AS FAKE AS THIS - VIDEO :
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7g9vm0
This video is absolutely devastating for NASA, since it shows two totally different speeds of Earth's rotation allegedly filmed from the same altitude (400 km) while our cameramans (astronuts) are moving at the same alleged speed (27600 km/h)!!!!
What do you have to say on this obvious destruction of NASA's credibility, Jack???
FOURTHLY :
Haven't noticed anyone commented (anything) this notorious example of catching busted astronut in a blatant lie :
(https://i.postimg.cc/4NZQVLK3/ISS-HOAX-1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/66VdWrHx/ISS-HOAX-2.jpg)
FIFTHLY :
LUNACY - SPACE SHUTTLE CHALLENGER HOAX - YOU ONLY NEED TO PROVE ONE OF THEM TO BE THE SAME PERSON TO PROVE THE THEORY (TO DESTROY NASA, FOR GOOD) :
Watch the video above and learn that NASA are PROVEN fraudsters starting with the fake moon landings and carrying on in their tradition of deceit with the Challenger hoax. Folks its time to realize your loving government has been lying to you about nearly EVERYTHING since long before you were born, heck did you know the U.S. is a corporation- that makes you the slave ( just like you always kinda felt in your gut) - google it, its right there but the sheep are too asleep to even care.
CHALLENGER HOAX : (https://i.postimg.cc/kX2cs6JV/CHALLENGER-HOAX-PICTURE.jpg)
At 21min 53 sec in this video, a microphone accidentally records an astronaut privately discussing telephoning the CIA to have investigative journalist Bart Sibrel assassinated, something that would not be necessary if Sibrel's discovery of the fraud was not true.
(https://i.postimg.cc/7YCfx9WM/MITCHELL-S-SON.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/15jNS4jB/IN-BULLSHIT-WE-TRUST-XXX-1.jpg)
For reuploading this video youtube fascists shut down my channel (instead of nominating me for Nobel peace prize):
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7g5gua
It speaks volumes!!!!
Can you believe this???
Can you???
Shutting down someone's channel for video like this???
Don't compare Youtube with Adolf Hitler it belittles Hitler!!!
Of course, this is not the case - and would be quite impossible to do.f = m a
As mentioned previously, I am not sure whether you are posting what you post for giggles or you actually do believe it. I've got a feeling that you do, and the above posts indicate you tend to be a conspiracy theorist which explains a lot.
Others on this and other threads deal with your mistaken assertions quite well, but just picking up on one of your links, the 'Challenger crew are still alive and well' conspiracy theory is one of the many which are just plain illogical. But who said logic plays any part in a conspiracy theorist's reasoning. There are many debunks of the 'crew is still alive CT' as I'm sure you are aware, this being one of them:
http://www.sciencedenierhallofshame.com/debunked/are-the-crew-members-of-1986-space-shuttle-challenger-still-alive/
I doubt though that this and other similar debunks of the other CTs you've posted will ever make you stop and think again. As mentioned previously, CTers don't view the world rationally and the belief system is usually unshakeable given that CTism is hard wired into their thought process, as it seems to be with you.
Still tipping my hat to those taking their time to shoot down your arguments and so called evidence and logic.
This means that, if this were to be the case (that rockets move due to "recoil action/reaction")- more than half of any rocket's fuel mass would have to be ejected at that speed - as illustrated in this diagram:
(https://i.postimg.cc/j5QkT9Rn/NEWTON-NASA-1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/g04ZPqfk/NEWTON-NASA-2.jpg)
Of course, this is not the case - and would be quite impossible to do.
Why do you think it's not the case? Which part do you think is impossible?
Seriously? lol
Yet, this is basically how NASA 'explains' how their spacecrafts are propelled through air and vacuum. Please note that I have respectfully observed Newton's Third Law in my above diagram. I think our poor friend Isaac is rolling and howling in his grave - seeing how NASA is abusing / distorting his laws in order to fool the world. Sadly, most people seem to keep buying into their shameless skullduggery.
One interesting question for Rabinoz who "knows" how to think for himself (out of the box) :
If exhaust velocity of let's say Ariane 5 rocket is 2,7 km/s, then why don't we see 2,7 km long exhaust trail behind Ariana 5 rocket right after lift off???
Exhaust trail behind Ariana 5 rocket :
(https://i.postimg.cc/sxHVWD8h/ARIANA-5-LIFT-OFF.jpg)
Why? Why have you arbitrarily choosen "2.7km" as the length of the exhaust trail you want to see? Just because that's the number you saw for the exhaust velocity and it's now stuck in your head? Maybe the trail of hot but not flaming gases is a couple of km long, you just can't see it.
(https://i.postimg.cc/15WDty7p/ARIANA-5-LIFT-OFF-1.jpg)
But it's already been empirically demonstrated.I see you are new here. You'll undoubtedly soon see that videos and documentation from government agencies and corporations with a vested interest in space travel are not given a great amount of credence in the FE community. It's pretty safe to say that our friend Mr. Bom Tishop is not part of "Big Space."
There is someone here who is willing and able to test the claim of the OP and people just want to keep arguing with each other while ignoring the fact that they need not argue because someone is willing to empirically demonstrate whether or not a rocket can work in a vacuum.They have already been tested countless times.
That speaks volumes about the debaters. So many posts, and clearly most of the parties just want to talk without listening.
There is someone here who is willing and able to test the claim of the OP and people just want to keep arguing with each other while ignoring the fact that they need not argue because someone is willing to empirically demonstrate whether or not a rocket can work in a vacuum.
That speaks volumes about the debaters. So many posts, and clearly most of the parties just want to talk without listening.
But, I thought that YOUR topic was, "Rockets can't fly in a vacuum".Still tipping my hat to those taking their time to shoot down your arguments and so called evidence and logic.
You’re All Just a Bunch of Conspiracy Kooks
Agreed, “Characterizing scientist as arrogant, deceptive, or purely driven by philosophical bias doesn’t help your case at all. It makes you sound like conspiracy kooks.”
Keating: page 80: Quoting Wood: “Characterizing scientist as arrogant, deceptive, or purely driven by philosophical bias doesn’t help your case at all. It makes you sound like conspiracy kooks.”
Sungenis: We don’t characterize scientists in that way, except when they clearly reveal they are that way. Let me give you two examples. One regarding a philosophical bias against creationism and one regarding a philosophical bias toward geocentrism,But Robert Sungensis, you, and almost all flat-earthers seem to regard the Globe and/or the Heliocentric Solar System as part of some "philosophical bias against creationism".
in spite of what the evidence shows. Here is evolutionist, Richard Lewontin:Some scientists take that view but where is there any connection between that and the shape of the earth or the Heliocentric Solar System?
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a-priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Here is physicist Stephen Hawking:Agreed, "it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe." What is your big problem with that?
...all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe.16 There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe.
(https://i.postimg.cc/cJLdxTNF/ROCKETS-NASA-S-SILLIEST-LIE.jpg)Why?
To acknowledge the existence of air drag in front of the rocket while, at the same time, deny the existence of the opposite air displacement exerted by the exhaust plume below it - is an utter contradiction in terms and a crude offense to common sense.
If this were to be true (that "rockets do not push against air"), this would mean that the formidable, explosive thrust of a rocket's exhaust plume does not encounter any air resistance - a preposterous and outlandish contention, if there ever was one.It means no such thing! Apart from anything else as has been explained to you before no disturbance (drag on the exhaust plume or anything else) can be transmitted back up the supersonic exhaust plume.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .NASA built the vacuum chamber to test Apollo systems and such vacuum chambers are extremely expensive.
A large vacuum chamber, say the size of a room, where someone remotely launches a small rocket would be much better.
Such a demonstration, if the rocket couldn't fly, would be monumental in its implications but for some reason no such demo can be found.
In 1963 the largest vacuum chamber was 25 feet.
In 1965 it was 90 feet.
In 1969 the record was set at 122 feet by NASA (the current largest in Europe is feet long)
Since 1969 there have been no attempts to build a larger vacuum chamber.
(https://i.postimg.cc/cJLdxTNF/ROCKETS-NASA-S-SILLIEST-LIE.jpg)What action is causing the reaction of the rocket being pushed up?
Perhaps reread what Bom Tishop posted about his proposed method. And perhaps cikljamas, if you guys can hold off on the frothing-at-the-mouth posting for a few minutes, could comment on whether he thinks the proposed test would be something he could get behind.There is someone here who is willing and able to test the claim of the OP and people just want to keep arguing with each other while ignoring the fact that they need not argue because someone is willing to empirically demonstrate whether or not a rocket can work in a vacuum.They have already been tested countless times.
That speaks volumes about the debaters. So many posts, and clearly most of the parties just want to talk without listening.
There is always some excuse.
The typical one is that it isn't a vacuum as the rocket is generating a bunch of gas.
This means a very large vacuum chamber (or just space itself) is needed, at which point you end up dealing with large government agencies or corporations that would be dismissed as part of the conspiracy.
Meanwhile, my very simple question shows that rockets need to work in a vacuum, yet it is continually being avoided.
That speaks volumes about clickljamas.
A large vacuum chamber, say the size of a room, where someone remotely launches a small rocket would be much better.So well beyond the realm of any hobiest and instead in the realm of large corporations and government entities where it would be dismissed as part of the conspiracy. Thanks for proving my point.
Since 1969 there have been no attempts to build a larger vacuum chamber. Why?The real question isn't why hasn't there been. The real question should be why should they?
Perhaps reread what Bom Tishop posted about his proposed method. And perhaps cikljamas, if you guys can hold off on the frothing-at-the-mouth posting for a few minutes, could comment on whether he thinks the proposed test would be something he could get behind.There is someone here who is willing and able to test the claim of the OP and people just want to keep arguing with each other while ignoring the fact that they need not argue because someone is willing to empirically demonstrate whether or not a rocket can work in a vacuum.They have already been tested countless times.
That speaks volumes about the debaters. So many posts, and clearly most of the parties just want to talk without listening.
There is always some excuse.
The typical one is that it isn't a vacuum as the rocket is generating a bunch of gas.
This means a very large vacuum chamber (or just space itself) is needed, at which point you end up dealing with large government agencies or corporations that would be dismissed as part of the conspiracy.
Meanwhile, my very simple question shows that rockets need to work in a vacuum, yet it is continually being avoided.
That speaks volumes about clickljamas.
I realize that you and Rab are like dogs with a bone here, completely unwilling and unable to control yourselves from posting copious amounts of condescending comments and playing holier-than-thou over those you perceive as your intellectual underlings. But it sure would be nice if you could cut that out long enough for the OP to address a proposed experiment by another member of this very community to possibly determine if the OP's position has something to it or not.
Literally none of the experiments you could possibly refer to were conducted with any sort of dialog or collaboration between cikljamas and the person conducting the experiment. We have a chance to resolve that here. You could get out of the way and let progress happen, or you can keep clogging this thread with noise like you've been doing.
I doubt that anything will convince those with a "religious belief" against a rocket working in a vacuum would ever be convinced.
It doesn't seem cik would think mine is big enough, he said size of a room and mine is "only" about 900ft3. Which is actually very large for a vacuum chamber, but not the "size of a room".
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82766.0
I doubt any of this will make any difference as it seems most people here don't care about the truth one way or another. Just want to keep slap fighting each other.That's the big problem.
Perhaps reread what Bom Tishop posted about his proposed method. And perhaps cikljamas, if you guys can hold off on the frothing-at-the-mouth posting for a few minutes, could comment on whether he thinks the proposed test would be something he could get behind.There is someone here who is willing and able to test the claim of the OP and people just want to keep arguing with each other while ignoring the fact that they need not argue because someone is willing to empirically demonstrate whether or not a rocket can work in a vacuum.They have already been tested countless times.
That speaks volumes about the debaters. So many posts, and clearly most of the parties just want to talk without listening.
There is always some excuse.
The typical one is that it isn't a vacuum as the rocket is generating a bunch of gas.
This means a very large vacuum chamber (or just space itself) is needed, at which point you end up dealing with large government agencies or corporations that would be dismissed as part of the conspiracy.
Meanwhile, my very simple question shows that rockets need to work in a vacuum, yet it is continually being avoided.
That speaks volumes about clickljamas.
I realize that you and Rab are like dogs with a bone here, completely unwilling and unable to control yourselves from posting copious amounts of condescending comments and playing holier-than-thou over those you perceive as your intellectual underlings. But it sure would be nice if you could cut that out long enough for the OP to address a proposed experiment by another member of this very community to possibly determine if the OP's position has something to it or not.
Literally none of the experiments you could possibly refer to were conducted with any sort of dialog or collaboration between cikljamas and the person conducting the experiment. We have a chance to resolve that here. You could get out of the way and let progress happen, or you can keep clogging this thread with noise like you've been doing.
What a based message and of course jackblack completely ignored it lol.
From what I see of other tests, a simple rocket bought at a hobby store will not suffice. Will probably need to make something that can use it's own oxidizer...maybe a small hybrid rocket.
It doesn't seem cik would think mine is big enough, he said size of a room and mine is "only" about 900ft3. Which is actually very large for a vacuum chamber, but not the "size of a room".
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82766.0
Here is thread with pictures and design if anyone actually cares.
As for the rocket disturbing the vacuum itself, I don't think that will be an issue especially after watching other examples on YouTube. It should be large enough and able to pull a deep enough vacuum to have very little effect. Most of the ones on YouTube are tiny and have pumps that can't even pull 30. Certainly not a hard vacuum.
Also, remember it can flow nitrogen through the chamber during nitriding and still hold a deep vacuum. So I can just leave the pumps running during the test as well.
I doubt any of this will make any difference as it seems most people here don't care about the truth one way or another. Just want to keep slap fighting each other.
Is this foreplay?
It seems to me that you need our approval for conducting your experiment? As far as i am concerned you have (my) approval. If you can meet basic scientific conditions (which could pass scientific peer review) for conducting scientifically well-grounded experiment, then what stopping you from carrying it forward? If you want me to keep my mouth shut while JackBlack, Rabinoz and others are viciously biting and barking (in this one man fighting many show), then just say it...As for me this show is over, anyway, so the mic is all yours...Good luck, and don't worry...i am the last person in this world who would be afraid of acknowledging validity of scientifically verified (non-biased, genuine) experiments!!! Looking forward for the final results of your awesome enterprise!!!
It seems to me that you need our approval for conducting your experiment? As far as i am concerned you have (my) approval. If you can meet basic scientific conditions (which could pass scientific peer review) for conducting scientifically well-grounded experiment, then what stopping you from carrying it forward? If you want me to keep my mouth shut while JackBlack, Rabinoz and others are viciously biting and barking (in this one man fighting many show), then just say it...As for me this show is over, anyway, so the mic is all yours...Good luck, and don't worry...i am the last person in this world who would be afraid of acknowledging validity of scientifically verified (non-biased, genuine) experiments!!! Looking forward for the final results of your awesome enterprise!!!
No, I don't think you should just keep your mouth shut at all. If you read the first or second post I wrote in this thread I said you were doing a great job at standing your ground with everyone after you. Said you were doing well in supporting your case.
Just read boydster's post and that is what I was trying to say.
I also don't need your permission to do anything. However, attempting to gather information from sceptics on what would actually prove a fruitful experiment is what I was looking to do. That is all.
Despite my doubts of the moon landing and space travel outside high orbit, I don't have much doubts on rockets working in a vacuum. So I am simply trying to gather information from those most skeptical. I am not attacking anyone whatsoever (at least on this subject).
I am willing to accept the results one way or the other. To be honest I would prefer it not to work, because that would absolutely blow my mind, and what that would implicate
It seems to me that you need our approval for conducting your experiment? As far as i am concerned you have (my) approval. If you can meet basic scientific conditions (which could pass scientific peer review) for conducting scientifically well-grounded experiment, then what stopping you from carrying it forward? If you want me to keep my mouth shut while JackBlack, Rabinoz and others are viciously biting and barking (in this one man fighting many show), then just say it...As for me this show is over, anyway, so the mic is all yours...Good luck, and don't worry...i am the last person in this world who would be afraid of acknowledging validity of scientifically verified (non-biased, genuine) experiments!!! Looking forward for the final results of your awesome enterprise!!!
No, I don't think you should just keep your mouth shut at all. If you read the first or second post I wrote in this thread I said you were doing a great job at standing your ground with everyone after you. Said you were doing well in supporting your case.
Just read boydster's post and that is what I was trying to say.
I also don't need your permission to do anything. However, attempting to gather information from sceptics on what would actually prove a fruitful experiment is what I was looking to do. That is all.
Despite my doubts of the moon landing and space travel outside high orbit, I don't have much doubts on rockets working in a vacuum. So I am simply trying to gather information from those most skeptical. I am not attacking anyone whatsoever (at least on this subject).
I am willing to accept the results one way or the other. To be honest I would prefer it not to work, because that would absolutely blow my mind, and what that would implicate
Given all you've just said, and everything you had written in your first few posts left in this thread (thanks for reminding me to your supporting words in those comments, although i remember them well) i hope your experiment is going to be a substantial contribution to our time and efforts invested into settling this matter out, once and for all...I am also willing to accept the results one way or the other, and i am very glad you would prefer it not to work, not because that would absolutely blow your mind (and what that would implicate), but because it further reinforces (in my view, at least) your status of an objective, unbiased researcher. ....
Maybe, just one little tip, if you allow me :
(https://i.postimg.cc/xTk5jcSz/VACUUM-CHAMBER-X.jpg)
It seems to me that you need our approval for conducting your experiment? As far as i am concerned you have (my) approval. If you can meet basic scientific conditions (which could pass scientific peer review) for conducting scientifically well-grounded experiment, then what stopping you from carrying it forward? If you want me to keep my mouth shut while JackBlack, Rabinoz and others are viciously biting and barking (in this one man fighting many show), then just say it...As for me this show is over, anyway, so the mic is all yours...Good luck, and don't worry...i am the last person in this world who would be afraid of acknowledging validity of scientifically verified (non-biased, genuine) experiments!!! Looking forward for the final results of your awesome enterprise!!!
No, I don't think you should just keep your mouth shut at all. If you read the first or second post I wrote in this thread I said you were doing a great job at standing your ground with everyone after you. Said you were doing well in supporting your case.
Just read boydster's post and that is what I was trying to say.
I also don't need your permission to do anything. However, attempting to gather information from sceptics on what would actually prove a fruitful experiment is what I was looking to do. That is all.
Despite my doubts of the moon landing and space travel outside high orbit, I don't have much doubts on rockets working in a vacuum. So I am simply trying to gather information from those most skeptical. I am not attacking anyone whatsoever (at least on this subject).
I am willing to accept the results one way or the other. To be honest I would prefer it not to work, because that would absolutely blow my mind, and what that would implicate
Given all you've just said, and everything you had written in your first few posts left in this thread (thanks for reminding me to your supporting words in those comments, although i remember them well) i hope your experiment is going to be a substantial contribution to our time and efforts invested into settling this matter out, once and for all...I am also willing to accept the results one way or the other, and i am very glad you would prefer it not to work, not because that would absolutely blow your mind (and what that would implicate), but because it further reinforces (in my view, at least) your status of an objective, unbiased researcher. ....
Maybe, just one little tip, if you allow me :
(https://i.postimg.cc/xTk5jcSz/VACUUM-CHAMBER-X.jpg)
Yes, I was thinking the same thing. Was thinking of making a slide out of plastic (I make things mainly out of metals, but was going to use plastic so it can be clear to avoid people saying trickery etc) and have it stuck to the top. The very top unscrews (that is why I keep one of my hoist over it to make opening easier), so was going to stick the rocket and everything else on that.
The rocket at that point will be about 14 feet away from the bottom.
I think this will be the easiest, most efficient way for mounting. Will have a go pro next to it and a very bright light, all stuck on with separate magnets.
All of those should be relatively quick to construct. The only hold up is the actual rocket itself. From seeing other videos, you have to encapsulate it for them to even light. I don't want to do that.
I am thinking of a possible hybrid rocket, made of solid acrylic with a gas oxidizer. Though that can get complicated when trying to operate in the chamber sealed. So I am still pondering on the best way to simulate the actual rocket. It's about the only hold up currently. As chamber contamination isn't a monster concern as long as it is within reason. I also don't want to spend a ridiculous amount of time building the rocket either if possible.
It seems to me that you need our approval for conducting your experiment? As far as i am concerned you have (my) approval. If you can meet basic scientific conditions (which could pass scientific peer review) for conducting scientifically well-grounded experiment, then what stopping you from carrying it forward? If you want me to keep my mouth shut while JackBlack, Rabinoz and others are viciously biting and barking (in this one man fighting many show), then just say it...As for me this show is over, anyway, so the mic is all yours...Good luck, and don't worry...i am the last person in this world who would be afraid of acknowledging validity of scientifically verified (non-biased, genuine) experiments!!! Looking forward for the final results of your awesome enterprise!!!
No, I don't think you should just keep your mouth shut at all. If you read the first or second post I wrote in this thread I said you were doing a great job at standing your ground with everyone after you. Said you were doing well in supporting your case.
Just read boydster's post and that is what I was trying to say.
I also don't need your permission to do anything. However, attempting to gather information from sceptics on what would actually prove a fruitful experiment is what I was looking to do. That is all.
Despite my doubts of the moon landing and space travel outside high orbit, I don't have much doubts on rockets working in a vacuum. So I am simply trying to gather information from those most skeptical. I am not attacking anyone whatsoever (at least on this subject).
I am willing to accept the results one way or the other. To be honest I would prefer it not to work, because that would absolutely blow my mind, and what that would implicate
Given all you've just said, and everything you had written in your first few posts left in this thread (thanks for reminding me to your supporting words in those comments, although i remember them well) i hope your experiment is going to be a substantial contribution to our time and efforts invested into settling this matter out, once and for all...I am also willing to accept the results one way or the other, and i am very glad you would prefer it not to work, not because that would absolutely blow your mind (and what that would implicate), but because it further reinforces (in my view, at least) your status of an objective, unbiased researcher. ....
Maybe, just one little tip, if you allow me :
(https://i.postimg.cc/xTk5jcSz/VACUUM-CHAMBER-X.jpg)
Yes, I was thinking the same thing. Was thinking of making a slide out of plastic (I make things mainly out of metals, but was going to use plastic so it can be clear to avoid people saying trickery etc) and have it stuck to the top. The very top unscrews (that is why I keep one of my hoist over it to make opening easier), so was going to stick the rocket and everything else on that.
The rocket at that point will be about 14 feet away from the bottom.
I think this will be the easiest, most efficient way for mounting. Will have a go pro next to it and a very bright light, all stuck on with separate magnets.
All of those should be relatively quick to construct. The only hold up is the actual rocket itself. From seeing other videos, you have to encapsulate it for them to even light. I don't want to do that.
I am thinking of a possible hybrid rocket, made of solid acrylic with a gas oxidizer. Though that can get complicated when trying to operate in the chamber sealed. So I am still pondering on the best way to simulate the actual rocket. It's about the only hold up currently. As chamber contamination isn't a monster concern as long as it is within reason. I also don't want to spend a ridiculous amount of time building the rocket either if possible.
This guy did the experiment. Version 2 where he learned some stuff from commenters. It might give everyone some insights into how to perform the experiment so it's a whatever level of conclusivity and so that it doesn't blow up Bom's workshop:
This guy did the experiment. Version 2 where he learned some stuff from commenters. It might give everyone some insights into how to perform the experiment so it's a whatever level of conclusivity and so that it doesn't blow up Bom's workshop:
First of all, let me entertain you with just a few warm-up comments left below this video :
~comments~
No, you don't have that right, as usual!Basically what you're saying is that no experiment in a vacuum chamber would suffice - There is no non-space based experiment that would adequately demonstrate a rocket working in a vacuum for you? Do I have that right?This guy did the experiment. Version 2 where he learned some stuff from commenters. It might give everyone some insights into how to perform the experiment so it's a whatever level of conclusivity and so that it doesn't blow up Bom's workshop:
First of all, let me entertain you with just a few warm-up comments left below this video :
~comments~
No, you don't have that right, as usual!Basically what you're saying is that no experiment in a vacuum chamber would suffice - There is no non-space based experiment that would adequately demonstrate a rocket working in a vacuum for you? Do I have that right?This guy did the experiment. Version 2 where he learned some stuff from commenters. It might give everyone some insights into how to perform the experiment so it's a whatever level of conclusivity and so that it doesn't blow up Bom's workshop:
First of all, let me entertain you with just a few warm-up comments left below this video :
~comments~
Great, so instead of being a dick about it, why don't you help us design an experiment that would answer the question, "Do rockets work in a vacuum?"He knows very well what he has to do, why are you panicking? It seems to me you just couldn't stand you errant belief system crumbling down before you own eyes...that is why you encourage him to give up the experiment, isn't that so? Stop panicking and stay tuned...
He knows very well what he has to do, why are you panicking?All those people before him also know what was required, yet their experiments have been dismissed by you and others like you.
Great, so instead of being a dick about it, why don't you help us design an experiment that would answer the question, "Do rockets work in a vacuum?"He knows very well what he has to do, why are you panicking? It seems to me you just couldn't stand you errant belief system crumbling down before you own eyes...that is why you encourage him to give up the experiment, isn't that so? Stop panicking and stay tuned...
Great, so instead of being a dick about it, why don't you help us design an experiment that would answer the question, "Do rockets work in a vacuum?"He knows very well what he has to do, why are you panicking? It seems to me you just couldn't stand you errant belief system crumbling down before you own eyes...that is why you encourage him to give up the experiment, isn't that so? Stop panicking and stay tuned...
No one is panicking. I have mountains of evidence to support my position already. You have literally none. I don't need any new experiments to prove me right. So I'm cool as a cucumber.
Great, so instead of being a dick about it, why don't you help us design an experiment that would answer the question, "Do rockets work in a vacuum?"He knows very well what he has to do, why are you panicking? It seems to me you just couldn't stand you errant belief system crumbling down before you own eyes...that is why you encourage him to give up the experiment, isn't that so? Stop panicking and stay tuned...
No one is panicking. I have mountains of evidence to support my position already. You have literally none. I don't need any new experiments to prove me right. So I'm cool as a cucumber.
You are scared to death, sonny boy, i can feel your horror, it's very tangible...
Can you use kerosene and liquid oxygen for the fuel and oxidizer?Hybrid rockets are usually far more simple to build. No cryogenic plumbing or pumps to worry about. That and you can use just about anything flammable as the fuel.
Wonder when a FEer will say "the moment the rocket started firing there were then gases in the chamber for it to push against". I imagine the vacuum pump wouldn't work fast enough to remove the gases during firing.
Wonder when a FEer will say "the moment the rocket started firing there were then gases in the chamber for it to push against".As I recall, one of the arguments is that the propellant can't burn in a vacuum in the first place, so that's the first domino that needs to tumble.
Wonder when a FEer will say "the moment the rocket started firing there were then gases in the chamber for it to push against". I imagine the vacuum pump wouldn't work fast enough to remove the gases during firing.
Of course that can be countered by observing that, if true, the rockets thrust should increase as the gas pressure rises, though you'd have to be very sure your engines power remains constant throughout the experiment.
Any chance you can rig remote-controlled scissors?
Graduated from the Wallace and Gromit school of engineering, did we?:-[ pls dont doxx me
Graduated from the Wallace and Gromit school of engineering, did we?:-[ pls dont doxx me
Ok, one good thing I have gotten out of this so far is there needs to be a scale at the top of the plastic slide. That was we can see the comparison of vacuum vs none.
I started drawing up some ideas on solid works for the slide, but will need to figure out the dimensions of the rocket before finishing. Will need to send that off to my friend to make, as all my machinery is designed for metal works.
The rocket is the only thing that is the hold up currently
Edit: Who uses 'sonny boy'? Were you born in the teens of the last century?(https://i.postimg.cc/2y4bs47v/FOGHORN-LEGHORN-X.jpg)
Since combustion is impossible in a vacuum how you can get the following result (a flame - exhaust trail) in a vacuum chamber assuming that all air has been sucked out of this "vacuum" chamber?As stated repeatedly, the rocket carries its own fuel and oxidiser, which are combined and reacted, creating pressurised gas. This results in a flame and exhaust trail.
I suppose this "firecracker" carries it's own fuel and oxidiser, also :Since combustion is impossible in a vacuum how you can get the following result (a flame - exhaust trail) in a vacuum chamber assuming that all air has been sucked out of this "vacuum" chamber?As stated repeatedly, the rocket carries its own fuel and oxidiser, which are combined and reacted, creating pressurised gas. This results in a flame and exhaust trail.
I suppose this "firecracker" carries it's own fuel and oxidiser, also :Yes.
(https://i.postimg.cc/QMKSPywy/ROCKET-EXHAUST-IN-A-VACUUM-CHAMBER.jpg)
Gunpowder, also known as black powder to distinguish it from modern smokeless powder, is the earliest known chemical explosive. It consists of a mixture of sulfur (S), charcoal (C), and potassium nitrate (saltpeter, KNO3). The sulfur and charcoal act as fuels while the saltpeter is an oxidizer.
I suppose this "firecracker" carries it's own fuel and oxidiser, also :Yes.
(https://i.postimg.cc/QMKSPywy/ROCKET-EXHAUST-IN-A-VACUUM-CHAMBER.jpg)Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GunpowderGunpowder, also known as black powder to distinguish it from modern smokeless powder, is the earliest known chemical explosive. It consists of a mixture of sulfur (S), charcoal (C), and potassium nitrate (saltpeter, KNO3). The sulfur and charcoal act as fuels while the saltpeter is an oxidizer.
I suppose this "firecracker" carries it's own fuel and oxidiser, also :Yes.
(https://i.postimg.cc/QMKSPywy/ROCKET-EXHAUST-IN-A-VACUUM-CHAMBER.jpg)Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GunpowderGunpowder, also known as black powder to distinguish it from modern smokeless powder, is the earliest known chemical explosive. It consists of a mixture of sulfur (S), charcoal (C), and potassium nitrate (saltpeter, KNO3). The sulfur and charcoal act as fuels while the saltpeter is an oxidizer.
Although this video apparently proves your point, in fact (after more detailed analysis regarding the differences between two explosions within two different environments (air vs vacuum)), this video actually does away with your false argument :
Have you watched this video :
COMBUSTION IS IMPOSSIBLE IN A VACUUM : https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7gzl3f
I suppose this "firecracker" carries it's own fuel and oxidiser, also :Yes, that is how they are able to burn so well.
I suppose this "firecracker" carries it's own fuel and oxidiser, also :Yes, that is how they are able to burn so well.
Pretty much all pyrotechnics these days have their own fuel and oxidiser.
A common oxidiser for such applications is a nitrate salt.
If you want to claim combustion is impossible in a vacuum, that is an entirely different argument and you will need a lot more evidence than a video.
Note: showing one type of combustion doesn't work doesn't mean none can.
Firstly, in the first part of this video you can clearly see how the model rocket engine (firecracker) can't burn in a vacuum :You mean we can see how this specific firecracker and setup wont work.
Secondly, what has been shown in this very video proves without the doubt that the experiment to which i am referring was severely corrupted (too much air left (or produced in the very beginning of the experiment) in that "vacuum" chamber)! :i.e. you will make up whatever excuse you can to dismiss rockets working in a vacuum.
Secondly, what has been shown in this very video proves without the doubt that the experiment to which i am referring was severely corrupted (too much air left (or produced in the very beginning of the experiment) in that "vacuum" chamber)! :So, you're already hedging against the results of Bom's experiment. You actually know that it will work, so you're trying to come up with excuses ahead of time to dismiss it.
Secondly, what has been shown in this very video proves without the doubt that the experiment to which i am referring was severely corrupted (too much air left (or produced in the very beginning of the experiment) in that "vacuum" chamber)! :
Secondly, what has been shown in this very video proves without the doubt that the experiment to which i am referring was severely corrupted (too much air left (or produced in the very beginning of the experiment) in that "vacuum" chamber)! :So, you're already hedging against the results of Bom's experiment. You actually know that it will work, so you're trying to come up with excuses ahead of time to dismiss it.
You not only lie to us, you lie to yourself.
Firstly, in the first part of this video you can clearly see how the model rocket engine (firecracker) can't burn in a vacuum :You mean we can see how this specific firecracker and setup wont work.
Not that it wont work in general.
You have done nothing to show it is impossible.
No experiment has ever been performed with such excruciating persistence and meticulous precision, and in every conceivable manner, than that of trying to detect and measure the motion of the Earth. Yet they have all consistently and continually yielded a velocity for the Earth of exactly ZERO mph.I know you think this is true, but this is not true. What you're saying is false. You have believed a lie and now are repeating a lie. Are you interested in knowing why it's false? Do you want to know how rotation can be demonstrated? Do you want to see how Earth rotates? Are you interested in technologies that depend on the rotation of earth to be useful?
unrelated rantingDivine creation is not continent upon a flat earth. Did you know that? Did you know that God can create a round planet?
Why do you say that combustion cannot take place in a vacuum? If it's because of lack of oxygen then how do you explain welding torches that work underwater?Underwater is pretty much the exact opposite of a vacuum. The increased water pressure allows the fuel and oxidizer to stay together long enough to ignite.
In the meantime, feel free to watch this video :He's assuming that Skylab itself is not precessing at the same rate as the gyro. Don't forget that Skylab was free floating too and used control moment gyros for stabilization and maneuvering as needed.
As mentioned previously, I am not sure whether you are posting what you post for giggles or you actually do believe it. I've got a feeling that you do, and the above posts indicate you tend to be a conspiracy theorist which explains a lot.
Others on this and other threads deal with your mistaken assertions quite well, but just picking up on one of your links, the 'Challenger crew are still alive and well' conspiracy theory is one of the many which are just plain illogical. But who said logic plays any part in a conspiracy theorist's reasoning. There are many debunks of the 'crew is still alive CT' as I'm sure you are aware, this being one of them:
http://www.sciencedenierhallofshame.com/debunked/are-the-crew-members-of-1986-space-shuttle-challenger-still-alive/
I doubt though that this and other similar debunks of the other CTs you've posted will ever make you stop and think again. As mentioned previously, CTers don't view the world rationally and the belief system is usually unshakeable given that CTism is hard wired into their thought process, as it seems to be with you.
Still tipping my hat to those taking their time to shoot down your arguments and so called evidence and logic.
You’re All Just a Bunch of Conspiracy Kooks
Keating: page 80: Quoting Wood: “Characterizing scientist as arrogant, deceptive, or purely driven by philosophical bias doesn’t help your case at all. It makes you sound like conspiracy kooks.”
Sungenis: We don’t characterize scientists in that way, except when they clearly reveal they are that way. Let me give you two examples. One regarding a philosophical bias against creationism and one regarding a philosophical bias toward geocentrism, in spite of what the evidence shows. Here is evolutionist, Richard Lewontin:
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a-priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Here is physicist Stephen Hawking:
...all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe.16 There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe.
In the meantime, feel free to watch this video :He's assuming that Skylab itself is not precessing at the same rate as the gyro. Don't forget that Skylab was free floating too and used control moment gyros for stabilization and maneuvering as needed.
Who is he? Bob Knodel (the narrator) or are you referring to the author of the original video ("odiupicku" that is to say : me myself)? He (Bob) got it right, and you obviously have no idea what you are talking about!
I won't continue on this, or any other derailing sub-topic...Then why did you bring it up in the first place? ???
My reply to JackBlack is going to serve as a perfect response to all other liars and cowards (as well),So it serves as a response to you?
i will be left with no optionNo you still have the option of admitting you are spouting a load of crap and not bothering to honestly address the issues.
A notorious facts - No 1 :You seem to have mistyped. What followed was not a fact, it was a blatant lie.
In the meantime, feel free to watch this video :He's assuming that Skylab itself is not precessing at the same rate as the gyro. Don't forget that Skylab was free floating too and used control moment gyros for stabilization and maneuvering as needed.
Who is he? Bob Knodel (the narrator) or are you referring to the author of the original video ("odiupicku" that is to say : me myself)? He (Bob) got it right, and you obviously have no idea what you are talking about! Since Skylab should have been always (allegedly) aligned (top-up and bottom-down) with the surface of the earth (while precessing wrt absolute (fixed) spatial orientation) it means that Skylab had to use some device(s) (control moment gyros) for stabilization in order to remain constantly in the same position with respect to the earth, and that was exactly what the author of the original video (me myself) and Bob Knodel assumed while pointing out this spectacular NASA's giveaway. The core of my argument is this : Since we assume that Skylab (while hurtling 27600 km/h around the earth) constantly changed it's spatial orientation in space (while precessing wrt absolute (fixed) spatial orientation) why there was no indication of that spatial change with respect to a rigid gyro (toy) presented in that fraudulent experiment conducted by NASA astronut? What would induce/cause a rigid gyro (toy) to follow (to keep the pace with) Skylab's constant orientation/spatial adjustment wrt Earth's surface (in it's orbit around the earth) which Skylab allegedly managed to keep by using so called control moment gyros (as you pointed out)? What? Magic? I won't continue on this, or any other derailing sub-topic, because we have to constrain ourselves from further blabbing and ranting (in this particular thread) in order to show due respect to our experimenter Bom Tishop and his exceptional work in progress...
(https://media.giphy.com/media/9D7Jr7o9TjKta/giphy.gif)
It's Bom Tishop's turn to conduct his experiment...Until then, keep comforting yourself...
No, that isn't what I said. I was saying that it's entirely possible that Skylab and the gyroscope were precessing at the same rate relative to the earth, but not relative to each other.In the meantime, feel free to watch this video :He's assuming that Skylab itself is not precessing at the same rate as the gyro. Don't forget that Skylab was free floating too and used control moment gyros for stabilization and maneuvering as needed.
Who is he? Bob Knodel (the narrator) or are you referring to the author of the original video ("odiupicku" that is to say : me myself)? He (Bob) got it right, and you obviously have no idea what you are talking about! Since Skylab should have been always (allegedly) aligned (top-up and bottom-down) with the surface of the earth (while precessing wrt absolute (fixed) spatial orientation) it means that Skylab had to use some device(s) (control moment gyros) for stabilization in order to remain constantly in the same position with respect to the earth, and that was exactly what the author of the original video (me myself) and Bob Knodel assumed while pointing out this spectacular NASA's giveaway. The core of my argument is this : Since we assume that Skylab (while hurtling 27600 km/h around the earth) constantly changed it's spatial orientation in space (while precessing wrt absolute (fixed) spatial orientation) why there was no indication of that spatial change with respect to a rigid gyro (toy) presented in that fraudulent experiment conducted by NASA astronut? What would induce/cause a rigid gyro (toy) to follow (to keep the pace with) Skylab's constant orientation/spatial adjustment wrt Earth's surface (in it's orbit around the earth) which Skylab allegedly managed to keep by using so called control moment gyros (as you pointed out)? What? Magic? I won't continue on this, or any other derailing sub-topic, because we have to constrain ourselves from further blabbing and ranting (in this particular thread) in order to show due respect to our experimenter Bom Tishop and his exceptional work in progress...
(https://media.giphy.com/media/9D7Jr7o9TjKta/giphy.gif)
It's Bom Tishop's turn to conduct his experiment...Until then, keep comforting yourself...
Like markjo already said, objects in free fall won’t show precession.
Since combustion is impossible in a vacuum how you can get the following result (a flame - exhaust trail) in a vacuum chamber assuming that all air has been sucked out of this "vacuum" chamber? :
I would go so far as to say that a vacuum is not possible when there is combustion. Once a fuel and oxidizer are introduced to the flow restricted combustion chamber and ignited, it's no longer a vacuum in the chamber.Since combustion is impossible in a vacuum how you can get the following result (a flame - exhaust trail) in a vacuum chamber assuming that all air has been sucked out of this "vacuum" chamber? :
Combustion is not impossible in a vacuum.
I would go so far as to say that a vacuum is not possible when there is combustion. Once a fuel and oxidizer are introduced to the flow restricted combustion chamber and ignited, it's no longer a vacuum in the chamber.Would you count thermite as combustion?
I suppose that depends on how strictly you want to define combustion.I would go so far as to say that a vacuum is not possible when there is combustion. Once a fuel and oxidizer are introduced to the flow restricted combustion chamber and ignited, it's no longer a vacuum in the chamber.Would you count thermite as combustion?
The combustion chamber pressure in the SpaceX Merlin 1D was 9.7 MPa (1,410 psi) and that's very far from being a vacuum!I would go so far as to say that a vacuum is not possible when there is combustion. Once a fuel and oxidizer are introduced to the flow restricted combustion chamber and ignited, it's no longer a vacuum in the chamber.Since combustion is impossible in a vacuum how you can get the following result (a flame - exhaust trail) in a vacuum chamber assuming that all air has been sucked out of this "vacuum" chamber? :
Combustion is not impossible in a vacuum.
Why is TEA-TEB chemical ignition used instead of spark ignition?Why is TEA-TEB chemical ignition used instead of spark ignition? (https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/15403/why-is-tea-teb-chemical-ignition-used-instead-of-spark-ignition)
Both the Saturn V and the Falcon 9 use TEA-TEB to ignite their kerosene-fueled engines. TEA-TEB is pyrophoric, igniting spontaneously on contact with air. This poses handling issues; it must be stored in nitrogen.
I would go so far as to say that a vacuum is not possible when there is combustion. Once a fuel and oxidizer are introduced to the flow restricted combustion chamber and ignited, it's no longer a vacuum in the chamber.Since combustion is impossible in a vacuum how you can get the following result (a flame - exhaust trail) in a vacuum chamber assuming that all air has been sucked out of this "vacuum" chamber? :
Combustion is not impossible in a vacuum.
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.Psalm 19:1
If the combustion is pushing off the atmosphere, then what's pushing the rocket?I would go so far as to say that a vacuum is not possible when there is combustion. Once a fuel and oxidizer are introduced to the flow restricted combustion chamber and ignited, it's no longer a vacuum in the chamber.Since combustion is impossible in a vacuum how you can get the following result (a flame - exhaust trail) in a vacuum chamber assuming that all air has been sucked out of this "vacuum" chamber? :
Combustion is not impossible in a vacuum.
1. I would go so far as to say that they can fly as long (as high) as an environment through which they fly is enough dense to support rocket-flying (combustion + resistance (pushing off)).
2. Does anybody have a link to a rocket launch with rear facing cameras, where the rocket continues out into space eventually showing the whole globe (how long does it take for NASA to deliver geostationary satellite to it's orbit)????Probably not. SpaceX does have cameras on their rockets that show the earth as the rocket heads towards its geostationary transfer orbit. However the cameras get cutoff after the payload is deployed (usually within about an hour or so after liftoff). From the time of liftoff to final geostationary orbit is probably on the order of a few days.
3. How high must one get before the atmospheric rotation does not exist? For if all rotates it must have to stop somewhere.There is no cutoff for the atmosphere. It just gradually keeps getting thinner and thinner until around 100km or so where there isn't enough air to generate any significant lift. However, even the ISS at 400km or so still experiences a small bit of atmospheric drag.
3a. Sagnac effect proves that the earth is stationary and that an aether rotates 24h/day around motionless earth.Does it really? Are you saying that a stationary earth and a rotating universe makes more sense than a stationary universe and a rotating earth?
If the combustion is pushing off the atmosphere, then what's pushing the rocket?I would go so far as to say that a vacuum is not possible when there is combustion. Once a fuel and oxidizer are introduced to the flow restricted combustion chamber and ignited, it's no longer a vacuum in the chamber.Since combustion is impossible in a vacuum how you can get the following result (a flame - exhaust trail) in a vacuum chamber assuming that all air has been sucked out of this "vacuum" chamber? :
Combustion is not impossible in a vacuum.
1. I would go so far as to say that they can fly as long (as high) as an environment through which they fly is enough dense to support rocket-flying (combustion + resistance (pushing off)).
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?Thrust is that magic word (force) you are looking for, isn't it?
Thrust is that magic word you are looking for, isn't it?Thrust is the second body?
Sorry, that still doesn't answer my question.
Or, you could make all us stupid people smarter by answering my simple question. How does the rocket's thrust pushing against the atmosphere push the rocket up? Just remember to use small words, because you know how stupid I am.If the combustion is pushing off the atmosphere, then what's pushing the rocket?I would go so far as to say that a vacuum is not possible when there is combustion. Once a fuel and oxidizer are introduced to the flow restricted combustion chamber and ignited, it's no longer a vacuum in the chamber.Since combustion is impossible in a vacuum how you can get the following result (a flame - exhaust trail) in a vacuum chamber assuming that all air has been sucked out of this "vacuum" chamber? :
Combustion is not impossible in a vacuum.
1. I would go so far as to say that they can fly as long (as high) as an environment through which they fly is enough dense to support rocket-flying (combustion + resistance (pushing off)).
In this stupidity contest between Jack and you it's really hard to decide who wins, as far as i am concerned, you both deserve gold medal...
Let's compare your stupidity level with Jack's level of stupidity :
Since you believe in 9/11 official story i can't make you smarter!Or, you could make all us stupid people smarter by answering my simple question. How does the rocket's thrust pushing against the atmosphere push the rocket up? Just remember to use small words, because you know how stupid I am.If the combustion is pushing off the atmosphere, then what's pushing the rocket?I would go so far as to say that a vacuum is not possible when there is combustion. Once a fuel and oxidizer are introduced to the flow restricted combustion chamber and ignited, it's no longer a vacuum in the chamber.Since combustion is impossible in a vacuum how you can get the following result (a flame - exhaust trail) in a vacuum chamber assuming that all air has been sucked out of this "vacuum" chamber? :
Combustion is not impossible in a vacuum.
1. I would go so far as to say that they can fly as long (as high) as an environment through which they fly is enough dense to support rocket-flying (combustion + resistance (pushing off)).
In this stupidity contest between Jack and you it's really hard to decide who wins, as far as i am concerned, you both deserve gold medal...
Let's compare your stupidity level with Jack's level of stupidity :
When did I say that I believe the 9/11 official story and what does that have to do with rockets pushing off the atmosphere? ???Since you believe in 9/11 official story i can't make you smarter!Or, you could make all us stupid people smarter by answering my simple question. How does the rocket's thrust pushing against the atmosphere push the rocket up? Just remember to use small words, because you know how stupid I am.If the combustion is pushing off the atmosphere, then what's pushing the rocket?I would go so far as to say that a vacuum is not possible when there is combustion. Once a fuel and oxidizer are introduced to the flow restricted combustion chamber and ignited, it's no longer a vacuum in the chamber.Since combustion is impossible in a vacuum how you can get the following result (a flame - exhaust trail) in a vacuum chamber assuming that all air has been sucked out of this "vacuum" chamber? :
Combustion is not impossible in a vacuum.
1. I would go so far as to say that they can fly as long (as high) as an environment through which they fly is enough dense to support rocket-flying (combustion + resistance (pushing off)).
In this stupidity contest between Jack and you it's really hard to decide who wins, as far as i am concerned, you both deserve gold medal...
Let's compare your stupidity level with Jack's level of stupidity :
So, you don't believe in 9/11 official story?Since you believe in 9/11 official story i can't make you smarter!When did I say that I believe the 9/11 official story and what does that have to do with rockets pushing off the atmosphere? ???
I don't believe that the 9/11 official story has anything to do with rockets pushing off the atmosphere.So, you don't believe in 9/11 official story?Since you believe in 9/11 official story i can't make you smarter!When did I say that I believe the 9/11 official story and what does that have to do with rockets pushing off the atmosphere? ???
So, you don't believe in 9/11 official story?Since you believe in 9/11 official story i can't make you smarter!When did I say that I believe the 9/11 official story and what does that have to do with rockets pushing off the atmosphere? ???
1. I would go so far as to say that they can fly as long (as high) as an environment through which they fly is enough dense to support rocket-flying (combustion + resistance (pushing off)).They only need the pressure to support gaseous combustion in the main chamber, where the combustion is occurring.
Sagnac effect proves that the earth is stationaryStop lying. The Sagnac effect proves Earth rotates and you know that.
I am going to be as concise as possible (atypically for me :) ) : In bullshit you trust, bullshit is all around you, and you choose rather to believe in bullshit than to allow yourself to be convinced that you have been fooled...Watch this :What does 9/11 have to do with Rockets can't fly in a vacuum?So, you don't believe in 9/11 official story?Since you believe in 9/11 official story i can't make you smarter!When did I say that I believe the 9/11 official story and what does that have to do with rockets pushing off the atmosphere? ???
You can start with this simple question you have been avoiding ever since it was brought up as you know it destroys your position:Don't you have any scruples?
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?Thrust is that magic word (force) you are looking for, isn't it?
Thrust is that magic word you are looking for, isn't it?Thrust is the second body?
Sorry, that still doesn't answer my question.
Since the exhaust velocity is faster than the speed of sound it is quite impossible for a rocket, far from any solid object to push off the atmosphere.I would go so far as to say that a vacuum is not possible when there is combustion. Once a fuel and oxidizer are introduced to the flow restricted combustion chamber and ignited, it's no longer a vacuum in the chamber.Since combustion is impossible in a vacuum how you can get the following result (a flame - exhaust trail) in a vacuum chamber assuming that all air has been sucked out of this "vacuum" chamber? :
Combustion is not impossible in a vacuum.
1. I would go so far as to say that they can fly as long (as high) as an environment through which they fly is enough dense to support rocket-flying (combustion + resistance (pushing off)).
So, if you define space as vacuum,Sure, it's closer to a vacuum than can be achieved on earth.
then we can comfortably say (until Bom Tishop provides experimental evidence to the contrary) that rockets can't fly in a vacuum (of space),No, we can assume no such thing because an optimally designed rocket engine has considerably more thrust than one designed for sea-level.
however, if you define space as let's say earth's envelop which is higher than 100 km and lower than 500 km, then we can presume that rockets maybe can fly even that high if there is enough air density at these altitudes. It is hardly to believe that at 37 000 km height (alleged orbit of geostationary satellites) there would still be enough air density to support rocket-flying.There is insufficient air above 100 km to significantly affect a rocket's performance, though enough to prevent satellites orbiting as low as that.
2. Does anybody have a link to a rocket launch with rear facing cameras, where the rocket continues out into space eventually showing the whole globe (how long does it take for NASA to deliver geostationary satellite to it's orbit)????I don't know, you can search for that yourself as well as anyone but I've seen none all the way to geostationary orbit.
3. How high must one get before the atmospheric rotation does not exist? For if all rotates it must have to stop somewhere.This might tell you: The Rotational Speed of the Upper Atmosphere by King-Hele, D. G. & Allan, R. R. (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1966SSRv....6..248K).
3a. Sagnac effect proves that the earth is stationary and that an aether rotates 24h/day around motionless earth. However, aether's rotation is subtle, that is to say, we can detect it with interferometers (MMX, SAGNAC, MGP, ring-laser gyros, etc...),The "Sagnac effect proves" no such thing. Please show evidence for this claim.
but aether's rotation doesn't produce an effect which could be detected with directional gyros (heading indicators).The earth's rotation can and is detected by sufficiently stable gyroscopes and similar instruments (eg the Foucault pendulum).
However, if earth rotated heading indicators would indicate (detect) that motion by constantly pointing towards let's say North Star (or The Sun) while our orientation points at the horizon turns around our spatially fixed heading indicator's needle.I'll ignore that because earlier directional gyros were not sufficiently drift free to do this and modern ones can detect both the earth's rotation and the plane's movement over the earth's surface and most be reset from the magnetic compass.
3b. Even within geocentric scenario we would have the problem with that boundary, because unlike in HC scenario, within which going beyond that boundary means entering motionless space, within GC scenario, going beyond that boundary means entering MECHANICALLY (NOT AETHERLY) MOVING SPACE!!!Who claims that space is motionless? Linear motion is purely relative so what is the frame of reference that makes space "stationary"?
3c. Is the Founder of Modern Rocket Science trying to tell us something?Sure, you might read:
(http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/assets/img/von-braun/image-06-large.jpg)QuoteThe heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.FLAT EARTH - PSALM 19,1 by odiupicku (https://www.youtube.co/watch?v=4XAme2ru9GQ)
Psalm 19:1
4. Hubble writes :Your topic is "HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)" and I fail to see the relevance.
5. In figure 1, we look down on the orbit of the Earth and the spinning Earth’s north pole. We shall assign speeds to the Earth’s motions: its orbital speed around the Sun, Vo, and its speed of axial daily rotation Vd. Now consider a point on the surface of the Earth at noon time. What is the speed of that point in space at noon? It is Vo+Vd. What about at midnight when the same point has moved around with the spinning Earth? What is the speed of that point in space? It is Vo-Vd. So, your maximum speed is at noon time and the minimum speed is at midnight. And every day every point on the Earth undergoes a variation of speed from a maximum Vo+Vd to a minimum Vo-Vd If every point on the Earth goes from a maximum to minimum speed once every 24 hours that means that every point on Earth is alternately accelerated and decelerated, accelerated and decelerated, and so on.Galileo's thoughts on tides before even Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation has no relevance here.
(https://i.postimg.cc/W4kjbV4w/GALILEO-FIGURE-1.jpg)We do, but it is constant, very slight, always directed "down" and simply part of the effective g near the equator.
If we put an accelerometer at the equator, why at night we do not see an acceleration and a deceleration by day if the earth really rotates?
The dark side of the earth away from the sun is moving faster of course (relative to the sun) as it is shooting forward. And the sunny side is moving 'backward" or at least slower than the dark side.
So... 65,000 mph around the sun.
Dark side moving at 66,000mph. Light side moving at 64,000mph.
So... In 12 hours from midnight to mid day, YOU should reduce in speed my 2000mph around the sun. This means that every min in that 12 hours, you are slowing down 2.777777 mph. Very small amount. A human cannot feel this. But an accelerometer TOTALLY can. This mean I should be able to put my cellphone on a table and see the accelerometer showing a reading.[/color]
I am going to be as concise as possible (atypically for me :) ) : In bullshit you trust, bullshit is all around you, and you choose rather to believe in bullshit than to allow yourself to be convinced that you have been fooled...Watch this :What does 9/11 have to do with Rockets can't fly in a vacuum?So, you don't believe in 9/11 official story?Since you believe in 9/11 official story i can't make you smarter!When did I say that I believe the 9/11 official story and what does that have to do with rockets pushing off the atmosphere? ???
Have a good time...And bear in mind, although it's funny, it's true, also!!! What is more, it's much more true than funny...
“The glory which is built upon a lie soon becomes a most unpleasant incumbrance. … How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and how hard it is to undo that work again!” – Autobiographical dictation, 2 December 1906. Published in Autobiography of Mark Twain, Volume 2 (University of California Press, 2013)
Simple, verifiable physics is not bullshit.I am going to be as concise as possible (atypically for me :) ) : In bullshit you trust...What does 9/11 have to do with Rockets can't fly in a vacuum?So, you don't believe in 9/11 official story?Since you believe in 9/11 official story i can't make you smarter!When did I say that I believe the 9/11 official story and what does that have to do with rockets pushing off the atmosphere? ???
If you had any scruples you'd admit that HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum) « Reply #696 on: Today at 02:54:04 AM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2197581#msg2197581) is totally irrelevant to JackBlack's question and even totally to your topic, "HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)".You can start with this simple question you have been avoiding ever since it was brought up as you know it destroys your position:You dare to ask this idiotic question again, even though you have read what i posted on this very page (reply #696)What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and
what is the other body involved in this interaction?
Here we go : reply #696 once again, just for you : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2197581#msg2197581
In bullshit you trustNo, we don't trust in you.
You dare to ask this idiotic question again, even though you have read what i posted on this very pageNo, I dare ask this very serious question you refuse to answer.
Now, considering I clearly stated that it does not answer my question and explained that it didn't because you failed to identify the second body involved which would also be force, it is quite clear that it doesn't answer my question.Does this answer you question???Thrust is that magic word you are looking for, isn't it?Thrust is the second body?
Sorry, that still doesn't answer my question.
Of course not, you trust in you, and you were George Carlin's main topic, also! How come?In bullshit you trustNo, we don't trust in you.
This means that, if this were to be the case (that rockets move due to "recoil action/reaction")- more than half of any rocket's fuel mass would have to be ejected at that speed - as illustrated in this diagram:
(https://i.postimg.cc/j5QkT9Rn/NEWTON-NASA-1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/g04ZPqfk/NEWTON-NASA-2.jpg)
Of course, this is not the case - and would be quite impossible to do.
Why do you think it's not the case? Which part do you think is impossible?
Yet, this is basically how NASA 'explains' how their spacecrafts are propelled through air and vacuum. Please note that I have respectfully observed Newton's Third Law in my above diagram. I think our poor friend Isaac is rolling and howling in his grave - seeing how NASA is abusing / distorting his laws in order to fool the world. Sadly, most people seem to keep buying into their shameless skullduggery.
One interesting question for Rabinoz who "knows" how to think for himself (out of the box) :
If exhaust velocity of let's say Ariane 5 rocket is 2,7 km/s, then why don't we see 2,7 km long exhaust trail behind Ariana 5 rocket right after lift off???
Exhaust trail behind Ariana 5 rocket :
(https://i.postimg.cc/sxHVWD8h/ARIANA-5-LIFT-OFF.jpg)
Why? Why have you arbitrarily choosen "2.7km" as the length of the exhaust trail you want to see? Just because that's the number you saw for the exhaust velocity and it's now stuck in your head? Maybe the trail of hot but not flaming gases is a couple of km long, you just can't see it.
Again:
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?
So, in the air there is force between the air and the exhaust.As Milan Tarot would say : "Javio se još jedan iz linije za pametne!"
Why is not the rocket included?
How can rocket acceerate in the air if no force acts on it?
Incorrect and it's been explained numerous times but YOU refuse to listen!Of course not, you trust in you, and you were George Carlin's main topic, also! How come?In bullshit you trustNo, we don't trust in you.
I answered your question many times, but since you are full of shit, you will continue to pretend that i didn't!
So, the next time when you put forward for umpteenth time in a row, your famous idiotic question i will simply direct you to this very post. O.K.?
And the post goes like this :
(https://i.postimg.cc/cJLdxTNF/ROCKETS-NASA-S-SILLIEST-LIE.jpg)
To acknowledge the existence of air drag in front of the rocket while, at the same time, deny the existence of the opposite air displacement exerted by the exhaust plume below it - is an utter contradiction in terms and a crude offense to common sense.
If this were to be true (that "rockets do not push against air"), this would mean that the formidable, explosive thrust of a rocket's exhaust plume does not encounter any air resistance - a preposterous and outlandish contention, if there ever was one.No one, other than YOU, is saying that "rocket's exhaust plume does not encounter any air resistance" so stop you usual straw-manning tactics!
Instead, as the NASA quackery goes, we are asked to believe that rockets are propelled solely by the "recoil force" generated by the rapid expulsion of fuel mass from rocket tanks.Most of the thrust does come from the momentum of the huge mass of exhaust gas expelled at an extremely high velocity.
If this were true, we should all hover above our toilet seats when stricken with explosive diarrhea - yet I doubt that anyone has ever had the (mixed) fortune of experiencing such a thrill.The amount of male bovine excreta YOU expel per second could possibly do that!
In SummaryWhat on earth are you talking about "free expansion" here for? It's totally irrelevant to the thrust of a rocket.
1. Without free expansion the rocket exhaust will push against space. And off we go!
2. Objects don't accelerate unless they exchange energy with some other object/field. There are no objects or fields in space (I regard them to be so small/weak as to be virtually non-existent).There's no "exchange of energy" but there is an extremely massive second body and that is the tonnes of burnt fuel expels at extremely high velocity!
SIMPLE QUESTION FOR JackBlack and Rabinoz : If exhaust velocity of let's say Ariane 5 rocket is 2,7 km/s, then why don't we see 2,7 km long exhaust trail behind Ariana 5 rocket right after lift off???How could there be a 2.7 km exhaust trail right after lift off? The rocket is travelling very slowly for a while after lift-off, though the Ariane 5 does accelerate comparatively fast from the outset.
If the combustion is pushing off the atmosphere, then what's pushing the rocket?I would go so far as to say that a vacuum is not possible when there is combustion. Once a fuel and oxidizer are introduced to the flow restricted combustion chamber and ignited, it's no longer a vacuum in the chamber.Since combustion is impossible in a vacuum how you can get the following result (a flame - exhaust trail) in a vacuum chamber assuming that all air has been sucked out of this "vacuum" chamber? :
Combustion is not impossible in a vacuum.
1. I would go so far as to say that they can fly as long (as high) as an environment through which they fly is enough dense to support rocket-flying (combustion + resistance (pushing off)).
In this stupidity contest between Jack and you it's really hard to decide who wins, as far as i am concerned, you both deserve gold medal...
Let's compare your stupidity level with Jack's level of stupidity :What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?Thrust is that magic word (force) you are looking for, isn't it?Thrust is that magic word you are looking for, isn't it?Thrust is the second body?
Sorry, that still doesn't answer my question.
You both (markjo and JackBlack) want us to believe that your level of stupidity is so high???
So, if you are not that stupid, why do you want us to believe that you are???
Is it because you can't handle the truth?
Is it because you can't handle any truth whatsoever?
Is it because you are so rotten people that you have to twist and turn upside-down every single truth, no matter how obvious it is???
So, let me ask you this question : Who are the rotten people in our societies and what are their acts???
Of course, Tomb and Cheney’s admission also means the US has no hard evidence that “nineteen Muslims” piloted and crashed four US planes; except, perhaps for the passport of Mohammed Atta that just happen to survive the crash into the Twin Towers and flutter unmolested onto the street below. But in that case Mr. Bollyn would be glad to offer you his options in Florida swamp land. Later the report on Atta’s passport was revised to say that it actually belonged to another hijacker of Flight 11, Satan al Suqami. Incidentally, the Atta passport was first presented as evidence to Mayor Giuliani by his police commissioner, Bernard Kerik, who has a notorious past and who is presently in jail for various crimes. Moreover, when Giuliani was presented with the questions at a press conference of explosions at WTC, he turned to Kerik who simply shook his head and said “no.” This was the first “official” answer to the question that would never go away. Additionally, the US presented videos of bin Laden supposedly taking responsibility and/or being delighted for the 911 attacks. It was later discovered that the videos, which were obviously fakes, originated from ex-Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) soldier Rita Katz through her SITE Institute.
Only Aired Once About PENTAGON :
This video was only aired once on television and never seen again. Whatever debris there was, the FBI and many unidentified people were out on the Pentagon lawn combing the ground for something, walking back and forth. But this was a crime scene.
Have you ever heard about the four-part FOX news story by Carl Cameron, accompanied by Brit Hume and Tony Snow, on its details to know that Bollyn is following the leads where they go. The FBI and other US government agencies told Cameron that Israelis were involved in 911, but that the information was “classified.” One can view these videos at several places on the Internet. The intrigue is only heightened by the fact that FOX pulled the series shortly after unidentified Zionist groups asked for its removal in 2001. Not only did FOX obey, as if following some Orwellian prophecy, it also removed the written transcripts and in its place put “This story no longer exists.” Here are some gripping excerpts from the series :
Federal officials this year have arrested or detained nearly 200 Israeli citizens suspected of belonging to an “organized intelligence-gathering operation.” The Bush administration has deported most of those arrested after Sept. 11...The suspects: Israeli organized crime with operations in New York, Miami, Las Vegas, Canada, Israel and Egypt...The problem: according to classified law enforcement documents obtained by Fox News, the bad guys had the cops’ beepers, cell phones, even home phones under surveillance. Some who did get caught admitted to having hundreds of numbers and using them to avoid arrest...Asked this week about another sprawling investigation and the detention of 60 Israelis since Sept. 11, the Bush administration treated the questions like hot potatoes...Beyond the 60 apprehended or detained, and many deported since Sept. 11, another group of 140 Israeli individuals have been arrested and detained in this year in what government documents describe as “an organized intelligence gathering operation,” designed to “penetrate government facilities.” Most of those individuals said they had served in the Israeli military...But they also had, most of them, intelligence expertise, and either worked for Amdocs or other companies in Israel that specialize in wiretapping....Well, there’s real pandemonium described at the FBI, the DEA and the INS. A lot of these problems have been well known to some investigators, many of who have contributed to the reporting on this story...They want to find out how it is all this has come out, as well as be very careful because of the explosive nature and very political ramifications of the story itself – Tony. SNOW: All right, Carl, thanks.
A third van was found on King St. between 6th and 7th which the Israelis fled after they blew it up. It was later found that the moving company, Urban Moving Systems (UMS), was a Mossad front and that the Kurzburg brothers, Paul and Sivan, were the two Mossad agents. The entire police communication was recorded and is available on the Internet. One of the police officers describes one of the vans having a mural of a plane hitting the Twin Towers. Dominic Suter, another Mossad agent and the registered owner of UMS, was allowed to flee to Israel by the FBI on Sept. 14, 2001, just three days after the attacks.
Dr. Alan Sabrosky, Director of Strategic Studies at the US Army War College says: “It is 100 percent certain that 9-11 was a Mossad operation. Period.” General Hamid Gul, former Pakistan intelligence chief, agrees: “It was a Zionist/Neo Con conspiracy. It was an inside job. They wanted to go on world conquest, looking at it as an opportunity window when the Muslim world was lying prostrate; Russia was nowhere in sight; China was still not an economic giant that it has turned out to be. And they thought this was a good time to fill those strategic areas which are still lying without any American presence; and of course to control the energy tap of the world. Presently it is the Middle East and in the future it is going to be central Asia.” Francesco Cossiga, former Italian president, is of the same opinion, telling Italy’s most respected newspaper that the attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad: “all the [intelligence services] of America and Europe ... now know well that the disastrous attack has been planned and realized from the CIA American and the Mossad with the aid of the Zionist world in order to put under accusation the Arabic Countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part ... in Iraq [and] Afghanistan.”
As for the odd Israeli reaction to 9/11, Benjamin Netanyahu himself admitted in an off guard moment: “We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq...these events swung American public opinion in our favor.” The day after, Netanyahu uttered an even more audacious remark on the 9/11 attacks, saying: “It’s very good.” Realizing the implications, he caught himself and said, “Well, it’s not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy.” Similar to Netanyahu’s capitalizing on 9/11, Ehud Barak, which Bollyn says “is suspected of being one of the real masterminds of 9/11,” did much the same since “within minutes of the explosive demolitions of the Twin Towers on 9/11, the Israeli politician and military leader Ehud Barak was in the London studio of the BBC” and “before any evidence of culpability was found, Barak called for a ‘War on Terror’ and US military intervention in Afghanistan,” which is a “textbook example of how false-flag terrorism is supposed to work. The perpetrator is the first one to assign blame...which is the real purpose of such atrocities.”
(https://i.postimg.cc/15jNS4jB/IN-BULLSHIT-WE-TRUST-XXX-1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/hGNMpHRd/Wernher-Von-Braun-page-14-X.jpg)
This video sums it up :
Let me show you one interesting comment one guy has left below this video :
J Roger Trudel
1 year ago (edited)
Why have many of us lost faith in science? Very simple, deception. NASA used to be wonderful at doing many scientific portrayals of space. Everything looked so real and most of us were really caught up with it from the 1960s on. But when NASA failed miserably in the 1990s on with fake imagery, the fake ISS, and all those unprofessional actors acting as astronauts (astro-nuts), many of us woke up to reality. And, when an intelligent person has seen and witnessed the fakery of a science field for a few times, that is when 100% of that particular field of science comes into question. How would you feel about someone (example - a Mexican), that has deceived you, say for over 20 years, and you discover the truth about that person. You become very upset inside, and some will even go to the point of never trusting another Mexican person ever again. The same has come to past with space and aeronautical science. Once you have discovered the deception you begin to and lose complete faith in the whole works of its program, and you begin to question everything. As for rockets functioning propulsion in the vacuum of space, for me that is like pulling a boat out of the water, firing up the engine, engaging the prop, rev up the engine, and let's go to town boys
This video sums it up :
Let me show you one interesting comment one guy has left below this video :
J Roger Trudel
1 year ago (edited)
Why have many of us lost faith in science? Very simple, deception. NASA used to be wonderful at doing many scientific portrayals of space. Everything looked so real and most of us were really caught up with it from the 1960s on. But when NASA failed miserably in the 1990s on with fake imagery, the fake ISS, and all those unprofessional actors acting as astronauts (astro-nuts), many of us woke up to reality. And, when an intelligent person has seen and witnessed the fakery of a science field for a few times, that is when 100% of that particular field of science comes into question. How would you feel about someone (example - a Mexican), that has deceived you, say for over 20 years, and you discover the truth about that person. You become very upset inside, and some will even go to the point of never trusting another Mexican person ever again. The same has come to past with space and aeronautical science. Once you have discovered the deception you begin to and lose complete faith in the whole works of its program, and you begin to question everything. As for rockets functioning propulsion in the vacuum of space, for me that is like pulling a boat out of the water, firing up the engine, engaging the prop, rev up the engine, and let's go to town boys
No, you haven't seen it before, this is totally different video...This video sums it up :
Not this idiot again. Seen it before.
No, you haven't seen it before, this is totally different video...This video sums it up :
Not this idiot again. Seen it before.
I am transferring the following passage from one other discussion on the same subject :
Real life analogies work great to explain scientific phenomena. In fact, I prefer them because we may not all agree on the definition of terms that Nasa and other space scientists use.
You used this analogy:
“Place a firecracker under an empty inverted can and light it. When it explodes the can flies upward because the forces from the expanding gas of the explosion are not countered in the upward direction so that is the direction it moves. And, it doesn’t move merely because the gasses “push against the ground” under the can. It would work as well if the can were suspended by a string and away from the ground.”
Your assumption that a can suspended upside down by a string would also fly up in the air.
I have tried this experiment and the can DOES NOT fly up in the air. The can moves slightly upward, but does not “fly up”.
We taped a Black Cat firecracker to the inside of a green bean can with no lid, set it on the ground upside down with the wick sticking outside the can. With the same set up, we place another green bean can on the barbecue grill.
For the can on the ground, when the firecracker blew, the can soared into the air about 20 feet. For the can on the grill, when the firecracker blew, the can only jumped up about 4 inches.
Ya, we blow a lot of stuff up when its firecracker season using all manner of objects and environments. I have had a pretty active childhood and have experimented quite a bit with scientific principles.
When it is said that a can on the ground behaves the same way as a can suspended in air when firecrackers are exploding inside them I have to disagree based on my own experience.
Clearly, the ground is aiding the can somehow in gaining all that extra height. It could also be said that the grill and its lack of ground is prohibiting the can from flying up.
Without using the idea of “pushing against the ground”, how would you explain the difference in heights of the two green bean cans?
I answered your question many times, but since you are full of shit, you will continue to pretend that i didn't!Stop lying.
And again, you fail to answer the question as you have failed to identify the second body involved in this interaction.Again:The Expansion produces THRUST FORCE!
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?
Free expansion!Does not apply in this case.
On the other hand, there is no resistance in a vacuum, hence : the second body is missing!If that was the case, that would mean that the gas CANNOT accelerate.
Was this helpfulNo, you ignoring reality and repeating the same refuted nonsense without dealing with the refutation is not helpful in any sense.
I answered your question many times, but since you are full of shit, you will continue to pretend that i didn't!Stop lying.
You are yet to answer this.
This is almost certainly because you know answering it will show you have been lying the entire time and know that rockets do work in a vacuum and that they don't need to push off anything other than their own exhaust.
Spamming the same refuted nonsense again and again will not help you.
It will not magically answer the question.And again, you fail to answer the question as you have failed to identify the second body involved in this interaction.Again:The Expansion produces THRUST FORCE!
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?
If the expansion produces thrust force, why isn't this force accelerating the rocket?Free expansion!Does not apply in this case.
With free expansion, there is no net change in the velocity of the gas.
With a rocket there is.
Also note that free expansion does not care what the actual pressures are, just that there is a difference.
If free expansion would magically prevent rockets from working in a vacuum it would also prevent them working in the atmosphere.On the other hand, there is no resistance in a vacuum, hence : the second body is missing!If that was the case, that would mean that the gas CANNOT accelerate.
That the gas MUST REMAIN INSIDE THE ROCKET!
By claiming there is no second body you are claiming that gas will magically be held inside the rocket rather than escaping out the opening to a vacuum.
Is that really the path of stupidity you want to go down?
Again, we know the gas will leave the rocket. To claim otherwise is claiming pure magic, that you can hold gas inside an open container surrounded by vacuum.
We also know that as there is only one opening in one direction, it will leave in a particular direction.
We know that that means it will have a velocity relative to the rocket.
We know that it started without a net velocity relative to the rocket.
We know that that means it needs to be accelerated.
We know that it has mass.
We know that that means it needed a force applied to accelerate it.
We know that that involves interaction with a second body.
We know that that will also accelerate the second body.
Claiming there is no second body means there cannot be any iteraction and thus no force and thus no acceleration and thus the gas remained trapped inside the rocket.
If that is what you want to claim, then state it directly. Go against all known physics and claim that in a vacuum, because there is no second body, gas will remain inside an open vessel with absolutely nothing to keep it in.
If you don't want to claim that and instead want to accept that the gas will escape, you need to identify the second body. Claiming there is none will not help.
As a reminder, the only thing there to act as the second body is the rocket.
That makes it clear why you are avoiding answering it. Because you know that answering it will show that you know rockets will work in a vacuum.Was this helpfulNo, you ignoring reality and repeating the same refuted nonsense without dealing with the refutation is not helpful in any sense.
So going to answer the question yet, by either identifying the second body or by claiming the gas will magically stay trapped inside an open container?
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/fv3g8my6hk6gpkf/ROCKETS-Cikljamas%27s-SILLIEST-MEME.jpg?dl=1)So, the next time when you put forward for umpteenth time in a row, your famous idiotic question i will simply direct you to this very post. O.K.?In bullshit you trustNo, we don't trust in you.
And the post goes like this :
(https://i.postimg.cc/MKF2Y0Vp/ROCKET-PROPULSION-X.jpg)So you go and find the "As we shall see latter(sic), maximum thrust occurs when Pe=Pa" and find out what it means.
BULLSHIT VS COMMON SENSEIncorrect!
BULLSHIT :
An airplane propeller DOES push against the air and in so doing it DOES impart a reactive force to the plane because the prop is a solid object CONNECTED to the plane.
Rocket exhaust isn’t connected to the rocket so it can’t function as a pushing medium to the rocket as a propeller does.
not the minor part, it is the major part of the force. Newtons 3rd law says it has to be.[/color]
Rockets move by creating an imbalance of forces within the rocket motor causing more internal pressure in the forward direction and very little internal pressure rearward due to the opening of the rocket nozzle.You can look on the thrust of a rocket being generated this way using Newton's second law of motion and the answer is the same as using conservation of momentum.
There is also a secondary forward thrust caused by Newton’s 3rd law as regards the rearward ejection of mass.This is not a secondary force but is simply another way of looking at the same force.
<< simply a repetition of the above! >>Well why argue semantics instead of physics?
COMMON SENSE:
I fear we are now arguing semantics instead of physics.
To save time, I will tell you how I interpret Newtons 3 Laws of Motion. If you disagree then there is no longer a reason to continue this thread as we differ on basic laws of physics which won’t be resolved here. If you agree with me, then there is much to discuss.Ok, but remember that Newton's original second law in effect was force = time rate of change of momentum.
Let’s start with Newtons 3 Laws of Motion.
Fist Law: For an object to remain as it is, either moving or not, the sum of the forces on it are zero: Sigma F = 0
Second Law: For a body to accelerate, there must be a force on it: F = ma
Third Law: For every force in one direction, there is an equal force in the opposite direction: F1 = – F2 or F1 + F2 = 0
Notice how all of Newtons Laws of Motion contain the term ‘force’. Newton used the term ‘force’ to explain how objects are pushed and pulled in our universe.
This is how I see Newtons 3rd Law applied to rockets flying through our atmosphere:
If a rocket is moving through the air at 17,000 mph in a southwesterly direction, then there must be a force in the northeasterly direction also going 17,000 mph, which is the force produced by the jet engine exhaust coming out of the back of the rocket.
The way you are explaining it, is that molecules hitting inside a chamber are moving the rocket forward, AND the rocket is moving forward. You did mention the perhaps the exhaust might move it forward also somewhat, but Newtons 3rd Law says the forward motion MUST be equal to the thrust only out the back because of the ‘opposite’ direction part of the law.
You can’t have two positive forces. F1 + F2 would then be greater than zero, and that defies Newtons 3rd Law. My point is the exhaust out the back is not the minor part, it is the major part of the force. Newtons 3rd law says it has to be.
The propellant must be accelerated from zero velocity (relative to the rocket) to the exhaust velocity within the rocket engine (combustion chamber and nozzle). This acceleration requires a rearward force to be applied to that propellant and that rearward force is applied by the forces on the throat and expanding nozzle as in the diagram on the right. If this rearward force is your F1 then that burnt propellant must apply an equal and opposite force, F2. So F2 is the negative force. I simply cannot understand why there is any problem with this approach. The tonnes of exhaust gas ejected every second at Ve must require a force to accelerate it. That force is the (predominant part of) the rocket's thrust. Note that the atmospheric pressure does not enter into that part of the thrust (a force) | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/h0zt7ql0l2gzqpm/Rocket%20Engine%20Pressures%20-%20Braeunig%20ROCKET%20PROPULSION%20fig1-01.gif?dl=1) |
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/l8f45mktk81ttw8/HOW-HIGH-CAN-ROCKET-FLY%20-%20Fig%204.jpg?dl=1)
The above photos are of the SpaceX Merlin 1C engines.Quote from: cikljamasRemember: NASA tells us that their rockets perform below max efficiency at sea level, at optimal efficiency somewhat higher in the atmosphere (as the rocket pressure equalizes with the external air pressure) and then start losing efficiency again as they ascend into ever thinner air. Note: NASA says so - not me.Please note exactly what NASA said:Quoteand then start losing efficiency again as they ascend into ever thinner airThe rocket engine starts "losing efficiency" NOT losing thrust. In other words, a little more thrust could be obtained by using a larger nozzle.
But please note that NASA does not say rocket engines lose power or lose thrust "as they ascend into ever thinner air".
And then read exactly what I wrote:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I was comparing the rocket's thrust not the "efficiency" and as I've said before a little more thrust (and hence efficiency) could in principle be achieved by using a larger nozzle.
There is no "BIG question"! A rocket loses no thrust as it enters into a near-vacuum and in fact gradually gains thrust all the way!
Look again at "Goddard's" rocket thrust equation: (https://www.dropbox.com/s/e63c0hkzoyx1604/Goddard%20Rocket%20Equation%20-%20alone.png?dl=1)
The lower the outside pressure, Po, the higher the thrust, F.
It is soon found that there is a practical limit on the nozzle size and this is commonly the diameter of the rocket body.
Look at this:Quote from: StackExchange: Space Exploration BetaWhat are the differences between a standard Merlin engine and the Merlin Vacuum engine? (https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/8806/what-are-the-differences-between-a-standard-merlin-engine-and-the-merlin-vacuum)That's what a nozzle for a vacuum engine looks like. I tried to scale the two photos correctly.
This pic is said to be, left to right: Falcon 1 Merlin 1C, Falcon 9 1C (different mounting), and Falcon 9 2nd stage 1C vacuum -- without the extension nozzle, so it's a shorter, fatter nozzle than the others.
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/0A9SH.jpg)
And here's what the extension nozzle looks like by itself:
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/YC9rw.jpg)
The limit on that nozzle, in this case, is the diameter of stage 2 of the Falcon 9.
Do you understand these issues yet?
So, in the air there is force between the air and the exhaust.As Milan Tarot would say : "Javio se još jedan iz linije za pametne!"
Why is not the rocket included?
How can rocket acceerate in the air if no force acts on it?
Translation (for those who don't speak croatian) : One another "clever" guy spoke up so to join this stupidity contest.
Macarios, you landed your jump near the far end of the stupidity scale, so that you reminded me to Bob Bemon whose world record stood for almost 23 years until it was broken in 1991 by Mike Powell.
(https://i.postimg.cc/yNYdLwkc/STUPIDITY-SCALE.jpg)
The smarther you are, the dumber you look to fools."
If the gases are pushed in to the container faster than they can exit, the pressure builds up and can combust.And I mostly agree.
Also think inside the rocket engine. The fuel and oxidizer burns rapidly and expands, pushing against all the walls of the chamber, except where the hole is at the bottom, to the nozzle. So the gasses push in all directions but less down, so the results it pushes the rocket up. So it pushes against itself, simple.
BULLSHIT VS COMMON SENSEBULLSHIT :
To save timeIf you really wanted to save time you would have answered my question by now.
If a rocket is moving through the air at 17,000 mph in a southwesterly direction, then there must be a force in the northeasterly direction also going 17,000 mphSo you don't see it at all.
but Newtons 3rd Law says the forward motion MUST be equal to the thrust only out the back because of the ‘opposite’ direction part of the law.The force of the gas on the rocket is the same magnitude as the force of the rocket on the gas.
If a rocket is moving through the air at 17,000 mph in a southwesterly direction, then"If a rocket is moving through the air at 17,000 mph in a southwesterly direction, then" it would burn up from atmospheric drag in a few tens of seconds!
This video sums it up :
Let me show you one interesting comment one guy has left below this video :
J Roger Trudel
1 year ago (edited)
Why have many of us lost faith in science? Very simple, deception. NASA used to be wonderful at doing many scientific portrayals of space. Everything looked so real and most of us were really caught up with it from the 1960s on. But when NASA failed miserably in the 1990s on with fake imagery, the fake ISS, and all those unprofessional actors acting as astronauts (astro-nuts), many of us woke up to reality. And, when an intelligent person has seen and witnessed the fakery of a science field for a few times, that is when 100% of that particular field of science comes into question. How would you feel about someone (example - a Mexican), that has deceived you, say for over 20 years, and you discover the truth about that person. You become very upset inside, and some will even go to the point of never trusting another Mexican person ever again. The same has come to past with space and aeronautical science. Once you have discovered the deception you begin to and lose complete faith in the whole works of its program, and you begin to question everything. As for rockets functioning propulsion in the vacuum of space, for me that is like pulling a boat out of the water, firing up the engine, engaging the prop, rev up the engine, and let's go to town boys
If a rocket is moving through the air at 17,000 mph in a southwesterly direction, then there must be a force in the northeasterly direction also going 17,000 mph, which is the force produced by the jet engine exhaust coming out of the back of the rocket.
Bom Tishop, how's your experiment going? Has there been any progress in regard your "rocket" problem?Bom Tishop gave it up...Did he really mean what he claimed (about being genuinely interested to try to carry out such an experiment), or he just can't solve his "rocket" problem, that is the question...Since all we can hear from him is a total silence then i believe he wasn't even serious about his proposal to perform such an experiment in the first place...
Give him time! Do realise how much time some of this fabrication might take?Bom Tishop, how's your experiment going? Has there been any progress in regard your "rocket" problem?Bom Tishop gave it up...
I do realise that, but why total silence?Give him time! Do realise how much time some of this fabrication might take?Bom Tishop, how's your experiment going? Has there been any progress in regard your "rocket" problem?Bom Tishop gave it up...
Ask him. Send him a polite PM.I do realise that, but why total silence?Give him time! Do realise how much time some of this fabrication might take?Bom Tishop, how's your experiment going? Has there been any progress in regard your "rocket" problem?Bom Tishop gave it up...
Bom Tishop gave it up.It takes time to do experiments like this. He even indicated he would need to work with others.
“...to the question whether or not the motion of the Earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiments. We have already remarked...that all attempts of this nature led to a negative result. Before the theory of relativity was put forward, it was difficult to become reconciled to this negative result.” Physicist, Albert Einstein
“...to the question whether or not the motion of the Earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiments. We have already remarked...that all attempts of this nature led to a negative result. Before the theory of relativity was put forward, it was difficult to become reconciled to this negative result.” Physicist, Albert Einstein
News flash!
We are living in an era AFTER the theory of relativity was put forward. Not only put forward, but verified by every test thrown at it.
Why do you seem wedded to the Michelson–Morley experiment being the last valid experiment ever performed by humanity.
Things have moved on.
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.Psalm 19:1
I think we broke clickpajamas...
Today: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2199366#msg2199366
Previously in the thread: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2197529#msg2197529
Older: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=80229.msg2162735#msg2162735
“...to the question whether or not the motion of the Earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiments. We have already remarked...that all attempts of this nature led to a negative result. Before the theory of relativity was put forward, it was difficult to become reconciled to this negative result.” Physicist, Albert Einstein
News flash!
We are living in an era AFTER the theory of relativity was put forward. Not only put forward, but verified by every test thrown at it.
Why do you seem wedded to the Michelson–Morley experiment being the last valid experiment ever performed by humanity.
Things have moved on.
1. Things have moved on, but in an opposite direction :
Jack, I've just read something very interesting on web :Really?
Jack, I've just read something very interesting on web :Really?
What you mean sure seems to be "I know I can't honestly answer that without admitting rockets work in vacuums, so I will go off on yet another tangent."
You are just spamming the same refuted off topic nonsense.
2. Does anybody have a link to a rocket launch with rear facing cameras, where the rocket continues out into space eventually showing the whole globe (how long does it take for NASA to deliver geostationary satellite to it's orbit)????Who cares? Go look for one yourself!
3. How high must one get before the atmospheric rotation does not exist? For if all rotates it must have to stop somewhere.Already answered!
3a. Sagnac effect proves that the earth is stationary and that an aether rotates 24h/day around motionless earth.It does no such thing! It proves that the earth rotates once in very close to 23.934 hours!
3b. Even within geocentric scenario we would have the problem with that boundary, because unlike in HC scenario, within which going beyond that boundary means entering motionless space, within GC scenario, going beyond that boundary means entering MECHANICALLY (NOT AETHERLY) MOVING SPACE!!!Totally meaningless! We have no such "problem with that boundary".
3c. Is the Founder of Modern Rocket Science trying to tell us something?Sure, that "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork."
(http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/assets/img/von-braun/image-06-large.jpg)QuoteThe heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.Psalm 19:1
4. Hubble writes :And why is all that significant?
He writes:
Thus the use of dimming corrections leads to a particular kind of universe, but one which most students are likely to reject as highly improbable. . . . . . . . .
A choice is presented, as once before in the days of Copernicus, between a strangely small, finite universe and a sensibly infinite universe plus a new principle of nature.[/color]
5.Already answered and proven quite false!
Jack, I've just read something very interesting on web :Really?
What you mean sure seems to be "I know I can't honestly answer that without admitting rockets work in vacuums, so I will go off on yet another tangent."
You are just spamming the same refuted off topic nonsense.
You realise that you are talking to someone who cites random people’s comments on YouTube videos to build his case?
Of course not, you trust in you, and you were George Carlin's main topic, also! How come?In bullshit you trustNo, we don't trust in you.
This means that, if this were to be the case (that rockets move due to "recoil action/reaction")- more than half of any rocket's fuel mass would have to be ejected at that speed - as illustrated in this diagram:
(https://i.postimg.cc/j5QkT9Rn/NEWTON-NASA-1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/g04ZPqfk/NEWTON-NASA-2.jpg)
Of course, this is not the case - and would be quite impossible to do.
Why do you think it's not the case? Which part do you think is impossible?
Yet, this is basically how NASA 'explains' how their spacecrafts are propelled through air and vacuum. Please note that I have respectfully observed Newton's Third Law in my above diagram. I think our poor friend Isaac is rolling and howling in his grave - seeing how NASA is abusing / distorting his laws in order to fool the world. Sadly, most people seem to keep buying into their shameless skullduggery.
Again:
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?
You realise you are talking to someone who offered his own geocentric proofsI wouldn't call them proofs, as they have all been refuted.
Then i quote a whole bunch of the most honored scientists who admit that the earth is at restNo you don't.
his putting forward persistently already answered question(s)So far the only answer to it is that rockets do work in a vacuum, which I provided myself.
Is the Founder of Modern Rocket Science trying to tell us something?
(http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/assets/img/von-braun/image-06-large.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/cJLdxTNF/ROCKETS-NASA-S-SILLIEST-LIE.jpg)
To acknowledge the existence of air drag in front of the rocket while, at the same time, deny the existence of the opposite air displacement exerted by the exhaust plume below it - is an utter contradiction in terms and a crude offense to common sense. If this were to be true (that "rockets do not push against air"), this would mean that the formidable, explosive thrust of a rocket's exhaust plume does not encounter any air resistance - a preposterous and outlandish contention, if there ever was one. Instead, as the NASA quackery goes, we are asked to believe that rockets are propelled solely by the "recoil force" generated by the rapid expulsion of fuel mass from rocket tanks.
(https://i.postimg.cc/cJLdxTNF/ROCKETS-NASA-S-SILLIEST-LIE.jpg)Why?
To acknowledge the existence of air drag in front of the rocket while, at the same time, deny the existence of the opposite air displacement exerted by the exhaust plume below it - is an utter contradiction in terms and a crude offense to common sense.
Of course rocket experiences "air drag in front of the rocket" but that is against the direction of motion.
But your "existence of the opposite air displacement exerted by the exhaust plume below it" is totally meaningless!
And object travelling through a fluid will experience an increased pressure in front, impeding its progress and a reduced pressure pressure behind, again impeding its progress.
Learn some fluid mechanics and aerodynamics!
(https://i.postimg.cc/cJLdxTNF/ROCKETS-NASA-S-SILLIEST-LIE.jpg)Incorrect and it's been explained numerous times but YOU refuse to listen!
To acknowledge the existence of air drag in front of the rocket while, at the same time, deny the existence of the opposite air displacement exerted by the exhaust plume below it - is an utter contradiction in terms and a crude offense to common sense.Quote from: cikljamasIf this were to be true (that "rockets do not push against air"), this would mean that the formidable, explosive thrust of a rocket's exhaust plume does not encounter any air resistance - a preposterous and outlandish contention, if there ever was one.No one, other than YOU, is saying that "rocket's exhaust plume does not encounter any air resistance" so stop you usual straw-manning tactics!
The "rocket's exhaust plume does . . . encounter . . . air resistance".
That "air resistance" cannot, however, transmit any thrust to the rocket because that exhaust plume is moving away from the rocket at a hypersonic velocity and that has been explained many times but YOU refuse to listen!Quote from: cikljamasInstead, as the NASA quackery goes, we are asked to believe that rockets are propelled solely by the "recoil force" generated by the rapid expulsion of fuel mass from rocket tanks.Most of the thrust does come from the momentum of the huge mass of exhaust gas expelled at an extremely high velocity.
If you cannot understand such a simple concept as Newton's 2nd Law of Motion, which is force = time rate of change of momentum that's YOUR problem, not ours or NASA's!
Some thrust also comes from the pressure difference term, exhaust area x (exhaust pressure - outside pressure), and this increases as the external pressure falls.
This is why the thrust of a given rocket engine is higher in the vacuum of space than at sea level.
As for JackBlack (STILL NOT) being annoyed by himself (his putting forward persistently already answered question(s)) i can only remind you all to this post :I've ignored the stupidity of your above diagram up till now but I guess it proves that you have no idea what a real rocket does!Seriously? lolThis means that, if this were to be the case (that rockets move due to "recoil action/reaction")- more than half of any rocket's fuel mass would have to be ejected at that speed - as illustrated in this diagram:Why do you think it's not the case? Which part do you think is impossible?
(https://i.postimg.cc/j5QkT9Rn/NEWTON-NASA-1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/g04ZPqfk/NEWTON-NASA-2.jpg)
Of course, this is not the case - and would be quite impossible to do.
How many times do we have to answer the SAME QUESTION?
There is no way you can deny obvious things :I see no problem with these issues! Who is denying the ones that are reliably based?
“...to the question whether or not the motion of the Earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiments. We have already remarked...that all attempts of this nature led to a negative result. Before the theory of relativity was put forward, it was difficult to become reconciled to this negative result.[/b][/color][/size]” Physicist, Albert EinsteinSince the Heliocentric Solar System was considered well proven beyond any reasonable stage by the time of Henri Poincaré, Henrick Lorentz, Michelson or Einstein that result was part of what led to the development of Special Relativity.
“I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the Sun.” Physicist, Albert EinsteinAnd what does that prove? Nothing because absolute linear velocities cannot be detected and while an acceleration can, in principle be measured the centripetal acceleration of the earth's orbiting the sun is not only extremely small but inseparable from the centripetal acceleration of the earth's rotation.
“Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest...” Physicist, Henrick LorentzPlease quote the sources of your quotes because context matters!
“A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth’s movement. The results were always negative.” Physicist, Henri Poincaré
“This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation...which presupposes that the Earth moves.” Physicist, Albert MichelsonBut it is now known that "There was" more than "one other possible conclusion to draw"!
“The data [of Michelson-Morley] were almost unbelievable... There was only one other possible conclusion to draw — that the Earth was at rest.” Physicist, Bernard Jaffe
“We can’t feel our motion through space, nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.” Historian, Lincoln Barnett, foreword by Albert EinsteinSo you can't feel it! So what? But now "nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion" is no longer true as far as the ear's rotation is concerned - get used to it!
Cikljamas posts the same questions over and over again so why should I bother with new answers?First off, you are not obligated to keep inundating everyone with your precomposed responses.
How many times do we have to answer the SAME QUESTION?
How many times do we have to endure the same answer?
Cikljamas posts the same questions over and over again so why should I bother with new answers?First off, you are not obligated to keep inundating everyone with your precomposed responses.
How many times do we have to answer the SAME QUESTION?
How many times do we have to endure the same answer?
You are not obligated to read the answers or even this thread.
“...to the question whether or not the motion of the Earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiments. We have already remarked...that all attempts of this nature led to a negative result. Before the theory of relativity was put forward, it was difficult to become reconciled to this negative result.” Physicist, Albert Einstein
News flash!
We are living in an era AFTER the theory of relativity was put forward. Not only put forward, but verified by every test thrown at it.
Why do you seem wedded to the Michelson–Morley experiment being the last valid experiment ever performed by humanity.
Things have moved on.
There is no way you can deny obvious things :You sure seem to be good at doing so.
My commiserations then :'(. I do hope that you are adequately recompensed for such an onerous task ;D.I actually am obligated. 8)Cikljamas posts the same questions over and over again so why should I bother with new answers?First off, you are not obligated to keep inundating everyone with your precomposed responses.
How many times do we have to answer the SAME QUESTION?
How many times do we have to endure the same answer?
You are not obligated to read the answers or even this thread.
There is no way you can deny obvious things :
@Bom Tishop, thanks for your reply...nice to hear you are still with us...so folks, stay tuned...
NASA is desperate...They released new video : "Astronaut walks in Space with a GoPro for 5 hours" ... 5 hours.... During these 5 long GoPro hours not a single satellite (allegedly, there are 4 987 satellites whizzing around above our heads every single day) has been caught by the lens of astronut's GoPro camera, not a single airplane exhaust trail has entered in the lens of our actor's GoPro camera...
ISS orbital period : 91 min
GoPro - Video duration : 1h 55min (295min)
295min/91min = 3,24 orbits
IN ADDITION :
Javier lopez alegria
2 days ago
I have seen more than 50 hours of space walks,,and NEVER , NEVER ,NEVER I have seen the pass through the depresurization module, at least is suspicious. The gopro is connected before going out because the astronaut can not connect it outside so....why they cut the more interesting part of the spacewalk?? Is it a secret? Sex photos there?? Please. at least once.
Astronaut walks in Space with a GoPro for 5 hours :
HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ANYTHING AS FAKE AS THIS - VIDEO :
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7g9vm0
PROJECT LIBERTY - IT'S ALL BULLSHIT, I TELL YA :
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7gbiik
Enjoy NASA - "SPACE" stupidity!
It's beyond idiocy...
not a single satellite (allegedly, there are 4 987 satellites whizzing around above our heads every single day) has been caught by the lens of astronut's GoPro cameraAnd again you jump to yet another topic.
@Bom Tishop, thanks for your reply...nice to hear you are still with us...so folks, stay tuned...Why should "single satellite" be "caught by the lens of astronut's GoPro camera"? Space is big!
NASA is desperate...They released new video : "Astronaut walks in Space with a GoPro for 5 hours" ... 5 hours.... During these 5 long GoPro hours not a single satellite (allegedly, there are 4 987 satellites whizzing around above our heads every single day) has been caught by the lens of astronut's GoPro camera, not a single airplane exhaust trail has entered in the lens of our actor's GoPro camera...
I went diving once. I didnt see a single blue whale. They say there are 25.000 blue whales in the ocean, bullshit.And the volume of LEO space is far far bigger than the volume of all the water on earth!
@Bom Tishop, thanks for your reply...nice to hear you are still with us...so folks, stay tuned...Why should "single satellite" be "caught by the lens of astronut's GoPro camera"? Space is big!
NASA is desperate...They released new video : "Astronaut walks in Space with a GoPro for 5 hours" ... 5 hours.... During these 5 long GoPro hours not a single satellite (allegedly, there are 4 987 satellites whizzing around above our heads every single day) has been caught by the lens of astronut's GoPro camera, not a single airplane exhaust trail has entered in the lens of our actor's GoPro camera...
The volume of space in the LEO altitudes is about 3,77,211,000,000 cubic kilometres and about 800 satellites big enough to hope to see.
You precious GoPro might see a satellite 3 km away (as a one pixel dot) if said satellite happened to pass through the field of view.
Try to work out the odds of seeing one satellite! Winning Lotto might offer better odds!
Little people, like you, can't seem to understand big things - they scare you or something!
@Bom Tishop, thanks for your reply...nice to hear you are still with us...so folks, stay tuned...Why should "single satellite" be "caught by the lens of astronut's GoPro camera"? Space is big!
NASA is desperate...They released new video : "Astronaut walks in Space with a GoPro for 5 hours" ... 5 hours.... During these 5 long GoPro hours not a single satellite (allegedly, there are 4 987 satellites whizzing around above our heads every single day) has been caught by the lens of astronut's GoPro camera, not a single airplane exhaust trail has entered in the lens of our actor's GoPro camera...
The volume of space in the LEO altitudes is about 3,77,211,000,000 cubic kilometres and about 800 satellites big enough to hope to see.
You precious GoPro might see a satellite 3 km away (as a one pixel dot) if said satellite happened to pass through the field of view.
Try to work out the odds of seeing one satellite! Winning Lotto might offer better odds!
Little people, like you, can't seem to understand big things - they scare you or something!
Little people like Rabinoz and Keating can't handle the truth 1 :
Second, Keating extracts my quote from Volume 3 of the Galileo Was Wrong series, which deals with the history between Galileo and the Church, not the science. But in Volumes 1 and 2, in which I deal with the science, I not only quote and present the whole passage, I thoroughly present to the reader the other two explanations for the Michelson-Morley experiment that Mr. Keating claims I purposely left out of the quote in Volume 3. In fact, in the beginning of Volume 3, I tell the reader that since he has now finished Volumes 1 and 2, he is now ready to read Volume 3. Third, the reader knows why I truncated the quote, since I want to emphasize to him something that I know he has never heard in his lifetime, namely, that instead of Einstein’s Special Relativity theory, an equally plausible solution to the Michelson-Morley experiment is that the Earth is not moving in space, but that this solution was dismissed out of hand because it was “unthinkable” for modern man. In other words, it wasn’t science that led Einstein to Special Relativity, it was his philosophy! Hence, what Mr. Keating regards as “the correct interpretation” was arrived at by eliminating the other equally plausible alternative – a non-moving Earth – from the scientific possibilities before the examination ever got started! Some science. The simple fact is, Keating didn’t like the fact that a biography of Einstein told the reader, not once, but twice, that a motionless Earth was a legitimate answer to Michelson-Morley, so instead of admitting that to his reader, he tries to make me look devious in presenting it to the world. I’m beginning to think that Keating has, shall we say, reached the end of his rope.
The only one “misleading the reader” here is Karl Keating. In reality, the only reason the two quotes were put together was to show the reader the two instances in Clark’s book where even he, an obvious admirer of Einstein, admits that one of Einstein’s choices in explaining the Michelson-Morley experiment was to posit that the Earth wasn’t moving in space but that Einstein refused to consider it. Whereas Keating tries to eliminate a motionless Earth as a possibility, Clark mentions it at least twice, and possibly a third time when he says on page 267: “As Einstein wrestled with the cosmological implications of the General Theory, the first of these alternatives, the earth-centered universe of the Middle Ages, was effectively ruled out.”
Little people like Rabinoz and Keating can't handle the truth 2 :
ISS camera "caught" satellite in space (for the first time in history) :
Little people like Rabinoz and Keating can't handle the truth 3 :
Little man Rabinoz never even tried to explain this obvious NASA FAKERY (blatant inconsistency) :
HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ANYTHING AS FAKE AS THIS - VIDEO :
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7g9vm0
Little people like Rabinoz and Keating can't handle the truth 4 :
PROJECT LIBERTY - IT'S ALL BULLSHIT, I TELL YA :
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7gbiik
Little people like Rabinoz and Keating can't handle the truth 1 :Nope, it is still you. You still seem to need to run away from a very simple question which shows the truth and continue to spam a bunch of nonsense with nothing at all to do with the thread.
Little people like Rabinoz and Keating can't handle the truth 1 :Nope, it is still you. You still seem to need to run away from a very simple question which shows the truth and continue to spam a bunch of nonsense with nothing at all to do with the thread.
You blatantly lying about alternatives to MM has nothing to do with if rockets work in space.
So are you going to admit that rockets do work in space?
If not, answer my question to clearly explain at what step of the process of very simple physics, physics break down to magically make it so rockets don't work?
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?
Will you claim pure magic with gas magically being held inside an open container exposed to a vacuum?
Will you claim pure magic of an object being accelerated without a force?
Will you claim pure magic of an object having a force applied with the corresponding reactionary force?
Or will you be rational for once and accept that rockets will work in a vacuum?
@Bom Tishop, thanks for your reply...nice to hear you are still with us...so folks, stay tuned...I'm sure that it showed at least one satellite; the ISS.
NASA is desperate...They released new video : "Astronaut walks in Space with a GoPro for 5 hours" ... 5 hours.... During these 5 long GoPro hours not a single satellite (allegedly, there are 4 987 satellites whizzing around above our heads every single day) has been caught by the lens of astronut's GoPro camera...
NASA is desperate...They released new video : "Astronaut walks in Space with a GoPro for 5 hours" ... 5 hours.... During these 5 long GoPro hours not a single satellite (allegedly, there are 4 987 satellites whizzing around above our heads every single day) has been caught by the lens of astronut's GoPro camera...
NASA is desperate...They released new video : "Astronaut walks in Space with a GoPro for 5 hours" ... 5 hours.... During these 5 long GoPro hours not a single satellite (allegedly, there are 4 987 satellites whizzing around above our heads every single day) has been caught by the lens of astronut's GoPro camera...
Amazing isn't it? They also say that there is so much 'space junk' it is a hazard for orbiting satellites and rockets launching yet, in their video 'evidence' there is not a thing. No satellites, no junk and a questionable CGI pic of the Earth.
NASA is desperate...They released new video : "Astronaut walks in Space with a GoPro for 5 hours" ... 5 hours.... During these 5 long GoPro hours not a single satellite (allegedly, there are 4 987 satellites whizzing around above our heads every single day) has been caught by the lens of astronut's GoPro camera...
Amazing isn't it? They also say that there is so much 'space junk' it is a hazard for orbiting satellites and rockets launching yet, in their video 'evidence' there is not a thing. No satellites, no junk and a questionable CGI pic of the Earth.
In the photo below, the dotted red line in the cyan circle is the ISS. The cyan circle is LEO. The yellow circle is MEO. The green dashed line is GPS satellite orbit, and the outer black dashed line is geosynchronous orbit.
(https://i.imgur.com/y9baF48.jpg?1)
So? NASA claims to have spotted the supposed Tesla car that supposedly left Earths orbit into deep space from much further away. If that is correct we should easily be able to see all these satellites and junk that is in our own 'backyard'Really! Please explain why?
So? NASA claims to have spotted the supposed Tesla car that supposedly left Earths orbit into deep space from much further away. If that is correct we should easily be able to see all these satellites and junk that is in our own 'backyard'Really! Please explain why?
Space is huge ::)! When did you last see a car sized object moving at over 27,000 km/hour ;D?
Individual satellites, including the ISS and geostationary satellites can be seen though the latter need a telescope.
NASA is desperate...They released new video : "Astronaut walks in Space with a GoPro for 5 hours" ... 5 hours.... During these 5 long GoPro hours not a single satellite (allegedly, there are 4 987 satellites whizzing around above our heads every single day) has been caught by the lens of astronut's GoPro camera...
Amazing isn't it? They also say that there is so much 'space junk' it is a hazard for orbiting satellites and rockets launching yet, in their video 'evidence' there is not a thing. No satellites, no junk and a questionable CGI pic of the Earth.
In the photo below, the dotted red line in the cyan circle is the ISS. The cyan circle is LEO. The yellow circle is MEO. The green dashed line is GPS satellite orbit, and the outer black dashed line is geosynchronous orbit.
(https://i.imgur.com/y9baF48.jpg?1)
So? NASA claims to have spotted the supposed Tesla car that supposedly left Earths orbit into deep space from much further away. If that is correct we should easily be able to see all these satellites and junk that is in our own 'backyard'
I thought we were talking about what you can easily see (and can't) from the ISS?
NASA claims to have spotted the supposed Tesla car that supposedly left Earths orbit into deep space from much further away.Using what?
So? NASA claims to have spotted the supposed Tesla car that supposedly left Earths orbit into deep space from much further away. If that is correct we should easily be able to see all these satellites and junk that is in our own 'backyard'Really! Please explain why?
Space is huge ::)! When did you last see a car sized object moving at over 27,000 km/hour ;D?
Individual satellites, including the ISS and geostationary satellites can be seen though the latter need a telescope.
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/gif/2018/02/TeslaRoadster_space.gif)
This is somehow called 'proof' to you.
Would this 0.81 m astronomical telescope be more likely?NASA claims to have spotted the supposed Tesla car that supposedly left Earths orbit into deep space from much further away.Using what?
A go pro?
I highly doubt it. As such the comparison is complete garbage.
Tenagra Observatories, Rio Rico, Arizona (AZ), US (https://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/tenagra-observatories/)Maybe Shifter has a 0.81-m F7 lens on his GoPro ;D.
Tenagra Observatories is a complex of privately owned telescopes in S. Arizona, Oregon, Norway and Western Australia. . . . . . . . . . The observatory complex has one telescope currently offering time: 0.81-m (32") F7 Ritchey-Chretien. It is 100% automated, data is taken unattended and immediately provided to users for real-time FTP download.
Space myths and misconceptions like "Rockets can fly in a vacuum" are almost tantamount to an assertion "Something can come out of Nothing!"There is not the slightest connection and the fact that "Rockets can and do fly in a vacuum" has no connection with "Something can come out of Nothing!"
A Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing (Free Press, 2012), by cosmologist Lawrence M. Krauss, has been lauded to the skies by fellow atheists such as A.C. Grayling, Sam Harris and Neil deGrasse Tyson. According to Richard Dawkins: "The title means exactly what it says. And what is says is devastating." I agree that what this book says on the subject of why something exists rather than nothing (which isn’t a lot -lol) is devastating, but only to the intellectual credibility of Krauss and his supporters.That is all about hypotheses about "beginnings" and quite unrelated to you topic!
Krauss spends most of his book redefining ‘nothing’ in terms of increasingly incorporeal somethings (from ‘empty space’ to reified ‘laws of physics’), as if this justified the conclusion that literal nothingness could be the cause of the cosmos. That’s like arguing that since its possible to live on less and less food each day it must be possible to live on no food.
Had George Carlin been aware of how NASA (modern science) is full of shit he wouldn't have been so pissed off by organized religions :But NASA (modern science) isn't full of shit, which might be you seem to need to use "Photoshopped" photos in a desperate attempt to prove your pathetically weak case.
Let me amuse you some more :Quite irrelevant to the topic of "Rockets can't fly in a vacuum".
The Big Bang Has Big Problems
As the famous 20th-century historian Arthur C. Clarke once said:Sure, but quite irrelevant to the topic of "Rockets can't fly in a vacuum".
“The lesson to be learned from these examples is one that can never be repeated too often, and is one that is seldom understood by laymen – who have an almost superstitious awe of mathematics. But mathematics is only a tool, though an immensely powerful one. No equations, however impressive and complex, can arrive at the truth if the initial assumptions are incorrect. It is really quite amazing by what margins competent but conservative scientists and engineers can miss the mark, when they start with the preconceived idea that what they are investigating is impossible. When this happens, the most well-informed men become blinded by their prejudices and are unable to see what lies directly ahead of them. What is even more incredible, they refuse to learn from experience; they will continue to make the same mistake over and over again. Some of my best friends are astronomers, and I am sorry to keep throwing stones at them – but they do seem to have an appalling record as prophets.”
By now even you must acknowledge that manned rockets cannot go to the moon, visit the place and safely return to earth.Let me amuse you some more :Quite irrelevant to the topic of "Rockets can't fly in a vacuum".
The Big Bang Has Big ProblemsQuote from: cikljamasAs the famous 20th-century historian Arthur C. Clarke once said:Sure, but quite irrelevant to the topic of "Rockets can't fly in a vacuum".
“The lesson to be learned from these examples is one that can never be repeated too often, and is one that is seldom understood by laymen – who have an almost superstitious awe of mathematics. But mathematics is only a tool, though an immensely powerful one. No equations, however impressive and complex, can arrive at the truth if the initial assumptions are incorrect. It is really quite amazing by what margins competent but conservative scientists and engineers can miss the mark, when they start with the preconceived idea that what they are investigating is impossible. When this happens, the most well-informed men become blinded by their prejudices and are unable to see what lies directly ahead of them. What is even more incredible, they refuse to learn from experience; they will continue to make the same mistake over and over again. Some of my best friends are astronomers, and I am sorry to keep throwing stones at them – but they do seem to have an appalling record as prophets.”
Let me amuse you some more :Quite irrelevant to the topic of "Rockets can't fly in a vacuum".
The Big Bang Has Big Problems
What would Goethe say today???
Space myths and misconceptions like "Rockets can fly in a vacuum" are almost tantamount to an assertion "Something can come out of Nothing!"You mean facts like rockets can fly in a vacuum, a fact that you have been avoiding throughout this thread, with you needing to avoid even simple questions.
As the famous 20th-century historian Arthur C. Clarke once said:
“The lesson to be learned from these examples is one that can never be repeated too often, and is one that is seldom understood by laymen – who have an almost superstitious awe of mathematics. But mathematics is only a tool, though an immensely powerful one. No equations, however impressive and complex, can arrive at the truth if the initial assumptions are incorrect. It is really quite amazing by what margins competent but conservative scientists and engineers can miss the mark, when they start with the preconceived idea that what they are investigating is impossible. When this happens, the most well-informed men become blinded by their prejudices and are unable to see what lies directly ahead of them. What is even more incredible, they refuse to learn from experience; they will continue to make the same mistake over and over again. Some of my best friends are astronomers, and I am sorry to keep throwing stones at them – but they do seem to have an appalling record as prophets.”
Space myths and misconceptions like "Rockets can fly in a vacuum" are almost tantamount to an assertion "Something can come out of Nothing!"
Not in the slightest!Everything is Interconnected & Inseparable, this especially applies to modern cosmology and astrophysics.Let me amuse you some more :"We are not amused! ;) "Quote from: cikljamasThe Big Bang Has Big ProblemsSo what? That's quite irrelevant to the topic of "Rockets can't fly in a vacuum".
No one at the present time has any understanding of where this ‘energy of nothing’ comes from....If we take the latest theory of subatomic particles and try to compute the value of this dark energy, we find a number that is off by 10^120. Michio Kaku
There is no need to resort to rocket experiments in vacuum, it has already been done on a grand scale.
If gas had an effect on objects in a vacuum we would expect to find an example in nature.
"Saturn's moon Enceladus, for example, shoots a jet of water ice 500 KM into space. The diameter of the moon itself is only 500 KM. Does this jet have any effect? No. The jet as tall as the moon is wide goes harmlessly off into space."
https://www.space.com/22181-saturn-moon-enceladus-water-geysers.html
https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/science/enceladus/
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/False_color_Cassini_image_of_jets_in_the_southern_hemisphere_of_Enceladus.jpg)
(https://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/image06/061108encelladusjets.jpg)
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16151-supersonic-water-jets-shoot-from-saturn-moon/
The jets were still tightly focused at an altitude of 15 km above the surface, suggesting they were moving faster than 2100 km per hour. Such high speeds imply that the jets are fed by pressurised water vapour that shoots through narrow openings – which act like rocket nozzles – in the moon’s icy surface.
There is no need to resort to rocket experiments in vacuum, it has already been done on a grand scale.You mean with the multitude of rockets that have gone to space?
If gas had an effect on objects in a vacuum we would expect to find an example in nature.Try and find an example which even comes close to a rocket.
The diameter of the moon itself is only 500 KMYou mean is a massive 500 km, nothing like a rocket.
moving faster than 2100 km per houri.e. roughly 580 m/s, nothing like the multi-km/s of rocket exhaust.
I went diving once. I didnt see a single blue whale. They say there are 25.000 blue whales in the ocean, bullshit.
Water vapor is gas.Yes, but you said:
"Saturn's moon Enceladus, for example, shoots a jet of water ice 500 KM into spaceIce is not gas.
Same principle applies as for rockets in a vacuum, yet no modification of the orbit is being observed.Only if you have a massive rocket with basically no exhaust.
Water vapor is gas.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16151-supersonic-water-jets-shoot-from-saturn-moon/
The jets were still tightly focused at an altitude of 15 km above the surface, suggesting they were moving faster than 2100 km per hour. Such high speeds imply that the jets are fed by pressurised water vapour that shoots through narrow openings – which act like rocket nozzles – in the moon’s icy surface.
Same principle applies as for rockets in a vacuum, yet no modification of the orbit is being observed.
Let us remember that there is a very delicate balance between the tidal forces attributed to Saturn and its moons (official astronomical data):
http://www.saturndaily.com/reports/Saturns_bulging_core_implies_moons_younger_than_thought_999.html
ANY disturbance would lead to orbital chaos.
(https://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/image06/061108encelladusjets.jpg)
(https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/system/news_items/main_images/x13020_header3.jpg.pagespeed.ic.c-IBMiG36o.webp)
Since the water vapor geysers of Enceladus have NO EFFECT whatsoever on the orbit of the satellite (ejected on such a huge scale of hundreds of kilometers), we can safely infer that rockets do not and cannot function in vacuum, same principle applies (not the speed of the gas itself).
ANY disturbance would lead to orbital chaosThat's not a proof.
(https://j.gifs.com/7L4J9Q.gif)
"At these warm temperatures, liquid water, ice and water vapor mingle. The vapor escapes to the vacuum of space through cracks in Enceladus' ice crust. When the gas expands, it cools and the ice grains that make up the visible part of the plumes condense from the vapor. Vapor in the plumes is clocked at roughly the same speed as a supersonic jet, about 300 to 500 meters per second, or about 650 to 1,100 miles per hour. However, most of the condensed ice particles fail to reach Enceladus' escape velocity of 240 meters per second (536 miles per hour).
Pinball-like physics account for the slow speed of the particles. Shooting up through crooked cracks in the ice, the particles ricochet off the walls, losing speed, while the water vapor moves unimpeded up the crevasse. The vapor reboosts the frozen particles as they pinball off the walls, carrying them upward. Reaching nozzle-like openings at the surface, the faster-moving water vapor shoots high above Enceladus, becoming entrapped in Saturn's magnetosphere. Most of the particles, which have lost energy through collisions in transit, fail to achieve escape velocity and fall back to Enceladus' surface. Only about 10 percent escape Enceladus and form Saturn's E-ring. "
Now, i dare you to provide some math to prove your point.QuoteANY disturbance would lead to orbital chaosThat's not a proof.
SOURCE : https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16151-supersonic-water-jets-shoot-from-saturn-moon/
So, if Enceladus' escape velocity is 240 meters per second, and 2100 km/h = 583 meters per second, then how come that most of the condensed ice particles fail to reach Enceladus' escape velocity of 240 meters per second???
Let's compare it with CMEs velocities :
Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) are large expulsions of plasma and magnetic field from the Sun’s corona. They can eject billions of tons of coronal material and carry an embedded magnetic field (frozen in flux) that is stronger than the background solar wind interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) strength. CMEs travel outward from the Sun at speeds ranging from slower than 250 kilometers per second (km/s) to as fast as near 3000 km/s....
SOURCE : https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16151-supersonic-water-jets-shoot-from-saturn-moon/
So, if Enceladus' escape velocity is 240 meters per second, and 2100 km/h = 583 meters per second, then how come that most of the condensed ice particles fail to reach Enceladus' escape velocity of 240 meters per second???
Let's compare it with CMEs velocities :
Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) are large expulsions of plasma and magnetic field from the Sun’s corona. They can eject billions of tons of coronal material and carry an embedded magnetic field (frozen in flux) that is stronger than the background solar wind interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) strength. CMEs travel outward from the Sun at speeds ranging from slower than 250 kilometers per second (km/s) to as fast as near 3000 km/s....
Exactly.
Water ice becomes water vapor, a gas (read the references).And what the relevance of that? The water vapour has the same mass as the water.
You have a massive object, ejecting a comparably tiny amount of matter at a quite slow speed.Not in the slightest! The effect on the main object, Encaladus or a rocket, is the momentum of the mass ejected, its mass x its velocity.
As such you would not expect any significant effect.
Meanwhile, with a rocket you have a large object, ejecting a very significant amount of matter at a very high speed.
Is this supposed to be a joke?
Proportionally the area of exhaust is the same for both objects.Maybe the same principle but where are your values for the mass of ejecta, velocity of ejects and the mass of Enceladus?
It is not only a single geyser, but huge number of geysers which emit gas continuously, distributed over a distance (and area) which encompasses at least half of the circumference of Enceladus.
Same proportions, and of course same principle.
Yet, nothing happens at all, the orbit of Enceladus is not being modified by single centimeter.You have no way to demonstrate that at all!
Is this supposed to be a joke?No, now how about you address the issues raised rather than just repeating the same nonsense?
Proportionally the area of exhaust is the same for both objects.Notice how that is nothing that I asked for? (and it is just another baseless claim from you, especially as earlier in this thread an exhaust trail many times the size of the rocket emitting it was shown, showing it isn't the same area).
It is not only a single geyser, but huge number of geysers which emit gas continuouslySo nothing like a rocket which goes through its entire fuel supply in a matter of minutes, with that entire fuel supply being the majority of the mass.
the orbit of Enceladus is not being modified by single centimeter.Prove it. You just asserting something doesn't make it true.
The jets were still tightly focused at an altitude of 15 km above the surface, suggesting they were moving faster than 2100 km per hour.Yes, as already pointed out, much slower than rocket exhaust, as such the comparison is useless.
All Nasa missions are faked, including Cassini:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60367.msg1561289#msg1561289
Now, here is another reference on the speed of the water vapor molecules:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5610430/
The CO2 E3 and E5 data show an approximate inverse square decay of the plume density with distance from the south polar terrain, which is consistent with collisionless vapor expansion from Enceladus well in excess of the 240 m/s escape speed.
The expression assumes radial expansion of the gas from the surface sources at constant speed, neglecting gravity since the mean molecular speed in the jets significantly exceeds (by at least a factor two) the 240 m/s Enceladus escape speed.
The question is how did the Cassini orbiter get to Saturn.
All Nasa missions are faked, including Cassini:And just more lies from you.
while Enceladus ejects a minute fraction of its mass which probably falls back onto Enceladus - so there is simply no comparison.
It cannot fall back, read the references.
The orbital stability of Enceladus is a hotly debated topic, now scientists realize that the original equations and results of the orbital eccentricity stability are wrong:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/80f7/db79f1418a405c5a417ff1ab5427653be7dd.pdf
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?
What ?!
Instead, according to your paper, you get a mass flow rate of less than 1000 kg/s
Where did you get this figure from?
The question is how did the Cassini orbiter get to Saturn.
What we have is a similar mechanism to that of a rocket nozzleYes, just like you blowing air out of your mouth is a similar mechanism.
What ?!The question has been explained repeatedly.
Please explain how the subsurface global ocean of Enceladus stays glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.How about you deal with the fact that your comparison is complete garbage?
Where did you get this figure from?The paper you linked.
That is the word i am looking for all along...lolReally?
The gas jets provide no significant force to the moon.
But they have to, since the geysers are distributed over a huge area, encompassing an entire hemisphere.
Imagine this: a 500 km rocket (in length) with full-blown exhaust in the form of water vapor.
And nothing happens?
Who are you kidding?
How about you deal with the fact that your comparison is complete garbage?
So you cannot explain the presence of a global subsurface ocean on Enceladus using your precious concept of gravity.
This says everything about your failed beliefs in heliocentrism.
The paper you linked.
I posted three papers on the subject.
Which one has that specific reference?
Link and page number please.
So you cannot explain the presence of a global subsurface ocean on Enceladus using your precious concept of gravity.
This says everything about your failed beliefs in heliocentrism.
Why should there be? How close would one of those satellites have to be for GoPro camera to see it? Certainly not further than 3 km or so!The question is how did the Cassini orbiter get to Saturn.NASA is desperate...They released new video : "Astronaut walks in Space with a GoPro for 5 hours" ... 5 hours.... During these 5 long GoPro hours not a single satellite (allegedly, there are 4 987 satellites whizzing around above our heads every single day) has been caught by the lens of astronut's GoPro camera, not a single airplane exhaust trail has entered in the lens of our actor's GoPro camera...
IN ADDITION :OK, YOU prove that not "not a single satellite" was captured when it might be a speck a few pixels wide passing the field in a fraction of a second!
<< I'll ignore that bit of meaningless drivel >>
Astronaut walks in Space with a GoPro for 5 hours :
Little man Rabinoz and JackBlack never even tried to explain this obvious NASA FAKERY (blatant inconsistency) :What's to explain in that trashy video?
HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ANYTHING AS FAKE AS THIS - VIDEO :
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7g9vm0
There's your satellite ;D ;D!
ISS camera "caught" satellite in space (for the first time in history) :
Enjoy NASA - "SPACE" stupidity!
It's beyond idiocy...
Are you referring to this?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5610430/
Plume intensity figure (emission strength): 1000kg/s.
Then, your figure is MEANINGLESS unless we have the TOTAL MASS being ejected.
I estimate this mass to be at least 1.5 x 105 kg and much more likely to be even higher (since now we know that all of it is being ejected, not just a fraction).
How could this huge emission of mass not have an effect on the overall orbit?
The total plume intensity, between 100 and 1000 kg/s, is also stochastically variable between Cassini flybys in UVIS and INMS observations, and estimates of the source rate are dependent (by up to ∼30%) on the assumed temperature and speed of the high Mach emission, as determined by the roles of adiabatic and nonadiabatic fluid expansion in accelerating the gas.
I estimate this mass to be at least 1.5 x 105 kg and much more likely to be even higher (since now we know that all of it is being ejected, not just a fraction).
Are you referring to this?Easily!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5610430/
Plume intensity figure (emission strength): 1000kg/s.
Then, your figure is MEANINGLESS unless we have the TOTAL MASS being ejected.
I estimate this mass to be at least 1.5 x 105 kg and much more likely to be even higher (since now we know that all of it is being ejected, not just a fraction).
How could this huge emission of mass not have an effect on the overall orbit?
Yeah but the papers had very little to do with your subject and many of your links actually disprove flat earth... well played.
Still to move an object you need to talk about force not speed. Nobody is disputing that water vapour is being jettisoned, but what is the force of the jet, can it move a moon?
Yeah but the papers had very little to do with your subject and many of your links actually disprove flat earth... well played.
Still to move an object you need to talk about force not speed. Nobody is disputing that water vapour is being jettisoned, but what is the force of the jet, can it move a moon?
Even if it couldn't move a moon out of it's orbit around Saturn, it would certainly cause very substantial effect to the rate (speed) of it's rotation :
There is no appreciable change in the relative rotation between space and Earth. It is always 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds.
This is precisely why the geocentric system is more stable for us earthlings, whereas [color=purple]Venus has changed its rotation by 6 minutes over the years it has been studied[/color].
THE QUESTION No 1 :
Geokinetics is not the best way to understand the physics. In fact, the geocentric
system makes more sense. For example, in the geokinetic system, the Earth has to rotate
exactly 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds to keep sidereal time. How can it do so when so
many inertial forces (e.g., earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, etc.) are impeding its rotation?
Venus, which does rotate, has slowed its rate by 6 minutes in the last few years.
Likewise, in the geokinetic system, the Earth has to revolve around the sun exactly in 365.25
days. How does it do so in the face of the inertial forces it undergoes internally, as well as the
cosmic forces and planetary perturbations it incurs externally?
Geocentrism has a much better explanation. The sidereal rate can stay exactly as it is
due to the tremendous momentum that a massive rotating universe will produce. Like a giant flywheel,
the universe keeps turning at the same rate year after year, and nothing is able to slow it down.
(Later we will address the claims that the Earth has slowed its rotation).
As for Newton and Einstein, geocentrism can use both a rotating Earth in a fixed universe
or a fixed Earth in a rotating universe, if desired, since all we need to do is invert the equations, as Einstein himself did.
READ MORE : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=80229.msg2158366#msg2158366
In March 2007, it was found that the variation of radio emissions from the planet did not match Saturn's rotation rate. This variance may be caused by geyser activity on Saturn's moon Enceladus. The water vapor emitted into Saturn's orbit by this activity becomes charged and creates a drag upon Saturn's magnetic field, slowing its rotation slightly relative to the rotation of the planet.
THE QUESTION No 2 :
If variations in Saturn's rotation rate can be assigned (at least theoretically) to geyser activity of Enceladus, what consequence should we expect (from the same cause - geyser activity) to the rate of rotation of Enceladus itself??? Extreme consequences???
Wiki quote :
Enceladus is tidally locked with Saturn, keeping the same face toward the planet. It completes one orbit every 32.9 hours within the densest part of Saturn's E Ring.
THE QUESTION No 3 :
If variations in Saturn's rotation rate can be assigned (at least theoretically) to geyser activity of Enceladus, and if it is more than reasonably to assume that geyser activity would have extreme consequences to the rate of rotation of Enceladus itself, isn't it more than reasonably to assume that Enceladus in these circumstances couldn't remain tidally locked with Saturn due to it's changed rate of rotation?
while Enceladus ejects a minute fraction of its mass which probably falls back onto Enceladus - so there is simply no comparison.
It cannot fall back, read the references.
The observed erupted grains can be separated into three regimes based on their ejected velocity. The slowest group rises out of vents and falls out of the plume in close proximity to the tiger stripes. These particles tend to be large (Degruyter and Manga, 2011). Another, faster-moving group, distributes itself broadly over the surface (Kempf et al., 2010). A third group has velocities greater than the escape speed of Enceladus and leaves the satellite altogether.
I was not addressing you, but the fellow from Australia who posted an estimate using the 1000kg/s figure.
We would need to know the exit pressure, perhaps even the free stream pressure of the plume to reach some final conclusions on the force exerted.
Supply the maths please.
You don't trust me?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241127178_Total_particulate_mass_in_Enceladus_plumes_and_mass_of_Saturn's_E_ring_inferred_from_Cassini_ISS_images
These are the images provided by Nasa:
(https://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/image06/061108encelladusjets.jpg)
(https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/system/news_items/main_images/x13020_header3.jpg.pagespeed.ic.c-IBMiG36o.webp)
A nice 500 km rocket, with plenty of thrust provided by the plume/water vapor being ejected at some 600m/s.
We estimate that 9% of these particles are escaping from Enceladus, implying lifetimes of ∼8 years for the E ring particles.
The gas jets provide no significant force to the moon.
But they have to, since the geysers are distributed over a huge area, encompassing an entire hemisphere.
Imagine this: a 500 km rocket (in length) with full-blown exhaust in the form of water vapor.
And nothing happens?
Who are you kidding?
In March 2007, it was found that the variation of radio emissions from the planet did not match Saturn's rotation rate. This variance may be caused by geyser activity on Saturn's moon Enceladus. The water vapor emitted into Saturn's orbit by this activity becomes charged and creates a drag upon Saturn's magnetic field, slowing its rotation slightly relative to the rotation of the planet.
Very well done.QuoteIn March 2007, it was found that the variation of radio emissions from the planet did not match Saturn's rotation rate. This variance may be caused by geyser activity on Saturn's moon Enceladus. The water vapor emitted into Saturn's orbit by this activity becomes charged and creates a drag upon Saturn's magnetic field, slowing its rotation slightly relative to the rotation of the planet.
Now, there is no escape for the RE.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228339175_Enceladus_A_significant_plasma_source_for_Saturn's_magnetosphere
Gravity is only a partial description of the overall interaction between Enceladus and Saturn; electromagnetic forces must be included to obtain a much better understanding.
These terms, the electromagnetic potential, have to be included in the relativity equations, since Einstein's original equations do not have a bounded dynamic solution (i.e., can only be applied to static situations).
In either case, Enceladus is clearly implicated as a significant, if not dominant, source of Saturn's magnetospheric plasma.
Material blasted into space by Enceladus feeds Saturn’s giant E ring and is a major source of material (plasma) fueling Saturn’s magnetosphere.
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/cassini/science/magnetosphere/
"The perception started to change in the mid-1980s following the Aug. 3, 1981, launch of two Dynamics Explorer satellites designed to study the magnetosphere near the Earth. DE-1 carried Chappell's Retarding Ion Mass Spectrometer (RIMS), designed to measure the population of the plasmasphere, a torus or donut of low-energy in the inner magnetosphere.Why are you citing information from satellites in a thread that is trying to prove that rockets can't fly in a vacuum? ???
During the August 11, 2008 flyby, Cassini’s plasma sensors found ion and electron beams propagating from Saturn’s northern hemisphere. Their variability was something of a puzzle until it was noted that time-variable emissions from Enceladus’ south polar vents could correspond with the footprint’s brightness variations in Saturn’s aurora.So, in you're typical, long winded, roundabout manner, you're saying that rockets can fly in a vacuum? Thanks for that (I think).
as plasma creates aurorae around the pole of a spherical planet.
You haven't done your homework on the Aurora Borealis.
The Aurora Borealis cannot be explained by an external stream of plasma/ions that are injected into the Earth's magnetic field.
(https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/110425euv.jpg)
The moon Enceladus leaves a "footprint" in Saturn's electromagnetic field.
Credit: NASA/JPL/University of Colorado/Central Arizona College
During the August 11, 2008 flyby, Cassini’s plasma sensors found ion and electron beams propagating from Saturn’s northern hemisphere. Their variability was something of a puzzle until it was noted that time-variable emissions from Enceladus’ south polar vents could correspond with the footprint’s brightness variations in Saturn’s aurora.
(http://www.everythingselectric.com/wp-content/uploads/enceladus-wobble-7-300x275.jpg)
https://phys.org/news/2018-07-electromagnetic-energy-saturn-enceladus.html
hemisphere
During the August 11, 2008 flyby, Cassini’s plasma sensors found ion and electron beams propagating from Saturn’s northern hemisphere. Their variability was something of a puzzle until it was noted that time-variable emissions from Enceladus’ south polar vents could correspond with the footprint’s brightness variations in Saturn’s aurora.So, in you're typical, long winded, roundabout manner, you're saying that rockets can fly in a vacuum? Thanks for that (I think).
As I said from the start, Enceladus has huge cavities inside, a fact corroborated by the research done at the University of Nantes.
https://scitechdaily.com/new-research-into-saturns-geologically-active-moon-enceladus/
Choblet and co-authors found that a loose, rocky core with 20 to 30 percent empty space would do the trick.
According to these first estimates, Enceladus' cavities amount to a third of its total volume.
This, coupled with the fact that all of the geyser jets escape to outer space, means that the thrust provided by the plume does not interact with the vacuum.
Those calculations require a precise value for the pressure. Furthermore, Enceladus might be a hollow satellite, a fact which makes any calculations superfluous.
We are discussing here the official data as put forth by Nasa.A reference to [ by F. Dyson at CalTech in 1958:] is certainly outdated it's not worth considering,
And Nasa knew all along that there was something very peculiar about Enceladus (very low density).
Here is the declassified note written by F. Dyson at CalTech in 1958:
(https://www.centauri-dreams.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/FJD-OuterPlanetSatellites-1958_2.jpg)
In fact, HE proponents are saying that Enceladus is hollow (while mainstream science is stating that cavities make up a third of the core volume):
http://hollowplanet.blogspot.com/2008/04/enceladus-south-polar-plume-fills.html
We are discussing here the official data as put forth by Nasa.
And Nasa knew all along that there was something very peculiar about Enceladus (very low density).
Here is the declassified note written by F. Dyson at CalTech in 1958:
(https://www.centauri-dreams.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/FJD-OuterPlanetSatellites-1958_2.jpg)
In fact, HE proponents are saying that Enceladus is hollow (while mainstream science is stating that cavities make up a third of the core volume):
http://hollowplanet.blogspot.com/2008/04/enceladus-south-polar-plume-fills.html
Note that the .618 density for Enceladus was not a transcription or arithmetic error, it is due to the mass and radius of the outer planet satellites being known only approximately at that time. (I believe Thomas “Tommy” Gold was brought in as a consultant on the question of selecting landing sites.) These calculations were made to determine the best destination both in terms of an optimum velocity match and highest probability of being able to obtain water ice or hydrocarbons on the surface to replenish the vehicle’s propellant mass.
But they have to, since the geysers are distributed over a huge area, encompassing an entire hemisphere.No, they don't have to as the product of the mass flow rate and the velocity of it is tiny compared to the moon.
Are you referring to this?And what does it say?
Plume intensity figure (emission strength): 1000kg/s.
Then, your figure is MEANINGLESS unless we have the TOTAL MASS being ejected.
The total plume intensity, between 100 and 1000 kg/s, is also stochastically variableThat sure sounds like it is talking about a TOTAL!
I estimate this mass to be at least 1.5 x 105 kgYour estimate is worthless.
Even if it couldn't move a moon out of it's orbit around Saturn, it would certainly cause very substantial effect to the rate (speed) of it's rotation :And that is just another baseless claim. Like for the claim of it having an effect on the orbit, do the math. Show it should have a substantial effect, and then show that no substantial effect occurs.
We are discussing here the official data as put forth by Nasa.
And Nasa knew all along that there was something very peculiar about Enceladus (very low density).
Here is the declassified note written by F. Dyson at CalTech in 1958:
(https://www.centauri-dreams.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/FJD-OuterPlanetSatellites-1958_2.jpg)
In fact, HE proponents are saying that Enceladus is hollow (while mainstream science is stating that cavities make up a third of the core volume):
http://hollowplanet.blogspot.com/2008/04/enceladus-south-polar-plume-fills.html
But Enceladus does not have a density of 1000kg/m^3, in fact it is mostly hollow, that is why your calculations are useless.
In order to calculate the thrust, with the new figures (at least 33% cavities), we need the pressure (as I have said from the start).
Im really not sure what you are getting at now
Here is the biggest rocket in vacuum of them all:
(https://cosmos-magazine.imgix.net/file/spina/photo/11225/170721_Enceladus_Full.jpg?fit=clip&w=835)
And things don't look good at all for the RE.
But Enceladus does not have a density of 1000kg/m^3, in fact it is mostly hollowAnd that is another baseless claim from you which you are yet to back up.
We are discussing here the official data as put forth by Nasa.A reference to [ by F. Dyson at CalTech in 1958:] is certainly outdated it's not worth considering,
And Nasa knew all along that there was something very peculiar about Enceladus (very low density).
Here is the declassified note written by F. Dyson at CalTech in 1958:
(https://www.centauri-dreams.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/FJD-OuterPlanetSatellites-1958_2.jpg)
In fact, HE proponents are saying that Enceladus is hollow (while mainstream science is stating that cavities make up a third of the core volume):
http://hollowplanet.blogspot.com/2008/04/enceladus-south-polar-plume-fills.html
and doe's not answer The question.
Just how did Cassini get to Saturn and Enceladus, without rockets working in space?
Electric arcs theory for Enceladus:Yes how did Cassini get there?
https://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/061108enceladusgeysers.htm
https://www.holoscience.com/wp/enceladus-cometary-plumes/
https://www.universetoday.com/29580/electrically-charged-particles-found-in-enceladus-plumes/
(https://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/enceladus_image-351x580.jpg)
Observations from the Cassini Plasma Spectrometer (CAPS) made during the Cassini flyby of Enceladus on 12th March 2008, superimposed on Cassini’s path. As the spacecraft passed the moon, CAPS detected streams of charged particles in individual jets within the plume; negative particles are shown in this view. Each ribbon in the image gives an indication of the measured particle energy per charge: high energy particle fluxes are shown nearest Enceladus, and lower energy particles are farthest. The red points marked on Enceladus show the locations of known jet sources found by other Cassini instruments. Credit: MSSL-UCL.
No.
The latest research is very clear: Enceladus has at least 33% cavities in the core. And that core is not rocky, but is composed of ice.
The data you posted refers to the old research, which is now totally outdated.
Please read the references provided.
But Enceladus does not have a density of 1000kg/m^3, in fact it is mostly hollow, that is why your calculations are useless.You haven't done your homework! ;)
Universe Today: Saturn’s Icy Moon Enceladus (https://www.universetoday.com/48796/enceladus/)
Composition and Surface Features:
Enceladus has a density of 1.61 g/cm3, which is higher than Saturn’s other mid-sized, icy satellites, suggesting a composition that includes a greater percentage of silicates and iron. It is also believed to be largely differentiated between a geologically active core and an icy mantle, with a liquid water ocean nestled between.
Planetry Fact Sheet: Saturnian Satellite Fact Sheet (https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/saturniansatfact.html)
Bulk parameters: Mass Mean density
Enceladus (SII) 1.08 x 1020 kg 1610 kg/m3
Enceladus: Ocean Moon (https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/cassini/science/enceladus/)
Cassini revealed the dramatic truth: Enceladus is an active moon that hides a global ocean of liquid salty water beneath its crust. What’s more, jets of icy particles from that ocean, laced with a brew of water and simple organic chemicals, gush out into space continuously from this fascinating ocean world. The material shoots out at about 800 miles per hour (400 meters per second) and forms a plume that extends hundreds of miles into space. Some of the material falls back onto Enceladus, and some escapes to form Saturn’s vast E ring.
In order to calculate the thrust, with the new figures (at least 33% cavities), we need the pressure (as I have said from the start).Incorrect, the density is 1610 kg/m3! And I've quoted that mass, about 1.08 x 1020 kg, before!
These jets have lasted quite a while and there is absolutely no indication that the majority of the mass is gone.No we don't.
Exactly.
Now, you the RE have to explain this mystery as well.
Enceladus is a hollow ice shell...
Electric arcs theory for Enceladus:
https://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/061108enceladusgeysers.htm
https://www.holoscience.com/wp/enceladus-cometary-plumes/
https://www.universetoday.com/29580/electrically-charged-particles-found-in-enceladus-plumes/
(https://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/enceladus_image-351x580.jpg)
Observations from the Cassini Plasma Spectrometer (CAPS) made during the Cassini flyby of Enceladus on 12th March 2008, superimposed on Cassini’s path. As the spacecraft passed the moon, CAPS detected streams of charged particles in individual jets within the plume; negative particles are shown in this view. Each ribbon in the image gives an indication of the measured particle energy per charge: high energy particle fluxes are shown nearest Enceladus, and lower energy particles are farthest. The red points marked on Enceladus show the locations of known jet sources found by other Cassini instruments. Credit: MSSL-UCL.
I made a FLAT EARTH BELIEVER out of you:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83049.msg2200252#msg2200252
The density readings provided are based on several ASSUMPTIONS, including the Airy isostasy hypothesis which has been proven to be false here on Earth.
Since now scientists accept that Enceladus is mostly filled with cavities, they had to INVENT the subsurface ocean in order to satisfy the assumptions just mentioned.
Very well done.QuoteIn March 2007, it was found that the variation of radio emissions from the planet did not match Saturn's rotation rate. This variance may be caused by geyser activity on Saturn's moon Enceladus. The water vapor emitted into Saturn's orbit by this activity becomes charged and creates a drag upon Saturn's magnetic field, slowing its rotation slightly relative to the rotation of the planet.
Now, there is no escape for the RE.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228339175_Enceladus_A_significant_plasma_source_for_Saturn's_magnetosphere
Gravity is only a partial description of the overall interaction between Enceladus and Saturn; electromagnetic forces must be included to obtain a much better understanding.
These terms, the electromagnetic potential, have to be included in the relativity equations, since Einstein's original equations do not have a bounded dynamic solution (i.e., can only be applied to static situations).
In either case, Enceladus is clearly implicated as a significant, if not dominant, source of Saturn's magnetospheric plasma.
Material blasted into space by Enceladus feeds Saturn’s giant E ring and is a major source of material (plasma) fueling Saturn’s magnetosphere.
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/cassini/science/magnetosphere/
The density readings provided are based on several ASSUMPTIONS, including the Airy isostasy hypothesis,Rubbish! You just make up stories to fit your "narrative". Your "Airy isostasy hypothesis" does not come into it!
Enceladus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enceladus)
Internal structure
Mass estimates from the Voyager program missions suggested that Enceladus was composed almost entirely of water ice. However, based on the effects of Enceladus's gravity on Cassini, its mass was determined to be much higher than previously thought, yielding a density of 1.61 g/cm3. This density is higher than Saturn's other mid-sized icy satellites, indicating that Enceladus contains a greater percentage of silicates and iron.
which has been proven to be false here on Earth.[/quote]
Since now scientists accept that Enceladus is mostly filled with cavities, they had to INVENT the subsurface ocean in order to satisfy the assumptions just mentioned.In other words, more of your stories to fit your "narrative".
Lets say you are all by yourself not gravitationally bound to anything nearby, so you are completely motionless. The only thing you have on you is your oxygen tank. If one were to pierce it (causing a sudden escape of all the oxygen very quickly) would the astronauts position move at all?
You really need to upgrade your references.
The article posted here is based only on assumptions (Enceladus must have an interior heat source, it must have an ocean, and a silicate core), no PROOFS.
Moreover, it is a description of the final conclusions, not the methodology they were based on.
This alone says volumes about your capacity to understand astrophysics: you simply opened the first pdf you found and surreptitiously brought it here thinking it will impress someone. It does not.
HERE IS THE REAL REFERENCE ON ENCELADUS, which provides the ASSUMPTIONS which lead to certain conclusions:
http://douglashemingway.com/publications/Hemingway-3003-reprint.pdf
Page 64 (page 8 of the pdf document)
A compensation mechanism is therefore required.
is Airy-type isostatic compensation.
This is HOW they reach the final conclusions about Enceladus: they make the same assumptions they made here on Earth.
But the Airy isostasy hypothesis is false:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1096437#msg1096437
Page 65 (page 9 of the pdf document)
as it would require Enceladus to be one of the most strongly differentiated solid bodies in
the solar system. This observation also provides a clue about the spatial extent of the subsurface liquid layer (assuming Airy type compensation)
Assuming Airy compensation
Again, they assume the AIRY ISOSTASY hypothesis to reach final conclusions.
Page 66 (page 10 of the pdf document)
Here, the dimensionless factor g is a placeholder allowing for various conceptions of Airy isostasy
However, assuming some version of Airy compensation, a few things can be stated with confidence. First, the thinnest part of the ice shell must be located beneath the large
topographic depression at the south pole. Since the shell thickness is necessarily greater than zero there, this provides an effective lower bound on the mean shell thickness.
Depending on the definition of isostasy, and the assumed ice shell and ocean densities
Every hypothesis made about the DENSITY of Enceladus is provided by the Airy assumption, nothing else.
Page 67 (page 11 of the pdf document)
Whereas all the models discussed so far assume some version of Airy-type isostasy, in which the surface topography is supported in part by lateral variations in the ice shell’s
thickness, it should be noted that the topography could also be supported in part by lateral variations in density [i.e., Pratt-type isostasy (e.g., Besserer et al., 2013; Tajeddine et al., 2017)].
The authors agree that they based their conclusions solely on the Airy hypothesis, and that OTHER isostasy models (just as false) will lead to a different conclusion about the density of Enceladus.
Page 68 (page 12 of the pdf document)
A summary of all of the models is presented: everything is based ON THE AIRY HYPOTHESIS assumption.
Page 73 (page 17 of the pdf document)
and making reasonable assumptions about the ice shell and ocean densities, the total crustal thinning (relative to the mean shell thickness) at the south pole must be roughly 16–18 km, assuming complete Airy-type isostatic compensation
NOW, THE BEST PART!!!
Page 74 (page 18 of the pdf document)
Lateral variations in ice shell thickness assuming complete Airy compensation of all known topography [up to spherical harmonic degree 8 (Nimmo et al., 2011)].
The Nimmo reference is the one you provided!!!
The authors of that article based their final conclusions ON THE AIRY HYPOTHESIS as well.
The rest of the conclusions are based on the PHYSICAL LIBRATION assumptions.
Nothing else.
The gravity measurements, such as they are, are based on RADIO TRACKING, using the Doppler effect, which essentially is an ETHER WAVE theory.
On page 63, the authors describe the HUGE PROBLEMS with the radio tracking method for Cassini.
The 1.61 kg/m3 figure is PURE FANTASY, based on the Airy hypothesis.
You really need to upgrade your references.Whereas you cherry-pick your references to find papers with the right words, never mind the meaning or context!
The article posted here is based only on assumptions (Enceladus must have an interior heat source, it must have an ocean, and a silicate core), no PROOFS.
Moreover, it is a description of the final conclusions, not the methodology they were based on.
This alone says volumes about your capacity to understand astrophysics: you simply opened the first pdf you found and surreptitiously brought it here thinking it will impress someone. It does not.
HERE IS THE REAL REFERENCE ON ENCELADUS, which provides the ASSUMPTIONS which lead to certain conclusions:
The Interior of Enceladus, Douglas Hemingway, Luciano Iess, Radwan Tajeddine and Gabriel Tobie (http://douglashemingway.com/publications/Hemingway-3003-reprint.pdf)
The 1.61 kg/m3 figure is PURE FANTASY, based on the Airy hypothesis.No, the 1.61 kg/m3 figure is NOT based on the Airy hypothesis but on independent gravity methods and the Airy hypothesis is used in that paper in the determination of the The Interior of Enceladus.
But it is entirely based ON THE AIRY HYPOTHESIS.
Please read.
Page 74 (page 18 of the pdf document)
Lateral variations in ice shell thickness assuming complete Airy compensation of all known topography [up to spherical harmonic degree 8 (Nimmo et al., 2011)].
The Nimmo reference is the one you provided!!!
The authors of that article based their final conclusions ON THE AIRY HYPOTHESIS as well.
It is the Airy hypothesis which leads them to believe that there a subsurface ocean, and that the geysers have an interior heat source.
Without the Airy hypothesis, all we have a left is an icy hollow shell (perhaps some 50 km in thickness).
You cannot invoke the gravity readings.
Here is why.
Cassini is A THREE AXIS (3-AXIS) STABILIZED AIRCRAFT.
As such, it suffers from the same gravitational anomalies experienced by the Pioneer space mission.
http://www.ptep-online.com/2016/PP-47-02.PDF
However, it is a very specific solution that applies only to the main term of the Pioneer spacecraft anomaly, but left unresolved many other anomalies, including those of the spaceships Cassini, Ulysses and Galileo.
Consider the anomalous acceleration detected at the shortest distance of the Cassini spacecraft during solar conjunction in June, 2002.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.4184.pdf
The results from Galileo, NEAR, Cassini, and Rosetta, as well as the null result from
MESSENGER, summarized in Table 1, suggest that a relationship may exist between the
magnitude of the flyby anomaly and the altitude and geometry of the flyby trajectory.
Here is the EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY'S own assessment of the situation:
http://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/doc/MAD/pub/ACT-RPR-MAD-2006-(JSR)NonDedicatedOptionsToTestThePioneerAnomaly.pdf
Also the Cassini tracking does not yield results of the necessary precision because the spacecraft is three-axis stabilized. Furthermore, thermal radiation from the RTGs causes a large acceleration bias, the magnitude of which is not well determined. The large bias
originates from the placement of the RTGs close to the spacecraft bus. The thermal control of the propulsion module subsystem is accomplished by collecting thermal radiation from the RTGs in a cavity covered with insulating blankets. The radiation geometry of the cavity is complicated and leads to a large uncertainty in the acceleration bias due to RTG heat.
Cassini is completely unreliable to provide any sensible data on any kind of gravitational reading.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0308017.pdf
Attempts to verify the anomaly using other spacecraft proved disappointing. This is
because the Voyager, Galileo, Ulysses, and Cassini spacecraft navigation data all have
their own individual difficulties for use in an independent test of the anomaly.
This would have made the navigational accuracy too poor, as happened with the 3-axis-stabilized Voyagers. This is one of the main reasons the Pioneers were so well tracked.
Further, modern 3-axis stabilization relies heavily on the use of precise fuel gauges (to
measure fuel usage during maneuvers for input into navigational models), high quality thrusters (for precise attitude control purposes), reaction wheels (to keep preferred spacecraft pointing for a limited time), and often high resolution accelerometers (to track onboard generated non-gravitational disturbances). Although there exist fuel gauges with the desirable precision, thrusters have low repeatability and reaction wheel de-saturation introduces high acceleration noise. Finally, existing pico-g level accelerometers also have low reliability. This all makes 3-axis stabilization a very costly and undesirable choice for our deep space mission.
Furthermore, any gravitational reading, flawed as it is, must be CORROBORATED with the basic assumptions made regarding the geology of Enceladus.
And these assumptions, all of them, involve the AIRY HYPOTHESIS.
HERE IS THE REAL REFERENCE ON ENCELADUS, which provides the ASSUMPTIONS which lead to certain conclusions:
http://douglashemingway.com/publications/Hemingway-3003-reprint.pdf
Page 64 (page 8 of the pdf document)
A compensation mechanism is therefore required.
is Airy-type isostatic compensation.
This is HOW they reach the final conclusions about Enceladus: they make the same assumptions they made here on Earth.
But the Airy isostasy hypothesis is false:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1096437#msg1096437
Page 65 (page 9 of the pdf document)
as it would require Enceladus to be one of the most strongly differentiated solid bodies in
the solar system. This observation also provides a clue about the spatial extent of the subsurface liquid layer (assuming Airy type compensation)
Assuming Airy compensation
Again, they assume the AIRY ISOSTASY hypothesis to reach final conclusions.
Page 66 (page 10 of the pdf document)
Here, the dimensionless factor g is a placeholder allowing for various conceptions of Airy isostasy
However, assuming some version of Airy compensation, a few things can be stated with confidence. First, the thinnest part of the ice shell must be located beneath the large
topographic depression at the south pole. Since the shell thickness is necessarily greater than zero there, this provides an effective lower bound on the mean shell thickness.
Depending on the definition of isostasy, and the assumed ice shell and ocean densities
Every hypothesis made about the DENSITY of Enceladus is provided by the Airy assumption, nothing else.
Page 67 (page 11 of the pdf document)
Whereas all the models discussed so far assume some version of Airy-type isostasy, in which the surface topography is supported in part by lateral variations in the ice shell’s
thickness, it should be noted that the topography could also be supported in part by lateral variations in density [i.e., Pratt-type isostasy (e.g., Besserer et al., 2013; Tajeddine et al., 2017)].
The authors agree that they based their conclusions solely on the Airy hypothesis, and that OTHER isostasy models (just as false) will lead to a different conclusion about the density of Enceladus.
Page 68 (page 12 of the pdf document)
A summary of all of the models is presented: everything is based ON THE AIRY HYPOTHESIS assumption.
Page 73 (page 17 of the pdf document)
and making reasonable assumptions about the ice shell and ocean densities, the total crustal thinning (relative to the mean shell thickness) at the south pole must be roughly 16–18 km, assuming complete Airy-type isostatic compensation
NOW, THE BEST PART!!!
Page 74 (page 18 of the pdf document)
Lateral variations in ice shell thickness assuming complete Airy compensation of all known topography [up to spherical harmonic degree 8 (Nimmo et al., 2011)].
The Nimmo reference is the one you provided!!!
The authors of that article based their final conclusions ON THE AIRY HYPOTHESIS as well.
The rest of the conclusions are based on the PHYSICAL LIBRATION assumptions.
Nothing else.
The gravity measurements, such as they are, are based on RADIO TRACKING, using the Doppler effect, which essentially is an ETHER WAVE theory.
On page 63, the authors describe the HUGE PROBLEMS with the radio tracking method for Cassini.
The 1.61 kg/m3 figure is PURE FANTASY, based on the Airy hypothesis.
All we have left is an icy hollow shell with huge jets of water vapor which do not interact at all with the vacuum.
Here is your 500 km hollow rocket:
(https://cosmos-magazine.imgix.net/file/spina/photo/11225/170721_Enceladus_Full.jpg?fit=clip&w=835)
Without the Airy hypothesis, all we have a left is an icy hollow shell (perhaps some 50 km in thickness).
You really need to upgrade your references.You and jamas are the only one arguing against that available references here.
you simply opened the first pdf you found and surreptitiously brought it here thinking it will impress someone. It does not.Good job projecting yet again.
TRUE NATURE OF THE MOON AND THE SUN :And more off topic spam by jamas.
Now, is the Earth rotating, or the Saturn is revolving around the Earth?
If Saturn is revolving Earth, at those 1.2 billion kilometers the orbit is 7.54 billion kilometers long.
It means orbital speed of 314 000 000 km/h or 87 222 km/s.
If Saturn is revolving Sun then its orbital speed is 9.68 km/s and all math about orbital mechanic works.
Geocentric version with everything revolving around Earth requires much stronger gravitational force to keep it in orbit.
Now repeat the same for Proxima Centauri which is 4.24 light years away.
1. Off topic spamAgain, none of that has anything at all to do with rockets working in a vacuum.
All of these questions can be answered once we infer that Cassini has a hemispherical resonator gyroscope onboard which uses the Coriolis effect to detect rotation.
It is important to note that the geysers from Enceladus have shut down: we are discussing here only the data pertaining to the year 2005.I believe that is more or less what I said right at the beginning!
https://www.space.com/31385-saturn-moon-enceladus-geysers-losing-steam.html
Yet, there is no difference in the orbital parameters of Enceladus, with or without the geysers.
Without the Airy hypothesis, Enceladus becomes an icy hollow shell.So you say but I've learnt not to trust your interpretation of papers and I've no time to investigate further.
The radio tracking data of the Cassini spacecraft cannot be relied upon when it comes to very sensitive observations (see the references provided).
What if the radius of Enceladus is not 500 km, but a much lower figure?Since you've no basis for that conjecture I'll ignore it.
All of these questions can be answered once we infer that Cassini has a hemispherical resonator gyroscope onboard which uses the Coriolis effect to detect rotation.It did use "Northrop Grumman’s highly reliable hemispherical resonator gyro is a vital component of the company’s SIRU™, which has provided critical capabilities for the attitude control of NASA’s Cassini spacecraft."
But Enceladus does not have a density of 1000kg/m^3, in fact it is mostly hollow, that is why your calculations are useless.
In order to calculate the thrust, with the new figures (at least 33% cavities), we need the pressure (as I have said from the start).
There were no Voyager or Cassini missions.
In FET, Jupiter has the same diameter as that of the Sun/Moon/Black Sun/Shadow Moon, some 636 meters.
Saturn, then, has some 200 meters in diameter.
Enceladus, some 20 meters in diameter at most.
That is, Enceladus is as large as a modern rocket.
It is important to note that the geysers from Enceladus have shut down: we are discussing here only the data pertaining to the year 2005.
https://www.space.com/31385-saturn-moon-enceladus-geysers-losing-steam.html
Yet, there is no difference in the orbital parameters of Enceladus, with or without the geysers.
Without the Airy hypothesis, Enceladus becomes an icy hollow shell.
The radio tracking data of the Cassini spacecraft cannot be relied upon when it comes to very sensitive observations (see the references provided).
What if the radius of Enceladus is not 500 km, but a much lower figure?
All of these questions can be answered once we infer that Cassini has a hemispherical resonator gyroscope onboard which uses the Coriolis effect to detect rotation.
It is important to note that the geysers from Enceladus have shut down: we are discussing here only the data pertaining to the year 2005.Its important to note that you are wrong, firstly you have already posted a paper from this year that discusses variations in plumes from individual sources to position in orbit. I cant find any other refference at this moment relating to the plumes stopping.
https://www.space.com/31385-saturn-moon-enceladus-geysers-losing-steam.html
Yet, there is no difference in the orbital parameters of Enceladus, with or without the geysers.
Again your paper, your link.
Without the Airy hypothesis, Enceladus becomes an icy hollow shell.
Im going to assume you mean the RSS system on Cassini, a passive experiment which was capturing data on radio waves to and from earth and the affect of these waves passing through or near a variety of objects. It was used to gather more information on an acceleration anomoly, as you pointed out.
The radio tracking data of the Cassini spacecraft cannot be relied upon when it comes to very sensitive observations (see the references provided).
What if the radius of Enceladus is not 500 km, but a much lower figure?
All of these questions can be answered once we infer that Cassini has a hemispherical resonator gyroscope onboard which uses the Coriolis effect to detect rotation.
There were no Voyager or Cassini missions.
In FET, Jupiter has the same diameter as that of the Sun/Moon/Black Sun/Shadow Moon, some 636 meters.
Saturn, then, has some 200 meters in diameter.
Enceladus, some 20 meters in diameter at most.
That is, Enceladus is as large as a modern rocket.
Then, if we put these numbers into the thrust equation, with mrf = 1000kg/s, A = 6.25 m2, V = 583m/s, and calculate the mass of an icy hollow discoidal shell with an outer radius of 20 meters and an inner radius of 15 meters, we see that the force developed by the geyser jets is formidable, given the true size of Enceladus.
What I have to do is to prove that Cassini never orbited the solar system, and also answer the question regarding the source of matter for the geyser jets given the true size of Enceladus.
But it is entirely based ON THE AIRY HYPOTHESIS.
Please read.
Page 74 (page 18 of the pdf document)
Lateral variations in ice shell thickness assuming complete Airy compensation of all known topography [up to spherical harmonic degree 8 (Nimmo et al., 2011)].
Since the known distance from the north/south pole to the equator is 10,000 km (5400 nm)...and since the known circumference of the earth is 40,000 km (21600 nm)...then it follows that the earth cannot be a flat disk since the radius of a disk of 40,000 km is 6369 km...not 10,000 km...So, the only way around this simple argument is providing any evidence to the contrary regarding the circumference of the equator or the distance from the poles to the equator or both. There are 90 degrees of distance from the equator to the North Pole. Each degree has 60 minutes, each minute = 1 nautical mile, therefore 60 x 90 = 5,400 nautical miles = *10 000 km.* Btw, what would be meaning of the word EQUATOR on the flat earth?
Now, if the earth were a flat disc (on which the distance from the NP to the Equator would be 10000 km, as it is the case in our reality), then the circumference of such a disc (at the equator) would be 62800 km, not 40000 km!!! This number (62800 km) is absolutely preposterous
The RE have the same problem:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64953.msg2197506#msg2197506
Can you explain to your readers how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere?
You want to use gravitons or spacetime?
Why is there no curvature whatsoever across lake Ontario (as an example)?
There is no curvature whatsoever across lake Ontario.If there was curvature, what would you expect it to look like?
OK. For the people arguing if rockets wont work in a vacuum, is there any thing an astronaut can do to 'move' in space?The simple answer is, no. But then again in the situation we are forced to accept about so called space, there would be no direction. No up, down or left to right or right to left..... Nothing.
Lets say you are all by yourself not gravitationally bound to anything nearby, so you are completely motionless. The only thing you have on you is your oxygen tank. If one were to pierce it (causing a sudden escape of all the oxygen very quickly) would the astronauts position move at all?
Curvature, there is curvature over lake Ontario as there is over the the entire globe.
There is no curvature whatsoever across lake Ontario.
Something along the lines of inserting the observer’s height and object distance into the curvature calculator .... add some percentage for refraction and this should basically give you a fairly accurate amount of what should be hidden in the far distance.There is no curvature whatsoever across lake Ontario.If there was curvature, what would you expect it to look like?
Something along the lines of inserting the observer’s height and object distance into the curvature calculator .... add some percentage for refraction and this should basically give you a fairly accurate amount of what should be hidden in the far distance.There is no curvature whatsoever across lake Ontario.If there was curvature, what would you expect it to look like?
But of course during the day atmospheric conditions may obscure distant objects, but never should anyone see the full amount of distant buildings (as displayed over lake Ontario) .
No ‘superiour mirage’ or other exotic phenomena can reason away what thousends of people know for a fact.
‘One can see much further under ideal conditions than what should be possible in the current globe model with a curvature drop of appr. 8 inches per mile squared.
If there was curvature, what would you expect it to look like?
Exactly what the following precise formulas imply:
CURVATURE
C = R(1 - cos[s/(2R)]) - angle measured in radians
R = 6378,164 km
s = distance
VISUAL OBSTACLE
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/Capture_zpswhoewt2o.jpg)
BD = (R + h)/{[2Rh + h2]1/2(sin s/R)(1/R) + cos s/R} - R
BD = visual obstacle
h = altitude of observer
No curvature across the strait of Gibraltar, no ascending slope, no midpoint 3.5 meter visual obstacle, a perfectly flat surface of the water all the way to Africa:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x42v7ip
38:28 to 38:35
(http://image.ibb.co/n3bHw6/gib.jpg)
From the same spot, a splendid photograph:
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/55/130948289_44854d63fa_b.jpg)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/carlosromero/130948289#
(http://www.expedition360.com/journal/white_cliffs.jpg)
Dover cliffs:
(http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4070/4521816996_2971e62065.jpg)
If you are located right on the Cap Gris Nez, facing Dover, all you'd see is a huge wall of water (22.4 meters in height), the midpoint curvature.
Not to mention the visual obstacle.
Even if you ascend to 45 meters (maximum height on the French side) it still won't help you.
NO curvature whatsoever across a distance of 34 km.
But you seem not to be convinced.
Then, I will increase the distance to 5,200 km.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRoNgYNyhUB57E7P8hb6EOkfU5oG-1bX7S1WzqlvuBPqUK7aCyUNA)
(http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx38/jorroa5990/Tunguskadistance_zps4429f436.png)
(http://www.phenomena.org.uk/features/page88/files/tunguska-3.jpg)
A photograph with an exposure time of 20 seconds taken at 10.5 p.m., July 1, 1908 by George Embrey of Gloucester.
http://www.phenomena.org.uk/features/page88/page88.html
JULY 1, 1908 LETTER SENT TO THE LONDON TIMES
http://www.nuforc.org/GNTungus.html
“TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.”
“Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself. I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m. It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset. The sky, for some distance above the light, which appeared to be on the horizon, was blue as in the daytime, with bands of light cloud of a pinkish colour floating across it at intervals. Only the brightest stars could be seen in any part of the sky, though it was an almost cloudless night. It was possible to read large print indoors, and the hands of the clock in my room were quite distinct. An hour later, at about 1:30 a.m., the room was quite light, as if it had been day; the light in the sky was then more dispersed and was a fainter yellow. The whole effect was that of a night in Norway at about this time of year. I am in the habit of watching the sky, and have noticed the amount of light indoors at different hours of the night several times in the last fortnight. I have never at any time seen anything the least like this in England, and it would be interesting if any one would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.
Yours faithfully,
Katharine Stephen.
Godmanchester, Huntingdon, July 1.”
Let us remember that the first newspaper report about the explosion itself ONLY appeared on July 2, 1908 in the Sibir periodical.
A report from Berlin in the New York Times of July 3 stated: 'Remarkable lights were observed in the northern heavens on Tuesday and Wednesday nights, the bright diffused white and yellow illumination continuing through the night until it disappeared at dawn...'
On July 5, (1908) a New York Times story from Britain was entitled: 'Like Dawn at Midnight.' '...The northern sky at midnight became light blue, as if the dawn were breaking...people believed that a big fire was raging in the north of London...shortly after midnight, it was possible to read large print indoors...it would be interesting if anyone would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.'
The letter sent by Mrs. Katharine Stephen is absolutely genuine as it includes details NOBODY else knew at the time: not only the precise timing of the explosion itself (7:15 - 7:17 local time, 0:15 - 0:17 London time), BUT ALSO THE DURATION OF THE TRAJECTORY OF THE OBJECT, right before the explosion, a fact uncovered decades later only by the painstaking research of Dr. Felix Zigel, an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation.
If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.
It could not have been caused by either a comet, or an asteroid, or a meteorite.
The precise geomagnetic pulses were observed THREE DAYS BEFORE THE EVENT:
(https://image.ibb.co/i4nX8y/tgr1.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/h8hFTy/tgr2.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/cjwLvd/tgr3.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/kAeOFd/tgr4.jpg)
TWO OBJECTS CAUSED THE TUNGUKSA EXPLOSION:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1995026#msg1995026
The initial map of the trajectory:
(https://image.ibb.co/jRMzZS/tunguska.jpg)
The final map: two trajectories, whose paths were modified in mid-air, no natural object is capable of such a feat.
(https://image.ibb.co/fpJJTn/tung03.jpg)
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1995521#msg1995521
(https://image.ibb.co/bGhe3y/tung4.jpg)
It was found that the pattern of ytterbium’s distribution at Tunguska follows the projection of the “southern” TSB’s path on the ground. Similar shapes have been formed at Tunguska for the surface distribution of lanthanum, lead, silver and manganese (Zhuravlev & Demin, 1976). Only these five elements have patterns of distribution in Tunguska soils and peats that follow the projection of the TSB path on the ground, and only ytterbium follows this path strongly enough to be considered as the most likely main ingredient of the TSB substance.
This is an amazing outcome, one should note. This soft silvery-white rareearth metal, discovered in 1878, is now used mainly for improving the hardness of stainless steel, as well as in making high-power lasers. Definitely, if the chief chemical component of the TSB was ytterbium it hardly could have been a natural space body.
If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.
Over the next few days night skies in Asia and Europe were aglow, with contemporaneous reports of photographs being successfully taken at midnight in Sweden and Scotland. It has been theorized that this effect was due to light passing through high-altitude ice particles that had formed at extremely low temperatures—a phenomenon that many years later was produced by space shuttles. In the United States, a Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory program at the Mount Wilson Observatory observed a months-long decrease in atmospheric transparency consistent with an increase in suspended dust particles.
basic curvature calculation puts this at a curvature of 2006.89m
Tunguska meteorite exploded at a height of 28k feet or 8534.4m
You need new batteries for your calculator.
You mean: 2006.89 KILOMETERS
Let us remember the discussion we had here a long time ago...
Not so. In the right circumstances refraction can continue to refract light indefinitely, parallel to the earth's surface. If the earth were flat, the refraction would eventually cause the light to be pushed to the ground, but on a curved surface, the refraction continues to refract the light parallel to the earth's surface and for great distances.
To talk about ice crystals, with an explosion at some 7 km in the atmosphere on one side of the globe, and a very clear view of the initial trajectory/flash of the explosion from the other side of the hypothetical globe, means that you have no explanation for the facts involved here.
According to your explanation, we should have a 24 hour a day constant sunlight...this is what you wrote:
In the right circumstances refraction can continue to refract light indefinitely, parallel to the earth's surface.
Certainly the sun's rays of light (official theory) will be parallel to some portion of the surface at some time in the earth's rotation...that is why I invited you to think.
No incoming object.
Local fragments/vaporized material.
The explosion was seen INSTANTANEOUSLY, same second: read the letter sent to the Times.
It has been theorized that this effect was due to light passing through high-altitude ice particles that had formed at extremely low temperatures—a phenomenon that many years later was produced by space shuttles.
You still don't get it.
If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.Let us remember the discussion we had here a long time ago...
Not so. In the right circumstances refraction can continue to refract light indefinitely, parallel to the earth's surface. If the earth were flat, the refraction would eventually cause the light to be pushed to the ground, but on a curved surface, the refraction continues to refract the light parallel to the earth's surface and for great distances.
To talk about ice crystals, with an explosion at some 7 km in the atmosphere on one side of the globe, and a very clear view of the initial trajectory/flash of the explosion from the other side of the hypothetical globe, means that you have no explanation for the facts involved here.
According to your explanation, we should have a 24 hour a day constant sunlight...this is what you wrote:
In the right circumstances refraction can continue to refract light indefinitely, parallel to the earth's surface.
Certainly the sun's rays of light (official theory) will be parallel to some portion of the surface at some time in the earth's rotation...that is why I invited you to think.
It is important to note that the geysers from Enceladus have shut downNo it isn't.
In FET,So good job showing yet another problem for FET. But you seemed to have missed some steps. You didn't bother calculating the mass of the shell. Is that because you know it nails even more nails in FE's coffin? But which size should I use? 20 m in diameter or radius? I'll be nice and use it as a radius, using it as a diameter would be even worse.
Enceladus, some 20 meters in diameter at most.
Then, if we put these numbers into the thrust equation, with mrf = 1000kg/s, A = 6.25 m2, V = 583m/s, and calculate the mass of an icy hollow discoidal shell with an outer radius of 20 meters and an inner radius of 15 meters, we see that the force developed by the geyser jets is formidable, given the true size of Enceladus.
But then again in the situation we are forced to accept about so called space, there would be no direction. No up, down or left to right or right to left..... Nothing.There is still direction, the reference used is often just arbitrary, that is quite different to direction not existing.
Basically suspended animation...assuming anything could be in that which obviously....or should be to most....they can't.
Pierce a tank in low pressure and it tries to equalise with the low pressure to make that pressure marginally higher.No, it is equalising, until the pressure is equal. This is fine inside a small chamber, or in the vast vacuum of space.
It's like the opposite of snapping off the sealed nib at the base of a glass thermos flask and listening as the atmosphere under pressure fills that lower pressure inside the thermos in a fraction of a second.Because the thermos typically won't contain a perfect vacuum, there is very little volume and the pressure differential is quite small meaning very little gas actually needs to get in.
it's not releasing its gas against any opposite reaction of gas or resistance of any kind.The gas has mass, that is all the resistance it needs.
and thus there is no problem.
Please explain to your readers why the Cassini spacecraft does not record the orbital Coriolis effect (HRG, hemispheric resonator gyroscope onboard).
You cannot claim that there is no such thing as an orbital Coriolis effect: here is the formula published by Albert Michelson in 1904 (for an interferometer on Earth).
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Michelson_1904.pdf
Please explain how Enceladus orbits Saturn, given the flux of gravitons paradox.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83049.msg2200176#msg2200176
In the FET version, you cannot explain the fact that the geyser jets do not interact at all with the vacuum of space, given the 20 m (or so) diameter of Enceladus.
As for the source of matter for the geyser jets, it is a problem that I am going to work out.
There is no curvature whatsoever across lake Ontario, the strait of Gibraltar, or across the English channel.
The explosion at Tunguska was observed/seen instantaneously from London, notwithstanding the fact that the sun was rising over Siberia and it was midnight in England.
How do these facts fit with your whimsical spherical earth?
and thus there is no problem.This is a thread for discussing rockets working in a vacuum. If you want to bring up that garbage again, go back to the threads were you have already been refuted.
Please explain to your readers why the Cassini spacecraft does not record the orbital Coriolis effect
In the FET version, you cannot explainI don't need to explain anything from your FE fantasy.
and thus there is no problem.The topic is "Rockets can't fly in a vacuum" so if you want to discuss your "orbital Coriolis effect" make you own thread on the "Total Irrelevance of the orbital Coriolis effect to Space Missions".
Please explain to your readers why the Cassini spacecraft does not record the orbital Coriolis effect (HRG, hemispheric resonator gyroscope onboard).
and thus there is no problem.After you explain why the "HRG, hemispheric resonator gyroscope onboard" should record ANY orbital Coriolis effect
Please explain to your readers why the Cassini spacecraft does not record the orbital Coriolis effect (HRG, hemispheric resonator gyroscope onboard).
You cannot claim that there is no such thing as an orbital Coriolis effect: here is the formula published by Albert Michelson in 1904 (for an interferometer on Earth).Why not? Michelson_1904.pdf makes no mention of any "Coriolis effect".
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Michelson_1904.pdf
Please explain how Enceladus orbits Saturn, given the flux of gravitons paradox.Why should I bother?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83049.msg2200176#msg2200176
I have already provided the references relating vibrating gyroscopes to the detection of rotation (ether drift or axial rotation of Earth)....
I have already provided the references relating vibrating gyroscopesYou mean have already repeatedly avoided the topic because you know you can't defend your claims.
As i said earlier[/b][/u] :I have already provided the references relating vibrating gyroscopesYou mean have already repeatedly avoided the topic because you know you can't defend your claims.
Once again nothing you have said has any relavence to rockets working in a vacuum.
None of it supports your arguments regarding rockets working in a vacuum.
Now can you do the math to show that there should be a significant effect, or admit that it should produce a significant effect?
As i said earlierYes, as you SAID.
Venus, which does rotate, has slowed its rate by 6 minutes in the last few years.
I have already provided the references relating vibrating gyroscopes to the detection of rotation (ether drift or axial rotation of Earth).Agreed, and they are Coriolis vibratory gyroscopes,
Vibrating gyroscopes can be used to detect the ether drift (FET, or earth rotation, RET):
http://www.ipgp.fr/~crawford/2017_EuroOBS_workshop/Resources/Robert%202014.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5464685/
Here is the Coriolis effect formula derived for light beams, the very same formula obtained by Michelson in 1904:Please note a few things about that paper:
Spinning Earth and its Coriolis effect on the circuital light beams: Verification of the special relativity theory by SANKAR HAJRA (https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071)
In the calculation, Silberstein has assumed a relative spinning motion between ether and Earth at and near its surface and has reached the well-known formula of Sagnac effect for the circuital opposing light beams on the surface of the spinning Earth as given above.But Silberstein calculates the Sagnac effect for both the aether case with an aether drag factor, k and for the relativistic case.
LMFTFY: "Now, Michelson went even further and also derived THE ORBITAL SAGNAC DELAY in the 1904 paper:".Now, Michelson went even further and also derived THE ORBITAL CORIOLIS EFFECT in the 1904 paper:
dto = 4AvosinΦ/Rc2 = 4AΩosinΦ/c2And Michelson went on to show that observing that Orbital Sagnac delay without a monstrous loop was impossible with their technology.
R = 150,000,000 km and A = Lh
(the sun's declination term is omitted since it is equal to 1 at the equinox)
Let us remember that the Cassini spacecraft is supposed to detect the Shapiro delay:OK, but why is that an issue?
https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0604060v3.pdf
It can also detect the Pioneer anomaly:But, as you have been told before, the is no longer any "Pioneer anomaly". It never was an "anomaly", simply something overlooked in the design of the Pioneer spacecraft.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0807/0807.1088.pdf
The Pioneer anomaly is on the order of O(10-13).
The flux of gravitons paradox is very real.The is no "flux of gravitons paradox" because, no one other you claims that gravitational fields are caused by any "flux of gravitons".
Let’s say for the sake of argument about 25,000 significant earthquakes occur per year that affectWe can conclude that your heaps of assumptions are obviously fallacious.
the Earth’s rotation and figure axis the way Dr. Gross claims. Let’s say we take the estimates back
10,000 years to 8000 BC. That means 250 million noticeable earthquakes occurred since 8000 BC.
Let’s also assume, based on present data, that Earth’s rotation changes by 0.5 microseconds for
significant earthquakes. This means the Earth would have changed its rotation by 125 seconds
or 2.08 minutes since 8000 BC. If we go beyond 8000 BC to 108,000 BC, we now have the
rotation of the Earth decreased by 20.8 minutes, which yields a rotation of 23 hours, 36.2
minutes. If we use 1 million years, it lessens the rotation by about 200 minutes. If 10 million:
2000 minutes. If 100 million: 20,000 minutes. If 200 million, then 40,000 minutes, which
means the Earth would have been rotating in about 12 hours. Anything beyond 86,400
minutes, the Earth will rotate once every second or less. If we use 4.5 billion years (which is
the time modern science says the Earth has been in existence), the Earth would be spinning
about 10 times every second.
So, what we can conclude from all this?
I told you that your tricks don't work with me.Aren't you the smart one? But I do wish that you would read your own references!
You tried several in this context, nothing seems to work for you:Really?
Now, you are at it yet again.
You did not post anything of substance.
This is the formula derived by G. Sagnac:And you claim that Georges Sagnac incorrectly identifies the Sagnac effect!
4AΩ/c^2.
THIS IS THE CORIOLIS EFFECT FORMULA.
Here is the precise proof, peer-reviewed in an IOP article.Yes, it's a peer-reviewed in an IOP article by an author I have great respect for!
THIS IS AN IOP ARTICLE, one of the most comprehensive papers on the Sagnac effect ever published.I've no argument with that. Only with your interpretation!
(https://image.ibb.co/eqXahp/sil4.jpg)If you read Silberstein correctly you will find that he shows that the Coriolis effect on the beams is so small that it could never be measured.
(https://image.ibb.co/bX3aXp/sil2.jpg)
By the way, you do remember the book you referred to in your vain attempt to prove that Silberstein derived the Coriolis effect and not the Sagnac effect?
This book: Ring Interferometry, De Grigorii B. Malykin, Vera I. Pozdnyakova (https://www.amazon.com/Interferometry-Gruyter-Studies-Mathematical-Physics-ebook/dp/B07G4MMRWK)
Well, De Grigorii B. Malykin also wrote a paper in Russian, The Sagnac effect: correct and incorrect explanations, G. B. Malykin (http://m.mathnet.ru/php/archive.phtml?wshow=paper&jrnid=ufn&paperid=1825&option_lang=eng), and look what the abstract says:Quote from: G. B. MalykinThe Sagnac effect: correct and incorrect explanationsLuckily the abstract is in English.
Abstract: Different explanations for the Sagnac effect are discussed. It is shown that this effect is a consequence of the relativistic law of velocity composition and that it can also be explained adequately within the framework of general relativity. When certain restrictions on the rotational velocity are imposed, the Sagnac effect can be attributed to the difference in the time dilation (or phase change) of material particle wave functions in the scalar (or correspondingly vector) gravitational potential of the inertial forces in a rotating reference system for counterpropagating waves. It is also shown that all the nonrelativistic interpretations of the Sagnac effect, which are unfortunately sometimes found in scientific papers, monographs and textbooks, are wrong in principle, even though the results they yield are accurate up to relativistic corrections in some special cases.
Yes, YOUR expert states quite clearly that the"Sagnac effect" "can also be explained adequately within the framework of general relativity" and that "the nonrelativistic interpretations of the Sagnac effect" "are wrong".
I told you that your tricks don't work with me.Nothing seems to work with you. Are you sure you aren't just completely broken?
You must be dreaming.
You were not able to prove anything other than your cognitive dissonance.
Here is the thread, a total demolition of your most cherished beliefs:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=79637.0
A total victory for FE, and at the same time, a total confirmation of the correctness of my formula, the experiment carried out by Dr. Yeh, published in the best known optical journal in the world also confirms it 100%.
So, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Make no mistake about it, you got totally defeated in that thread, each and every page.
You must be dreaming.No, that would still be you.
You must be dreaming.
You were not able to prove anything other than your cognitive dissonance.
Here is the thread, a total demolition of your most cherished beliefs:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=79637.0
A total victory for FE, and at the same time, a total confirmation of the correctness of my formula, the experiment carried out by Dr. Yeh, published in the best known optical journal in the world also confirms it 100%.
So, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Make no mistake about it, you got totally defeated in that thread, each and every page.
You must be dreaming.No, that would still be you.
You repeatedly had your ass handed to you, with you completely unable to defend your claims.
Now again, this thread is for rockets, not the Sagnac effect.
Can you defend your claims regarding the moon of Saturn? Can you show, using math and valid references, that the jets should produce a significant effect on its orbit?
If not, can you admit your argument was wrong, and these jets do nothing to show if rockets can or can't work in a vacuum?
Your ramblings are becoming more and more bizarre with every message.It was derived using the Coriolis force and I believe that is exactly what I said!
Here is the final equation published by S. Hejra:
dt = 4ωA/c^2
https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071
It is solely derived using the CORIOLIS FORCE as a guide.
It is the very same equation derived by Dr. Silberstein:Sure and your Conspiracy of Light site also calls it the Sagnac effect.
dt = 4ωA/c^2
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Silberstein.pdf
Conspiracy of Light, The Michelson-Gale Experiment (http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Michelson-Gale.html)And those 2's should be 4's because even Michelson didn't initially get it quite right and it was corrected by Silberstein:
In refining his argument, he proposed that it was not necessary for the light to go all the way around the globe - since there should be a velocity difference for any closed path rotating on the surface of the earth. He presented the following equation to calculate the time difference expected, using the shift in the interference fringes when the two beams overlap at the detector as a measure of the time difference:Fig.1:where: Vo = the tangential velocity of the earth's rotation at the equator (465m/s)
(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/MangG1.jpg)
A = the area of the circular path
R = the radius of the earth (6371000 m)
c = speed of light (3E8 m/s)
f = the latitude in degrees where the experiment is conducted.
l = wavelength of the light
The experiment remained in abeyance for several years, until Silberstein published a paper in 1921 on the theory of light propagation in rotating systems [2]. In this article, Silberstein discusses Michelson's proposed experiment and through calculations of his own demonstrated that the time difference expected in such an experiment would be double what Michelson suggested.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
After taking all these factors into account, the expected fringe shift becomes:(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/MandG4.jpg)
which is the most common expression for the fringe shift due to a Sagnac interferometer in use today. In returning to the latitude effect, this is best described with the aid of a diagram (figure 2 below):Fig.2:The proposed experiment of Michelson should then be treated as a Sagnac interferometer with its axis of spin (herein referred to as the z axis) oriented vertically with respect to the earth's surface. If the interferometer is at the North pole, it experiences the full earth's rotation of 15 degrees per hour. However, if it is at the equator, the z-axis is perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the earth, and thus the device does not experience a rotation at all along its sensitive axis. If the device is at 45 deg. latitude, then it experiences an intermediate rotation rate of ω.sin(45).
(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Sagnac_earth.jpg)
Here is the final equation published by S. Hejra:And it would seem that you and he are the only ones calling it Coriolis but even he quotes the Coriolis force as in here:
dt = 4ωA/c^2
https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071
Note that SANKAR HAJRA is simply using the Coriolis force to calculate the deviation in the light paths. This is obvious from his Eqn (1) below where explicitly gives the expression for the Coriolis force.That is the Coriolis force!
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/x33k0stjwveiq1d/Spinning%20Earth%20and%20its%20Coriolis%20effect%20.%20.%20.%20.%20.%20.%20.%20.%20_by%20SANKAR%20HAJRA%20Eqn%202.png?dl=1)
QUESTION FOR THE MODERATORS:
Why are rabinoz' miserable tactics allowed in the upper forums?
No one else, no other forum would allow such ramblings and obvious trolling to go on.
But it does work.
Perfectly.
Your pal tried everything in his power to prove otherwise, he failed to do so:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82968.0
As of late you have made several statements, which clearly show that you are trolling the upper forums.
It takes less than 30 seconds to debunk any argument you might think of.
I'm more applied maths.Which readers "know that when you post a formula, they already know that it has been verified and is correct." Name one!
Then, you must know trigonometry.
My formulas stand correct, here they are:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2200750#msg2200750
My readers know that when I post a formula, they already know that it has been verified and is correct.
That is why they trust me each and every time.
[/quote]
As i said earlier[/b] :
Even if it couldn't move a moon out of it's orbit around Saturn, it would certainly cause very substantial effect to the rate (speed) of it's rotation :
There is no appreciable change in the relative rotation between space and Earth. It is always 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds.
This is precisely why the geocentric system is more stable for us earthlings, whereas [color=purple]Venus has changed its rotation by 6 minutes over the years it has been studied[/color].
THE QUESTION No 1 :
Geokinetics is not the best way to understand the physics. In fact, the geocentric
system makes more sense. For example, in the geokinetic system, the Earth has to rotate
exactly 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds to keep sidereal time. How can it do so when so
many inertial forces (e.g., earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, etc.) are impeding its rotation?
Venus, which does rotate, has slowed its rate by 6 minutes in the last few years.
Likewise, in the geokinetic system, the Earth has to revolve around the sun exactly in 365.25
days. How does it do so in the face of the inertial forces it undergoes internally, as well as the
cosmic forces and planetary perturbations it incurs externally?
Geocentrism has a much better explanation. The sidereal rate can stay exactly as it is
due to the tremendous momentum that a massive rotating universe will produce. Like a giant flywheel,
the universe keeps turning at the same rate year after year, and nothing is able to slow it down.
(Later we will address the claims that the Earth has slowed its rotation).
As for Newton and Einstein, geocentrism can use both a rotating Earth in a fixed universe
or a fixed Earth in a rotating universe, if desired, since all we need to do is invert the equations, as Einstein himself did.
READ MORE : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=80229.msg2158366#msg2158366
In March 2007, it was found that the variation of radio emissions from the planet did not match Saturn's rotation rate. This variance may be caused by geyser activity on Saturn's moon Enceladus. The water vapor emitted into Saturn's orbit by this activity becomes charged and creates a drag upon Saturn's magnetic field, slowing its rotation slightly relative to the rotation of the planet.
THE QUESTION No 2 :
If variations in Saturn's rotation rate can be assigned (at least theoretically) to geyser activity of Enceladus, what consequence should we expect (from the same cause - geyser activity) to the rate of rotation of Enceladus itself??? Extreme consequences???
Wiki quote :
Enceladus is tidally locked with Saturn, keeping the same face toward the planet. It completes one orbit every 32.9 hours within the densest part of Saturn's E Ring.
THE QUESTION No 3 :
If variations in Saturn's rotation rate can be assigned (at least theoretically) to geyser activity of Enceladus, and if it is more than reasonably to assume that geyser activity would have extreme consequences to the rate of rotation of Enceladus itself, isn't it more than reasonably to assume that Enceladus in these circumstances couldn't remain tidally locked with Saturn due to it's changed rate of rotation?
I'm more applied maths.
Then, you must know trigonometry.
My formulas stand correct, here they are:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2200750#msg2200750
My readers know that when I post a formula, they already know that it has been verified and is correct.
That is why they trust me each and every time.
a bulge you seem to think would exist on a sphere.
You have reached the point where you want a round earth with no curvature.
Take a look at yourself: you are COMPLAINING that a spherical Earth has a bulge!
Then, you are a flat earth believer, you just don't know it yet.
The wider physics community question the elements you have lifted from Dr Yeh.
No lifting.
My formula was derived DIRECTLY in terms of the Michelson-Gale interferometer.
It coincides perfectly with Dr. Yeh's formula, published in the most respected journal in nonlinear optics:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2149444#msg2149444
It coincides perfectly with Dr. Yeh's formula, published in the most respected journal in nonlinear optics:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2149444#msg2149444
My formula, the most important equation in physics today:
(https://image.ibb.co/dbZ7Kd/gsac2.jpg)
Why? Because it answers the deepest questions asked by all scientists at once and directly.
If there was curvature, what would you expect it to look like?
Exactly what the following precise formulas imply:
CURVATURE
C = R(1 - cos[s/(2R)]) - angle measured in radians
R = 6378,164 km
s = distance
VISUAL OBSTACLE
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/Capture_zpswhoewt2o.jpg)
BD = (R + h)/{[2Rh + h2]1/2(sin s/R)(1/R) + cos s/R} - R
BD = visual obstacle
h = altitude of observer
No curvature across the strait of Gibraltar, no ascending slope, no midpoint 3.5 meter visual obstacle, a perfectly flat surface of the water all the way to Africa:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x42v7ip
38:28 to 38:35
(http://image.ibb.co/n3bHw6/gib.jpg)
From the same spot, a splendid photograph:
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/55/130948289_44854d63fa_b.jpg)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/carlosromero/130948289#
You are acting like a chatbot.Sorry, Maraner and Zendri derived the Sagnac effect! Read what they say:
You are repeating the same nonsense all over again.
A sure sign of mental distress or of a mechanical response coming from a machine.
Here is the Maraner-Zendri formula: Maraner-Zendri formula (https://www.dropbox.com/s/y1t6uxf1nw8w6b4/General%20relativistic%20Sagnac%20formula%20revised%20by%20Paolo%20Maraner%20%C2%B7%20Jean-Pierre%20Zendri.png?dl=1)
What Maraner and Zendri did is to derive the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula with relativistic corrections which are dependent on the center of rotation, and NOT the SAGNAC EFFECT.
General relativistic Sagnac formula revised by Paolo Maraner · Jean-Pierre Zendri
Abstract The Sagnac effect is a time or phase shift observed between two beams of light traveling in opposite directions in a rotating interferometer. We show that the standard description of this effect within the framework of general relativity misses the effect of deflection of light due to rotational inertial forces. We derive the necessary modification and demonstrate it through a
detailed analysis of the square Sagnac interferometer rotating about its symmetry axis in Minkowski space-time.
The role of the time shift in a Sagnac interferometer in the synchronization procedure of remote clocks as well as its analogy with the Aharanov-Bohm effect are revised.
Keywords Sagnac effect · Relativistic corrections · Clocks synchronization · Aharanov-Bohm effect
They used the SAME derivation as did Michelson based on a comparison of two sides, AND NOT THE TWO LOOPS as required by the definition of the Sagnac effect.No, it is not just for the "comparison of two sides" it is the analysis of the whole loop with the light travelling in both directions as did Michelson, Sagnac, Silberstein and the Conspiracy of Light site.
They are analyzing the CORIOLIS EFFECT with relativistic corrections, NOT the SAGNAC EFFECT which requires two loops.So you and only you say! But none of Michelson, Sagnac, Silberstein and Paolo Maraner · Jean-Pierre Zendri and any number of others agree.
The first term of the fringe shift is the CORIOLIS EFFECT term derived by Hajra, Silberstein and Post.
No big deal.Why do you need two "formulae" and where is the transition between them?
What we want is the TRUE GLOBAL SAGNAC EFFECT FORMULA.
This one:
(https://image.ibb.co/dbZ7Kd/gsac2.jpg)
You still don't get it.
Please show to everyone here that any of the two formulas are wrong.
It is plain trigonometry.
Are you telling your readers that you cannot derive very simple formulas?
They have been around for many years here, you think that if the RE thought they were false they wouldn't have said something about it?
But they know that the formulas are correct.
It has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions that this bulge does not exist,
Then, the Earth is flat and you are a flat earth believer.
Is this supposed to be a joke on your part? You seem to complain that a spherical earth has curvature.
You are located now on the beach, Grimsby. Distance to Toronto, 55 km.
Here is what you are going to see on spherical earth: an ascending slope, a midpoint curvature of 59 meters, and a visual obstacle measuring even more (use my formula with AE = 5 meters).
The formulas are very precise and require basic trigonometry.
Are you telling your readers that you cannot follow such simple derivations?
Your message is UNINTELLIGIBLE.
Question for the moderators: why is mak3m allowed to troll the upper forums?
Now, the RE are going to have to explain why Enceladus' rate of rotation is not modified (as it should), given the fact that it can modify Saturn's rate of rotation.No we don't.
Well, since you are keeping your head in the send, then obviously you can't see shit.P.S. Rabinoz, Jack, you are such a great comedians,Still nothing of value, I see.but you are no match to this guy:
---The only acceptable conclusion that can be drawn from these two experiments, Michelson–Morley, on the one hand, and Michelson–Gale, on the other hand, is that the hypothesis of the existence of a medium of propagation for light is not tenable, unless we accept geocentric implications from the combined effect of both experiments (MM and MGP). In the classical context, it is clear that the Sagnac effect cannot at all be explained, unless we admit that the earth is at rest while the whole universe rotates around the stationary earth.Completely wrong.
Firstly, it wouldn't matter if Earth was rotating with the aether at rest, Earth was at rest with the aether rotating around Earth, or both rotating around the axis of Earth. All three would produce the same result.
But more importantly, that ignores stellar aberration, which makes sense in the context of Earth having a speed of roughly 30 km/s.
The detection of stellar aberration combined with the MM experiment refutes the aether model entirely.
Again, your message is UNINTELLIGIBLE.
that does not exist in the real world.
Exactly.
Only on A FLAT EARTH, you'd have no bulge at all.
You are whining that a spherical earth actually has curvature.
You are trolling the upper forums.
Sorry, Maraner and Zendri derived the Sagnac effect! Read what they say:We don't! That formula is for the Sagnac effect, it was the Sagnac effect long before you were born and YOU cannot change it!
What they say is one thing, the formula they provide is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.
Please read.
Here is the formula provided by Maraner and Zendri:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/y1t6uxf1nw8w6b4/General%20relativistic%20Sagnac%20formula%20revised%20by%20Paolo%20Maraner%20%C2%B7%20Jean-Pierre%20Zendri.png?dl=1)
The main term of the phase shift is this:
4AΩ/c^2
But this is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula, they add higher relativistic terms to it.
You can't have A SINGLE FORMULA FOR TWO DIFFERENT EFFECTS, CAN YOU?
If they say it is the SAGNAC EFFECT and the formula they provide is the CORIOLIS EFFECT, something is very wrong isn't it?Someone is very wrong aren't they it? And that someone is you!
4AΩ/c^2.So you say but you are wrong!
THIS IS THE CORIOLIS EFFECT FORMULA.
1. Have you ever seen this before :
1. Have you ever seen this before :
Have you seen this before:
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the tank to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?
Will you claim pure magic with gas magically being held inside an open container exposed to a vacuum?
Will you claim pure magic of an object being accelerated without a force? (And if so, why can't the tank and person do so?)
Will you claim pure magic of an object having a force applied without the corresponding reactionary force? (And if so, why can't the tank and person do so?)
Or will you be rational for once and accept that rockets will work in a vacuum?
It is the question you have been avoiding for this entire thread.
Care to try answering it?
You can start with this simple question you have been avoiding ever since it was brought up as you know it destroys your position:Don't you have any scruples?
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?Thrust is that magic word (force) you are looking for, isn't it?
Thrust is that magic word you are looking for, isn't it?Thrust is the second body?
Sorry, that still doesn't answer my question.
Of course not, you trust in you, and you were George Carlin's main topic, also! How come?In bullshit you trustNo, we don't trust in you.
This means that, if this were to be the case (that rockets move due to "recoil action/reaction")- more than half of any rocket's fuel mass would have to be ejected at that speed - as illustrated in this diagram:
(https://i.postimg.cc/j5QkT9Rn/NEWTON-NASA-1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/g04ZPqfk/NEWTON-NASA-2.jpg)
Of course, this is not the case - and would be quite impossible to do.
Why do you think it's not the case? Which part do you think is impossible?
Again:
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?
(https://i.postimg.cc/MKF2Y0Vp/ROCKET-PROPULSION-X.jpg)So you go and find the "As we shall see latter(sic), maximum thrust occurs when Pe=Pa" and find out what it means.
So, in the air there is force between the air and the exhaust.As Milan Tarot would say : "Javio se još jedan iz linije za pametne!"
Why is not the rocket included?
How can rocket acceerate in the air if no force acts on it?
Most scientists know about the Michelson-Morely experiment – that failed to detect any movement of the earth round the sun. This had to be overcome so the Fitzgerald-Lorentz shortening of the apparatus was proposed, and eventually the paradoxical Relativity Theory was invented by Einstein to overcome this problem.No, Einstein developed Special Relativity to explain the invariance of Maxwell's Equations in various inertial reference frames.
However, there are three other experiments that have been deliberately ignored by universities because they support geocentricity.Where did you drag "deliberately ignored by universities" up from? Your fertile imagination!
(a) The Michelson-Gale experiment (Reference – Astrophysical Journal 1925 v 61 pp 140-5) – This detected the aether passing the surface of the earth with an accuracy of 2% of the speed of the daily rotation of the earth! Thus, the Michelson-Morely experiment detected no movement of the earth around the sun, yet the Michelson-Gale experiment measured the earth’s rotation (or the aether’s rotation around the earth!) to within 2%! This surely speaks volumes for geocentricity.A bit of honesty please!
(b) “Airey’s failure” (Reference – Proc. Roy. Soc. London v 20 p 35) – Telescopes have to be very slightly tilted to get the starlight going down the axis of the tube because of the earth’s “speed around the sun”. Airey filled a telescope with water that greatly slowed down the speed of the light inside the telescope and found that he did not have to change the angle of the telescope. This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the correct angle so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If it was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle.Not necessarily so! Airey's fits far better with relativity than with any aether theory!
(c) The Sagnac experiment (Reference – Comptes Rendus 1913 v157 p 708-710 and 1410-3) – Sagnac rotated a table complete with light and mirrors with the light being passed in opposite directions around the table between the mirrors. He detected the movement of the table by the movement of the interference fringes on the target where they were recombined. This proved that there IS an aether that the light has to pass through and this completely destroys Einstein’s theory of Relativity that says there is no aether. It is for this reason that this experiment is completely ignored by scientists. More recently Kantor has found the same result with similar apparatus.No, it did NOT "prove that there IS an aether" nor did it "completely destroy Einstein’s theory of Relativity".
All these experiments are never taught at universities, so consequently, scientists, including most Christian creationists, are ignorant of this evidence for geocentricity.That is total rubbish and just proves you own ignorance.
As for MMX itself, the common interpretation by Special Relativity theorists is that the experiment yielded a “null” result. Yes, if you are looking for fringe shifts in the interferometer that coincide with an Earth moving around the sun at 30km/sec, I guess one would be predisposed to conclude that the results of MMX were “null.”No, they can be regarded as NULL because the reading was less than the measuring capability of the apparatus used.
But the truth is, in the technical sense of the term, the results of MMX were anything but “null.” Null means zero, but MMX did not register a zero ether drift.
So was the case for every interferometer experiment performed for the next 80 years until the 1960s – a small ether drift that was a fraction of 30km/sec. This was a conundrum for Einstein and his followers, since the Special Theory of Relativity, which was invented to answer MMX, claimed that there was NO ether at all in space – none, nada, zilch, zero. In fact, Einstein said that if there was any ether in space, then his theory is nullified.Look all this was covered in this old post and others but YOU seem to have the memory span of a gold-fish and bring the same old thing up again and again ad nauseum.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
You claim that, "They reasoned that". I suspect that is really "cikljamas reasoned that"!
Read about Michelson's thoughts on the matter (again and again and AGAIN!):QuoteAs mentioned above, as early as 1904 Michelson had proposed using such a device to measure the rotation of the earth, but he hadn't pursued the idea, since measurements of absolute rotation are fairly commonplace (e.g. Focault’s pendulum). Nevertheless, he (along with Gale) agreed to perform the experiment in 1925 (at considerable cost) at the urging of "relativists", who wished him to verify the shift of 236/1000 of a fringe predicted by special relativity. This was intended mainly to refute the theory of an ether fully dragged around with the spinning earth, as well as the only physically plausible ballistic theory of light propagation, both of which predict zero phase shift (for a circular device). Michelson was not enthusiastic, since classical optics on the assumption of a stationary ether predicted exactly the same shift does special relativity (as explained above). He said,Note that Michelson himself claims that the MGX is
"We will undertake this, although my conviction is strong that we shall prove only that
the earth rotates on its axis, a conclusion which I think we may be said to be sure of already."
As Harvey lime wrote in his biographical sketch of Michelson, "The experiment, performed on the prairies west of Chicago, showed a displacement of 230/1000, in very close agreement with the prediction. The rotation of the Earth received another independent proof, the theory of relativity another verification. But neither fact had much significance." Michelson himself wrote that "this result may be considered as an additional evidence in favor of relativity - or equally as evidence of a stationary ether".
From Math Pages, 2.7 The Sagnac Effect (http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm)"an additional evidence in favor of relativity - or equally as evidence of a stationary ether".Not a moving ether! But, of course,Mr High and Mighty cikljamas, thinks he knows more than Michelson and all the others!Quote from: cikljamasThey measured a difference. Existence of aether established. Astounding as it may seem there is no experiment yet devised by science which has established whether the earth actually rotates or not.Rubbish! The MGX and the numerous modern Sagnac Loop Gyroscopes of the present time measure the rotation of the earth as once per sidereal day!
The experiments of Sagnac and Michelson & Gale are rarely mentioned. Until recently it was quite difficult to find a reference to them.Quote from: cikljamas<< Totally irrelevant! Sagnac and Relativity are quite consistent. >>
So try again!
But on the modern versions of the MMX and experiments with a similar purpose, I suppose you read these little bits?
From Michelson–Morley experiment, Subsequent experiments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Subsequent_experiments)(https://www.dropbox.com/s/k0kitmgzmeottwe/MM%20type%20Expts%20from%201881%20to%201930.png?dl=1)
And from Michelson–Morley experiment, Recent experiments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Recent_experiments)(https://www.dropbox.com/s/yw7b1i5wwtfa0pa/MM%20type%20Expts%20from%201955%20to%201973.png?dl=1)
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/x3rm2hgoma90q7r/MM%20type%20Expts%20from%202003%20to%202009.png?dl=1)
No, Michelson and Morely have not been forgotten and the Sagnac Effect is extremely important in modern navigation instruments.Just remember that small-minded ignorant people ridicule what they cannot understand,While Oscar Wilde wrote, "I am not young enough to know everything."
And Einstein wrote, "The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know."
So try again!
But on the modern versions of the MMX and experiments with a similar purpose, I suppose you read these little bits?
From Michelson–Morley experiment, Subsequent experiments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Subsequent_experiments)(https://www.dropbox.com/s/k0kitmgzmeottwe/MM%20type%20Expts%20from%201881%20to%201930.png?dl=1)
Your message is UNINTELLIGIBLE.
Question for the moderators: why is mak3m allowed to troll the upper forums?
No! He measured less than or equal to that! Big difference because that was the limit of the equipment!So try again!
But on the modern versions of the MMX and experiments with a similar purpose, I suppose you read these little bits?
From Michelson–Morley experiment, Subsequent experiments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Subsequent_experiments)(https://www.dropbox.com/s/k0kitmgzmeottwe/MM%20type%20Expts%20from%201881%20to%201930.png?dl=1)
Michelson wrote about the "decidedly negative result" (IN A SENSE THAT HE FAILED TO DETECT THE EXPECTED DEVIATION OF THE INTERFERENCE FRINGES FROM THE ZERO (0,40 OF A FRINGE), NOT IN A SENSE THAT HE FAILED TO DETECT ANY DEVIATION WHATSOEVER) in a letter to Lord Rayleigh in August 1887:
The Experiments on the relative motion of the earth and ether have been completed and the result decidedly negative. The expected deviation of the interference fringes from the zero should have been 0.40 of a fringe (Cleveland 1887.) – the maximum displacement was 0.02 and the average much less than 0.01 – and then not in the right place. As displacement is proportional to squares of the relative velocities it follows that if the ether does slip past the relative velocity is less than one sixth of the earth’s velocity.
—?Albert Abraham Michelson, 1887
So,
0,02 of a fringe (fringe shift expected 0,4) = 6,71 km/s (This is what Michelson measured in Cleveland in 1887.!!!)
0,01 of a fringe (fringe shift expected 0,4) = 4,74 km/s (This is what Michelson measured in Cleveland in 1887.!!!)No! He measured less than or equal to that! Big difference because that was the limit of the equipment!
0,015 of a fringe (fringe shift expected 1,13) = 3,35 km/s (This is what Morley and Miller measured in Cleveland in 1902-1904.!!!)No! He measured less than or equal to that! Big difference because that was the limit of the equipment!
0,002 of a fringe (fringe shift expected 0,75) = 1,5 km/s (This is what Joos measured in Jena in 1930.!!!)No! He measured less than or equal to that! Big difference because that was the limit of the equipment!
So,No! He measured less than or equal to that! So it cannot be differentiated from a null result!
6,71 km/s is not zero km/s (and cannot be considered "null" result)
4,47 km/s is not zero km/s (and cannot be considered "null" result)No! He measured less than or equal to that! So it cannot be differentiated from a null result!
3,35 km/s is not zero km/s (and cannot be considered "null" result)No! He measured less than or equal to that! So it cannot be differentiated from a null result!
1,5 km/s is not zero km/s (and cannot be considered "null" result)No! He measured less than or equal to that! So it cannot be differentiated from a null result!
So try again!I can't help but to wonder how MMX might work on VIRGO's 3km or LIGO's 4km interferometers.
But on the modern versions of the MMX and experiments with a similar purpose, I suppose you read these little bits?
From Michelson–Morley experiment, Subsequent experiments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Subsequent_experiments)(https://www.dropbox.com/s/k0kitmgzmeottwe/MM%20type%20Expts%20from%201881%20to%201930.png?dl=1)
And from Michelson–Morley experiment, Recent experiments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Recent_experiments)(https://www.dropbox.com/s/yw7b1i5wwtfa0pa/MM%20type%20Expts%20from%201955%20to%201973.png?dl=1)
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/x3rm2hgoma90q7r/MM%20type%20Expts%20from%202003%20to%202009.png?dl=1)
It's funny the way cikljamas ignores everything after 1930! A bit of confirmation bias maybe?
I can't help but to wonder how MMX might work on VIRGO's 3km or LIGO's 4km interferometers.
Poor old Gaspard-Gustave de Coriolis would be turning in his grave!Quite possibly. How fast and in which direction would depend on how close his body is to the equator. 8)
1. Jack, have you ever seen this :Yes I have. And notice that you quoted the refutation of it?
Thrust is that magic word you are looking for, isn't it?Thrust is the second body?
Sorry, that still doesn't answer my question.
Let's try once again :No, that isn't point 1.
1. When a rocket's combustion chamber is filled with accelerated gas
You might find the discussion in a "real" physics forum interesting . . .Again, your message is UNINTELLIGIBLE.
that does not exist in the real world.
Exactly.
Only on A FLAT EARTH, you'd have no bulge at all.
You are whining that a spherical earth actually has curvature.
You are trolling the upper forums.
No Im questioning your formula and again you cant answer it and when I post my own you ignore.
OnQuote from: sandokhan4/13/2019 at 1:05 AM, sandokhan said:
The science of Physics will progress much further once it realizes that in a magnet there are TWO STREAMS OF PARTICLES, not only a South - North flux of lines, but also a North-South flux of lines.
Now I know this is a thread about Voodoo not Physics.
First you deny that photons are particles suggest but they are actually scalar fields.
Then you suggest that magnetic fields are actually particulate, with not one but two types of particle.
And after that it gets really "interesting" and you could almost copy the answers from those physicists for use here.Quote from: sandokhanOn 4/13/2019 at 6:29 AM, sandokhan said:This is a bizarre variant of the straw man argument.
Are you going to call the Aharonov-Bohm voodoo physics? It is being caused by the POTENTIAL, in the absence of vector fields.
Are you going to call Whittaker's proofs as voodoo physics? He proved, mathematically, the existence of scalar/longitudinal waves.
Are you going to call Maxwell's original set of equations, which are invariant under galilean transformations voodoo physics?
None of those things have to be voodoo for you to base voodoo on them.Quote from: sandokhanOn 4/13/2019 at 6:29 AM, sandokhan said:Oooooh. Scary.
You better not.
Both the Black Sun and the visible Sun orbit beyond the Dome. There is a certain distance between them, so in an annular eclipse the distance increases.No, that does not prove that "It can't be the Moon"! You have not proven that there cannot be other explanations.
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/a7Sr87BVf3mLBY4JSTCkTW-320-80.jpg)
The object eclipsing the sun is quite proven to be the moon.
It takes a single counterexample to invalidate a theory.
It can't be the Moon, just take a look at the computations:
The following screenshots of the Bathurst Lighthouse on Rottnest Island are taken from Avonmore Tce, Cottesloe Western Australia.The distance of the lighthouse from the beach is 20 km.The screenshots are from an earlier version of this video:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/wbbnmmcms1x9nr6/Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20from%20100%20ft.jpg?dl=1)
Bathurst Lighthouse from 100 ft(https://www.dropbox.com/s/05kwhacfbdvfhpc/Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20from%206%20ft.jpg?dl=1)
Bathurst Lighthouse from 6 ft
Bathurst Lighthouse - The fastest flat Earth destroyer in the West.
- If the ocean is flat, why is far more visible from 100 ft above sea-level than when 6 ft above sea-level.
It does look as though a "bulge of water" is between the camera and Rottnest Island.- The focal centre of the lamp on the lighthouse is also 100 ft above sea-level so if the earth were flat that lamp would be at eye-level.
On the flat earth the we are told that "however high you ascend - the horizon will rise to your eye level."
But in this case the horizon clearly does not "rise eye level".
So, why doesn’t the horizon rise to eye-level as it should if the ocean were flat?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .So what hides the far container ship and what causes a clean sharp horizon closer than the ship?
These two photos are from a video of two large cargo ships off the coast near Wollongong, NSW and taken from about 10 m above sea-level.
The nearer ship is 16.7 km from the camera, the farther ship's containers are is still very visible but most of the shIp is hidden behind "something".
And here we have a huge bulk ore carrier quite visible:
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/bOxy40.jpg)And a container vessel with the hull hidden behind something:
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/H5Pzfb.jpg)
The maker of the video those screenshots came from wrote:Quote from: MCtheEmcee1So the nearer ship, the EPIC, was 16.7 km from the camera and the farther ship, the container ship was 26.0 km from the camera.
MCtheEmcee1 Published on Mar 21, 2018
Cargo ship with the entire hull below the horizon. Only the containers are visible.
The background ship called CONTI LYON, and at SEVEN pm, that ship was at [-34.44074, 151.18053].
The foreground ship - EPIC - was moored at [-34.3693, 151.0004].
The camera was at location is -34.347 150.921 at 10m ASL.
Collins Rock, in the suburb of Woonona NSW.
I took the GLOBAL SAGNAC effect formula right into the lair of the relativists, but they couldn't handle me, so the thread was closed.No they ridiculed your "radical chronology of history" because it's rubbish and your Voodoo physics that does not work!
They also could not handle the new radical chronology of history.
Here is the global algorithms for the Riemann zeta function thread:I couldn't care less about your Riemann zeta function!
You have not proven that there cannot be other explanations.I do not have to! You are the one claiming it is "proof" so the onus on you is to prove "that there cannot be other explanations" before YOU claim it is proof!
Is this supposed to be a joke on your part?
What? The Bathurst lighthouse and container ships?Rubbish, look again! And I'm not trying to "prove" anything at all - just to show that there might be other explanations!
It is the quality of the camera itself which cannot capture the ENTIRE view. You bring a better quality photographic equipment and everything will come into view. No counterexamples forthcoming from you at all.
So, if the ocean is flat, why is far more visible from 100 ft above sea-level than when 6 ft above sea-level.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/wbbnmmcms1x9nr6/Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20from%20100%20ft.jpg?dl=1)
Bathurst Lighthouse from 100 ft(https://www.dropbox.com/s/05kwhacfbdvfhpc/Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20from%206%20ft.jpg?dl=1)
Bathurst Lighthouse from 6 ft
Let me show you how it's done.Let's not!
Let us go to St. Catharines.
Now, the fact that the lower portion of a building/ship cannot be seen in some photographs is a result of the quality of the camera used:Sure, in some photos but it has nothing to do with the cases that I showed!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/sizes/l/in/photostream/ (and the rooftop of the Sky Dome very visible, completely impossible on a round earth)No, that is NOT impossible on a Globe earth at all - there could be and often are other reasons especially with photos close to the surface of cold water!
| And here we have a huge bulk ore carrier quite visible: (https://i.resimyukle.xyz/bOxy40.jpg) | And a container vessel with the hull hidden behind something: (https://i.resimyukle.xyz/H5Pzfb.jpg) |
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/hnht4c1r5hh4vx1/Sunrise%20-%20Black%20Sea%20HD%2C%20kalcymc%20-%20sun%20part%20risen.jpg?dl=1) (https://www.dropbox.com/s/igmdb1pr4nor5az/Sunrise%20-%20Black%20Sea%20HD%2C%20kalcymc%20-%20sun%20%20risen.jpg?dl=1) Video of Sunrise over Black Sea HD by kalcymc (https://m.youtube.co/watch?v=XwkdmHt_Ez8&t=112s) |
| (https://www.dropbox.com/s/agflgl8bz3xhwfl/LHG-0693%20-%20Sunset%20Karumba%2020070808%2006.25.02%2C%20300%20mm.jpg?dl=1) LHG-0693 - Sunset Karumba 20070808 06.25.02, 300 mm | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/y3l9fm2orxrluxn/LHG-0697%20-%20Sunset%20Karumba%2020070808%2006.25.29%2C%20300%20mm.JPG?dl=1) LHG-0697 - Sunset Karumba 20070808 06.25.29, 300 mm |
What? The Bathurst lighthouse and container ships?
It is the quality of the camera itself which cannot capture the ENTIRE view. You bring a better quality photographic equipment and everything will come into view. No counterexamples forthcoming from you at all.
Let me show you how it's done.
Let us go to St. Catharines.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/sizes/l/in/photostream/
ROGERS CENTRE: SKY DOME clearly visible in the photograph; however IT PROVES THE FLAT EARTH THEORY DIRECTLY AND EXACTLY.
Height of Sky Dome: 86 meters, the building itself can be seen without any terrestrial refraction in the photograph, but we will include 10 meters, for the sake of the discussion; that is, the influence of the refraction will be some 10 meters...
Two other photographs, taken right there, on the same beach:
http://valdodge.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/pirate-ship-5137.jpg
http://valdodge.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/mirage-across-the-lake-5112.jpg
The altitude of the photographer can be easily estimated to be at or around 10 meters (if we would ascend to some 20 meters, that would mean that we are on top of a five-story building; certainly not the case here, as we can see from the photographs themselves; I would estimate some 5 meters, but we will go to 10 meters).
On a round earth, taking refraction into account, and ascending to some 10 meters, it would still be impossible to see the rooftop of the Sky Dome.
In order to see the roof top of the Sky Dome, we would have to ascend to at least 20 meters, that is, on top of a five story building; as we can see from the photographs taken right there, we are right on the St. Catharines beach itself.
Data for St. Catharines, Lake Ontario, distance to Toronto, 60 km:
2 meters (observer) - 158 meters (visual obstacle)
3 - 150.5
5 - 138
10 - 117.5
Now, the fact that the lower portion of a building/ship cannot be seen in some photographs is a result of the quality of the camera used:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/150629243/ (CN Tower barely visible)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/83867796/ (with a better camera, more details become visible)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/sizes/l/in/photostream/ (and the rooftop of the Sky Dome very visible, completely impossible on a round earth)
As for the other images/videos, the explanation is very simple: even the Nikon camera could not capture the entire visual target (the second boat, as an example).
Here is the video you posted on the two container ships:
THE AUTHOR OF THE VIDEO REFUSED TO OFFER ANY DETAILS AS TO THE DISTANCE INVOLVED, OR THE HEIGHT WHERE THE PHOTOGRAPH WAS TAKEN.
Please read from the comments section.
Data Lore says:
Good video but lacks information even though some has been given through the comments but people always want to know : Your viewer height from sea level , distance to the objects(in this case ships) name/type of ships , date taken and time etc
All this information is best to have especially when you title it "Debunk Flat Earth" rather hard to do that when you have given no information to work out anything is it?
Here is how the author of the video responded:
Distance to the boats is irrelevant. Next you would need to ask what the containers are carrying, which would determine the draught, which would affect how much of the ship you can see.. Fact of the matter is that the hull is almost entirely obscured from view because of the curvature of the earth...
Incredible!
And it gets better.
Data Lore says:
Distance to the boat is extremely important , with your viewer height of 10mtrs and knowing how far the boat is you can use that to find out how much earth curve drop there should be E.G viewer height 10 meter distance 30 miles thats would be Refracted Hidden= 287.4 Feet
So how far away the boat was is important.
Again, the author of the video responds in this manner:
+data lore, I appreciate that these technical details are important at some level, but I refuse to discuss these with flat earthers.
Data Lore points out:
:-) well you have gone from "Distance to the boats is irrelevant" to " I appreciate that these technical details are important at some level"
Well you can understand my confusion when you call it " Nikon P900 debunks flat earth (again)..." Its easy to assume you are into debunking flat earth .
Well like I said nice video , and I was not saying you should know all this information just pointing out that people will ask you for more information because they are using it as proof of curve and they need the details .
Just like rabinoz, here is how the author of the video responds:
+Data Lore, I think we are primarily on the same page.. Those details are just not important to me in observing the earths curvature.
Another viewer said this:
This debunks nothing! Its doesnt show how the closer ship looks before he zoomed in and if the further ship was even visual. That he doesnt show the actual zooming in, says everything! ; )
This video does nothing. You have to then zoom all the way in on that cargo ship and see if you can then see the bottom. That’s what they do in the other videos. I was waiting for it.
SO, NOTHING AT ALL.
What are you talking about, the locations of the ships and the observer as well as the observers height is right in the description of the video:
The background ship called CONTI LYON, and at SEVEN pm, that ship was at [-34.44074, 151.18053].
The foreground ship - EPIC - was moored at [-34.3693, 151.0004].
The camera was at location is -34.347 150.921 at 10m ASL
Collins Rock, in the suburb of Woonona NSW.
Also, you didn't answer my question. How are the Rogers center and the bottom 1/3 of the CN Tower magically hidden behind a wall of water?
THOSE DETAILS WERE ADDED LATER!!!
At first, the author of the video REFUSED TO OFFER ANY DETAILS, as can be clearly seen from his own comments.
Pressed by his viewers he offered these figures which nobody can verify at all.
Remember what he said:
Distance to the boats is irrelevant. Next you would need to ask what the containers are carrying, which would determine the draught, which would affect how much of the ship you can see.. Fact of the matter is that the hull is almost entirely obscured from view because of the curvature of the earth...
+data lore, I appreciate that these technical details are important at some level, but I refuse to discuss these with flat earthers.
+Data Lore, I think we are primarily on the same page.. Those details are just not important to me in observing the earths curvature.
So, cut out the BS on the figures he offered.
The answer is very simple: the camera cannot capture the entire visual obstacle, certainly the bottom of the image will not appear due to this very fact.
That is why I posted several flickr images, each of which zooms further, so that finally we have the Sky Dome visible.
The figures are very clear.
From the beach in St. Catharines, 50 km distance to Toronto, on the beach, no Sky Dome could have been visible.
As for the video with the lighthouse, please read the comments section: the viewers were not convinced at all, in fact, they bring up very interesting points.
Bathurst Lighthouse video:
The comments section DESTROYS THE VIDEO.
Please read.
Wolfie6020 who knows when this vid was taken? Are you seriously asking us to take your word for it? Because you offer zero proof of the date.
What you have admitted in passing is that the swell does indeed invalidate your vid. Unlike your halfwit followers who don’t understand the importance of the swell off Rottnest, you do know. My point is that the swell can be up to 4.5m at various times of the year. Which you completely fail to mention in any of your Bathurst Lighthouse vids. Very deceptive and it has tricked your zombie minded followers
Btw why spell metres, meters? Team Wolfie is a NASA shill account. Uses American spelling.
Better lift your game, this vid is an epic fail.
What are you talking about, the locations of the ships and the observer as well as the observers height is right in the description of the video:I didn't bother because I'm not trying to debunk your photos, I'll leave that to others!
The background ship called CONTI LYON, and at SEVEN pm, that ship was at [-34.44074, 151.18053].
The foreground ship - EPIC - was moored at [-34.3693, 151.0004].
The camera was at location is -34.347 150.921 at 10m ASL
Collins Rock, in the suburb of Woonona NSW.
Also, you didn't answer my question. How are the Rogers center and the bottom 1/3 of the CN Tower magically hidden behind a wall of water?
THOSE DETAILS WERE ADDED LATER!!!
At first, the author of the video REFUSED TO OFFER ANY DETAILS, as can be clearly seen from his own comments.Where did he "REFUSE TO OFFER ANY DETAILS"? The details came from
roohif found some info -WheresWa11y lives not that far from Wollongong.
The background ship called CONTI LYON, and at SEVEN pm, that ship was at [-34.44074, 151.18053].
The foreground ship - EPIC - was moored at [-34.3693, 151.0004].
The camera was at location is -34.347 150.921 at 10m
Collins Rock, in the suburb of Woonona NSW.
MC could you pin this or copy this to the description?
Pressed by his viewers he offered these figures which nobody can verify at all.Yes, "Fact of the matter is that the hull is almost entirely obscured from view" by something!
Remember what he said:
Distance to the boats is irrelevant. Next you would need to ask what the containers are carrying, which would determine the draught, which would affect how much of the ship you can see.. Fact of the matter is that the hull is almost entirely obscured from view because of the curvature of the earth...
The answer is very simple: the camera cannot capture the entire visual obstacle, certainly the bottom of the image will not appear due to this very fact.Rubbish again just face facts!
| More magnification cannot possibly show more of: (https://i.resimyukle.xyz/H5Pzfb.jpg) And a container vessel with the hull hidden behind something. | Or more of the lighthouse! (https://www.dropbox.com/s/05kwhacfbdvfhpc/Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20from%206%20ft.jpg?dl=1) Bathurst Lighthouse from 6 ft |
At the risk of sounding like a trollThat's no problem. It's the "conspiracy" ;D!
Why is it acceptable for FE to base entire arguments on photographs, often photographs presenting images different to reality, ie sinking buildings. Yet if I were to produce an image from low orbit or space of the earth's curve its CGI?
And still there's more on these "Conspiracy Theorists", BBC NEWS:Technology, YouTube aids flat earth conspiracy theorists, research suggests (https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47279253).
Yet there's more to follow ;):Quote from: The Flat Earth Society WikiPlace of the Conspiracy in FET (http://theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Place+of+the+Conspiracy+in+FET)
The existence of 'The Conspiracy' is a consequence of the FET. Virtually no one begins with 'The Conspiracy' and develops a belief in the Flat Earth Theory. Flat Earthers starts with the knowledge that the earth is flat, as they believe that all the evidence which they are personally able to collect and verify confirms this fact. As a consequence all the evidence to the contrary, much of which they are unable to personally test/verify is viewed as being false. The existence of such a huge quantity of false information indicates the existence of the conspiracy.
Essentially the reasoning boils down to -
P1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated
P2) The FET (Flat Earth Theory) is an obvious truth
P3) There is personally unverifiable evidence that contradicts the FET
C1) The unverifiable evidence that contradicts the FET is fabricated evidence
P4) If there is large amounts of fabricated evidence then there must be a conspiracy to fabricate it
P5) There is a large amount of fabricated evidence (see C1)
C2) There must be a conspiracy to fabricate it.
If there is no conspiracy there is no possibility that the earth could be flat and stationary.
THE BEST EVER LIGHTHOUSE EXPERIMENT PERFORMED IN SPAIN:
Flat Earth proven.
rabinoz, cut out the BS.I'm not trying to debunk anything other than your claim that a few photos PROVE the earth to be FLAT! They DO NOT!
THE BEST EVER LIGHTHOUSE EXPERIMENT PERFORMED IN SPAIN:
Flat Earth proven.
How are the Rogers center and the bottom 1/3 of the CN Tower magically hidden behind a wall of water?
I already did.
Now, the fact that the lower portion of a building/ship cannot be seen in some photographs is a result of the quality of the camera used:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/150629243/ (CN Tower barely visible)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/83867796/ (with a better camera, more details become visible)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/sizes/l/in/photostream/ (and the rooftop of the Sky Dome very visible, completely impossible on a round earth)
ALWAYS, the bottom of the images/pictures will disappear first. Progressively, if you zoom in with a better quality camera you will get to see more and more of the visual obstacle.
Now, it is your turn to offer explanations.
You have mentioned here "bulge in the water".
Can you explain how trillions of billions of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere?
You have never done so, nor can you provide any kind of an explanation.
Please explain how a graviton emitted by the iron/nickel core interacts with a graviton released by lake Ontario.
If you cannot, it means you believe in pure magic.
Explain how the ocean near Rottnest Island stays in place on the outer surface of a sphere.
How in the world can you believe in such a preposterous hypothesis, where water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere?
Please explain the attractive mechanism.
At the risk of sounding like a trollThat's no problem. It's the "conspiracy" ;D!
Why is it acceptable for FE to base entire arguments on photographs, often photographs presenting images different to reality, ie sinking buildings. Yet if I were to produce an image from low orbit or space of the earth's curve its CGI?And still there's more on these "Conspiracy Theorists", BBC NEWS:Technology, YouTube aids flat earth conspiracy theorists, research suggests (https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47279253).
Yet there's more to follow ;):Quote from: The Flat Earth Society WikiPlace of the Conspiracy in FET (http://theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Place+of+the+Conspiracy+in+FET)
The existence of 'The Conspiracy' is a consequence of the FET. Virtually no one begins with 'The Conspiracy' and develops a belief in the Flat Earth Theory. Flat Earthers starts with the knowledge that the earth is flat, as they believe that all the evidence which they are personally able to collect and verify confirms this fact. As a consequence all the evidence to the contrary, much of which they are unable to personally test/verify is viewed as being false. The existence of such a huge quantity of false information indicates the existence of the conspiracy.
Essentially the reasoning boils down to -
P1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated
P2) The FET (Flat Earth Theory) is an obvious truth
P3) There is personally unverifiable evidence that contradicts the FET
C1) The unverifiable evidence that contradicts the FET is fabricated evidence
P4) If there is large amounts of fabricated evidence then there must be a conspiracy to fabricate it
P5) There is a large amount of fabricated evidence (see C1)
C2) There must be a conspiracy to fabricate it.
If there is no conspiracy there is no possibility that the earth could be flat and stationary.
Wow
I'm still letting this sink in...
So the purpose of the society doesnt really stand up
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/about-the-society
Its futile
Lol most shocking thing is it took me 2 weeks to realise ;D
ABOUTFree thinking as long you accept the "TRUTH in recognizing the TRUE shape of the Earth - Flat.".
The mission of the Flat Earth Society is to promote and initiate discussion of Flat Earth theory as well as archive Flat Earth literature. Our forums act as a venue to encourage free thinking and debate.
The Flat Earth Society mans the guns against oppression of thought and the Globularist lies of a new age. Standing with reason we offer a home to those wayward thinkers that march bravely on with REASON and TRUTH in recognizing the TRUE shape of the Earth - Flat.
Come join us in our forums and get started learning about the greatest lie ever told.
MORE BAD NEWS FOR THE RE.The topic is "Rockets can't fly in a vacuum"! If you want to go on a fishing expedition make your own thread!
Wow
I'm still letting this sink in...
So the purpose of the society doesnt really stand up
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/about-the-society
Its futile
Lol most shocking thing is it took me 2 weeks to realise ;DQuoteABOUTFree thinking as long you accept the "TRUTH in recognizing the TRUE shape of the Earth - Flat.".
The mission of the Flat Earth Society is to promote and initiate discussion of Flat Earth theory as well as archive Flat Earth literature. Our forums act as a venue to encourage free thinking and debate.
The Flat Earth Society mans the guns against oppression of thought and the Globularist lies of a new age. Standing with reason we offer a home to those wayward thinkers that march bravely on with REASON and TRUTH in recognizing the TRUE shape of the Earth - Flat.
Come join us in our forums and get started learning about the greatest lie ever told.
At 1 minutes he shows the data according to, this lighthouse is 95 feet over the sea level, but that's not true, it's almost 128 feet. So i assume the rest is a failure and a proof of the round earth.
Really?
The height is clearly specified in at 1:34 in the video, using the AUTORIDAD PORTUARIA DE MALAGA data, that is, THEIR OWN PRECISE LOCAL DATA, not google searches like you did.
What? 128 feet? 39 meters?
Take a look at the lighthouse itself in the video, where are the 14 meters from the bottom of the lighthouse basement to the sea? Are you dreaming?
14 meters is the height of a four story building.
Please do not bother your viewers with BS data again.
At 1 minutes he shows the data according to, this lighthouse is 95 feet over the sea level, but that's not true, it's almost 128 feet. So i assume the rest is a failure and a proof of the round earth.
Really?
The height is clearly specified in at 1:34 in the video, using the AUTORIDAD PORTUARIA DE MALAGA data, that is, THEIR OWN PRECISE LOCAL DATA, not google searches like you did.
What? 128 feet? 39 meters?
Take a look at the lighthouse itself in the video, where are the 14 meters from the bottom of the lighthouse basement to the sea? Are you dreaming?
14 meters is the height of a four story building.
Please do not bother your viewers with BS data again.
Gravity.
These are the upper forums, not the CN section.
Please EXPLAIN THE ATTRACTIVE MECHANISM.
You want a bulge of water. Fine.
How does a graviton emitted by the iron/nickel core interact with a graviton released by lake Ontario? How do they attract each other?
Are you telling your viewers to accept this preposterous hypothesis only based on magic?
This is what you are doing: "gravity".
What gravity? Attractive gravity?
Please explain the mechanism.
Why would the bottom of the cn tower be chosen by the camera to be removed and replaced by a wall of water.
No shit.
Go ahead and do your own research in camera photography to get the well-known answer: always, the bottom of an image disappears before everything else.
Let me prove it.
Let us go to St. Catharines.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/sizes/l/in/photostream/
ROGERS CENTRE: SKY DOME clearly visible in the photograph; however IT PROVES THE FLAT EARTH THEORY DIRECTLY AND EXACTLY.
Height of Sky Dome: 86 meters, the building itself can be seen without any terrestrial refraction in the photograph, but we will include 10 meters, for the sake of the discussion; that is, the influence of the refraction will be some 10 meters...
Sea level, is NOT THE GROUND LEVEL.
You think the author of the video didn't know the difference?
http://www.malaga.es/es/turismo/patrimonio/lis_cd-9652/faro-torrox-rincon-singular
23 meters in height (altura).
Now, what you are saying is that there is a 14 METER difference, the height of a four story building.
(http://static.visitacostadelsol.com/visitacostadelsol/subidas/imagenes/3/8/arc_4183_g.jpg)
Care to point out where the 14 meters are in this photograph?
It looks more like 3 meters.
(http://static.visitacostadelsol.com/visitacostadelsol/subidas/imagenes/2/8/arc_4182_g.jpg)
(https://c8.alamy.com/compes/jwr4b7/vista-del-faro-de-blancas-a-lo-largo-de-la-escarpada-costa-torrox-costa-provincia-de-malaga-andalucia-espana-europa-occidental-jwr4b7.jpg)
The author of the video is correct.
Faro de Torrox is 26m above the ground and 39m above sea level. I assume the 39m is mean sea level, so it could vary with tides. Tides are not very dramatic in the Mediterranean though.
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faro_de_Torrox
Gravity.
Fine.
Explain the mechanism desired for your spherical Earth.
How do two gravitons attract each other?
If you cannot explain, and babble all over again "gravity" then we are done here.
You are telling your readers that trillions of billions of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere by PURE MAGIC.
You are obviously UNABLE to offer any kind of an explanation.
Here you are mentioning all over the place "bulge of water".
How does water stay curved?
Have you lost your mind to come here and utter "gravity"?
What gravity? Attractive gravity?
Please explain the mechanism.
Why would the camera arbitrarily single out the skyline and cover it with 80 or so meters of water and simulate a curved earth? Explain the technical camera mechanics that would cause that to happen?
Cut out the BS.
The boulders on the beach are a few feet away.
THE DISTANCE IS EVERYTHING.
The bottom of the CN Tower is located at a 60 km distance.
https://www.distancecalculator.net/from-toronto-to-st-catharines
Of course that is where the bottom of the image will first disappear.
Not my invention.
Here is the proof.
Why is the bottom of the lighthouse hidden by at least 24 feet on a flat earth when it should be hidden by 0 feet?
You are trolling the upper forums.
You'd need a very powerful camera, perhaps one that needs to be invented yet, to capture the entire visual obstacle.
The video presents every aspect explicitly: no such features could be seen on a round earth.
Sea level, is NOT THE GROUND LEVEL.
You think the author of the video didn't know the difference?
http://www.malaga.es/es/turismo/patrimonio/lis_cd-9652/faro-torrox-rincon-singular
23 meters in height (altura).
Now, what you are saying is that there is a 14 METER difference, the height of a four story building.
(http://static.visitacostadelsol.com/visitacostadelsol/subidas/imagenes/3/8/arc_4183_g.jpg)
Care to point out where the 14 meters are in this photograph?
It looks more like 3 meters.
(http://static.visitacostadelsol.com/visitacostadelsol/subidas/imagenes/2/8/arc_4182_g.jpg)
(https://c8.alamy.com/compes/jwr4b7/vista-del-faro-de-blancas-a-lo-largo-de-la-escarpada-costa-torrox-costa-provincia-de-malaga-andalucia-espana-europa-occidental-jwr4b7.jpg)
The author of the video is correct.
Sea level, is NOT THE GROUND LEVEL.Apparently not!
You think the author of the video didn't know the difference?
Torrox Lighthouse
The Torrox lighthouse is a lighthouse that is located on the coast of the municipality of Torrox , Málaga , Andalucía , Spain .
History
It was completed on May 1 , 1864 . Automatic, electrical operation, ignition by photoelectric cell. It has a height of 39 m above the sea and 26 m above the ground.
Gravity (from Latin gravitas, meaning 'weight'), or gravitation, is a natural phenomenon by which all things with mass or energy—including planets, stars, galaxies, and even light—are brought toward (or gravitate toward) one another.
In other words, pure magic.
You have any PROOF that there is such a thing as attractive gravity?
Take a look at yourself.
When asked to explain how water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere, you babble "gravity". Or the above-mentioned quote which explain nothing.
Are you actually claiming that everything is attracted to everything else?
Then, explain the mechanism.
Here is what you are saying:
put a wall of water in your image across
Again, I ask: have you lost your mind to assume that water stays curved as if by magic, and you come here to tell us that attractive gravity is a phenomenon, without ANY PROOFS AT ALL?
If you cannot explain how water stays curved on the surface of a sphere, there is nothing else to discuss here.
FE wins.
What mechanism in the camera is deciding this? What properties of a lens would cause this effect.
This would be well beyond the scope of this discussion.
That is why I told you to do your own research in this field if you are interested in findind more details.
I don't have to do any such thing once I have proven my point regarding the curvature.
YOU have to explain why we can see the rooftop of the Sky Dome where there should be none.
39 metres = 127 feet 11.4 inch, near enough to 128 feet!
26 meters is the ENTIRE height, from sea level to the top of the lighthouse.
There are no 14 meters, the height of a four story building, between the base of the lighthouse and the sea.
Descripción: Construido sobre una torre circulas de piedra de 23 metros sobre un edificio rectangular dedicado entre otros menesteres a vivienda y con un alcance de luz de 15 millas, servía para marcar el fondeadero que era muy utilizado por buques de diversos portes, utilizando para su iluminación aceite de oliva, parafina y petróleo, sucesivamente. Entre los años 1917-1922 se procede a su electrificación y se le acopla un destellador automático que se renovó en 1947. Con estas renovaciones su alcance se ha elevado a 20 millas náuticas. Dada su cercanía a esta población, también es conocido como faro de Nerja y en la actualidad se está acondicionando para albergar el Museo Marítimo de Torrox.
Why is the bottom of the lighthouse hidden by at least 24 feet on a flat earth when it should be hidden by 0 feet?
You are trolling the upper forums.
You'd need a very powerful camera, perhaps one that needs to be invented yet, to capture the entire visual obstacle.
The video presents every aspect explicitly: no such features could be seen on a round earth.
Refutation of it? Well, i am really worried about your mental health.1. Jack, have you ever seen this :Yes I have. And notice that you quoted the refutation of it?
mak3m, you are trolling, again.
Your messages on this page belong to CN.
Go ahead and ask Newton, Einstein, or any other modern physicist to explain HOW attractive gravity works.
They won't be able to explain.
39 metres = 127 feet 11.4 inch, near enough to 128 feet!I'll ignore your guesswork and post this!
(http://static.visitacostadelsol.com/general/img/logos/costadelsolmalaga_h.svg) Monuments and areas of tourist interestLighthouse of Torrox (http://www.visitcostadelsol.com/explore/monuments-and-areas-of-tourist-interest/lighthouse-of-torrox-p33601)
Lighthouse of Torrox Avenida del Faro, Torrox, 29770.
Marine traffic Lighthouse is located on the coast of the municipality of Torrox. It was completed at May 1, 1864. It has automatic, electric ignition, photocell. It has a height of 39 m above the sea and 26 m above the ground.
mak3m, you are trolling, again.I hope you don't mind if I answer as well though I'm sure that mak3m can do better than I.
Your messages on this page belong to CN.
Go ahead and ask Newton, Einstein, or any other modern physicist to explain HOW attractive gravity works.Newton is NOT a modern scientist! Stop posting inanity!
They won't be able to explain.Incorrect! A modern physicist could explain Einstein's Theory of General quite well! Even I might be able to give a rough idea.
Here are the issues involved.No, gravitons are NOT the issue involved and so nobody has t "readers how two gravitons attract each other"!
Can you explain to your readers how two gravitons attract each other? What is the mechanism of attraction?
Here are the issues involved.I don't need magic! Like it or not, something holds a one-kilogram mass down with a force of one kilogram and exactly the same force holds each kilogram of "those trillions of billions of liters of water" that are NOT "glued to an outer surface"
You cannot, therefore those trillions of billions of liters of water are glued to an outer surface by pure magic.
Even pure magic cannot explain this horrendous hypothesis.
You cannot resort to general relativity: I can immediately point out how Einstein faked the 1919/1922 crucial solar eclipses data.No, Einstein faked nothing, though Eddington might have been a bit "selective" in his observations.
show you the original Maxwell equations which are superluminal.So you say but you have no practical evidence of that!
You claim that terrestrial gravity is attractive, yet you cannot explain the mechanism.Don't you dare to pretend to know what I claim! I do not "claim that terrestrial gravity is attractive"!
Why should I?
It is even worse than pure magic.
Please explain the physics to your readers.
What you are telling your readers is even worse than Aristotle's Credo Quia Absurdum Est (I believe because it is absurd).Not in the slightest! It's not my problem if you cannot of will not even try to understand it!
The attractive gravity hypothesis is not even a credible fairy tale, it is even beyond the powers of pure magic to explain how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.If "the attractive gravity hypothesis is not even a credible fairy tale" it's just as well it is just one of your straw-man debating techniques then!
It is though the exemplification of a fanatical and dogmatic agenda which goes even beyond what organized religion has to offer.No! Why do you ask? But what follows is not worth answering, so to shorten this reply I'll simply delete it!
Do you want to use gravitons?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .That's what you say but it is not what modern physics says.
There is no such thing as general relativity, or spacetime continuum.
Please explain to your readers how attractive gravitation functions. If you cannot, then what you are telling yourself and to your readers is that gravity on a spherical earth is governed by pure magic.No, I will not! Why should I what I have already said that neither myself claim that gravitation is an attractive force.
Here is Newton himself:Possibly for a physicist who lived 300 years ago but it's simply an unsupported hypothesis and physics has advanced tremendously since then.
5. Now, from the fourth supposition it follows, that when two bodies approaching one another come so near together as to make the aether between them begin to rarefy, they will begin to have a reluctance from being brought nearer together, and an endeavour to recede from one another; which reluctance and endeavour will increase as they come nearer together, because thereby they cause the interjacent aether to rarefy more and more. But at length, when they come so near together that the excess of pressure of the external aether which surrounds the bodies, above that of the rarefied aether, which is between them, is so great as to overcome the reluctance which the bodies have from being brought together; then will that excess of pressure drive them with violence together, and make them adhere strongly to one another, as was said in the second supposition.
PRESSURE GRAVITY, according to Newton two objects are attracted to each other if they receive pressure from the outside.
Brilliant, isn't it?
It can't be 39 meters, the photographs from the beach show this very clearly: no 14 meter difference between the basement of the tower and the sea level.According to YOU but I quoted the Spanish site not just "Wikipedia", which did have the same information!
The quote given by the author of the video is correct; the google searched figures of 39 meters are simply wrong.
We can differentiate between the correct and the erroneous claims by observing the actual photographs: no 14 meter difference between the basement and the sea level.I do NOT trust your guesses from photographs. Sorry about that!
Can you explain how trillions of billions of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere?Again, the topic is about rockets.
Refutation of it? Well, i am really worried about your mental health.Worry about your own mental health. You are the one who seems to think "thrust" is a rational answer to a question asking about a second body.
I hope you don't mind if I answer as well though I'm sure that mak3m can do better than I.
You cannot resort to general relativity: I can immediately point out how Einstein faked the 1919/1922 crucial solar eclipses data.
Can you explain how trillions of billions of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere?Again, the topic is about rockets.
Can you explain how either gas is magically trapped inside an open container, or how the gas magically accelerates without following firmly established laws of physics which demand it accelerates another objects (i.e. the rocket), or admit that rockets do work in a vacuum?Refutation of it? Well, i am really worried about your mental health.Worry about your own mental health. You are the one who seems to think "thrust" is a rational answer to a question asking about a second body.
Thrust is not a body.
You can't "reach" me, because I am not a moron and I realise that you are repeatedly avoiding the question.
You haven't even attempted to explain how the gas accelerates, which is the key issue.
Instead you just start with your magically accelerated gas to avoid the issue.
So again:
How does the gas accelerate? That is what you need to explain.
Again, we know the gas has mass. That means it needs a force to be applied to accelerate it.
No force, no acceleration, so you have your gas magically contained inside an open container.
So the only rational option is to have a force acting on the gas to accelerate it.
But then we also know forces come in pairs. If a force is acting on the gas then the gas must be applying a force to another object, and as we have been over, the only other object there is the rocket.
That means the rocket needs to be having a force applied as well.
But that means rockets DO work in a vacuum.
Notice how I am not discussing what happens after the gas accelerates? Instead it is that initial acceleration which is key, which you are ignoring.
So if you want to try and reach me, instead of just trolling, answer the question. How does the gas accelerate?
(https://i.postimg.cc/MKF2Y0Vp/ROCKET-PROPULSION-X.jpg)So you go and find the "As we shall see latter(sic), maximum thrust occurs when Pe=Pa" and find out what it means.
Let me explain to everyone here why the RE cannot resort to general relativity to account for gravity.
General Relativity postulates that gravity is a curvature of spacetime created by mass, but it does not explain how that curvature occurs. Actually, it is just a DESCRIPTION that leaves unanswered the key question of exactly how matter affects space and time.
So, in order to make any sense at all out of explaining the cause of gravity, physicists have resorted to the use of gravitational waves assumed to be ripples in the fabric of spacetime.
The Hulse-Taylor experiment proved their existence and in 2016 it was announced by LIGO that they had made the first direct observation of gravitational waves.
It was ALWAYS assumed that Einstein's equations can describe these gravitational waves, that is, that Einstein's equations have a BOUNDED DYNAMIC SOLUTION.
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/8dc8476392d219aea5dbed160b57296570ae4286)
However, as early as 1917, one of the greatest mathematicians in the world, T. Levi-Civita discovered a huge flaw in these equations: there is no bounded dynamic solution.
A paper by T. Levi-Civita in 1917, one of the inventors of Tensor Calculus, showing that Einstein's pseudo-tensor is nonsense because it leads to the requirement for a first-order, intrinsic, differential invariant, which, as is well known to the pure mathematicians, does not exist:
http://web.archive.org/web/20090902090420/http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Levi-Civita.pdf
A. Gullstrand, the chairman of the Nobel prize committee, also discovered in 1921 that Einstein's equations cannot be applied to DYNAMIC situations: that is why he refused to give Einstein the Nobel prize for general relativity.
None other than Einstein himself also discovered this very fact in 1936:
(https://i.ibb.co/TBrqJ0L/125.jpg)
https://archive.org/details/TheBornEinsteinLetters/page/n72
THAT IS, THERE ARE NO GRAVITATIONAL WAVE SOLUTIONS USING THE ORIGINAL EINSTEIN EQUATIONS.
Now, the best part.
Gravitational waves become possible if, and only if, an ANTIGRAVITATIONAL TERM is added to the original equations, which is exactly what Reissner and Nordstrom and Weyl did.
But this takes the wind out of round earth theory immediately.
Here is the proof that the original Einstein equations do not have a BOUNDED DYNAMIC SOLUTION:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2196454#msg2196454
https://cirworld.com/index.php/jap/article/view/354
See also:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2194825#msg2194825
Now, if you want/desire the TECHNICAL details as to why this happens, well then, you are on your own, that is, use your own time to research this topic; here, it is well beyond the scope of our discussion.
If you want ME to do this, you'd better pay me by the hour to do such an involved research in nonlinear optics.
My area of expertise is bifurcation theory.
Here is the photograph to prove it:
(https://i.imgur.com/KDmSfcq.jpg?1)
Here is the photograph to prove it:
(https://i.imgur.com/KDmSfcq.jpg?1)
Was ist 50km from Niagara? So hidden 143m with refraction.
(https://i.ibb.co/GQ38kv8/Obraz-07-09-2019-godz-22-35.png)
?
Here is the photograph to prove it:
(https://i.imgur.com/KDmSfcq.jpg?1)
Was ist 50km from Niagara? So hidden 143m with refraction.
(https://i.ibb.co/GQ38kv8/Obraz-07-09-2019-godz-22-35.png)
?
According to the photographer, 51 km.
Here is the photograph to prove it:
(https://i.imgur.com/KDmSfcq.jpg?1)
Was ist 50km from Niagara? So hidden 143m with refraction.
(https://i.ibb.co/GQ38kv8/Obraz-07-09-2019-godz-22-35.png)
?
According to the photographer, 51 km.
Here is the photograph to prove it:
(https://i.imgur.com/KDmSfcq.jpg?1)
Was ist 50km from Niagara? So hidden 143m with refraction.
(https://i.ibb.co/GQ38kv8/Obraz-07-09-2019-godz-22-35.png)
?
According to the photographer, 51 km.
Pretty close to what we see on the picture then. I think i did from 1m MSL for the observer, he could be a little higher, so he would be seen even more.
Yeah, exactly what would we expect to see on RE.
Sure I can, but that would mean to spend at least ten hours researching nonlinear optics as this subject relates to the focal length in order to provide the answer you want.
If you need this type of research, you have to pay for it.
My area of expertise is bifurcation theory.
I have the photographs and the precise data.
You have nothing at all.
I proved that the rooftop of the Sky Dome can be seen from a distance of 60 km from the beach located in St. Catharines, a fact impossible on a round earth.
Therefore RE loses.
Anything else, is well beyond the scope of our discussion.
If can't pay for this type of research, then you better accept the facts and shut up.
- It is your claim that cameras possess some sort of ability to obscure the "lower portion of an object" and replace it with water even though the object is in the center of the frame.
- It is your claim that the reason why, for instance, 95% of the Sky Dome and the lower third of the CN Tower is hidden is because cameras replace those areas arbitrarily with a wall of water.
- It is your claim that reason why, for instance, 25' (authors numbers from video) of the Torrox Lighthouse is hidden is because cameras replace those areas arbitrarily with a wall of water.
Not claims, BUT FACTS.
Here is the photograph to prove it:
(https://i.imgur.com/KDmSfcq.jpg?1)
You already know the numbers.
YOU have to explain why we can see the rooftop of the Sky Dome where there should be none.
Here is the perfect illustration of my explanation so far (that the quality of the camera is involved):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/150629243/ (CN Tower barely visible)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/83867796/ (with a better camera, more details become visible)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/sizes/l/in/photostream/ (and the rooftop of the Sky Dome very visible, completely impossible on a round earth)
If want to know WHY the focal length of a camera is unable to capture the entire image of the visual obstacle, that is your business.
You want to make it my business, you have to pay for it.
For my time.
Take a look at yourself stash.
How can you live like this?
Here you are claiming that the shape of the Earth is spherical, yet you cannot explain how trillions of billions of gallons of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.
When pressed to offer a simple answer, you quote directly from the wikipedia page on gravity, which is pathetic.
This means that someone else has to do the thinking for you, you'll accept anything that comes your way, any sordid explanation.
You owe it to yourself to find out that the explanation your quoted amounts to nothing at all.
Neither Newtonian attractive gravity nor general relativity can explain anything pertaining to why objects stay in place on the surface of a sphere.
Here is the photograph to prove it:
(https://i.imgur.com/KDmSfcq.jpg?1)
Was ist 50km from Niagara? So hidden 143m with refraction.
(https://i.ibb.co/GQ38kv8/Obraz-07-09-2019-godz-22-35.png)
?
According to the photographer, 51 km.
All of the dome should be hidden. Your 3959 mile radius Earth is a lie and you still teach and embrace the lie. If truth matters to you, then you should be asking why is the roof top seen? But we know what you are afraid of.
Sure I can, but that would mean to spend at least ten hours researching nonlinear optics as this subject relates to the focal length in order to provide the answer you want.
If you need this type of research, you have to pay for it.
My area of expertise is bifurcation theory.
I have the photographs and the precise data.
You have nothing at all.
I proved that the rooftop of the Sky Dome can be seen from a distance of 60 km from the beach located in St. Catharines, a fact impossible on a round earth.
Therefore RE loses.
Anything else, is well beyond the scope of our discussion.
If can't pay for this type of research, then you better accept the facts and shut up.
- It is your claim that cameras possess some sort of ability to obscure the "lower portion of an object" and replace it with water even though the object is in the center of the frame.
- It is your claim that the reason why, for instance, 95% of the Sky Dome and the lower third of the CN Tower is hidden is because cameras replace those areas arbitrarily with a wall of water.
- It is your claim that reason why, for instance, 25' (authors numbers from video) of the Torrox Lighthouse is hidden is because cameras replace those areas arbitrarily with a wall of water.
Not claims, BUT FACTS.
Here is the photograph to prove it:
(https://i.imgur.com/KDmSfcq.jpg?1)
You already know the numbers.
YOU have to explain why we can see the rooftop of the Sky Dome where there should be none.
Here is the perfect illustration of my explanation so far (that the quality of the camera is involved):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/150629243/ (CN Tower barely visible)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/83867796/ (with a better camera, more details become visible)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/sizes/l/in/photostream/ (and the rooftop of the Sky Dome very visible, completely impossible on a round earth)
If want to know WHY the focal length of a camera is unable to capture the entire image of the visual obstacle, that is your business.
You want to make it my business, you have to pay for it.
For my time.
Take a look at yourself stash.
How can you live like this?
Here you are claiming that the shape of the Earth is spherical, yet you cannot explain how trillions of billions of gallons of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.
When pressed to offer a simple answer, you quote directly from the wikipedia page on gravity, which is pathetic.
This means that someone else has to do the thinking for you, you'll accept anything that comes your way, any sordid explanation.
You owe it to yourself to find out that the explanation your quoted amounts to nothing at all.
Neither Newtonian attractive gravity nor general relativity can explain anything pertaining to why objects stay in place on the surface of a sphere.
Well it is obvious that your understanding of Newtonian gravity, is flawed,
it is Newtonian gravity, that shapes the earth, the proving of that, to your satisfaction is what is most difficult.
The size of the earth, gives the impression, to a local area, as being flat.
We use Newton's gravity to explain the orbit of the moon, and lunar tides.
Taking into account the earth moon bodies have a center of gravity, this center of gravity is located somewhat under the surface of the earth, the water of the oceans, is attracted to the center, this center is constantly on the move following the orbit of the moon, changing the tides as it moves along. The rotation of the earth also complicates this movement, let alone, (earth moon) orbiting the sun.
All by Newtonian gravity. Einstein’s gravity, is a refinement of this.
With this understanding of gravity, we have put satellites in orbit,
we have put men on the moon,
we have put probes on Mars,
we have sent probes to Saturn.
we have sent probes on a flyby to the other planets.
We have the ISS in orbit, and send people to it on a regular basis.
If you deny this, it just verifies the fact that you not understand Newton's gravity.
or can you explain each of the above.
Thrust=force=mass*acceleration.Yes, notice how it isn't a second body?
This is an interesting theory (which eventually boils down to nothing more than meaningless wordplay), but it is plainly wrongYes, what you have provided is nothing more than meaningless wordplay to avoid the issue yet again.
10m observer, makes it totally possible to see the roof of sky dome.
Not from St. Catharines.
Data for St. Catharines, Lake Ontario, distance to Toronto, 60 km:
2 meters (observer) - 158 meters (visual obstacle)
3 - 150.5
5 - 138
10 - 117.5
10m observer, makes it totally possible to see the roof of sky dome.
Not from St. Catharines.
Data for St. Catharines, Lake Ontario, distance to Toronto, 60 km:
2 meters (observer) - 158 meters (visual obstacle)
3 - 150.5
5 - 138
10 - 117.5
It's obvious you don't know what a mirage is over water and how it can block the view of things behind it.!
Newtonian gravity you say.
I have very bad news for you.
HERE IS THE EXACT FORMULA FOR THE BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT:
(https://i.ibb.co/BCDmvh8/iv.jpg)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0507082.pdf
Weyl electrovacuum solutions and gauge invariance
Dr. B.V. Ivanov
https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0502047.pdf
On the gravitational field induced by static electromagnetic sources
Dr. B.V Ivanov
The formula was obtained for the first time in 1917 by Hermann Weyl, the greatest mathematician in the world at that time, several ranks higher than Einstein.
http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/1917-Weyl-en.pdf
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2177463#msg2177463
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2179065#msg2179065
A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTON'S ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY.
St. Catharines is at about 102m MSL, so even more than possible.
This is not the CN section.
The entire geological structure is above sea level.
We are on the beach in St. Catharines at the same level with lake Ontario and Toronto.
The fact the EFE has predicted and proved numerous areas of physics is irrefutable, pointing to one part of the original text and shouting tah dah is a little weak tbh
You still don't get it.
Einstein's equations apply ONLY TO STATIC SYSTEMS.
Nothing else.
There is no bounded dynamic solution.
There are no gravitational waves, no ripples in spacetime with Einstein's equation.
They cannot be applied to anything, whether it be the perihelion of Mercury, or the bending light, or the Pound-Rebka experiment.
Here is how Einstein faked/fudged his static equations to for the perihelion of Mercury:
The advance of the perihelion of Mercury’s orbit, another famous confirmation of General Relativity, is worth a closer look (the perihelion is the point in the orbit closest to a sun). Graduate theses may one day be written about this peculiar episode in the history of science. In his book, Subtle Is the Lord, Abraham Pais reports that when Einstein saw that his calculations agreed with Mercury’s orbit, “he had the feeling that something actually snapped in him ... This experience was, I believe, by far the strongest emotional experience in Einstein’s scientific life, perhaps in all his life. Nature had spoken to him.”
Fact: The equation that accounted for Mercury’s orbit had been published 17 years earlier, before Relativity was invented. The author, Paul Gerber, used the assumption that gravity is not instantaneous, but propagates with the speed of light. After Einstein published his General Relativity derivation, arriving at the same equation, Gerber’s article was reprinted in *Annalen der Physik* (the journal that had published Einstein’s Relativity papers). The editors felt that Einstein should have acknowledged Gerber’s priority. Although Einstein said he had been in the dark, it was pointed out that Gerber’s formula had been published in Mach’s Science of Mechanics, a book that Einstein was known to have studied. So how did they both arrive at the same formula?
Tom Van Flandern was convinced that Gerber’s assumption (gravity propagates with the speed of light) was wrong. So he studied the question. He points out that the formula in question is well known in celestial mechanics. Consequently, it could be used as a “target” for calculations that were intended to arrive at it. He saw that Gerber’s method “made no sense, in terms of the principles of celestial mechanics.” Einstein had also said (in a 1920 newspaper article) that Gerber’s derivation was “wrong through and through.”
So how did Einstein get the same formula? Van Flandern went through his calculations, and found to his amazement that they had “three separate contributions to the perihelion; two of which add, and one of which cancels part of the other two; and you wind up with just the right multiplier.” So he asked a colleague at the University of Maryland, who as a young man had overlapped with Einstein at Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study, how in his opinion Einstein had arrived at the correct multiplier. This man said it was his impression that, “knowing the answer,” Einstein had “jiggered the arguments until they came out with the right value.”
Dr. F. Schmeidler of the Munich University Observatory has published a paper titled "The Einstein Shift An Unsettled Problem," and a plot of shifts for 92 stars for the 1922 eclipse shows shifts going in all directions, many of them going the wrong way by as large a deflection as those shifted in the predicted direction! Further examination of the 1919 and 1922 data originally interpreted as confirming relativity, tended to favor a larger shift, the results depended very strongly on the manner for reducing the measurements and the effect of omitting individual stars.
The most extraordinary proofs on HOW EINSTEIN FAKED HIS 1919/1922 DATA FOR THE SO CALLED EINSTEIN SHIFT:
http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm (scroll down to the section: With regard to the politics that led to Einstein's fame Dr. S. Chandrasekhar's article [46] states...)
http://web.archive.org/web/20070202201854/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html
A devastating look at the fakery perpetrated by Einstein in order to sell to the world HIS STATIC SYSTEM OF EQUATIONS:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2194405#msg2194405
Both Pound and Rebka ASSUMED that the speed of light is constant and not a variable.
If the speed of the light pulses in the gravitational field is VARIABLE, then the frequency shift measured by Pound and Rebka is a direct consequence of this variability and there is no gravitational time dilation.
The fact the EFE has predicted and proved numerous areas of physics is irrefutable, pointing to one part of the original text and shouting tah dah is a little weak tbh
Brilliant.
ALL AND ANY PARTS OF EINSTEIN'S STATIC EQUATIONS ARE WRONG.
However, as early as 1917, one of the greatest mathematicians in the world, T. Levi-Civita discovered a huge flaw in these equations: there is no bounded dynamic solution.
A paper by T. Levi-Civita in 1917, one of the inventors of Tensor Calculus, showing that Einstein's pseudo-tensor is nonsense because it leads to the requirement for a first-order, intrinsic, differential invariant, which, as is well known to the pure mathematicians, does not exist:
http://web.archive.org/web/20090902090420/http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Levi-Civita.pdf
A. Gullstrand, the chairman of the Nobel prize committee, also discovered in 1921 that Einstein's equations cannot be applied to DYNAMIC situations: that is why he refused to give Einstein the Nobel prize for general relativity.
None other than Einstein himself also discovered this very fact in 1936:
(https://i.ibb.co/TBrqJ0L/125.jpg)
THERE ARE NO PREDICTIONS WHATSOEVER BASED ON EINSTEIN'S STATIC EQUATIONS.
THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE DOES NOT OBEY ANYTHING PERTAINING TO EINSTEIN'S STATIC EQUATIONS.
Here is the DARK FLOW discovered by Dr. A. Kashlinsky from Nasa:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1936995#msg1936995
Dark flow has been described as taking a hammer and beating the living tar out of Einstein’s gravitational theory of the universe.
Einstein's equations become valid if, and only if, an antigravitational term is added.
Then, and only then, the linearized version can be applied to physical situations.
St. Catharines is at about 102m MSL, so even more than possible.
This is not the CN section.
The entire geological structure is above sea level.
We are on the beach in St. Catharines at the same level with lake Ontario and Toronto.
There are no more captions on the page:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/sizes/l/in/photostream/
"dodis 9y
50,95 km from place you took the picture 43°11'1.01"N , 79°22'7.03"W to CN Tower ;-)
Jackson Myers 9y (The photographer)
Cool, thanks for the data! "
Where did this come from, since the captions are not seen on the page itself?
It can't be 51 km, since the distance to Toronto from St. Catharines is 60 km.
St. Catharines is at about 102m MSL, so even more than possible.
This is not the CN section.
The entire geological structure is above sea level.
We are on the beach in St. Catharines at the same level with lake Ontario and Toronto.
There are no more captions on the page:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/sizes/l/in/photostream/
"dodis 9y
50,95 km from place you took the picture 43°11'1.01"N , 79°22'7.03"W to CN Tower ;-)
Jackson Myers 9y (The photographer)
Cool, thanks for the data! "
Where did this come from, since the captions are not seen on the page itself?
It can't be 51 km, since the distance to Toronto from St. Catharines is 60 km.
Let's go to Hamilton, distance to the other side of the lake, 60 km.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487755017/#
http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487726854/#in/photostream
No curvature whatsoever, from Hamilton to Lakeshore West Blvd.
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/ham1_zps783gqdvz.jpg)
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/ham2_zpsngcxo5ee.jpg)
CAPTION: TAKEN RIGHT ON THE BEACH
St. Catharines is at about 102m MSL, so even more than possible.
This is not the CN section.
The entire geological structure is above sea level.
We are on the beach in St. Catharines at the same level with lake Ontario and Toronto.
There are no more captions on the page:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/sizes/l/in/photostream/
"dodis 9y
50,95 km from place you took the picture 43°11'1.01"N , 79°22'7.03"W to CN Tower ;-)
Jackson Myers 9y (The photographer)
Cool, thanks for the data! "
Where did this come from, since the captions are not seen on the page itself?
It can't be 51 km, since the distance to Toronto from St. Catharines is 60 km.
Let's go to Hamilton, distance to the other side of the lake, 60 km.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487755017/#
http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487726854/#in/photostream
No curvature whatsoever, from Hamilton to Lakeshore West Blvd.
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/ham1_zps783gqdvz.jpg)
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/ham2_zpsngcxo5ee.jpg)
CAPTION: TAKEN RIGHT ON THE BEACH
i am not finding it what does the Elevation of
76.5 m (251.0 ft) do to the curvature calculation?
You might have "proven that the rooftop of the Sky Dome can be seen from a distance of 60 km from the beach located in St. Catharines" but you have not proven that is "a fact impossible on a round earth"!
I proved that the rooftop of the Sky Dome can be seen from a distance of 60 km from the beach located in St. Catharines, a fact impossible on a round earth.
Therefore RE loses.
- It is your claim that cameras possess some sort of ability to obscure the "lower portion of an object" and replace it with water even though the object is in the center of the frame.We don't have prove anything of the sort because slightly more that standard refraction can easily explain it - you prove it can't!
- It is your claim that the reason why, for instance, 95% of the Sky Dome and the lower third of the CN Tower is hidden is because cameras replace those areas arbitrarily with a wall of water.
- It is your claim that reason why, for instance, 25' (authors numbers from video) of the Torrox Lighthouse is hidden is because cameras replace those areas arbitrarily with a wall of water.
Not claims, BUT FACTS.
Here is the photograph to prove it:
(https://i.imgur.com/KDmSfcq.jpg?1)
You already know the numbers.
YOU have to explain why we can see the rooftop of the Sky Dome where there should be none.
Here is the perfect illustration of my explanation so far (that the quality of the camera is involved):Get real! It has nothing to do with "the quality of the camera is involved"!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/150629243/ (CN Tower barely visible)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/83867796/ (with a better camera, more details become visible)Rubbish!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/sizes/l/in/photostream/ (and the rooftop of the Sky Dome very visible, completely impossible on a round earth)No! It shows plenty hidden just not as much as you think there should be, again would seem to be a fact impossible on a flat earth!
If want to know WHY the focal length of a camera is unable to capture the entire image of the visual obstacle, that is your business.In other words you haven't a clue and are trying to hide your ignorance!
Can you explain how trillions of billions of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere?
Here is the proof:They might not show as much hidden as you think there should be but there should be but they show more than should be hidden on a flat earth - which is NONE!
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.msg716466#msg716466
DATED: JUNE 09, 2009
The photographer was on the beach at St. Catharines (50 km distance from Toronto), curvature of 49.5 meters, from a height of 2 meters you could not see anything under 158 meters, from 3 meters nothing could be seen under 150.5 meters.
50 KM DISTANCE.
That is why the viewers who were here back then knew the real distance I used to get the final values for the visual obstacle.
| (https://www.dropbox.com/s/a0k3a0otp403bgq/Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20-%201%20-%20Wolfie%20.%20.%20.%20Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20at%206%20ft.jpg?dl=1) Bathurst Lighthouse from 6 ft above sea-level | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/qjftdg6dnuexl0o/Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20-%201%20-%20Wolfie%20.%20.%20.%20Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20at%20100%20ft.jpg?dl=1) Bathurst Lighthouse from 100 ft above sea-level |
Here is the proof:They might not show as much hidden as you think there should be but there should be but they show more than should be hidden on a flat earth - which is NONE!
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.msg716466#msg716466
DATED: JUNE 09, 2009
The photographer was on the beach at St. Catharines (50 km distance from Toronto), curvature of 49.5 meters, from a height of 2 meters you could not see anything under 158 meters, from 3 meters nothing could be seen under 150.5 meters.
50 KM DISTANCE.
That is why the viewers who were here back then knew the real distance I used to get the final values for the visual obstacle.
So you have proven nothing! Get used to it!
Here is the one I showed with about the right amount hidden and a higher level photo showing what was there to be seen.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/a0k3a0otp403bgq/Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20-%201%20-%20Wolfie%20.%20.%20.%20Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20at%206%20ft.jpg?dl=1)
Bathurst Lighthouse from 6 ft above sea-level(https://www.dropbox.com/s/qjftdg6dnuexl0o/Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20-%201%20-%20Wolfie%20.%20.%20.%20Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20at%20100%20ft.jpg?dl=1)
Bathurst Lighthouse from 100 ft above sea-level
I'm not claiming that these's prove the earth a Globe but they show there can be other explanations for your photos.
So your photos do not prove the earth flat! They might make question the size of the earth of look into the possibly of some other explanation, but prove, NO!
Here is the proof:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.msg716466#msg716466
DATED: JUNE 09, 2009
The photographer was on the beach at St. Catharines (50 km distance from Toronto), curvature of 49.5 meters, from a height of 2 meters you could not see anything under 158 meters, from 3 meters nothing could be seen under 150.5 meters.
50 KM DISTANCE.
That is why the viewers who were here back then knew the real distance I used to get the final values for the visual obstacle.
Here is the proof:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.msg716466#msg716466
DATED: JUNE 09, 2009
The photographer was on the beach at St. Catharines (50 km distance from Toronto), curvature of 49.5 meters, from a height of 2 meters you could not see anything under 158 meters, from 3 meters nothing could be seen under 150.5 meters.
50 KM DISTANCE.
That is why the viewers who were here back then knew the real distance I used to get the final values for the visual obstacle.
You got it wrong. Instead of overcomplicating this, use MAMSL (St. Catherines beach is more than 100m above the sea level) values and simulate the view in google earth by adding a small layer with a center of an observed object and at attitude from curve calculator (i'd suggest metabunk as it can use refraction). You will get exactly what the photographer got!
The question is, why on a flat earth is Toronto submerged under dozens of meters of water?
You are dreaming.
On a FE Toronto CANNOT be under any water, on the contrary.
Here is a single photograph which renders everything your posted as superfluous, unnecessary and ineffective.
(https://i.ibb.co/TMv8PLT/st1.jpg)
Data for St. Catharines, Lake Ontario, distance to Toronto, 50 km:
2 meters (observer) - 158 meters (visual obstacle)
3 - 150.5
These are the facts concering the photograph from St. Catherines.
Even with 3 meters, you still have to deal with a visual obstacle of 150.5 meters.
86 meters + 9 meters (courtesy of the FES) = 95 meters for the Sky Dome
150.5 - 95 = 55.5 meters to be accounted for.
Good luck.
Now, please explain to your readers, and for that matter to yourself, HOW THE WATER LEVEL OF LAKE ONTARIO STAYS CURVED ON A ROUND EARTH.
You can't use either attractive gravity or general relativity.
By pure magic, isn't it?
This is exactly what you are telling everyone here is happening: on a spherical Earth the water level stays curved by pure magic, nothing else.
When did thid thread turned into another make a picture if Totonto contest?
Rockets were more interesting.
You won't last more than 60 seconds in a direct debate with me on the supposed rotation of the Earth.
We can observe that the earth is a globe, it rotates and the oceans stay on the surface.
Let's put your words to the test.
No curvature across the strait of Gibraltar, no ascending slope, no midpoint 3.5 meter visual obstacle, a perfectly flat surface of the water all the way to Africa:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x42v7ip
38:28 to 38:35
(http://image.ibb.co/n3bHw6/gib.jpg)
From the same spot, a splendid photograph:
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/55/130948289_44854d63fa_b.jpg)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/carlosromero/130948289#
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRoNgYNyhUB57E7P8hb6EOkfU5oG-1bX7S1WzqlvuBPqUK7aCyUNA)
If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.
Make no mistake about it: there is no curvature on the surface of the Earth.
If you want oceans to stay on the outer surface of a sphere, you must explain HOW this happens.
Feel free to make use of gravitons and spacetime.
In less than 30 seconds I will demolish your nonsense.
Then, we are left with the real and only explanation offered by the RE: PURE MAGIC.
If you want the Earth to rotate around its own axis, you must PROVE IT.
Go ahead and make everyone's day here by entertaining us with your PROOFS of the Earth's axial rotation.
You won't last more than 60 seconds in a direct debate with me on the supposed rotation of the Earth.
Please post your fantasies about the universe in the CN section.
Data for St. Catharines, Lake Ontario, distance to Toronto, 50 km:There is usually some refraction.
2 meters (observer) - 158 meters (visual obstacle)
3 - 150.5And from 3 m for the camera height, the "expected" hidden height would be 126 m but again local conditions can change that either way.
These are the facts concering the photograph from St. Catherines.The camera's heights and distance might be but the "hidden height" can vary considerably depending on the relative water and low level air temperatures.
Even with 3 meters, you still have to deal with a visual obstacle of 150.5 meters.No need for luck!
86 meters + 9 meters (courtesy of the FES) = 95 meters for the Sky Dome
150.5 - 95 = 55.5 meters to be accounted for.
Good luck.
It doesn't work like that.
You have to PROVE your statement.
Newton never did, yet had the audacity to apply his equations to outer space.
First, you must PROVE that the Earth rotates about its own axis.
Please entertain us.
You are hereby summoned to post your private fantasies abour refraction in the CN section.
Refraction won't help you.
Refraction won't save you.
Notwithstanding the fact that there is no visible refraction in the photograph, it would amount at most to some 10 meters (I am very generous here).
You can't delete 24 meters even though you would like to.
It doesn't work like that.
It doesn't work like that.
You have to PROVE your statement.
Newton never did, yet had the audacity to apply his equations to outer space.
First, you must PROVE that the Earth rotates about its own axis.
Please entertain us.
Alleged photographs/gifs from outer space don't count: the missions can easily be faked.
What you want is to provide some kind of an experiment.
You are trolling the upper forums, since you have nothing else to add.
A single photograph puts an end to your drivel.
It doesn't work like that.Really?
You have to PROVE your statement.
Newton never did, yet had the audacity to apply his equations to outer space.
First, you must PROVE that the Earth rotates about its own axis.Why?
Please entertain us.I won't bother because you provide all the entertainment we can handle!
I disagree with your ultimate conclusions,
Disagreeing ain't got nothing to do with it.
You have to EXPLAIN the Allais effect if you want anyone here to look in your direction.
If you can't explain it, your personal opinion counts for nothing.
Refraction won't help you. Refraction won't save you.Incorrect! Ask any astronomer or surveyor!
Notwithstanding the fact that there is no visible refraction in the photograph, it would amount at most to some 10 meters (I am very generous here).Sorry but there is no way to simply see refraction like this.
You can't delete 24 meters even though you would like to.Oh, yes I can and I did!
It doesn't work like that.I don't care what you believe or don't believe but it does work that way - get used to the facts for once!
Flat earth, according to you, has Toronto under dozens of feet of waterNo, that's you that can't face facts!
No.
It means you are unable to accept reality.
| (https://www.dropbox.com/s/a0k3a0otp403bgq/Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20-%201%20-%20Wolfie%20.%20.%20.%20Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20at%206%20ft.jpg?dl=1) Bathurst Lighthouse from 6 ft above sea-level | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/qjftdg6dnuexl0o/Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20-%201%20-%20Wolfie%20.%20.%20.%20Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20at%20100%20ft.jpg?dl=1) Bathurst Lighthouse from 100 ft above sea-level |
I always like to play with the RE.Well thanks for admitting you are just trolling everyone.
Can you explain how trillions of billions of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere?
What would pull those "trillions of billions of water" anywhere else against the Earth's gravity?
Where to?
Nobody is saying that refraction is not possible.Do you mind if I show where your photos came from?
But the images would look different.
(https://finland.fi/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/2946-mirage14-jpg.jpg)
(https://finland.fi/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/2946-mirage16-jpg.jpg)The photo above was titled: A house in the archipelago with a superior mirage.
Nothing of the sort in the photograph from St. Catherines.No there wasn't and I claimed no mirage at all "in the photograph from St. Catherines".
That is why your argument falls to the ground.Not at all!
As for the 24 meter deletion, if it helps your cognitive dissonance, sure go ahead and make your day.No "cognitive dissonance" on my part.
Here you won't get more than 10 meters, on a sunny day.I'm not asking you for any 10 metres! I've taken all I need.
It boils down to thisIt boils down to this:
Now perhaps you can stop playing and try defending your nonsense claims regarding rockets?As that is the topic of this thread, YES!
WHAT?!
You want to debate rockets with me?
arbitrarily shaped satelliteROCKET!!!
It is very easy to show that the gravitational escape velocity equation is false.No, it is literally impossible.
ve = − √[2GM/(r + h)]
This is what happens :It boils down to thisIt boils down to this:
Rockets work in a vacuum.
That is what all the available evidence indicates.
That is what all known physics indicates.
This thread has being going for quite some time, with you repeatedly avoiding a very simple question.
You are yet to even attempt to answer it.
Instead you only ever want to discuss what happens after this key issue.
So I ask again, this time making it even clearer where we begin:
We start with the hot gas inside the combustion chamber of the rocket. It has just been burnt. It is currently moving with the rocket, with the chamber having a hole connecting to the nozzle and then to the vacuum of space.
What happens?
(https://i.postimg.cc/MKF2Y0Vp/ROCKET-PROPULSION-X.jpg)So you go and find the "As we shall see latter(sic), maximum thrust occurs when Pe=Pa" and find out what it means.
It boils down to this : Should we expect people and elephants to fall off (the face of) the earth easier than a butterflies or a flies? And if yes why?No! It boils down to this! Do have a conscience or even a scrap of honesty?
This guy nailed it down :Run away with your attempted deception Mr Cikljamas, I know you of old!
I am sickened by the deceit of many flat earthers, especially the most prolific YouTube publishers. Most regulars here are OK.
Cikljamas/odiupicku posted this on YouTube as a personal attack on Neil deGrasse Tyson. Cikljamas posted a clear imposter in an attempt to prove that Neil deGrasse Tyson started out as a "Flat Earther".
cikljamas/odiupicku's version of "Young Neil DeGrass Tyson" ::)[/url]
Note that the spelling of the real
Neil deGrasse Tyson and the spelling of cikljamas's
Neil DeGrass Tyson! See anything?
All the following from Buzzfeed, For Everyone Who Is Attracted To Young Neil DeGrasse Tyson (https://www.buzzfeed.com/kristinchirico/young-neil-degrasse-tyson-can-get-it?utm_term=.mhD8pVXwg#.el3wvKr62)Does the "alternate" young Neil DeGrass Tyson look anything the real young Neil deGrasse Tyson?
But it's important to note that YOUNG
Neil deGrasse Tyson was on an entirely
other almost astronomical, level of fine.
(https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2014-08/2/16/enhanced/webdr11/enhanced-9281-1407009789-9.png)
Young, buff Neil deGrasse Tyson during a wrestling match(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BreVgMMCcAAsmj_.jpg)JESUS THOSE BICEPS.
Not to mention his smize game.
He even has a great watch.
EVERYTHING ON HIM IS BETTER.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bp-gxgwCAAAG-e2.jpg)
Somehow, I think cikljamas/odiupicku got himself a ring-in (possibly of similar name) and gave him a script.I and others here, be they Flat Earth or Globe supporters, don't take kindly to deceivers, liars and cheats.
Now perhaps you can stop playing and try defending your nonsense claims regarding rockets?
WHAT?!
You want to debate rockets with me?
Here is the equation of motion describing the librational motion of an arbitrarily shaped satellite in a planar, elliptical orbit:
(1 + εμcosθ)ψ" - 2εμsinθ(ψ' + 1) + 3Kisinψcosψ = 0
ψ' = δψ/δθ
Ki = (Ixx - Izz/Iyy
εμ = eccentricity of the orbit
For small ε, and using 1/(1 + εμcosθ) = 1 - εμcosθ + O(ε2), we obtain
ψ" + 3Kisinψcosψ = ε[2μsinθ(ψ' + 1) + 3μKisinψcosψcosθ] + O(ε2)
This is a fully nonlinear ordinary differential equation (initial condition). For weakly nonlinear ODE, we can use methods such as multiple scaling and averaging.
For a fully nonlinear ODE, we need very advanced perturbation techniques: the Melnikov method.
Even for a simpler version of this fully nonlinear differential equation, the orbit of a tethered satellite system, we will get chaotical motions for realistic/real flight parameters:
http://www.uni-magdeburg.de/ifme/zeitschrift_tm/1996_Heft4/Peng.pdf
In theory, time delay feedback control methods are used to try to minimize the chaotical motion; however, in real time flight, parameters values can and will exceed the data used in the theorized version.
It is very easy to show that the gravitational escape velocity equation is false.
ve = − √[2GM/(r + h)]
Rocket science tells us that the gravitational potential energy between two objects is:
PEi = −GMm/Ri
(https://www.school-for-champions.com/science/images/gravitation_escape_velocity_derivation_factors.gif)
Therefore, the general expression for gravitational potential energy arises from the law of attractive gravity, in heliocentrism.
(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/images/Uint.gif)
It takes a single counterexample to invalidate a hypothesis.
There is no such thing as the law of universal gravitation: it follows that the gravitational escape velocity equation is completely false.
The Allais effect defies the law of universal gravitation:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382
The Biefeld-Brown effect defies the law of universal gravitation:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg759935#msg759935
E.T. Whittaker has proven that the potential is represented by pairs of longitudinal bidirectional scalar waves (ether):
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1994059#msg1994059
It boils down to this : Should we expect people and elephants to fall off (the face of) the earth easier than a butterflies or a flies? And if yes why?Now you try to deceived everybody and ridicule Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson, whose a 100 times the man you'll ever be!
Jack, Rabinoz, and co., all you have to do is to put Tom Bishop's argument (Escape Velocity a.k.a. Flight Direction : Strictly Away from the center of the Earth) in this particular perspective :Rubbish! Your "particular perspective" is totally ludicrous as i show below,Quote from: cikljamasDANSITY TABLE :I am not answering all that in one go but first the total misoperation in you "density table". But why on earth do you use those funny cgs units and not SI units?
(https://i.postimg.cc/q795wjY5/DENSITY-TABLE.jpg)
As you can readily see, the two densities that NASA's rockets supposedly traverse as they rise up to the skies are hugely different.
(Just to put all this into perspective, on the other side of the spectrum we see that a "black hole" - considered by scientists as the highest imaginable pressure known to mankind - is 10 ^+27. In other words, one could say that the density gap/difference between VACUUM <vs> AIR is almost as large as the difference between WATER <vs> "BLACK HOLES". Food for thought, anyway.)
First of all your "density gap/difference between VACUUM <vs> AIR is almost as large as the difference between WATER <vs> BLACK HOLES" is total garbage!
"Density differences" are quite irrelevant anyway. It is only "pressure differences" that matter though for gasses they are related.
And it appears that you missed out on arithmetic in school because the difference between two numbers say A and B is A - B and NOT A/B.
It appears that you do not know even the simplest rules of arithmetic!
So the difference between (air density) and the (density of free space) is simply only 10-3 - 10-24 = 10-3 gm/cm3.
As far as a rocket's performance goes or the stresses involved in pressurising a crew habitat is make little difference if the pressure outside is one hundredth or one trillionth of normal atmospheric pressure.
And it makes you claim "In other words, one could say that the density gap/difference between VACUUM <vs> AIR is almost as large as the difference between WATER <vs> "BLACK HOLES". Food for thought, anyway.)" totally ludicrous!
But the density gap/difference between AIR vs VACUUM is just 1 while the density gap/difference between "BLACK HOLES" vs WATER is 1027 - not in the same "ball-park"!.
That doesn't have the emotional impact of your ridiculous and meaningless 1060, does it?
But you talk of densities rather misses the point! It is external pressure differences that slightly affect the thrust.
2. Have you ever seen this, Rabinoz :I might consider wasting time on you AFTER you have shown yourself man enough to apologise for your stupid lying deceitful fake Neil DeGrass (sic) video and your use of "photoShopped" photos.
Now, two interesting questions for Rabinoz and Jack Black :
Q1 : Why would GAU-8 Recoil Flying Broom(stick) "fly" in a vacuum much better than a rocket, (at least IN PRICIPLE)???
Q2 : Why our midget soldier wouldn't manage to fly harnessing GAU-8 Avanger's Recoil Power, turning it into An Effective Flying Broom(stick), here on Earth???
According to JackStop lying.
This is what happens :
Thrust=force=mass*acceleration.
Thrust = (mass flow rate) × (exhaust velocity)
No, but I've seen this and that tells me what sort of a person YOU are!1. Have you ever seen this, Rabinoz :It boils down to this : Should we expect people and elephants to fall off (the face of) the earth easier than a butterflies or a flies? And if yes why?Now you try to deceived everybody and ridicule Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson, whose a 100 times the man you'll ever be!
| (https://www.dropbox.com/s/pfxxyr162zu23n5/Apollo%2011%20on%20the%20moon%20picture%20%28earth%20added%29%20950x690.jpg?dl=1) "Photoshopped" image used by arch-deceiver: cikljamas. | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/25j6gqa4z21h5i3/Apollo%2011%20on%20the%20moon%20picture%20663x690.jpg?dl=1) Genuine NASA image! |
| (https://www.dropbox.com/s/y9m0s2skx1va7ri/Fake%20%27Dr.%20Neil%20DeGrass%20Tyson%27%20used%20by%20arch-deceiver%20cikljamas.jpg?dl=1) Fake "Dr. Neil DeGrass Tyson" used by arch-deceiver cikljamas. | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/abslpihhobb2af1/The%20real%20Neil%20deGrasse%20Tyson%20when%20young.jpg?dl=1) The real Neil deGrasse Tyson when young |
No, but I've seen this and that tells me what sort of a person YOU are!1. Have you ever seen this, Rabinoz :It boils down to this : Should we expect people and elephants to fall off (the face of) the earth easier than a butterflies or a flies? And if yes why?Now you try to deceived everybody and ridicule Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson, whose a 100 times the man you'll ever be!
You have had you deception pointed out a number of times and are not man enough to own up to it! How about either coming clean or running away?
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/pfxxyr162zu23n5/Apollo%2011%20on%20the%20moon%20picture%20%28earth%20added%29%20950x690.jpg?dl=1)
"Photoshopped" image used by arch-deceiver: cikljamas.(https://www.dropbox.com/s/25j6gqa4z21h5i3/Apollo%2011%20on%20the%20moon%20picture%20663x690.jpg?dl=1)
Genuine NASA image!
And this:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/y9m0s2skx1va7ri/Fake%20%27Dr.%20Neil%20DeGrass%20Tyson%27%20used%20by%20arch-deceiver%20cikljamas.jpg?dl=1)
Fake "Dr. Neil DeGrass Tyson" used by arch-deceiver cikljamas.(https://www.dropbox.com/s/abslpihhobb2af1/The%20real%20Neil%20deGrasse%20Tyson%20when%20young.jpg?dl=1)
The real Neil deGrasse Tyson when young
Does the real young Dr. Neil DeGrass Tyson look anything like the slob, "Dr. Neil DeGrass Tyson", that you used in your fake video?
What did you have to pay him to humiliate himself like that and read your silly script?
Read the rest in: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum) « Reply #1129 on: September 08, 2019, 10:00:43 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2202004#msg2202004).
And another showing Plat Terra's pitiful ignorance:Some members of the Globe Community are still trying to adjust to Earths movement through space.Incorrect!
(https://i.imgur.com/iUkVeef.gif)
It's simply that ignorant folk like you that fail to understand that the "Earth's movement through space" causes nothing you can even measure!
Even the sedate Earth's rotation at about 0.00069 RPM is hard enough to measure with very sensitive instruments!
For the simple reason that there is nothing to adjust to! You feel only acceleration and especially changes in acceleration!
The acceleration due to the earth's rotation is only about 0.3% of gravity and simply changes the effective g very slightly - so no one feels it!
The acceleration due to the earth's orbiting the sun is far less at about 0.006 m/s2 but that is almost exactly constant anyway so there is nothing to be felt.
Mr Plat Terra, you seem such an expert in demonstrating the numerous way that flat earthers fail to understand such simple concepts - keep it up!
The only videos I mentioned were made by cikljamas and he obviously thinks that should be taken as real - even his "Photoshopping" and faked "Neil Degrass Tyson".Rab, only a seriously mental ill person would think someone is trying to pass that video as real.No, but I've seen this and that tells me what sort of a person YOU are!1. Have you ever seen this, Rabinoz :It boils down to this : Should we expect people and elephants to fall off (the face of) the earth easier than a butterflies or a flies? And if yes why?Now you try to deceived everybody and ridicule Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson, whose a 100 times the man you'll ever be!
You have had you deception pointed out a number of times and are not man enough to own up to it! How about either coming clean or running away?
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/pfxxyr162zu23n5/Apollo%2011%20on%20the%20moon%20picture%20%28earth%20added%29%20950x690.jpg?dl=1)
"Photoshopped" image used by arch-deceiver: cikljamas.(https://www.dropbox.com/s/25j6gqa4z21h5i3/Apollo%2011%20on%20the%20moon%20picture%20663x690.jpg?dl=1)
Genuine NASA image!
And this:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/y9m0s2skx1va7ri/Fake%20%27Dr.%20Neil%20DeGrass%20Tyson%27%20used%20by%20arch-deceiver%20cikljamas.jpg?dl=1)
Fake "Dr. Neil DeGrass Tyson" used by arch-deceiver cikljamas.(https://www.dropbox.com/s/abslpihhobb2af1/The%20real%20Neil%20deGrasse%20Tyson%20when%20young.jpg?dl=1)
The real Neil deGrasse Tyson when young
Does the real young Dr. Neil DeGrass Tyson look anything like the slob, "Dr. Neil DeGrass Tyson", that you used in your fake video?
What did you have to pay him to humiliate himself like that and read your silly script?
Read the rest in: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum) « Reply #1129 on: September 08, 2019, 10:00:43 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2202004#msg2202004).
Where is your common sense?Right where it belongs! I don't take any videos by cikljamas as real!
Are you also attracted to young Neil DeGrasse Tyson?Not in the slightest!
You even argued at a gif I posted as if I tryied to pass it off as real.Nothing of the sort! Where in the following do I suggest that you "tryiedi[](sic)[/i] to pass it off as real.".
Incorrect!
It's simply that ignorant folk like you that fail to understand that the "Earth's movement through space" causes nothing you can even measure!
Even the sedate Earth's rotation at about 0.00069 RPM is hard enough to measure with very sensitive instruments!
For the simple reason that there is nothing to adjust to! You feel only acceleration and especially changes in acceleration!
The acceleration due to the earth's rotation is only about 0.3% of gravity and simply changes the effective g very slightly - so no one feels it!
The acceleration due to the earth's orbiting the sun is far less at about 0.006 m/s2 but that is almost exactly constant anyway so there is nothing to be felt.
Mr Plat Terra, you seem such an expert in demonstrating the numerous way that flat earthers fail to understand such simple concepts - keep it up!
I guess I the truth be told, and I've said this before
I bet you have a place on your computer which is filled with templates for posting here.So sorry to disappoint but I'd never thought of that, Oh exalted one ::)!
One simple question, just to simplify things:
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/IB8Q3y.png)
And one more question:
Why is in the bigger picture the horizon on the water much closer than the Toronto skyline?
No, why ask me? It's not my picture!One simple question, just to simplify things:
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/IB8Q3y.png)
And one more question:
Why is in the bigger picture the horizon on the water much closer than the Toronto skyline?
Rab have you saved this picture for use in spamming later on ?
I'm sure its not the last time I will see thisAsk Macarios not me.
Unlike you, I don't shift my opinions all the time like a leaf blown in the breeze. I might change when I learn something new.
"Facts" don't change.Unlike you, I don't shift my opinions all the time like a leaf blown in the breeze. I might change when I learn something new.
As opposed to science which constantly changes its 'facts'?
I dont have many opinions when it comes to the field of science and our universe.Really? "Science" doesn't deal in "absolutes TRUTHS" though many things are regarded as "proven beyond a reasonable doubt".
I do know many absolute truths.
Also I will defend people their right to expression on a site devoted to their beliefs.I and others also have the right to debate those beliefs when the people present them as posts in the General or Debate forums - that is why they do it.
It seems as if the only thing on NASA paid shill's mind is crack cocaine. If somebody offers NASA shill any of it, he'll jump at it and take it. It's like offering a starving man a loaf of bread...
NASA shills are prepared to do anything (twisting logic, raping common sense, talking all kinds of senseless rubbish... ENDLESSLY) so to get their next fix of coke.
NASA shills are a desperate losers, and a drug addicts, only is hard to tell what exact drug are they on...
Having in mind the degree and the extent of their despair, it must be some special drug....
The mods certainly wont come to the partyThat's not my problem.
No, but I've seen this and that tells me what sort of a person YOU are!1. Have you ever seen this, Rabinoz :It boils down to this : Should we expect people and elephants to fall off (the face of) the earth easier than a butterflies or a flies? And if yes why?Now you try to deceived everybody and ridicule Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson, whose a 100 times the man you'll ever be!
You have had you deception pointed out a number of times and are not man enough to own up to it! How about either coming clean or running away?
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/pfxxyr162zu23n5/Apollo%2011%20on%20the%20moon%20picture%20%28earth%20added%29%20950x690.jpg?dl=1)
"Photoshopped" image used by arch-deceiver: cikljamas.(https://www.dropbox.com/s/25j6gqa4z21h5i3/Apollo%2011%20on%20the%20moon%20picture%20663x690.jpg?dl=1)
Genuine NASA image!
And this:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/y9m0s2skx1va7ri/Fake%20%27Dr.%20Neil%20DeGrass%20Tyson%27%20used%20by%20arch-deceiver%20cikljamas.jpg?dl=1)
Fake "Dr. Neil DeGrass Tyson" used by arch-deceiver cikljamas.(https://www.dropbox.com/s/abslpihhobb2af1/The%20real%20Neil%20deGrasse%20Tyson%20when%20young.jpg?dl=1)
The real Neil deGrasse Tyson when young
Does the real young Dr. Neil DeGrass Tyson look anything like the slob, "Dr. Neil DeGrass Tyson", that you used in your fake video?
What did you have to pay him to humiliate himself like that and read your silly script?
Read the rest in: HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum) « Reply #1129 on: September 08, 2019, 10:00:43 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2202004#msg2202004).
Rab, only a seriously mental ill person would think someone is trying to pass that video as real. Where is your common sense?
Are you also attracted to young Neil DeGrasse Tyson?
You even argued at a gif I posted as if I tryied to pass it off as real.
You need to get some real mental help for a fatal case of the CURVIES.And another showing Plat Terra's pitiful ignorance:Some members of the Globe Community are still trying to adjust to Earths movement through space.Incorrect!
(https://i.imgur.com/iUkVeef.gif)
It's simply that ignorant folk like you that fail to understand that the "Earth's movement through space" causes nothing you can even measure!
Even the sedate Earth's rotation at about 0.00069 RPM is hard enough to measure with very sensitive instruments!
For the simple reason that there is nothing to adjust to! You feel only acceleration and especially changes in acceleration!
The acceleration due to the earth's rotation is only about 0.3% of gravity and simply changes the effective g very slightly - so no one feels it!
The acceleration due to the earth's orbiting the sun is far less at about 0.006 m/s2 but that is almost exactly constant anyway so there is nothing to be felt.
Mr Plat Terra, you seem such an expert in demonstrating the numerous way that flat earthers fail to understand such simple concepts - keep it up!
It's a perfect match i would say...
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/y9m0s2skx1va7ri/Fake%20%27Dr.%20Neil%20DeGrass%20Tyson%27%20used%20by%20arch-deceiver%20cikljamas.jpg?dl=1)
Fake "Dr. Neil DeGrass Tyson" used by arch-deceiver cikljamas.(https://www.dropbox.com/s/abslpihhobb2af1/The%20real%20Neil%20deGrasse%20Tyson%20when%20young.jpg?dl=1)
The real Neil deGrasse Tyson when young
Does the real young Dr. Neil DeGrass Tyson look anything like the slob, "Dr. Neil DeGrass Tyson", that you used in your fake video?
It's a perfect match i would say...If you need to use "PhotoShopped" images, fake lying videos, outright lies and ad hominen attacks I'd say that you've already admitted that you've lost the case!
1. Have you ever seen this, Rabinoz :
It seems as if the only thing on NASA paid shill's mind is crack cocaine. If somebody offers NASA shill any of it, he'll jump at it and take it. It's like offering a starving man a loaf of bread...
NASA shills are prepared to do anything (twisting logic, raping common sense, talking all kinds of senseless rubbish... ENDLESSLY) so to get their next fix of coke.
NASA shills are a desperate losers, and a drug addicts, only is hard to tell what exact drug are they on...
Having in mind the degree and the extent of their despair, it must be some special drug....
Can you explain how trillions of billions of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere?
What would pull those "trillions of billions of water" anywhere else against the Earth's gravity?
Where to?
It boils down to this : Should we expect people and elephants to fall off (the face of) the earth easier than a butterflies or a flies? And if yes why? This guy nailed it down :
These guys nailed it down, also :
And now, something completely different :
THIS IS ALL YOU WILL EVER NEED TO BE SURE THAT THE EARTH IS SPHERICALLY SHAPED :
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2200711#msg2200711
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2200805#msg2200805
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2201616#msg2201616
If you carefully studied my argumentation provided on the pages to which you will be directed by clicking the links above, you would easily figure out why Rabinoz is right claiming :
"The left photo show a considerable hidden height but your flat earth should hide nothing, zilch."
Shall we see how it started???This thread?
Again: HOW IS THE GAS ACCELERATED?Initially in the rocket at rest relative to the rocket?
Apply Newton's laws of motion to the gas, initially in the rocket at rest relative to the rocket.
(https://i.postimg.cc/MKF2Y0Vp/ROCKET-PROPULSION-X.jpg)So you go and find the "As we shall see latter(sic), maximum thrust occurs when Pe=Pa" and find out what it means.
Shall we see how it started???
This is my post with which i somehow managed to offend you :
I have demonstrated my honesty by admitting (every single time) that i was wrong whenever i noticed a mistake that i had made. However, this simple concept (of admitting your obvious mistakes) is totally strange and incomprehensible to you and to Jack Black. Whenever it comes to my mind to tell you "shame on you", the next thought comes to my mind in a nanosecond : They have no idea what the word "shame" designates, and they have no idea what "a shame" is, because they haven't got a clue what the word "honesty" means.
1. Have you ever seen this, Rabinoz :
It seems as if the only thing on NASA paid shill's mind is crack cocaine. If somebody offers NASA shill any of it, he'll jump at it and take it. It's like offering a starving man a loaf of bread...
NASA shills are prepared to do anything (twisting logic, raping common sense, talking all kinds of senseless rubbish... ENDLESSLY) so to get their next fix of coke.
NASA shills are a desperate losers, and a drug addicts, only is hard to tell what exact drug are they on...
Having in mind the degree and the extent of their despair, it must be some special drug....
No, the “second body” isn't the gases...in a rocket launch...the rocket (engine) is the “first body” applying force (expelled gases= thrust= mass flow rate* exhaust velocity) to a second body (ground, then atmosphere).. which “pushes back” with equal and opposite force.. on the first body (rocket) forcing it to go up..
The first force (combustion-expansion-chemical reaction) forces one part of the second force (mass flow rate) to accelerate (which is another part of the second force).
So, we have the first force (chemical reaction) and the second force (thrust).
Initially in the rocket at rest relative to the rocket?Yes, initially in the rocket, at rest relative to the rocket. This is not a difficult concept to grasp.
Is that the same moment when the rocket is still at rest relative to the earth, also?That is entirely irrelevant.
I answered all your questions, and if you think i didn't, then why don't you enlighten us (finally), instead of endlessly regurgitating your same stupid questions?No you haven't, and the question isn't stupid at all. If it was, you would have answered it by now rather than continually deflecting.
Once again, just for you :Repeating the same BS spam will not help you.
I have also provided the answer before.
The gas interacts with the rocket, with this collision between the energetic gas particles and the rocket forcing the gas to accelerate backwards, out the rocket, while the rocket is forced to accelerate forwards.
If you want to go an even deeper level down, the energetic reaction heats up the gas and pushes it away from each other, causing it to expand in all directions. Some of this will go straight out of the rocket, but some will hit the rocket and be forced backwards. You might think this will produce less thrust, as less gas is being forced backwards by the rocket, but it doesn't as the gas that is being forced backwards by the rocket was already forced forwards by the rest of the gas and thus needs a larger force to move it backwards.
The first force (combustion-expansion-chemical reaction) forces one part of the second force (mass flow rate) to accelerate (which is another part of the second force).
So, we have the first force (chemical reaction) and the second force (thrust).
Mass flow rate is not force.
Think about the units. Mass flow rate is kg/s. Force is kg*m/s2.
Chemical reaction is not force.
But it causes force! The expanded gas applies force in all directions of the rocket nozzle. Equivalently, in case you're imagining the gas as "force carriers", the gas transfers force in all directions. It's the same thing, it just depends on how much detail you want to include in the diagram. The force on the sides of the nozzle balance out (as long as the bell doesn't rupture). What happens to the gas in the direction of the back of the rocket? It flies out the rocket, as there is nothing there to stop it. What happens to the gas in the direction of the front of the rocket? It pushes the rocket forward. Why? Because the equal and opposite force at the the rear of the rocket is not applied (or transferred) to the rocket. The gas is instead escaping. The force applied towards the rear is not against anything structurally attached, as the sides are. That imbalance of force within the rocket bell results in the acceleration of the entire rocket.
I have yet to see any apology or even a comment on your obvious deception.What deception? Moon landing deception? HC theory deception? Global warming deception? 9/11 deception? Evolution theory deception? "Rocket can work in a vacuum of space" deception? Flat earth psyop deception? Big Bang deception? Relativity theory deception? Name it...
An object sitting on the ground can only move upwards if it is pushed from underneath or lifted from the side/top.
Is that all I get? No rebuttal, no clarifications? No attempt at a common understanding of how we are speaking past each other?The first force (combustion-expansion-chemical reaction) forces one part of the second force (mass flow rate) to accelerate (which is another part of the second force).
So, we have the first force (chemical reaction) and the second force (thrust).
Mass flow rate is not force.
Think about the units. Mass flow rate is kg/s. Force is kg*m/s2.
Chemical reaction is not force.
But it causes force! The expanded gas applies force in all directions of the rocket nozzle. Equivalently, in case you're imagining the gas as "force carriers", the gas transfers force in all directions. It's the same thing, it just depends on how much detail you want to include in the diagram. The force on the sides of the nozzle balance out (as long as the bell doesn't rupture). What happens to the gas in the direction of the back of the rocket? It flies out the rocket, as there is nothing there to stop it. What happens to the gas in the direction of the front of the rocket? It pushes the rocket forward. Why? Because the equal and opposite force at the the rear of the rocket is not applied (or transferred) to the rocket. The gas is instead escaping. The force applied towards the rear is not against anything structurally attached, as the sides are. That imbalance of force within the rocket bell results in the acceleration of the entire rocket.
Total and utter bullshit!
This force pushing a rocket cannot be pushing on the inside of the rocket any more than you can push with your feet upwards against the inside of a cardboard box you are within to stop it from falling from a height.
An object sitting on the ground can only move upwards if it is pushed from underneath or lifted from the side/top. Since we know rockets are not lifted , they must be pushed. Therefore the gasses underneath the rocket must be pushing it up and off the launchpad.And the magical, musical question that you still aren't answering is "how exactly do those gasses push the rocket up and off the launchpad?"
An object sitting on the ground can only move upwards if it is pushed from underneath or lifted from the side/top.
Under which of these two categories would you classify an air balloon?
An object sitting on the ground can only move upwards if it is pushed from underneath or lifted from the side/top.
Under which of these two categories would you classify an air balloon?
1. Why airplane and ship propellers work differently, but using the same operating principle (NEWTON'S THIRD LAW)?
It's easy to see why there's a difference if we go back to Newton's third law. The simplest way to think of a propeller is as a device that moves a vehicle forward by pushing air or water backward. The force on the backward-moving fluid is equal to the force on the forward-moving vehicle. Now force is also the rate at which something's momentum changes, so we can also see a propeller as a device that gives a ship or a plane forward momentum by giving air or water an equal amount of backward momentum. Sea water is about 1000 times more dense than air (at sea level), so you need to move much more air than water to produce a similar change in momentum.
PUSHING BACKWARD = PUSHING OFF OF
2. Action and reaction
When we talk about jet engines, we to tend think of rocket-like tubes that fire exhaust gas backward. Another basic bit of physics, Newton's third law of motion, tells us that as a jet engine's exhaust gas shoots back, the plane itself must move forward.
PUSHING BACKWARD = PUSHING OFF OF
3. Jet engine is just more efficient than propellers, but the principle of working is the same in both cases : NEWTON'S THIRD LAW!!!
However, if anybody thinks that there's an essential difference (regarding the principle of working) between jet engines and propellers then i would like to see what makes the core of that difference.
You see, we are supposed to believe that there is an essential difference regarding the principle of working between jet engines and propellers, however, such difference doesn't exist in reality.
According to official science, although NEWTON'S THIRD LAW is a common explanation for how propellers, jets, and rockets work, NASA claims that jet engine's principle of working is basically "recoil mechanism" (this is how they are preparing us for swallowing their next lie, which pertains rocket's principle of working)...
(https://i.postimg.cc/4xXgKH6s/JET-ENGINE-PRINCIPLE-OF-WORKING.jpg)
4. Inflated 1000 miles up, or 4x as high as the ISS is supposedly orbiting. NASA has stolen hundreds of BILLIONS of unaccounted for dollars, of course the fake photos, film movies, CGI and facilities/airplanes and very overpaid employees etc does cost money but nowhere near that much. Between 2006 and 2009 there are no records of where NASA money went, look that one up. Kinda like the 1 TRILLION dollars Rumsfelds Pentagon "lost" as reported the DAY BEFORE 9-11, look that one up too. In 1932 Auguste Piccard went 10 miles up in a balloon, in 1935 Explorer II went up 14 miles.
ACCOMPANYING VIDEO :
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7gbiik
Will Helium Filled Balloons Float or Sink In a Vacuum Chamber :
An object sitting on the ground can only move upwards if it is pushed from underneath or lifted from the side/top.
However, if anybody thinks that there's an essential difference (regarding the principle of working) between jet engines and propellers then i would like to see what makes the core of that difference.Jet engines and propellers both work by chucking mass behind them. The important difference with rockets is that while propellers and jet engines get their chucking-mass from the air in front of them, rocket engines get their chucking-mass from the solid or liquid fuel carried with them.
This force pushing a rocket cannot be pushing on the inside of the rocket any more than you can push with your feet upwards against the inside of a cardboard box you are within to stop it from falling from a height.
However, if anybody thinks that there's an essential difference (regarding the principle of working) between jet engines and propellers then i would like to see what makes the core of that difference.Jet engines and propellers both work by chucking mass behind them. The important difference with rockets is that while propellers and jet engines get their chucking-mass from the air in front of them, rocket engines get their chucking-mass from the solid or liquid fuel carried with them.
In all cases, the important part of their locomotion is having some mass and chucking it out the rear. Just throw that mass backwards. Doesn't matter where it comes from. The faster you chuck it backwards, the faster you move forward.
The chucking mass doesn't have to be chucked against anything in particular. You might get some extra bounce from recoiling off the ground, the way helicopters do, but that's not what's relevant here. When you're on roller blades, you don't need to chuck a mass against a wall to roll forwards. The rolling forwards doesn't happen when the chucked mass hits anything. It happens when you chuck it.
Chucking is key.
This force pushing a rocket cannot be pushing on the inside of the rocket any more than you can push with your feet upwards against the inside of a cardboard box you are within to stop it from falling from a height.
You are staying in that box.
Exhaust does not.
Exhaust pushes the rocket and stays behind.
(https://i.postimg.cc/cJLdxTNF/ROCKETS-NASA-S-SILLIEST-LIE.jpg)
To acknowledge the existence of air drag in front of the rocket while, at the same time, deny the existence of the opposite air displacement exerted by the exhaust plume below it - is an utter contradiction in terms and a crude offense to common sense. If this were to be true (that "rockets do not push against air"), this would mean that the formidable, explosive thrust of a rocket's exhaust plume does not encounter any air resistance - a preposterous and outlandish contention, if there ever was one. Instead, as the NASA quackery goes, we are asked to believe that rockets are propelled solely by the "recoil force" generated by the rapid expulsion of fuel mass from rocket tanks. If this were true, we should all hover above our toilet seats when stricken with explosive diarrhea - yet I doubt that anyone has ever had the (mixed) fortune of experiencing such a thrill.
Total and utter bullshit!If you wish to dismiss it as BS you will need to provide an alternative.
but if you open the nozzle all the gas exits immediately before it can push against the ship.See, this is total and utter bullshit!
However, if anybody thinks that there's an essential difference (regarding the principle of working) between jet engines and propellers then i would like to see what makes the core of that difference.Jet engines and propellers both work by chucking mass behind them. The important difference with rockets is that while propellers and jet engines get their chucking-mass from the air in front of them, rocket engines get their chucking-mass from the solid or liquid fuel carried with them.
In all cases, the important part of their locomotion is having some mass and chucking it out the rear. Just throw that mass backwards. Doesn't matter where it comes from. The faster you chuck it backwards, the faster you move forward.
The chucking mass doesn't have to be chucked against anything in particular. You might get some extra bounce from recoiling off the ground, the way helicopters do, but that's not what's relevant here. When you're on roller blades, you don't need to chuck a mass against a wall to roll forwards. The rolling forwards doesn't happen when the chucked mass hits anything. It happens when you chuck it.
Chucking is key.
Is it?
(https://i.postimg.cc/cJLdxTNF/ROCKETS-NASA-S-SILLIEST-LIE.jpg)
To acknowledge the existence of air drag in front of the rocket while, at the same time, deny the existence of the opposite air displacement exerted by the exhaust plume below it - is an utter contradiction in terms and a crude offense to common sense. If this were to be true (that "rockets do not push against air"), this would mean that the formidable, explosive thrust of a rocket's exhaust plume does not encounter any air resistance - a preposterous and outlandish contention, if there ever was one. Instead, as the NASA quackery goes, we are asked to believe that rockets are propelled solely by the "recoil force" generated by the rapid expulsion of fuel mass from rocket tanks. If this were true, we should all hover above our toilet seats when stricken with explosive diarrhea - yet I doubt that anyone has ever had the (mixed) fortune of experiencing such a thrill.
A rocket rising through the atmosphere will nicely proceed upwards in its escape from gravity - as long as certain conditions are maintained: the relative pressures at the rocket's nozzle and the outside atmosphere need to be as equal as possible, in order to obtain maximum 'mileage' / efficiency from the rocket's fuel.No, it will keep going even if that condition isn't maintained. It will just be less efficient.
A rocket rising through the atmosphere will nicely proceed upwards in its escape from gravity - as long as certain conditions are maintained: the relative pressures at the rocket's nozzle and the outside atmosphere need to be as equal as possible, in order to obtain maximum 'mileage' / efficiency from the rocket's fuel.
In fact, NASA clearly states that the optimal running conditions of their rockets occur only ONCE, at a certain unspecified (mid-range) altitude, when the above-mentioned pressures are identical.Yes, "optimal running conditions of their rockets occur only ONCE, at a certain unspecified (mid-range) altitude" but
| Left to right: Falcon 1 Merlin 1C, Falcon 9 1C and Falcon 9 2nd stage 1C vacuum without the extension nozzle, so it's a shorter, fatter nozzle than the others: (https://i.stack.imgur.com/0A9SH.jpg) | And this extension nozzle of the vacuum engine looks like by itself: (https://i.stack.imgur.com/YC9rw.jpg) |
This, in perfect accordance with Newton's 3d law - what with its notion of "equal and opposite forces".While it is in "perfect accordance with Newton's 3d law" the differenct between sea-level and vacuum thrust is simple the pressure force term, Ae(Pe - Po).
Clearly, these rockets are designed to work best in our earthly atmosphere - and the atmospheric pressureNO![/b]
IS in fact "the equal and opposite force" which the rocket thrust pushes against[/b].All the rocket "pushes against" is the burnt propellant! Get used to it.
To deny this fact is pure, outlandish and deceptive NASA hogwash-babble. Ironically, it is NASA itself that claims that their rockets work BEST when those two pressures are equal !No, NASA do not say that a given rocket engine "works BEST when those two pressures are equal".
This is in perfect accord with the rocket thrust equation, (https://www.dropbox.com/s/0c7ice3pw4egizz/Rocket%20Thrust%20Equation.png?dl=1), used by Robert Goddard, ROSCOSMOS, NASA and Spacex!Heck, Rab, you are still too urban...Quote from: cikljamasThis, in perfect accordance with Newton's 3d law - what with its notion of "equal and opposite forces".While it is in "perfect accordance with Newton's 3d law" the differenct between sea-level and vacuum thrust is simple the pressure force term, Ae(Pe - Po).
That "pressure force term" is clearly a maximum when the outside pressure, Po, is zero!
Heck, Rab, you are still too urban...Hey Jamas, you are still avoiding the question.
Remember -- all I am offering is the truth, nothing more.Cut the crap. You are not offering the truth. You are offering a bunch of lies and continued avoidance.
(https://i.postimg.cc/MKF2Y0Vp/ROCKET-PROPULSION-X.jpg)So you go and find the "As we shall see latter(sic), maximum thrust occurs when Pe=Pa" and find out what it means.
I'm not NASA's spokesman! They know nothing of me.This is in perfect accord with the rocket thrust equation, (https://www.dropbox.com/s/0c7ice3pw4egizz/Rocket%20Thrust%20Equation.png?dl=1), used by Robert Goddard, ROSCOSMOS, NASA and Spacex!Heck, Rab, you are still too urban...Quote from: cikljamasThis, in perfect accordance with Newton's 3d law - what with its notion of "equal and opposite forces".While it is in "perfect accordance with Newton's 3d law" the difference between sea-level and vacuum thrust is simply the pressure force term, Ae(Pe - Po).
That "pressure force term" is clearly a maximum when the outside pressure, Po, is zero!
(https://i.postimg.cc/MKF2Y0Vp/ROCKET-PROPULSION-X.jpg)
If what you (and NASA) are saying was true, then you(NASA's spokesman)and NASA would be able to logically (mathematically) justify what NASA claims (not me).
Jack, have you ever seen this :Stop spamming with you same old material! We're sick of it!
Jack, have you ever seen this :Quit spamming BS and answer the question.
Jack, have you ever seen this :Stop spamming with you same old material! We're sick of it!
If this were true, we should all hover above our toilet seats when stricken with explosive diarrhea - yet I doubt that anyone has ever had the (mixed) fortune of experiencing such a thrill.
Only a pinched fart would produce the same amount of 'power'(odor-power, in this case) as a vigorously expelled bowel-gas sample. We all know that much!
I hope you understand how i feel about your ongoing copy paste avalanche.Jack, have you ever seen this :Stop spamming with you same old material! We're sick of it!
If this were true, we should all hover above our toilet seats when stricken with explosive diarrhea - yet I doubt that anyone has ever had the (mixed) fortune of experiencing such a thrill.Only a pinched fart would produce the same amount of 'power'(odor-power, in this case) as a vigorously expelled bowel-gas sample. We all know that much!
Hey man, are you okay?
More pathetic BS.Again, no where in that post did you even attempt to address the question.
I hope you understand how i feel about your ongoing copy paste avalanche.I rarely copy and paste, and when I do, it is just copying a question I have posted here which has gone ignored, or when I directly quote something.
(https://i.postimg.cc/HWbpkfpm/ROCKETS-PRESSURE-DIAGRAM-X.jpg)It would be prudent to post the source of you material, which here was, Physics Stack Exchange: Why the exhaust pressure should be equal to ambient pressure? (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/306140/why-the-exhaust-pressure-should-be-equal-to-ambient-pressure)
(https://i.postimg.cc/SQZpRqww/ROCKETS-PRESSURE-DIAGRAM-1-X.jpg)Where is there anything in there that disagrees with anything I said?
<< Previously answered material and trash deleted >>
Quote from: cikljamas(https://i.postimg.cc/SQZpRqww/ROCKETS-PRESSURE-DIAGRAM-1-X.jpg)Where is there anything in there that disagrees with anything I said?
I know that the optimum thrust does occur when the (exhaust pressure) equal to (outside pressure) but
I'm sick of saying and demonstrating that the penalty for having (exhaust pressure) slightly greater than (outside pressure) is not severe.
And every reference seems to agree with that and with rocket engines always performing better under vacuum conditions.
Jack, Rabinoz, and co., all you have to do is to put Tom Bishop's argument (Escape Velocity a.k.a. Flight Direction : Strictly Away from the center of the Earth) in this particular perspective :Rubbish! Your "particular perspective" is totally ludicrous as i show below,Quote from: cikljamasDANSITY TABLE :I am not answering all that in one go but first the total misoperation in you "density table". But why on earth do you use those funny cgs units and not SI units?
(https://i.postimg.cc/q795wjY5/DENSITY-TABLE.jpg)
As you can readily see, the two densities that NASA's rockets supposedly traverse as they rise up to the skies are hugely different.
(Just to put all this into perspective, on the other side of the spectrum we see that a "black hole" - considered by scientists as the highest imaginable pressure known to mankind - is 10 ^+27. In other words, one could say that the density gap/difference between VACUUM <vs> AIR is almost as large as the difference between WATER <vs> "BLACK HOLES". Food for thought, anyway.)
First of all your "density gap/difference between VACUUM <vs> AIR is almost as large as the difference between WATER <vs> BLACK HOLES" is total garbage!
"Density differences" are quite irrelevant anyway. It is only "pressure differences" that matter though for gasses they are related.
And it appears that you missed out on arithmetic in school because the difference between two numbers say A and B is A - B and NOT A/B.
It appears that you do not know even the simplest rules of arithmetic!
So the difference between (air density) and the (density of free space) is simply only 10-3 - 10-24 = 10-3 gm/cm3.
As far as a rocket's performance goes or the stresses involved in pressurising a crew habitat is make little difference if the pressure outside is one hundredth or one trillionth of normal atmospheric pressure.
And it makes you claim "In other words, one could say that the density gap/difference between VACUUM <vs> AIR is almost as large as the difference between WATER <vs> "BLACK HOLES". Food for thought, anyway.)" totally ludicrous!
But the density gap/difference between AIR vs VACUUM is just 1 while the density gap/difference between "BLACK HOLES" vs WATER is 1027 - not in the same "ball-park"!.
That doesn't have the emotional impact of your ridiculous and meaningless 1060, does it?
But you talk of densities rather misses the point! It is external pressure differences that slightly affect the thrust.
I hope you understand how i feel about your ongoing copy paste avalanche.Jack, have you ever seen this :Stop spamming with you same old material! We're sick of it!
As others have pointed out, you must have a certain template or maybe some sort of access to a NASA shill centre mainframe that provides all the data you’ll ever need about space fakery and co. ;D ;D
I really don’t think you are in a position to critisize cikljamas....
You knowYou KNOW that you are repeatedly avoiding a very simple question because it shows you are completely wrong and have been lying to everyone for the entirety of this thread.
Why would you answerI saw the Jack and thought he was addressing me. I made a mistake, it can happen quite easily.
I rarely copy and paste, and when I do, it is just copying a question I have posted here which has gone ignored, or when I directly quote something.Spot on !
Why would you answer with "I rarely copy and paste" when the comment was addressed to rabinoz, not you.I hope you understand how i feel about your ongoing copy paste avalanche.Jack, have you ever seen this :Stop spamming with you same old material! We're sick of it!
As others have pointed out, you must have a certain template or maybe some sort of access to a NASA shill centre mainframe that provides all the data you’ll ever need about space fakery and co. ;D ;D
I really don’t think you are in a position to critisize cikljamas....
Unless you were one and the same person.
FOR THE MODERATORS
This is the second clear instance where jackblack and rabinoz are answering issues meant for the other.
Here is the undeniable first occasion where this happened:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=80143.0
There were also several instances where jackblack answers directly the responses meant for rabinoz, and vice versa.
Not at all! "MANY, MANY TIMES greater than Pa" and the Rocket flies happily off into the great black yonder!Quote from: cikljamas(https://i.postimg.cc/SQZpRqww/ROCKETS-PRESSURE-DIAGRAM-1-X.jpg)Where is there anything in there that disagrees with anything I said?
I know that the optimum thrust does occur when the (exhaust pressure) equal to (outside pressure) but
I'm sick of saying and demonstrating that the penalty for having (exhaust pressure) slightly greater than (outside pressure) is not severe.
And every reference seems to agree with that and with rocket engines always performing better under vacuum conditions.
You know that the optimum thrust does occur when the exhaust pressure is equal to outside pressure but in the very next sentence you claim that rocket engines always perform better under vacuum conditions in which exhaust pressure is God only knows how much greater than outside pressure which is close to ZERO?????????????????
In other words :
Slight overexpansion causes a slight reduction in efficiency, but otherwise does little harm.
However, if the exit pressure is less than approximately 40 % that of ambient, then FLOW SEPARATION occurs. This can cause jet instabilities that can cause damage to the nozzle or simply cause control difficulties of the vehicle or the engine.
You see :
SITUATION No 1 (overexpansion)
Slight overexpansion = Little harm
When Pe is 40 % that of Pa = Very dangerous amount of overexpansion
Now, what happens on the other side of our "equation" (underexpansion)?
SITUATION No 2 (underexpansion)
Slight underexpansion = Little harm
When Pe is MANY, MANY TIMES greater than Pa = Rocket tumbles back to Earth
Now, compare these two situations, and try to use your brain finally!!!!I've been doing that all along, thank you!
When i say "compare these two situations", i mean this :No again! The "difference between Pe and Pa" is simply (Pe - Pa) NOT (Pe/Pa). Please learn the simplest rules of arithmetic!
Pay attention that on the first side of our "equation" we have 60 % difference between Pe and Pa, and on the
other side of our "equation" we have TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS % difference between Pe and Pa!!!
As I showed in the real life example of the SpaceX Merlin 1D sea-level engine:
This version with a comparatively small bell on the nozzle delivers a thrust of 845 kN (190,000 lbf) at sea-level and 914 kN (205,000 lbf) in a vacuum.
SpaceX also produce a vacuum version of that Merlin 1D engine:
This version with a bell on the nozzle as large as practical delivers a thrust of 934 kN (210,000 lbf) (in a vacuum).
The sea-level engine can be used all the way from sea level to space conditions but does not produce quite as much thrust in space conditions (914 kN) as the vacuum version (934 kN).
I remember, on one occasion Alpha2Omega (after being suspected of using various profiles, one of which is JackBlack) claimed that JackBlack lives in very different time zone, that is to say in another continent. Yes, Alpha2Omega pointed out that JackBlack lives in another continent. In which one, i didn't ask him to specify...Could it be perhaps Australia? And if the answer is YES, then maybe JackBlack and Rabinoz use the same IP address...And if they use the same IP address, could it be that they use the same brain, also? Since they demonstrated (countless times) the same kind of idiotic reasoning, it doesn't seem far fetched that JackBlack and Rabinoz are the same person.Well, JackBlack and Rabinoz both live in Australia. I live near Brisbane in Queensland but I don't know where JackBlack lives or have the slightest idea what his IP address might be.
Since they demonstrated (countless times) the same kind of idiotic reasoning, it doesn't seem far fetched that JackBlack and Rabinoz are the same person.You mean since we have repeatedly refuted you you will try whatever BS you can to get rid of us so you can spam your garbage unchallenged?
So what?There were also several instances where jackblack answers directly the responses meant for rabinoz, and vice versa.Spot on !
..... and it isn’t the first time.
It can happen only in your wildest dreams!!!Not at all! "MANY, MANY TIMES greater than Pa" and the Rocket flies happily off into the great black yonder!Quote from: cikljamas(https://i.postimg.cc/SQZpRqww/ROCKETS-PRESSURE-DIAGRAM-1-X.jpg)Where is there anything in there that disagrees with anything I said?
I know that the optimum thrust does occur when the (exhaust pressure) equal to (outside pressure) but
I'm sick of saying and demonstrating that the penalty for having (exhaust pressure) slightly greater than (outside pressure) is not severe.
And every reference seems to agree with that and with rocket engines always performing better under vacuum conditions.
You know that the optimum thrust does occur when the exhaust pressure is equal to outside pressure but in the very next sentence you claim that rocket engines always perform better under vacuum conditions in which exhaust pressure is God only knows how much greater than outside pressure which is close to ZERO?????????????????
In other words :
Slight overexpansion causes a slight reduction in efficiency, but otherwise does little harm.
However, if the exit pressure is less than approximately 40 % that of ambient, then FLOW SEPARATION occurs. This can cause jet instabilities that can cause damage to the nozzle or simply cause control difficulties of the vehicle or the engine.
You see :
SITUATION No 1 (overexpansion)
Slight overexpansion = Little harm
When Pe is 40 % that of Pa = Very dangerous amount of overexpansion
Now, what happens on the other side of our "equation" (underexpansion)?
SITUATION No 2 (underexpansion)
Slight underexpansion = Little harm
When Pe is MANY, MANY TIMES greater than Pa = Rocket tumbles back to Earth
Look Sandokhan makes some interesting points but Rabinoz has made a very strong and very powerful denial.And to be totally honest, even if JackBlack is your alt, it doesn't bother me (at all), but since you are the one who constantly complain about alleged dishonesty of others, then it is interesting/important to point out how 65 % chance that JackBlack is your alt is not such a low probability, as some mathematicians would want us to believe...
Our investigation is complete. We have determined that there is only a 65% chance that Jack Black is an alt of Rab. Not enough to act on.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=80143.msg2156841#msg2156841
After all the time I took to carefully explain it to you!Not at all! "MANY, MANY TIMES greater than Pa" and the Rocket flies happily off into the great black yonder!It can happen only in your wildest dreams!!!
Paper can withstand anything!!!
You can say and believe anything you want, but no sane person will ever buy any of countless stupidities that NASA, you and your alt (JackBlack) relentlessly spout regarding "rockets can fly in a vacuum of space" myth.
According to you, your alt (JackBlack),If you claim that you are a liar pure and simple!
and NASA, 40 % overexpansion is lethal for rocket's stable functioning, and trillions and trillions % underexpansion doesn't cause any instability in rocket's functioning (in a vacuum of space)!!!There isn't any "trillions and trillions % underexpansion"! Can't you understand that it is the difference in pressures in both cases that matters! Look again at (pe MINUS po)!
This is totally beyond imagination even beyond imagination of seriously mentally ill persons...Yes, I imagine that a "seriously mentally ill person" might not know the distinction between addition, subtraction, multiplication and division but I had hoped that you were a rational being.
Btw, if there was 65 % probability that you would win a lottery, would you invest some money in such a bet?And as usual, Sandokhan is wrong! He claims that the earth is flat, the sun is 15 km above the earth and writes this:
Why do i ask you this question?
Here is why :QuoteLook Sandokhan makes some interesting points but Rabinoz has made a very strong and very powerful denial.
Our investigation is complete. We have determined that there is only a 65% chance that Jack Black is an alt of Rab.
FET is a subset of a larger topic: the new radical chronology of history.Interesting . . . .
The new chronology of history: the correct chronology starts in the year 1000 AD, nothing is known prior to 800 AD.
The new radical chronology of history: each and every event assumed to have taken place prior to 1780 AD has been totally forged/invented/falsified. History is just some 365 years old (I started with a figure of 500 years, and slowly reduced the period to 364-365 years).
Christ was crucified at Constantinople some 260 years ago, and the falsification of each and every known religious text begun soon after, in the period 1775-1790 AD.
The Deluge occurred some 310 years ago; while the dinosaurs were created a few decades earlier, after Adam and Eve joined the one million pairs of humans which already were living beyond the Garden of Eden.
That MINUS is meaningless, and the whole formula is meaningless, you still haven't figured this out?After all the time I took to carefully explain it to you!Not at all! "MANY, MANY TIMES greater than Pa" and the Rocket flies happily off into the great black yonder!It can happen only in your wildest dreams!!!
Paper can withstand anything!!!
You can say and believe anything you want, but no sane person will ever buy any of countless stupidities that NASA, you and your alt (JackBlack) relentlessly spout regarding "rockets can fly in a vacuum of space" myth.Quote from: cikljamasAccording to you, your alt (JackBlack),If you claim that you are a liar pure and simple!Quote from: cikljamasand NASA, 40 % overexpansion is lethal for rocket's stable functioning, and trillions and trillions % underexpansion doesn't cause any instability in rocket's functioning (in a vacuum of space)!!!There isn't any "trillions and trillions % underexpansion"! Can't you understand that it is the difference in pressures in both cases that matters! Look again at (pe MINUS po)!
You only get your silly "trillions and trillions %" if you divide!
Didn't you do the simplest arithmetic and learn addition, subtraction, multiplication and division?
That MINUS is meaningless, and the whole formula is meaningless, you still haven't figured this out?After all the time I took to carefully explain it to you!Not at all! "MANY, MANY TIMES greater than Pa" and the Rocket flies happily off into the great black yonder!It can happen only in your wildest dreams!!!
Paper can withstand anything!!!
You can say and believe anything you want, but no sane person will ever buy any of countless stupidities that NASA, you and your alt (JackBlack) relentlessly spout regarding "rockets can fly in a vacuum of space" myth.Quote from: cikljamasAccording to you, your alt (JackBlack),If you claim that you are a liar pure and simple!Quote from: cikljamasand NASA, 40 % overexpansion is lethal for rocket's stable functioning, and trillions and trillions % underexpansion doesn't cause any instability in rocket's functioning (in a vacuum of space)!!!There isn't any "trillions and trillions % underexpansion"! Can't you understand that it is the difference in pressures in both cases that matters! Look again at (pe MINUS po)!
You only get your silly "trillions and trillions %" if you divide!
Didn't you do the simplest arithmetic and learn addition, subtraction, multiplication and division?
It can happen only in your wildest dreams!!!You are the one who is living in your wildest dreams.
I am terrified :It can happen only in your wildest dreams!!!A question which apparently terrifies you.
A question you seem to think you need to avoid at all costs.
I am terrified :So why not cut the crap and admit you have been lying the whole time? That you know that rockets will work in a vacuum?
I am terrified :So why not cut the crap and admit you have been lying the whole time? That you know that rockets will work in a vacuum?
If you wish to disagree, tell us how the gas accelerates.
Once you have done one of those, I will even fix up your strawman for you.
How the gas accelerates?No, that isn't how. That is just a crappy image.
This is how :
America remembers 9/11 - one of the greatest bullshit stories ever told :Which has nothing to do with the topic!
(https://i.postimg.cc/15jNS4jB/IN-BULLSHIT-WE-TRUST-XXX-1.jpg)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPrRxhYJMkQ (https://www.youtube.com.au/watch?v=XPrRxhYJMkQ)Not a patch on the fabrication and "PhotoShopped" photos and total deception in your obnoxious videos!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHePvEIo4vA (https://www.youtube.com.au/watch?v=UHePvEIo4vA)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gt-lH5ZyMAE (https://www.youtube.com.au/watch?v=Gt-lH5ZyMAE)
How about this bullshit story:
Yes, I figured it out long ago!That MINUS is meaningless, and the whole formula is meaningless, you still haven't figured this out?After all the time I took to carefully explain it to you!Not at all! "MANY, MANY TIMES greater than Pa" and the Rocket flies happily off into the great black yonder!It can happen only in your wildest dreams!!!
Paper can withstand anything!!!
You can say and believe anything you want, but no sane person will ever buy any of countless stupidities that NASA, you and your alt (JackBlack) relentlessly spout regarding "rockets can fly in a vacuum of space" myth.Quote from: cikljamasAccording to you, your alt (JackBlack),If you claim that you are a liar pure and simple!Quote from: cikljamasand NASA, 40 % overexpansion is lethal for rocket's stable functioning, and trillions and trillions % underexpansion doesn't cause any instability in rocket's functioning (in a vacuum of space)!!!There isn't any "trillions and trillions % underexpansion"! Can't you understand that it is the difference in pressures in both cases that matters! Look again at (pe MINUS po)!
You only get your silly "trillions and trillions %" if you divide!
Didn't you do the simplest arithmetic and learn addition, subtraction, multiplication and division?
When Pe = Pa then the optimum thrust does occur (as you and NASA admit)!No, it makes perfect sense!
So when Pe = 1, and Pa = 1, then (Pe-Pa) = (1-1) = (0)
It doesn't make any sense!
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/0c7ice3pw4egizz/Rocket%20Thrust%20Equation.png?dl=1)If you cannot understand something as simple as that then you simply should not be here debating "Rockets can't fly in a vacuum"!
WhyIt means nothing of the sort! The optimum thrust (but not necessarily the best to aim for) is when Pe = Pa, which might be at Pa = 0.
Because, according to that formula the optimum thrust occurs when Pa = 0, not when Pe = Pa!!!
What this means?Exactly because it is the whole expression for the rocket thrust, (https://www.dropbox.com/s/0c7ice3pw4egizz/Rocket%20Thrust%20Equation.png?dl=1) that is being optimised not just the pressure thrust term.
This means that since the pressure in a vacuum (Pa) is very close to ZERO, then Pe (the exhaust pressure) should be also very close to ZERO, and this is the only way how you can get desired ratio 1 : 1, that is to say : Pe = Pa when the optimum thrust does occur (as you and NASA admit)!!!
So, you have to use your common sense, instead of blindly staring in that fraudulent, misleading MINUS.
So, what our great mathematician Rabinoz is actually saying is this :Exactly because it is the pressure difference, Ae(pe - po), in the rocket thrust equation.
When you subtract 0,0001 from 1, you get 0,9999...Now, since 0,9999 is practically 1, then the difference between 0,0001 and 1 is 1, not 10000!!!
In an example above, according to our Einstein (Rabinoz) the difference between 10^-3 and 10^-24 is 10^-3
because we have to subtract 10^-24 from 10^-3 in order to get the difference... The difference (in literal meaning of this word "the difference") is 10^-3, indeed,It surely is!
but the real question is whether we are interested here in a literal meaning of the word "difference" or are we interested in "for how much (times) one of our numbers (10^-3) is greater than another number (10^-24)?"And we are interested in the DIFFERENCE for the simple reason that Ae(pe - po) involves the DIFFERENCE and NOT the RATION.
So, the real difference between our two numbers (between density of air and density of vacuum) is 10^21 a.k.a. sextillion a.k.a order of magnitude 21.No, the REAL difference between sea-level atmospheric pressure (101.3 kPa) and outer space pressure (1.322 × 10−11 Pa) is simply 101.3 kPa.
NASA is no match to our Einstein (Rabinoz)!!![/b][/color]Well NASA, SpaceX and all the other space agencies agree with me and all quite successfully send spacecraft into LEO and GEO so, Mr Cikljamas, suck it up and get used to it!
If you think that "the whole formula is meaningless" then please show YOUR DERIVATION of the rocket thrust.Since the rocket thrust equation I was discussing was using a "conventional NORMAL EXHAUST" I'll ignore the rest of your post.
Enough of this crap.
The rocket thrust formula is applicable ONLY to conventional NORMAL EXHAUST.
So, the conventional rocket thrust equation is applicable only to conventional rocket designs, nothing else.Fine, and the "rocket thrust equation", (https://www.dropbox.com/s/0c7ice3pw4egizz/Rocket%20Thrust%20Equation.png?dl=1), is for "conventional rocket designs".
Enough of this crap.Yes, enough of this crap.
If you think that "the whole formula is meaningless" then please show YOUR DERIVATION of the rocket thrust.
Enough of this crap.
The rocket thrust formula is applicable ONLY to conventional NORMAL EXHAUST.
FOR A RING SHAPED EXHAUST, the rocket thrust formula is useless and inapplicable.
The ring shaped exhaust is the most advanced design in existence for rockets, much higher than the normal exhaust configuration.
The rocket relies then on the torsion field of zero point energy for the thrust.
Here are the complete details:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1740524#msg1740524
(https://image.ibb.co/fh6G3y/bu1_zpsprblhrrw.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/hkBzOy/bu4_zpszlyb4jft.jpg)
The design uses VACUUM CHAMBER PHYSICS to provide the necessary thrust.
So, the conventional rocket thrust equation is applicable only to conventional rocket designs, nothing else.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/74623987/Construiti-v%C4%83-cu-mijloace-Proprii-un-O-Z-N?secret_password=1m93qntj0mpfricfc5us&campaign=VigLink&ad_group=xxc1xx&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate
I said "applicable", not pertinent for each and every situation.I can ignore the rest of that post and I did!
As such, you still have to deal with the arguments presented by cikljamas.
Here is the book written by Dr. Bursuc (the bibliography also includes the papers he published in English):
https://www.scribd.com/doc/74623987/Construiti-v%C4%83-cu-mijloace-Proprii-un-O-Z-N?secret_password=1m93qntj0mpfricfc5us&campaign=VigLink&ad_group=xxc1xx&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate
It includes the full equations, and the details regarding the experiments performed in 1988 at the Ministry of Defense, under the supervision of State Security officers (pg 115 - 127); the experiment was classified immediately.
Since the rocket thrust equation I was discussing was using a "conventional NORMAL EXHAUST" I'll ignore the rest of your post.
You cannot.
Oh noDanang, many Christians will not "swear on the Bible" even in a court of law.
James 5:12And the same goes for Buzz Aldrin and that low-life, Bart Sibrel, probably knew that!
But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath; but your yes is to be yes, and your no, no, so that you may not fall under judgment.
As such, you still have to deal with the arguments presented by cikljamas.No, you both still need to deal with the arguments put forward by us. Jamas has already had his arguments refuted repeatedly, as have you.
But, to be honest, Rabinoz and JackBlack are one of those who are going to buy whatever they are told, no doubts about that...If that was the case we would have accepted your BS long ago. Instead we have repeatedly refuted you with you completely unable to offer justification for any of your arguments and instead repeatedly avoiding extremely simple questions and ignoring the refutation of your claims.
Plus Sibrel admitted in court that he was going to call the astronauts liars whether they swore or not and he doesn't like to show you the videos he took of those that did swear on the Bible. Why should anyone cooperate with someone like that?Oh noDanang, many Christians will not "swear on the Bible" even in a court of law.QuoteJames 5:12And the same goes for Buzz Aldrin and that low-life, Bart Sibrel, probably knew that!
But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath; but your yes is to be yes, and your no, no, so that you may not fall under judgment.
But what has that to do with the topic, "Rockets can't fly in a vacuum"?
or admit that rockets do work in a vacuum?
The ring shaped exhaust rocket CANNOT function in pure vacuum (without even scalar waves, ether).
A proven fact.
There is no pure vacuum even right under the dome and right above it: you still have the ether waves travelling through the vacuum with no problems at all.
or admit that rockets do work in a vacuum?I don't care about your ring shaped exhaust, nor do I care about a perfect vacuum.
The ring shaped exhaust rocket CANNOT function in pure vacuum (without even scalar waves, ether).
If you've just read Rabinoz' attempt of refutation of what i had presented (pointing out convoluted logic ingrained in that rocket formula) in the first post on this very page, take my advise very seriously : Make instantly an appointment with your shrink and go check how seriously your brain has been damaged.Admit it, Mr Cikljamas, you have never shown where I am wrong, have you?
But, to be honest, Rabinoz and JackBlack are one of those who are going to buy whatever they are told, no doubts about that...No, if you could be honest for once, Mr Cikljamas, you have to admit that I justified every claim that I made and the only refutation you can come up with is ridicule and personal attack!
Let me show you just how stupid these guys have to be so to buy whatever they are told, even beyond-belief-theories such as this :Those issues are totally irrelevant to YOUR own topic and have not been discussed so you are the stupid one to ignorantly make a claim this:
Dr. Niels Harrit on 911 hijackers passport being found - part 1 (https://www.youtube.com.au/watch?v=Zmtg8rkb0aQ)
Dr. Niels Harrit on 911 hijackers passport being found - part 2 (https://www.youtube.com.au/watch?v=l6t-WvgZHo4)
Alex Jones:The 9/11 Hijackers Passports Were Made Of Kryptonite (RANT)! (https://www.youtube.com.au/watch?v=yXV2-wpz8Qo)
GEOCENTRICITY - THOUGHT CRIME (https://www.youtube.com.au/watch?v=WoMlnxYrHKQ)
Rabinoz is perfectly "okay" (high and lifted up by some very strong substance): << post deleted >>That post was by "Plat Terra on September 09, 2019, 10:11:20 AM" not me so I deleted your reference - hope you don't mind!!
As you all know, Rabinoz is top "okay" (highest) after watching the most favorit(sic) video of all times in which his idol: (young NeilDeGrass Tyson) explains the top secrets about gravity (https://www.youtube.com.au/watch?v=Md7j3WrycRI)As I said before, Mr Cikljamas, such personal attacks on me prove one thing and that is:
Let me explain to everyone how a ring shaped exhaust functions.
(https://image.ibb.co/bvnOiy/bu2_zpsth1zkuqo.jpg)
The gases will be expelled at a very high speed through the specially designed nozzle design, at least 3.5 Mach.
The gases will then block not only air but ALSO the ether waves (telluric currents). It will form a VACUUM CHAMBER, which then will immediately be filled with ether, in the form of a TORSION FIELD.
This torsion field will act as an antigravitational force which provides the necessary thrust.
So, in a pure vacuum chamber, with no ether waves, it could not function at all.
This much is known at this time regarding this fantastic design, much more advanced than the conventional nozzle models.
Let me explain to everyone how a ring shaped exhaust functions.No, lets first deal with normal rockets.
Let me explain to everyone how a ring shaped exhaust functions.So what?
(https://image.ibb.co/bvnOiy/bu2_zpsth1zkuqo.jpg)
The gases will be expelled at a very high speed through the specially designed nozzle design, at least 3.5 Mach.
but you are both devoid of common decency, honesty and are also "Incompetent in Physics".I see nothing relevant to having "common decency, honesty and are also 'Incompetent in Physics' " in that!
You must be describing your own contribution to this forum.
Here is a sample: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82968.0
Oh noDanang, many Christians will not "swear on the Bible" even in a court of law.QuoteJames 5:12And the same goes for Buzz Aldrin and that low-life, Bart Sibrel, probably knew that!
But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath; but your yes is to be yes, and your no, no, so that you may not fall under judgment.
But what has that to do with the topic, "Rockets can't fly in a vacuum"?
It is the shape of the nozzle which makes all the difference.I don't care.
[more pathetic spam]I see you are still running away from the very simple question.
HERE IS THE ANSWER YOU ARE LOOKING FOR, JACK - part 1 : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2201342#msg2201342[more pathetic spam]I see you are still running away from the very simple question.
"Our results clearly showed that the strongest predictor of conspiracy belief was a constellation of personality characteristics collectively referred to as 'schizotypy,' Hart said.Please don’t tell me that you think WTC7 collapsed due to raging office fires.
The trait borrows its name from schizophrenia, but it does not imply a clinical diagnosis. Hart's study also showed that conspiracists had distinct cognitive tendencies: they were more likely than nonbelievers to judge nonsensical statements as profound (a tendency known as "BS receptivity").
(https://media.giphy.com/media/Tt9jctxaVjRny/giphy.gif)What’s your idea when presenting those pictures with a certain provocative content lately ?
Everyone is an expert.No silly...not everyone ::) but this guy was.
Are globeearth hangouts that miserable that you need to come over here for some really interresting debate ? ;D ;DYes! They are a goddamn drag.
You know the best counterargument to a worldwide conspiracy is the fact it is people like you who are on to it?Hey kid, i've got something for your damaged brain (stop watching CNN, or else your brain is going to be damaged beyond repair) :
Not everyone here is American, man.You know the best counterargument to a worldwide conspiracy is the fact it is people like you who are on to it?Hey kid, i've got something for your damaged brain (stop watching CNN, or else your brain is going to be damaged beyond repair) :
Everyone is an expert.No silly...not everyone ::) but this guy was.
Danny Jowenko.....i watched it on dutch tv when almost no American heard about building nr. 7 and it's sudden collapse.
Danny was a worldleading demolition expert who (as the vid shows) boldly claimed it was a demolition without knowing what ''collapse'' footage was presented.
It is hard to find the original content of the full dutch tv program, but he simply dismisses any other option than a pre-orchestrated demolition.
I started to doubt the official narritive from that moment....
Let's see what Wernher-Von-Braun has to say about feasibility of human trip to the moon :he is talking about the direct ascent method of getting to the Moon and back which was first considered.
(https://i.postimg.cc/hGNMpHRd/Wernher-Von-Braun-page-14-X.jpg)
Mr Cikljamas you show more of your own character by demeaning comments like "your damaged brain" and "your brain is going to be damaged beyond repair".You know the best counterargument to a worldwide conspiracy is the fact it is people like you who are on to it?Hey kid, i've got something for your damaged brain (stop watching CNN, or else your brain is going to be damaged beyond repair) :
<< Irrelevant to topic of Rockets can't fly in a vacuum >>That's what happens now with the ISS and I presume that you do note the resupply missions flown by the USA, SpaceX, Arianespace, ROSCOSMOS and JAVA.
Let's see what Wernher-Von-Braun has to say about feasibility of human trip to the moon:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/sq7zkvmy28cqudt/Wernher-Von-Braun-page-14-X-1.jpg?dl=1)
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ym5pc73q9k1jorc/Wernher-Von-Braun-page-14-X-2.jpg?dl=1)This is really quite irrelevant because Wernher Von Braun was planning a single massive spacecraft to fly to the moon and return.
If your brain is not seriously damaged then how can you believe in 9/11 official story?Mr Cikljamas you show more of your own character by demeaning comments like "your damaged brain" and "your brain is going to be damaged beyond repair".You know the best counterargument to a worldwide conspiracy is the fact it is people like you who are on to it?Hey kid, i've got something for your damaged brain (stop watching CNN, or else your brain is going to be damaged beyond repair) :
And don't look good for YOU!
If your brain is not seriously damaged then [...]
If your brain is not seriously damaged then [...]
If your brain is not seriously damaged then [...]
If your brain is not seriously damaged then [...]
If your brain is not seriously damaged then [...]
If your brain is not seriously damaged then [...]
If your brain is not seriously damaged then [...]
If your brain is not seriously damaged then [...]
If your brain is not seriously damaged then [...]
If your brain were not seriously damaged [...]
Your topic is "Rockets can't fly in a vacuum" and that question is irrelevant so I'll cross it out! Hope you don't mind!Mr Cikljamas you show more of your own character by demeaning comments like "your damaged brain" and "your brain is going to be damaged beyond repair".
And don't look good for YOU!If your brain is not seriously damaged then how can you believe in 9/11 official story?
If your brain is not seriously damaged then how can you believe in authenticity of "moon landings"?Your topic is "Rockets can't fly in a vacuum" but your "HOAX" bit seems to cover that.
Your topic is "Rockets can't fly in a vacuum" and that question is irrelevant so I'll cross it out! Hope you don't mind!If your brain is not seriously damaged then how can you believe in HC theory?
Your topic is "Rockets can't fly in a vacuum" and that question is irrelevant so I'll cross it out! Hope you don't mind!If your brain is not seriously damaged then how can you believe in "lone gunman" theory (JFK assassination)?
Your topic is "Rockets can't fly in a vacuum" and that question is irrelevant so I'll cross it out! Hope you don't mind!If your brain is not seriously damaged then how can you believe in theory of evolution?
Your topic is "Rockets can't fly in a vacuum" and that question is irrelevant so I'll cross it out! Hope you don't mind!If your brain is not seriously damaged then how can you believe in theory of relativity?
Your topic is "Rockets can't fly in a vacuum" and that question is irrelevant so I'll cross it out! Hope you don't mind!If your brain is not seriously damaged then how can you believe in global warming theory?
Your topic is "Rockets can't fly in a vacuum" and that question is irrelevant so I'll cross it out! Hope you don't mind!If your brain is not seriously damaged then how can you believe that something can come out of literally "nothing" (big bang theory)?
If your brain is not seriously damaged then how can you believe that rockets can fly in a vacuum of space (perfect vacuum)?For the simple reason that rockets flying in a vacuum of space (perfect vacuum is easily explain using well accepted and proved "laws of physics".
If your brain were not seriously damaged would anyone feel the need to ask you the following questions :You'll have to ask "anyone", not I!
I don’t remember seeing Sick Llamas in the past, but he does appear a true paladin of FE.If you were not a genuine idiot, you just couldn't overlook what i posted on this very page in reply #1237 :
I did miss all that.I don’t remember seeing Sick Llamas in the past, but he does appear a true paladin of FE.If you were not a genuine idiot, you just couldn't overlook what i posted on this very page in reply #1237 :
New research by Josh Hart, associate professor of psychology, suggests that people with certain personality traits and cognitive styles are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories. The research was recently published in the Journal of Individual Differences.
"These people tend to be more suspicious, untrusting, eccentric, needing to feel special, with a tendency to regard the world as an inherently dangerous place," Hart said. "They are also more likely to detect meaningful patterns where they might not exist.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2203639#msg2203639
All main-stream-9/11-official story-believers a.k.a. utter-idiots (like you) deliberately overlook (actually pretend that they are not aware of them/that they didn't see them (my numerous anti-FE posts)) countless strong protestations against those who promote FE idiotic theory, which numerous posts are disseminated throughout various threads on this very forum! Why so many scumbags like you play dumb regarding this important fact? Because they have very important agenda which is a special mission a.k.a. sinister plot a.k.a. very, very real conspiracy. I have explained many times how and why these low-life bastards are the greatest enemies of the truth. Last time i did it here : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2200805#msg2200805 So, let me point out the following words once again, for those who by chance (not deliberately, as loafers like you do) failed to read them before :
Flat-earth stupidity revival was orchestrated by NASA guys. They organized it in a way that was going to produce the desired result : whenever someone mentions something about NASA fraudulent missions, or about the heliocentric hoax (which is a grandaddy of all deceptions in today's world) or about "evolution theory" hoax, or about Big-Bang idiocy, or about 9/11 inside job, or about NWO agenda, or about Kennedy assassination (which was an inside job, also), etc..., they instantly pull out from their asses "flat earth stupidity" saying : you see there is no essential difference between these guys (geocentrists-real truth seekers) and those who believe that the earth is flat (they instantly assign flat-earth label to all of them/us, in order to discredit every voice of reason in today's fucked up world)...
Give me the name of one (JUST ONE) prominent scientist (or well educated person) who lived in last 2 500 years or even christian theologian who ever lived (in last 2 000 years) on this earth who claimed that the earth is flat!!! JUST ONE NAME, can you do that??? The earth is motionless and in the center of the universe, but the earth isn't flat for God sake, what is wrong with you people? How about this (simple challenge) : If the earth were flat, then the flat earth map SHOULD BE ABSOLUTELY EASY to make. Many have tried already, and all of them terribly failed. How hard is to infer (correctly) why no one can draw functional flat earth map WITH ABSOLUTE EASINESS on the flat sheet of paper??? If the earth is flat and flat sheet of paper is also flat all you have to do (to deal with) is to scale down the real face of the earth, isn't that so??? So, why don't you try to draw functional flat earth map? Why??? I'll tell you why : because it is absolutely impossible, that's why!
O.K., now just one little, simple, easy question for you :
I did miss all that.
Sorry about that.
Because they need and/or choose to do so? Because the alternative means the world they created for themselves comes crashing down?O.K., now just one little, simple, easy question for you :
I did miss all that.
Sorry about that.
Can you fathom how someone/anyone (whose brain in not damaged beyond repair) can miss ELEPHANT in the room? CAN YOU???
Because they need and/or choose to do so? Because the alternative means all they believe to be true will come crashing down?O.K., now just one little, simple, easy question for you :
I did miss all that.
Sorry about that.
Can you fathom how someone/anyone (whose brain in not damaged beyond repair) can miss ELEPHANT in the room? CAN YOU???
I don’t remember seeing Sick Llamas in the past, but he does appear a true paladin of FE.If you were not a genuine idiot, you just couldn't overlook what i posted on this very page in reply #1237 :
O.K., now just one little, simple, easy question for you :
I did miss all that.
Sorry about that.
O.K., now just one little, simple, easy question for you :Because they need and/or choose to do so? Because the alternative means all they believe to be true will come crashing down?
Can you fathom how someone/anyone (whose brain in not damaged beyond repair) can miss ELEPHANT in the room? CAN YOU???
Ever tried looking in a mirror to see what someone whose brain is damaged beyond repair really looks like?O.K., now just one little, simple, easy question for you :
I did miss all that.
Sorry about that.
Can you fathom how someone/anyone (whose brain in not damaged beyond repair) can miss ELEPHANT in the room? CAN YOU???
So, you missed elephant in the room because the alternative means all you believe to be true will come crashing down?Ah, but here we might not agree; I believe I have not missed any elephants.
Can you fathom how someone/anyone (whose brain in not damaged beyond repair) can miss ELEPHANT in the room? CAN YOU???Yeah yeah, everything is a conspiracy, everything is a lie, everyone is lying to you, and NASA is misappropriating billions of dollars, but that doesn't matter because dollars are controlled by zionist bankers, but that doesn't matter because reality is a hologram matrix, etc.
Yeah yeah, everything is a conspiracy, everything is a lie, everyone is lying to you, and NASA is misappropriating billions of dollars, but that doesn't matter because dollars are controlled by zionist bankers, but that doesn't matter because reality is a hologram matrix, etc.Funny....hahaha
I don’t think anyone has said NASA ”is without blemish”. But it takes a lot to go from blemishes to a full-blown pancontinental conspiracy.Well every topic about contradicatory statements from astronauts, destroyed telemetry data, cocaine use on the workfloor, altered(enhanced) footage and audio recordings from space missions, newly created footage in the nineties from supposed earlier events, destroyed technologies involving the blueprints of moon vehicles are all dismissed in all cases.
Yeah yeah, everything is a conspiracy, everything is a lie, everyone is lying to you, and NASA is misappropriating billions of dollars, but that doesn't matter because dollars are controlled by zionist bankers, but that doesn't matter because reality is a hologram matrix, etc.Funny....hahaha
On a serious note..... can you explain the following ?
Our modern times have shown how corrupt the financial system was/is by creating financial products to deceive and only in the interrest of some.
Whole countries were on the brink of collapse (Greece)
I don’t have to explain to you about how corrupt politicians are when it suits their agenda
You also must have heard about the whole ‘me too’ affair showing that sexual abuse is everywhere and much more prominent than we’d often like to realise.
From the church to Hollywood, sports and Royals and everything in between.
And of course the rotten apples in charity.... even up to the point that charity personell raped locals in disaster areas .(Oxfam Novib)
Shell and the surpression of the locals in Nigeria by using force, violence and intimidation.
Most big leading companies and organisations have also some history of deceit and bad behaviour when examining their past and present.
I could go on and on forever to show you how rotten this world CAN be at times.
But for some unknown reason NASA is without blemish for over half a century.
NASA never claimed an event that took not place or exagerated any of their accomplishments in space.
All NASA outlets spoke nothing but the truth about all space related topics.
All money was well spend and nothing was stolen from anyone.
All discoveries were shared with the taxpayers and nothing was hidden from the general public....like ufo’s and other crincheworthy stuff.
All that was lost and/or destroyed was negligence at worst but never evil intentions to cover up.
The promised moonbase and trips to the moon for civilians are put on hold by unwilling congressmen .... not the lacking abilities at NASA that have been put to sleep through the lacking fundings.
Fun factor is that NASA and their idiotic fanbase must keep the holiness of NASA compared to any other company or organisation in the total history of mankind in place.....
They know once a single card is going to fall the house of cards will follow.
So no.... NASA never lied, stole, made up, exagerated anything..... otherwise the Russians, HAM amatures , FOX and god knows who.... would have surely called it a day.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
That makes NASA the ONLY institute/company/organisation in the history of mankind with an almost perfect track record.
Hell even the Red Cross can only dream of such a perfect history in which 'to serve the progress of mankind' is the only interrest.
But NASA supporters are a bit like 'Michael Jackson' supporters..... you simply can't discuss the supposed wrongdoings..... because no wrongdoings were committed ever.
That makes NASA the ONLY institute/company/organisation in the history of mankind with an almost perfect track record.
Hell even the Red Cross can only dream of such a perfect history in which 'to serve the progress of mankind' is the only interrest.
But NASA supporters are a bit like 'Michael Jackson' supporters..... you simply can't discuss the supposed wrongdoings..... because no wrongdoings were committed ever.
How is that an argument?
Of course NASA had failures. Although you made up a story, i am pretty sure you know very well, that that is not the truth.
Only to mention few more obvious facts, like challenger disaster, like apollo program astronauts died while doing tests in lunar module, like buying Yugoslav space program, and many, many more.
But you know what? We know about this. So, you believe, that NASA and many other space agencies around the world, observatories, scientists, amateurs, airlines, literally millions of people hide for much more longer time something much more bigger? How, for the Christ? And why? Because the NASA budget cannot be event considered as anything able to cover percent of this...
What are the consequences of refusing to think for ourselves instead of blindly believing everything we are told? We are stuck in a bad situation which is going to be worse and http://worse as time goes by
What's to explain?Yeah yeah, everything is a conspiracy, everything is a lie, everyone is lying to you, and NASA is misappropriating billions of dollars, but that doesn't matter because dollars are controlled by zionist bankers, but that doesn't matter because reality is a hologram matrix, etc.Funny....hahaha
On a serious note..... can you explain the following ?
Our modern times have shown how corrupt the financial system was/is by creating financial products to deceive and only in the interrest of some.
Whole countries were on the brink of collapse (Greece)
I don’t have to explain to you about how corrupt politicians are when it suits their agenda
You also must have heard about the whole ‘me too’ affair showing that sexual abuse is everywhere and much more prominent than we’d often like to realise.
From the church to Hollywood, sports and Royals and everything in between.
And of course the rotten apples in charity.... even up to the point that charity personell raped locals in disaster areas .(Oxfam Novib)
Shell and the surpression of the locals in Nigeria by using force, violence and intimidation.
Most big leading companies and organisations have also some history of deceit and bad behaviour when examining their past and present.
I could go on and on forever to show you how rotten this world CAN be at times.And you probably will "go on and on forever" . . . .
But for some unknown reason NASA is without blemish for over half a century.There is a big difference. NASA not a money making business and much of its staff are professionals who are dedicate to what they are doing.
NASA never claimed an event that took not place or exagerated any of their accomplishments in space.
All NASA outlets spoke nothing but the truth about all space related topics.
All money was well spend and nothing was stolen from anyone.
All discoveries were shared with the taxpayers and nothing was hidden from the general public....like ufo’s and other crincheworthy stuff.NASA have been involved in secret missions but their research, designs, plans and mission reports are available.
All that was lost and/or destroyed was negligence at worst but never evil intentions to cover up.Nowhere near as much was lost as you might claim. Some data tapes were reused pretty much of necessity.
The promised moonbase and trips to the moon for civilians are put on hold by unwilling congressmen .... not the lacking abilities at NASA that have been put to sleep through the lacking fundings.Who promised "moonbase and trips to the moon for civilians"? Was it NASA or media writers?
Fun factor is that NASA and their idiotic fanbase must keep the holiness of NASA compared to any other company or organisation in the total history of mankind in place.....Fun fact is that all that is just a story dreamed up by a NASA hater to help prop up his own fiction.
They know once a single card is going to fall the house of cards will follow.
So no.... NASA never lied, stole, made up, exagerated anything..... otherwise the Russians, HAM amatures ,When it came to the lunar missions there were plant of HAM operators and Russia, with a satellite in lunar orbit at the time of Apollo 11 ready to spill-the-beans.FOX and god knows who.... would have surely called it a day.
LUNACY - SPACE SHUTTLE CHALLENGER HOAX - YOU ONLY NEED TO PROVE ONE OF THEM TO BE THE SAME PERSON TO PROVE THE THEORY :No, Mr Cikljamas YOU are the PROVEN fraudster starting with your deceit about the moon landings and carrying on YOUR deceit with the Challenger hoax.
Watch the video above and learn that NASA are PROVEN fraudsters starting with the fake moon landings and carrying on in their tradition of deceit with the Challenger hoax.
Folks its time to realize your loving government has been lying to you about nearly EVERYTHING since long before you were born, heck did you know the U.S. is a corporation- that makes you the slave ( just like you always kinda felt in your gut) - google it, its right there but the sheep are too asleep to even care.
There was no CHALLENGER HOAX. The Challenger was found and the bodies recovered soon after!
How dare you show such utter disrespect for those that died!
Others like you have raised this issue before: Flat Earth General / Re: Nobody died in 1986 NASA Shuttle explosion « Message by rabinoz on January 22, 2017, 12:02:53 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69030.msg1861894;topicseen#msg1861894)
<< I'll ignore your trash after your dreadful handling of the Challenger Shuttle Disaster. >>
I never thought that even you would stoop so low as to treat the deaths of innocent people so disrespectfully.
What would it do to those they left behind?
The U.S. (and for a while, the world) altitude record for unmanned balloons was 51.8 km (170,000 ft) (according to a 1991 edition of Guinness Book of World Records). The vehicle was a Winzen-Balloon with a volume of 1.35 million cubic metres, launched in October 1972 in Chico, California, USA.[citation needed]Are your dense or something? You raised this same Project Echo stuff earlier in the same thread!
During 2002 an ultra-thin-film balloon named BU60-1 made of polyethylene film 3.4 µm thick with a volume of 60,000 m³ was launched from Sanriku Balloon Center at Ofunato City, Iwate in Japan at 6:35 on May 23, 2002. The balloon ascended at a speed of 260 m per minute and successfully reached the altitude of 53.0 km (173,900 ft), breaking the previous world record set during 1972
READ MORE : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record
NOW, ALL OF A SUDDEN BALLOONS CAN GO UP TO 1000 MILES - VIDEO :
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7g9tn0
WIKI QUOTE :Yes, when they are sent to that altitude and given orbital velocity with a rocket! Then that "balloon" becomes a big reflective sphere!
The U.S. (and for a while, the world) altitude record for unmanned balloons was 51.8 km (170,000 ft) (according to a 1991 edition of Guinness Book of World Records). The vehicle was a Winzen-Balloon with a volume of 1.35 million cubic metres, launched in October 1972 in Chico, California, USA.[citation needed]
During 2002 an ultra-thin-film balloon named BU60-1 made of polyethylene film 3.4 µm thick with a volume of 60,000 m³ was launched from Sanriku Balloon Center at Ofunato City, Iwate in Japan at 6:35 on May 23, 2002. The balloon ascended at a speed of 260 m per minute and successfully reached the altitude of 53.0 km (173,900 ft), breaking the previous world record set during 1972
READ MORE : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record
BALLOONS CAN GO UP TO 1000 MILES - REALLY NOW? :
(https://i.postimg.cc/8ChCRHf1/Balloons-can-go-up-to-1000-miles-REALLY-NOW.jpg)
BALLOONS CAN GO UP TO 1000 MILES - VIDEO :
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7g9tn0
Why is that a problem?It was one of the Echo satellites and not held aloft by buoyancy but by orbiting.More on Project Echo in:The Earth is flat... now what? « Reply #268 on: July 01, 2017, 09:07:23 AM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70964.msg1924664#msg1924664)
Read up on it in: 1st Communication Satellite: A Giant Space Balloon 50 Years Ago. (https://www.space.com/8973-1st-communication-satellite-giant-space-balloon-50-years.html)
Open minded people who can't understand something research it and learn what they can.
Whereas closed-minded ignoramuses simply ridicule what their small minds can't understand!
You really have little understanding this sort of thing do you?
We see admins warn people of low content posts, but they allow scum like that to post here? Good going.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” E.B.Which is why many of us bother answering claims about flat earth and geocentricity posted in this forum.
Well, i understand ... why you put flat earth and geocentricity in the same sentence...
It's because both are appealing and appear to make sense if not critically examined, but neither stand up to more than trivial scrutiny.
This is exactly why you have to subscribe to my youtube channel :
NASA is lying almost about everything and the earth is round. Flat-earth stupidity revival was orchestrated by NASA guys. They carefully organized it in a way that was going to produce the result that they wanted : whenever someone mention something about NASA fraudulent missions, or about the heliocentric hoax (which is a grandaddy of all deceptions in today's world) or about "evolution theory" hoax, or about Big-Bang idiocy, or about 9/11 inside job, or about NWO agenda, or about Kennedy assassination (which was an inside job, also), etc..., they instantly pull out their ace "flat earth stupidity" saying : you see there is no essential difference between these guys and those who believe that the earth is flat (they instantly assign flat-earth label to all of them, in order to discredit every voice of reason in today's fucked up world)...
The Conspiracy Theory Channel? No, thanks.
Of those things you nominate, only the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory has even a shadow of a chance of being remotely possible, and that's quite sketchy.
I recall one occasion when Donald Trump (very well knowing that he blatantly lies) put the blame for 9/11 on Osama Bin Laden... It seems as if you are not allowed to live and work in USA unless you swear on 9/11 official interpretation (which became some kind of a satanic holly grail before which everyone have to kneel and worship it), isn't that so?
Wrong again. I live and work in the USA. 9/11 conspiracists were thick on the ground for years, and I worked with a few. Many seem to have moved on to different things to be entertained by or feel threatened by now, maybe because they got bored, or maybe they realized they would rather hate Muslims, and doubting that Muslims pulled off 9/11 was counterproductive to that. Whatever the reason, not as many are quite so noisy about it any more.
Ignorant folk think that such minority opinions as geocentric theory (which is true description of our reality) are the "conspiracy theories" . . .
No, you have that backwards. It's an ignorant minority that think heliocentric theory (which is true description of our reality) is being pushed by a mysterious conspiracy. Rational people think minority opinions like geocentric theorists are merely ignorant, not conspirators; most people who really believe in geocentrism are pretty vocal about it - exactly the opposite of a conspiracy, unless they are secretly heliocentrists trying to look so ignorant that they give geocentrism a bad name. But that makes no sense, because there would be no point since you just have heliocentrists, and heliocentrists that pretend to be geocentrists, so what's the point?
That makes NASA the ONLY institute/company/organisation in the history of mankind with an almost perfect track record.
Hell even the Red Cross can only dream of such a perfect history in which 'to serve the progress of mankind' is the only interrest.
But NASA supporters are a bit like 'Michael Jackson' supporters..... you simply can't discuss the supposed wrongdoings..... because no wrongdoings were committed ever.
How is that an argument?
Of course NASA had failures. Although you made up a story, i am pretty sure you know very well, that that is not the truth.
Only to mention few more obvious facts, like challenger disaster, like apollo program astronauts died while doing tests in lunar module, like buying Yugoslav space program, and many, many more.
But you know what? We know about this. So, you believe, that NASA and many other space agencies around the world, observatories, scientists, amateurs, airlines, literally millions of people hide for much more longer time something much more bigger? How, for the Christ? And why? Because the NASA budget cannot be event considered as anything able to cover percent of this...
What the notoriously corrupt United States federal government is claiming is to have sent men to the moon in 1969, on the VERY FIRST attempt, even though right here on earth Mt. Everest and the South Pole took NUMEROUS tries before success, allegedly accomplishing this amazing feat with 50 YEAR older technology (a cell phone has ONE MILLION times more computing power than ALL of NASA did in 1969), yet 50 YEARS later NASA can now only send astronauts ONE - THOUSANDTH the distance to the moon, even with 5 DECADES more advancements in rockets and computers.
If Toyota claimed they made a car 50 YEARS ago that could travel 50,000 miles on one gallon of gasoline, yet today their best car can only go 50 miles per gallon, or ONE - THOUSANDTH the distance, would not the forgery of the previous claim be incredibly obvious? If it were not for people's pride and emotional attachment to the 50 YEAR OLD unrepeatable moon landing claim, also with only ONE - THOUSANDTH the distance capable 5 DECADES later, they would otherwise easily recognize this equally preposterous claim as the fraud that it sadly is.
The alleged moon landings are the only technological claim in the entire history of the world, such as the first automobile, airplane, or nuclear power, which was not far surpassed in capability 50 YEARS later, much less not even able to be duplicated by any nation on earth 50 YEARS later. The supposed moon landings are also the only time in history that such claimed expensive technology was deliberately destroyed afterwards (175 BILLION DOLLARS worth), only done so to hide the evidence of the fraud.
Seeing how it is IMPOSSIBLE for technology to go BACKWARDS and today NASA can only send astronauts ONE - THOUSANDTH the distance to the moon as was claimed 50 YEARS ago on the VERY FIRST attempt with 5 DECADES OLDER technology, the only remaining conclusion is that the 1969 claim was a federal government lie. It is that simple and that corrupt.
Vladimir Markin, a former spokesman for the government's official Investigative Committee, said the committee had called for an inquiry to find out what happened to the original footage of the first moon landing in 1969 and also lunar rock, brought back to Earth during the several "missions".
He said: "We are not contending that they did not fly [to the moon], and simply made a film about it. But all of these scientific — or perhaps cultural — artefacts are part of the legacy of humanity, and their disappearance without a trace is our common loss. An investigation will reveal what happened."
In 2009, NASA said it "erased" the original video recordings of the first moon landing among 200,000 other tapes in order to save money. LOL
It has since said restored copies of the landing had been put together using recordings from news footage at the time. LOL
NASA claims because of restoration work undertaken during this, the recordings' quality is better than the original which is no longer available. LOL
In 2001 David McKay, chief scientist for planetary science and exploration at NASA's Johnson Space Center, said most of the soil and rock removed from the Moon was stored there, but is is unclear where it all is now, 46 years on. LOL
Hurtling 27600 km/h ISS makes one full circle around the earth in just 1 1/2 hours, so after 45 min ISS accomplishes one half of the full circle around the earth, after 22 1/2 min ISS carries out 1/4 circle around the earth, after less than 12 min ISS makes 1/8 circle around the earth. Now, can anyone point me to the video in which ISS pilots show to us (showing off their devine perspective) in one frame how they can cross (flying above) some discernible part of the earth in just 12 min???
ONE SINGLE VIDEO OF THAT KIND??? ANYONE???
In the meantime (while i am waiting to see such a spectacular video), i can show you one other totally spectacular video which proves my point :
HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ANYTHING AS FAKE AS THIS :
(https://i.postimg.cc/R0DNVFtt/HAVE-YOU-EVER-SEEN-ANYTHING-AS-FAKE-AS-THIS.jpg)
HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ANYTHING AS FAKE AS THIS - VIDEO :
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7g9vm0
I looked into why they haven't gone back. Excuses such as "we don't have the technology anymore and safety reasons" but they biggest excuse ... "It's really expensive and NASA doesn't have enough funding". Sooo, I researched how much money has been budgeted for NASA.. from 1958-2018 round $601 billion! In 2017,the budget given is $19.653 billion which $628 million above the original request for the agency in the Obama administration. I have also read their expenditures were only 1/5 or around $101 billion. So why again is money an issue?
And who in the f loses or "erases" one of the biggest advances in history due to a shortage of film. I have read it was like 700 boxes of the original moon landing . Really??
If some robot like Jesus would walk on the Moon in sandals, wrapped in bed shit and NASA would say that was Jesus, I am sure millions would believe it.
The U.S. (and for a while, the world) altitude record for unmanned balloons was 51.8 km (170,000 ft) (according to a 1991 edition of Guinness Book of World Records). The vehicle was a Winzen-Balloon with a volume of 1.35 million cubic metres, launched in October 1972 in Chico, California, USA.[citation needed]
During 2002 an ultra-thin-film balloon named BU60-1 made of polyethylene film 3.4 µm thick with a volume of 60,000 m³ was launched from Sanriku Balloon Center at Ofunato City, Iwate in Japan at 6:35 on May 23, 2002. The balloon ascended at a speed of 260 m per minute and successfully reached the altitude of 53.0 km (173,900 ft), breaking the previous world record set during 1972
READ MORE : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record
NOW, ALL OF A SUDDEN BALLOONS CAN GO UP TO 1000 MILES - VIDEO :
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7g9tn0
(https://i.postimg.cc/4NZQVLK3/ISS-HOAX-1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/66VdWrHx/ISS-HOAX-2.jpg)
LUNACY - SPACE SHUTTLE CHALLENGER HOAX - YOU ONLY NEED TO PROVE ONE OF THEM TO BE THE SAME PERSON TO PROVE THE THEORY :
Watch the video above and learn that NASA are PROVEN fraudsters starting with the fake moon landings and carrying on in their tradition of deceit with the Challenger hoax. Folks its time to realize your loving government has been lying to you about nearly EVERYTHING since long before you were born, heck did you know the U.S. is a corporation- that makes you the slave ( just like you always kinda felt in your gut) - google it, its right there but the sheep are too asleep to even care.
CHALLENGER HOAX :
(https://i.postimg.cc/kX2cs6JV/CHALLENGER-HOAX-PICTURE.jpg)
At 21min 53 sec in this video, a microphone accidentally records an astronaut privately discussing telephoning the CIA to have investigative journalist Bart Sibrel assassinated, something that would not be necessary if Sibrel's discovery of the fraud was not true.
YouTube is shutting your uneducated, low income ass down because you spew toxic filth? But here you are allowed to roam free?You said something = 0 validity
I said something about 8chan and you. Seems it was quite accurate.
I am a Finn. So blame Yle, rather than CNN.
Still, I am quite confident I can name and place more states on the US map than you can, for starters.
I am a Finn. So blame Yle, rather than CNN.
Still, I am quite confident I can name and place more states on the US map than you can, for starters.
The United States is a Corporation
Yes, you read the title correctly. We are not living in a country with a government of the people, by the people, for the people, but we are part of a giant Corporation, The United States Corporation, and the President of America is the CEO. We are only the employees. This Corporation, in its turn, is owned by another Corporation, The British Crown.
"Hey, wait a minute! First of all, America is not owned by Great Britain," you may way. "That's what the War of Independence was all about; to free ourselves from British tyranny. We are free from Britain and we have our own Constitution. Our Founding Fathers helped out with that!"
If this is what you think, it is incorrect, and I will tell you why. We have never been free from Britain; the power only changed from overt power to covert power. They gave us an illusion of freedom, and they have succeeded well to keep their little secret. Thus, the Founding Fathers, who most of them were Freemasons, had no intention to give us any freedom. They worked hand in glove with the British Crown all the time, but the only way to establish a "New World" in America was to fool the people and tell them that they were fighting for freedom. This is the plain truth in a nutshell, but now it's time to back up and explain the above a little deeper..
READ MORE : http://freedom-school.com/the-united-states-is-a-corporation.html
Oh man, thankfully I know enough Americans and I have had the fortune of visiting there enough times to know it is not a homogenous mass of minds.
But there is the ”stereotypical American conspiracy nut”. And you fit the bill.
EDIT: Yes, you really did bring in the reptilians. From your link:
The following section is an excerpt from David Icke's book, The David Icke Guide to the Global Conspiracy [and how to end it] pp. 231-233.
Just keep it FE vs RE, please.Don’t go there please.... i know many people who are till this very date convinced that slaughtering up to 1 million Iraqies is the current collateral damage of the right call at the time.
Or, better yet, have yourself checked in before you cause more harm to people who, for god knows what reason, still might have the strength to stay close to you.
That may well be, but it also has absolutely nothing at all to do with the physics of rockets working in a vacuum.Correct ! But the topic has moved into various directions.
Oh boy that escalated quickly.;D
Admins / moderators - this is about flat earth or about mental problems?
Just keep it FE vs RE, please.Don’t go there please.... i know many people who are till this very date convinced that slaughtering up to 1 million Iraqies is the current collateral damage of the right call at the time.
Or, better yet, have yourself checked in before you cause more harm to people who, for god knows what reason, still might have the strength to stay close to you.
The Bushes, Blairs and their advisors are still free aren’t they ?
Someone who believes the bigger picture involves lots of evildoers and conspiracies is way less harm full than those actually pulling the trigger to kill the innocent far far away from the western civilisation.
Then perhaps it's time for a mod to lock this thread.That may well be, but it also has absolutely nothing at all to do with the physics of rockets working in a vacuum.Correct ! But the topic has moved into various directions.
Everything has been said about rockets in outerspace ...
..i’d like to hear from a forum member that is willing to share his/her personal experience from a journey to the moon, mars, venus, alpha centauri or anywhere in outerspace...Then perhaps you should open a new thread for that reason.
This hypothetical, copy paste, wannabe rocket scientist drivel in this topic is a bit long in the tooth...Rockets in a vacuum is not hypothetical. It has been demonstrated several times in various YouTube videos that have been presented. In fact, a basic setup doesn't seem to be all that hard if you want to verify it for yourself.
It sure reads like ordinary people (let say a former electricien) are punching way above their weight in their ‘rocket scientist’ impersonation. ;D ;DThe physics behind rocket propulsion really isn't that tough. The engineering to make it happen is a different story.
Then perhaps it's time for a mod to lock this thread.That may well be, but it also has absolutely nothing at all to do with the physics of rockets working in a vacuum.Correct ! But the topic has moved into various directions.
Everything has been said about rockets in outerspace ...
I believe many things you have presented with of course a few exceptions.Just keep it FE vs RE, please.Don’t go there please.... i know many people who are till this very date convinced that slaughtering up to 1 million Iraqies is the current collateral damage of the right call at the time.
Or, better yet, have yourself checked in before you cause more harm to people who, for god knows what reason, still might have the strength to stay close to you.
The Bushes, Blairs and their advisors are still free aren’t they ?
Someone who believes the bigger picture involves lots of evildoers and conspiracies is way less harm full than those actually pulling the trigger to kill the innocent far far away from the western civilisation.
Especially when there is more than enough hard evidence that the bigger picture factually involves lots of evildoers and conspiracies!!!
After you thought you heard everything, Reed notes a conversation between Joseph Stalin and Roosevelt at the end of WWII:
“Then President Roosevelt, in the manner of a man who is a member of an exclusive club and is sure his host must also belong, ‘said he was a Zionist and asked if Marshal Stalin was one.’ Stalin replied that ‘he was one in principle but he recognized the difficulty.’”
No accusations of hearsay can dismiss Roosevelt’s boast since Reed informs us it comes from “the official publication, ‘The Conferences at Malta and Yalta, 1945’ issued by the American State Department on March 16, 1955.” Although the Montreal Star broke the next morning with the headline: “World Capitals Dismayed, Shocked over Disclosures of Yalta Secrets,” but at this late stage of the game Reed resigns his commentary to saying “This was nonsense; by 1955 the masses were apathetic about such things, having been brought by control of the press to the condition of impotent confusion foretold in the Protocols of 1905.”
Reed tells us of similar incidents. “In 1941 the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor ‘on a day that will live in infamy’...but the later disclosures showed that the government in Washington had long been warned of the impending attack and had not alerted the Pearl Harbor defenders....Twelve days earlier Mr. Henry L. Stimson, the Secretary of War, after a cabinet meeting on November 25, 1941, had noted in his diary: ‘The question was how we should maneuver them’ (the Japanese) ‘into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves; it was a difficult proposition.’”
The Zionist use and abuse of Churchill mirrored that of the US Presidents. According to Reed’s accounting, Woodrow Wilson was little more than a puppet of the Zionist machine. Wilson allowed the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, which was basically a Jewish banking cartel devised, at the behest of Lord Rothschild, at Jekyll Island off the Carolinas by seven of the world’s richest men. Wilson also introduced the Federal income tax to pay back, with usury, the money created out of thin air by the Federal Reserve, two deeds that it is said Wilson later regretted with the words “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country,” and later “We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world—no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men....Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”
Totally agreed with everything you've just said.I believe many things you have presented with of course a few exceptions.Just keep it FE vs RE, please.Don’t go there please.... i know many people who are till this very date convinced that slaughtering up to 1 million Iraqies is the current collateral damage of the right call at the time.
Or, better yet, have yourself checked in before you cause more harm to people who, for god knows what reason, still might have the strength to stay close to you.
The Bushes, Blairs and their advisors are still free aren’t they ?
Someone who believes the bigger picture involves lots of evildoers and conspiracies is way less harm full than those actually pulling the trigger to kill the innocent far far away from the western civilisation.
Especially when there is more than enough hard evidence that the bigger picture factually involves lots of evildoers and conspiracies!!!
After you thought you heard everything, Reed notes a conversation between Joseph Stalin and Roosevelt at the end of WWII:
“Then President Roosevelt, in the manner of a man who is a member of an exclusive club and is sure his host must also belong, ‘said he was a Zionist and asked if Marshal Stalin was one.’ Stalin replied that ‘he was one in principle but he recognized the difficulty.’”
No accusations of hearsay can dismiss Roosevelt’s boast since Reed informs us it comes from “the official publication, ‘The Conferences at Malta and Yalta, 1945’ issued by the American State Department on March 16, 1955.” Although the Montreal Star broke the next morning with the headline: “World Capitals Dismayed, Shocked over Disclosures of Yalta Secrets,” but at this late stage of the game Reed resigns his commentary to saying “This was nonsense; by 1955 the masses were apathetic about such things, having been brought by control of the press to the condition of impotent confusion foretold in the Protocols of 1905.”
Reed tells us of similar incidents. “In 1941 the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor ‘on a day that will live in infamy’...but the later disclosures showed that the government in Washington had long been warned of the impending attack and had not alerted the Pearl Harbor defenders....Twelve days earlier Mr. Henry L. Stimson, the Secretary of War, after a cabinet meeting on November 25, 1941, had noted in his diary: ‘The question was how we should maneuver them’ (the Japanese) ‘into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves; it was a difficult proposition.’”
The Zionist use and abuse of Churchill mirrored that of the US Presidents. According to Reed’s accounting, Woodrow Wilson was little more than a puppet of the Zionist machine. Wilson allowed the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, which was basically a Jewish banking cartel devised, at the behest of Lord Rothschild, at Jekyll Island off the Carolinas by seven of the world’s richest men. Wilson also introduced the Federal income tax to pay back, with usury, the money created out of thin air by the Federal Reserve, two deeds that it is said Wilson later regretted with the words “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country,” and later “We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world—no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men....Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”
I personally don’t like generalisations about ‘Jews’, ‘Zionists’, ‘Muslims’ etc. etc.
There are 34.000 different tranches of christianity and i have never met two Jews who agreed about their faith 100%. My sister lives in Israël for over 35 years and it’s absolutely mind boggling how colorfull and absurd the Jewish faith can be..... totally depends who you ask....
Of course i believe the wicked bankers constructed a system over the centuries that no sane person would ever invent.
But i’ll pass when people are claiming the Royal shape shifting lizard bloodlines from the days of Niburu have collaberated with the Zionists to screw humanity . ( i do not know if you believe any of that.... )
It gives those defending this current evil world a good reason to laugh everything away.
While researching the origans of our financial system, currencies, debts etc. is evil all the way.
Humans don’t have to be Jews/Zionists, Lizards, aliens or whatever to behave like humans do most of the time when placed in a position of full power and control.
Then they often start to behave like monsters who have sold their human conscious to the dark side.
Nothing that you have to offer. Just keep your off topic, tl;dr spam in the appropriate forums.Then perhaps it's time for a mod to lock this thread.That may well be, but it also has absolutely nothing at all to do with the physics of rockets working in a vacuum.Correct ! But the topic has moved into various directions.
Everything has been said about rockets in outerspace ...
What are you afraid of???
You are afraid of the truth, and this is the truth :Nothing that you have to offer.Then perhaps it's time for a mod to lock this thread.That may well be, but it also has absolutely nothing at all to do with the physics of rockets working in a vacuum.Correct ! But the topic has moved into various directions.
Everything has been said about rockets in outerspace ...
What are you afraid of???
What part of "off topic" do you not understand? ???You are afraid of the truth, and this is the truth :Nothing that you have to offer.Then perhaps it's time for a mod to lock this thread.That may well be, but it also has absolutely nothing at all to do with the physics of rockets working in a vacuum.Correct ! But the topic has moved into various directions.
Everything has been said about rockets in outerspace ...
What are you afraid of???
This video is not "off topic", do you know why?What part of "off topic" do you not understand? ???You are afraid of the truth, and this is the truth :Nothing that you have to offer.Then perhaps it's time for a mod to lock this thread.That may well be, but it also has absolutely nothing at all to do with the physics of rockets working in a vacuum.Correct ! But the topic has moved into various directions.
Everything has been said about rockets in outerspace ...
What are you afraid of???
Just keep it FE vs RE, please.Don’t go there please.... i know many people who are till this very date convinced that slaughtering up to 1 million Iraqies is the current collateral damage of the right call at the time.
Or, better yet, have yourself checked in before you cause more harm to people who, for god knows what reason, still might have the strength to stay close to you.
IRAQ: Deaths under Saddam Hussein (https://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_deathsundersaddamhussein42503.html)
Tom Grey answers David Crow's request the empirical basis for his statement on the number of dead under Saddam Hussein. "See http://www.gbn.org/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=2400&msp=1242 Here is an excerpt:":Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power."
This video is not "off topic", do you know why?What part of "off topic" do you not understand? ???You are afraid of the truth, and this is the truth :Nothing that you have to offer.Then perhaps it's time for a mod to lock this thread.That may well be, but it also has absolutely nothing at all to do with the physics of rockets working in a vacuum.Correct ! But the topic has moved into various directions.
Everything has been said about rockets in outerspace ...
What are you afraid of???
The United States is a Corporation
Yes, you read the title correctly. We are not living in a country with a government of the people, by the people, for the people, but we are part of a giant Corporation, The United States Corporation, and the President of America is the CEO. We are only the employees. This Corporation, in its turn, is owned by another Corporation, The British Crown.
1. Prohibition was introduced in 1920 to control the country’s alcohol consumption, but that only resulted in widespread speakeasies and bootlegging, which is the illegal production and distribution of alcohol. The prohibition law proved it wasn’t enough to curb drinking habits, so the government took more drastic measures. They decided to poison the country’s illegal liquor supply by adding toxins, including highly-lethal methanol, to alcohol in the mid-1920s. In total, it is estimated around 10,000 people died as a result of the government’s poisoning.
The video is "off topic", do you know why?This video is not "off topic", do you know why?You are afraid of the truth, and this is the truth :What part of "off topic" do you not understand? ???
The United States is a Corporation
Yes, you read the title correctly. We are not living in a country with a government of the people, by the people, for the people, but we are part of a giant Corporation, The United States Corporation, and the President of America is the CEO. We are only the employees. This Corporation, in its turn, is owned by another Corporation, The British Crown.
We? Aren't you Croatian?
The United States is a Corporation
Yes, you read the title correctly. We are not living in a country with a government of the people, by the people, for the people, but we are part of a giant Corporation, The United States Corporation, and the President of America is the CEO. We are only the employees. This Corporation, in its turn, is owned by another Corporation, The British Crown.
We? Aren't you Croatian?
No, i am only human being, and who are you?
“It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.” G.K.Chesterton
“When we step into the family, by the act of being born, we do step into a world which is incalculable, into a world which has its own strange laws, into a world which could do without us, into a world we have not made. In other words, when we step into the family we step into a fairy-tale.” G.K.Chesterton
"Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile." Albert Einstein
"Life's most persistent and urgent question is, 'What are you doing for others?" Martin Luther King, Jr.
“You can only understand people if you feel them in yourself.” John Steinbeck
"We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give." Winston Churchill
"In the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years." Abraham Lincoln
“In uncertainty I am certain that underneath their topmost layers of frailty men want to be good and want to be loved. Indeed, most of their vices are attempted shortcuts to love. When a man comes to die, no matter what his talents and influence and genius, if he dies unloved his life must be a failure to him and his dying a cold horror. It seems to me that if you or I must choose between two courses of thought or action, we should remember our dying and try so to live that our death brings no pleasure to the world.” John Steinbeck
"Our prime purpose in this life is to help others. And if you can't help them, at least don't hurt them." Dalai Lama
There are only two servants in this world : those who serve truth, and those who serve fraud. Bill Cooper
“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” G.K.Chesterton
“A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it.” G.K.Chesterton
“Reason is always a kind of brute force; those who appeal to the head rather than the heart, however pallid and polite, are necessarily men of violence. We speak of ‘touching’ a man’s heart, but we can do nothing to his head but hit it.” G.K.Chesterton
“The whole truth is generally the ally of virtue; a half-truth is always the ally of some vice.” G.K.Chesterton
The United States is a Corporation
Yes, you read the title correctly. We are not living in a country with a government of the people, by the people, for the people, but we are part of a giant Corporation, The United States Corporation, and the President of America is the CEO. We are only the employees. This Corporation, in its turn, is owned by another Corporation, The British Crown.
We? Aren't you Croatian?
No, i am only human being, and who are you?
“It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.” G.K.Chesterton
“When we step into the family, by the act of being born, we do step into a world which is incalculable, into a world which has its own strange laws, into a world which could do without us, into a world we have not made. In other words, when we step into the family we step into a fairy-tale.” G.K.Chesterton
"Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile." Albert Einstein
"Life's most persistent and urgent question is, 'What are you doing for others?" Martin Luther King, Jr.
“You can only understand people if you feel them in yourself.” John Steinbeck
"We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give." Winston Churchill
"In the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years." Abraham Lincoln
“In uncertainty I am certain that underneath their topmost layers of frailty men want to be good and want to be loved. Indeed, most of their vices are attempted shortcuts to love. When a man comes to die, no matter what his talents and influence and genius, if he dies unloved his life must be a failure to him and his dying a cold horror. It seems to me that if you or I must choose between two courses of thought or action, we should remember our dying and try so to live that our death brings no pleasure to the world.” John Steinbeck
"Our prime purpose in this life is to help others. And if you can't help them, at least don't hurt them." Dalai Lama
There are only two servants in this world : those who serve truth, and those who serve fraud. Bill Cooper
“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” G.K.Chesterton
“A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it.” G.K.Chesterton
“Reason is always a kind of brute force; those who appeal to the head rather than the heart, however pallid and polite, are necessarily men of violence. We speak of ‘touching’ a man’s heart, but we can do nothing to his head but hit it.” G.K.Chesterton
“The whole truth is generally the ally of virtue; a half-truth is always the ally of some vice.” G.K.Chesterton
What do these quotes have to do with the fact that rockets can fly in a vacuum?
I am puzzled why there is so little discussion about the Apollo scam and people concentrate on what is between brackets and secondairy ( rockets can’t fly in a vacuum).Maybe because there never was "Apollo scam"?
It’s about time we bring this topic back on track and talk about the 50 years ongoing Apollo scam that is a total disgrace for the human species.Totally incorrect! Humans can live in space, deep or othwise, given the appropriate life support system.
Human tissue can’t make it into deepspace unless we ‘denigrate’ ourselves with AI and robotic implementations.
Maybe then these hybrid humans can go beyond a certain modest altitude.
Apollo and the outragious claims about a shortcut ‘calculated’ by the ignorant 1969 radiation experts ....the bathing suits, alufoil moonmachines, the absent cosmic particles piercing through the suits and moon machines ...... laughable.The "ignorant 1969 radiation experts" are those like you who pretend knowledge that you do not have! Please consider:
Of course no ordinary human will ever go beyond the VAB.And on what authority do you claim that? Your total ignorance of the VABs or do you have more evidence?
They know it for 50 years ,Your still dreaming, dutchy, NASA know nothing of the sort.
but NASA pees upon ordinary people giving them a slapstick SF movie with funny, singing, playing astronots and still maintain the position we actually went to the moon with humans onboard.Carry on, carrying on! You're incapable of understanding so I don't know why I bother.
The United States is a Corporation
Yes, you read the title correctly. We are not living in a country with a government of the people, by the people, for the people, but we are part of a giant Corporation, The United States Corporation, and the President of America is the CEO. We are only the employees. This Corporation, in its turn, is owned by another Corporation, The British Crown.
We? Aren't you Croatian?
No, i am only human being, and who are you?
<bunch of inspiring but irrelevant quotes>
I am puzzled why there is so little discussion about the Apollo scam and people concentrate on what is between brackets and secondairy ( rockets can’t fly in a vacuum).If rockets can't work in a vacuum, then it naturally follows that Apollo (as well as all space flight in general) was a scam.
It’s about time we bring this topic back on track and talk about the 50 years ongoing Apollo scam that is a total disgrace for the human species.
Human tissue can’t make it into deepspace unless we ‘denigrate’ ourselves with AI and robotic implementations.Human tissue can't make it to the bottom of the Mariana Trench either, but I don't see anyone calling James Cameron (a known maker of fiction movies) a liar.
Maybe then these hybrid humans can go beyond a certain modest altitude.
Apollo and the outragious claims about a shortcut ‘calculated’ by the ignorant 1969 radiation experts ....the bathing suits, alufoil moonmachines, the absent cosmic particles piercing through the suits and moon machines ...... laughable.Are you sure that you aren't the one ignorant about the various engineering solutions to the various hazards of space travel?
Of course no ordinary human will ever go beyond the VAB. They know it for 50 years , but NASA pees upon ordinary people giving them a slapstick SF movie with funny, singing, playing astronots and still maintain the position we actually went to the moon with humans onboard.*sigh* It would be nice if you could bring something more than just incredulity, ridicule and ignorance to your arguments.
The United States is a Corporation
Yes, you read the title correctly. We are not living in a country with a government of the people, by the people, for the people, but we are part of a giant Corporation, The United States Corporation, and the President of America is the CEO. We are only the employees. This Corporation, in its turn, is owned by another Corporation, The British Crown.
We? Aren't you Croatian?
No, i am only human being, and who are you?
I thought you were Croatian. Oh, well... I learned something today.
I'm a US citizen. Also, a human being despite that fact. ;)
What do these quotes have to do with the fact that rockets can fly in a vacuum?
If you have no heart, it doesn't matter whether rockets can fly in a vacuum or not, not only that, it doesn't even matter whether you are breathing or not, because if you are breathing it doesn't mean you are alive, and even if you are alive it doesn't mean that your life is worthwhile living.
Rockets can fly in a vacuum regardless of the presence of my heart or not.
HERE IS THE ANSWER YOU ARE LOOKING FOR, JACK - part 1 : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2201342#msg2201342No, it is the same refuted spam.
HERE IS THE ANSWER YOU ARE LOOKING FOR, JACK - part 2 :
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2201661#msg2201661
HERE IS THE ANSWER YOU ARE LOOKING FOR, JACK - part 3 :
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2202385#msg2202385
The best part comes last - The last thing to add is sugar - Save the best for last : REPLY #1200 : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2203199#msg2203199
That makes NASA the ONLY institute/company/organisation in the history of mankind with an almost perfect track record.Not in the slightest. They have made plenty of mistakes and gotten people killed and have been involved in military projects which were secret which likely also contributed to getting people killed. That is not an almost perfect track record, nor does it mean that serving the progress of mankind is the only interest.
Hell even the Red Cross can only dream of such a perfect history in which 'to serve the progress of mankind' is the only interrest.
But NASA supporters are a bit like 'Michael Jackson' supporters..... you simply can't discuss the supposed wrongdoings..... because no wrongdoings were committed ever.
HERE IS THE ANSWER YOU ARE LOOKING FOR, JACK - part 1 : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2201342#msg2201342I'm not JackBlack, but get this into your head!
HERE IS THE ANSWER YOU ARE LOOKING FOR, JACK - part 2 :That massive rant seems to boil down to this:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2201661#msg2201661
Newton's Third Law - Identifying Action and Reaction Force PairsAnd that presents no problem at all!
A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!
"When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body."
HERE IS THE ANSWER YOU ARE LOOKING FOR, JACK - part 3 :Nothing new there except more of your utter ignorance!
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2202385#msg2202385
The best part comes last - The last thing to add is sugar - Save the best for last : REPLY #1200 : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2203199#msg2203199And there is nothing of relevance to the topic in the rest of your ignorant rant!
I am puzzled why there is so little discussion about the Apollo scam and people concentrate on what is between brackets and secondairy ( rockets can’t fly in a vacuum).
It’s about time we bring this topic back on track and talk about the 50 years ongoing Apollo scam that is a total disgrace for the human species.
Human tissue can’t make it into deepspace unless we ‘denigrate’ ourselves with AI and robotic implementations.
Maybe then these hybrid humans can go beyond a certain modest altitude.
Apollo and the outragious claims about a shortcut ‘calculated’ by the ignorant 1969 radiation experts ....the bathing suits, alufoil moonmachines, the absent cosmic particles piercing through the suits and moon machines ...... laughable.
Of course no ordinary human will ever go beyond the VAB. They know it for 50 years , but NASA pees upon ordinary people giving them a slapstick SF movie with funny, singing, playing astronots and still maintain the position we actually went to the moon with humans onboard.
Van Allen Belts.
Here is a quote from Prof Van Allen. "The crew of an outbound spaceship need not worry about the radiation belt. If moving fast enough to leave the earth, they would pass through it in about 20 minutes." ~Prof. Van Allen, ( Taken from “Time Magazine”, Monday, May 12, 1958, Page 90)
HERE IS THE ANSWER YOU ARE LOOKING FOR, JACK - part 1 : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2201342#msg2201342No, it is the same refuted spam.
HERE IS THE ANSWER YOU ARE LOOKING FOR, JACK - part 2 :
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2201661#msg2201661
HERE IS THE ANSWER YOU ARE LOOKING FOR, JACK - part 3 :
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2202385#msg2202385
The best part comes last - The last thing to add is sugar - Save the best for last : REPLY #1200 : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2203199#msg2203199
No where in there do you actually address my question.
You either start with the gas magically accelerated, completely skipping my question; pretend it is a force and completely ignore the question; or just outright ignore it.
Again, keeping it simple by using the simplest type of rocket, a cold gas thruster, i.e. a tank of compressed gas:
We have the gas with the rocket. The gas is currently moving with the rocket.
We pick an inertial reference frame where the rocket and gas are stationary.
Now, we open the tank and expose the pressurised gas to the vacuum of space.
What happens?
Does the gas magically stay with the rocket, staying inside the tank, even though it is open to space and thus all rational thought demands the gas leaves?
Or does the gas leave? But that then means its velocity has changed. It has accelerated to leave the tank and now move outwards.
But by Newton's laws of motion, this demands a force.
You do accept that gas has mass right?
Furthermore, by Newton's laws of motion, and your own interpretation of it (which you have posted in this thread), this demands an interaction with another body with this other body also receiving a force and also accelerating.
The only other body around is the rocket.
That means that the rocket must interact with the gas, with the gas being forced and accelerated backwards while the rocket is forced and accelerated forwards.
That means that rockets must work in a vacuum.
This is what you have been repeatedly avoiding, such as by starting with the gas already accelerated so you can ignore the key part, the acceleration of the gas which demands the rocket is also accelerated.
If you disagree, state exactly which part you disagree with and what the alternative is, i.e. what you think.
Do you disagree that the gas will escape and instead think it will magically remain inside the open container exposed to a vacuum?
Do you disagree that the gas has mass?
Do you disagree that the gas must accelerate?
Do you disagree that the gas requires a force to accelerate it?
Do you disagree that a force requires an equal and opposite force and an interaction with another body?
Do you disagree that the rocket is the only other body?
If you can't provide an alternative, then admit rockets work in a vacuum.
Once you admit rockets do work in a vacuum, or provide an alternative which actually addresses the question/issue I have raised, I will fix up your straw-man of my position.
Your topic is "HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)"! Why do you refuse to answer questions relevant to that?So before we continue our conversation i would like to know whether our conversation is real or not...Can you help me about this dilemma?HERE IS THE ANSWER YOU ARE LOOKING FOR, JACK - part 1 : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2201342#msg2201342No, it is the same refuted spam.
I see, you are philosopher...So, let me ask you something...While technically scientists are a subset of philosophy, especially with graduates getting a doctor of philosophy for science, I wouldn't call myself a philosopher.
HERE IS THE ANSWER YOU ARE LOOKING FOR, JACK - part 1 : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2201342#msg2201342Still irrelevant to "HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)"!
Van Allen Belts.
Here is a quote from Prof Van Allen. "The crew of an outbound spaceship need not worry about the radiation belt. If moving fast enough to leave the earth, they would pass through it in about 20 minutes." ~Prof. Van Allen, ( Taken from “Time Magazine”, Monday, May 12, 1958, Page 90)
Now, care to answer my question : Is our conversation real or not?A few better questions might be: Are you real or not? What is reality? Why do you have such a hard time staying on the topic that you started?
(https://i.postimg.cc/nL7MmkF0/DO_I_EXIST.jpg)Now, care to answer my question : Is our conversation real or not?Are you real or not?
What is reality?WHEN you woke up this morning, you found the world largely as you left it. You were still you; the room in which you awoke was the same one you went to sleep in. The outside world had not been rearranged. History was unchanged and the future remained unknowable. In other words, you woke up to reality. But what is reality? The more we probe it, the harder it becomes to comprehend.
Why do you have such a hard time staying on the topic that you started?Because there's nothing left to say on this issue...
Agreed. Rockets fly in a vacuum, as has been demonstrated theoretically and proven practically.Why do you have such a hard time staying on the topic that you started?Because there's nothing left to say on this issue...
HERE IS THE ANSWER YOU ARE LOOKING FOR, JACKNo they are not.
Agreed!<< Irrelevant to your own topic, "HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)"! >>Now, care to answer my question : Is our conversation real or not?Are you real or not?What is reality?<< Irrelevant to your own topic, "HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)"! >>Why do you have such a hard time staying on the topic that you started?Because there's nothing left to say on this issue...
I see, you are philosopher...So, let me ask you something...
If time = measure of change, and change presumes space (three dimensions), then timelessness excludes change (motion) and space (dimensions). Since many philosophers talk about alleged reality (God) which is Non-contingent (necessary) - Everlasting (timeless) - Uncaused, as something which is (for certain reasons like "Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit" ; "impossibility of infinite regression of causes" etc...) practically self-evident, would you agree that these philosophers actually have no idea what they are talking about, in the first place?
What do i mean? If Timelessness (God) has to be devoid of change (motion) and dimensions (space), then there is no way how we could fathom such "necessary" reality (which is beyond reality). If we are unable to even begin to apprehend "Something" that exists in a way which presumes absence of space and time, does it mean that such "Something" is only expression of inadequacy of our power of comprehension, or it means that such "Something" can't even exist objectively? In other words : Since that "Something" is actually "Nothing" (Nothingness) (as far as our power of reasoning is concerned), could it be that such "Nothing" is something "more" (better to say something "less" (Absolute Nothingness)) than just an expression of limitation of our power of comprehension?
If so then Being = Non-Being!!!
If so, our conversation is an illusion!!!
So before we continue our conversation i would like to know whether our conversation is real or not...Can you help me about this dilemma?
I see, you are philosopher...So, let me ask you something...
If time = measure of change, and change presumes space (three dimensions), then timelessness excludes change (motion) and space (dimensions). Since many philosophers talk about alleged reality (God) which is Non-contingent (necessary) - Everlasting (timeless) - Uncaused, as something which is (for certain reasons like "Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit" ; "impossibility of infinite regression of causes" etc...) practically self-evident, would you agree that these philosophers actually have no idea what they are talking about, in the first place?
What do i mean? If Timelessness (God) has to be devoid of change (motion) and dimensions (space), then there is no way how we could fathom such "necessary" reality (which is beyond reality). If we are unable to even begin to apprehend "Something" that exists in a way which presumes absence of space and time, does it mean that such "Something" is only expression of inadequacy of our power of comprehension, or it means that such "Something" can't even exist objectively? In other words : Since that "Something" is actually "Nothing" (Nothingness) (as far as our power of reasoning is concerned), could it be that such "Nothing" is something "more" (better to say something "less" (Absolute Nothingness)) than just an expression of limitation of our power of comprehension?
If so then Being = Non-Being!!!
If so, our conversation is an illusion!!!
So before we continue our conversation i would like to know whether our conversation is real or not...Can you help me about this dilemma?
So God is timeless, therefore rockets can’t fly in a vacuum because there is no rate of change? This is your current argument, right?
OK, I’ll bite on your current attempt to deflect and derail your own thread.
If there is an entity or higher power we could call God, do you presume that you, me or any other tiny human mind could be capable of fathoming His/Her/Its nature?
Whatever level of understanding of such things you tell yourself you have, it’s all irrelevant to the function of rockets.
We are not God, we perceive the passage of time. Rockets are not God, we observe the the effect of time on them, along with every other physical object.
The nature of our reality is that time exists, rates of change happen, acceleration is a thing, and we can fly rockets in space.
God may well laugh at the primitive concepts we use to describe the universe, but us simpletons can still use GPS to help us get around and watch satellite TV. Neither of which require a PhD in philosophy.
IN SHORT (Rockets can't work in a vacuum of space) :But the guys in your video are wrong. As discussed in the past 45 pages. Doesn't that bother you that they're wrong? The mass of the exhaust has to be accelerated, thus there is a force applied to the exhaust, and the equal and opposite force is applied to the rocket.
IN SHORT (Rockets can't work in a vacuum of space) :He's also claiming that energy can be stored in a vacuum.
Wow! 45 lomg long looong pajes of Cilky refusing to answer the very question created by a topic he created himself. Gish galloping into philosophical discussions about if he is real or not. Just in a bid to refuse to answer. Dude, Sandokhan can learn a lot from you.
I'll try again.
1 simple question.
The gas exiting the rocket. It pushes against the gases in the atmosphere. How does this translate to a foward movement of the rocket?
IN SHORT (Rockets can't work in a vacuum of space)In short you still haven't addressed my question which shows that rockets must work in space.
1) What is the formula for work/force/thrust done by a rocket in a vacuum?They are the same formulas for work/force/thrust in an atmosphere.
2) What about Free Expansion/the Joule-Thompson effect? How does that affect rocket propulsion?No, because Joule-Thompson only applies to a closed system. A rocket engine working in space is not a closed system.
3) If the formula for work done by gas is W = P x V how does a gas do work when pressure is 0?Pressure volume work only applies to a closed system and a rocket engine working in space still isn't a closed system.
4) Why do rocket types concentrate on Newtonian (solid body) physics and ignore gasses in a vacuum?Why do you ignore the fact that gasses have mass, and therefore are aptly represented by Newtonian physics?
5) How does a rocket move if it never expends any energy?From what I've seen of rocket launches, quite a lot of energy is expended by the rocket.
Liquid fuel = potential energy. Accelerated gasses = kinetic energy.How does potential get converted into kinetic energy?
Pressure against ship = potential Energy.Huh? Please explain.
A rocket is like a dollar you never get to spend, you just keep turning nickels into dimes and back again while someone steals the pennies.Sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever.
Before you try to answer above questions, bear in mind the following, also :Which means that there should be nothing to oppose the acceleration of the exhaust gasses.
Space is not only a vacuum, it is also absolutely stone cold. There's nothing.
Both P (pressure) and T (temperature) are nearly zero. At least, that's what most of the sciences agree upon, hopefully also the science unspoiled by NASA.The rocket engine introduces its own gasses into the environment of the combustion chamber in the form of aerosolized liquid oxidizer and fuel which are then ignited. The chemical reaction of the burning fuel released a great deal of heat energy which expands and accelerates the resulting gasses. The rate of the combustion and gas acceleration are controlled by the rate of flow of the propellants and the shape of the rocket engine. Not really sure why that's so hard to understand.
The ideal gas law P * V = n * R * T describes the key factors.
P = almost 0
T = almost 0
R = non existent (no gases in a vacuum, only solids with such low T)
V = almost infinite (floating molecules into space)
n = ?
What happens once the ship is moving vertically? For a rocket away from the launchpad, the gas expanding out of the nozzle creates a Hydraulic Jump, which is that ring around water being poured into a sink when water moves along the surface until a wave begins to slow down causing the waves behind it to catch it and bunch it up creating a wall of water.Wot? ::) ???
The same thing happens with the expanding gas, the leading edge of which slows down due to air resistance and the fact that force decreases as the square of the distance traveled forming a dense cloud of molecules, which the next wave of expanding gas collides with and so forth, once again pushing up on the rocket.That bit of gobbledegook is worth a Quantum Eraser Medal of Honour for the most pseudoscientifically irrelevant trash of the year!
This effect should last until the rocket runs out of fuel or the air becomes thin enough so that the hydraulic jump point is far enough away from the ship to be negligible.How do you explain the thrust of a rocket engine increasing as the outside pressure decreases?
Now, i've got a few questions for you :Easy! Thrust = (exhaust velocity) x (mass flow rate) + (exhaust area) x (exhaust pressure - outside pressure)
1) What is the formula for work/force/thrust done by a rocket in a vacuum?
2) What about Free Expansion/the Joule-Thompson effect? How does that affect rocket propulsion?It's irrelevant because the expansion of the gases has done no work on the overall system.
Rocket/Thrust/Gas/Free Expansion of Gas (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/91789/rocket-thrust-gas-free-expansion-of-gas)This might help:
Q:
We know, the rockets in space use Newton's 3rd law to increase their velocity and hence move. What I don't understand is how it is possible in space aka vacuum-state without air? From what I know, Joule's "Free Expansion of Gas" says that free-expansion compresses the gas and is therefore "affected" by vacuum so it can't make the rocket move as the gas will have zero press/force. Could someone please explain me how rockets do really work and the above-mentioned statement?
Actually, please have a look at this site: http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1632 (http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1632)
Note: The site appears to include some conspiracy theory thingummies, but made me wonder anyway.
<< Read the link for some comments on the question. >>
A#1:
If someone ever says "free expansion does no work" all they mean is that it does no work on the vacuum, which is pretty obvious in retrospect. This is because 19th century experimenters and 21st century high schools find it easiest to talk about gas properties in terms of pistons pushing on containers of gas. If the piston is replaced by nothingness, well clearly no work will be extracted from the system.
This doesn't mean the gas doesn't do anything. Think of it this way: First, you have a closed container, sitting in vacuum and containing a gas with some nonzero pressure P inside. The force on the walls is the same in all directions, no matter the shape of the container, but for simplicity you can picture it as a cube with side length s. Each wall will have a force P s2 pushing on it.
Now remove one wall. There will no longer be any force acting on it (your "free expansion" principle), but until the gas is fully evacuated there will be a force on the opposite wall. So your container has a net force in the opposite direction from the gas expulsion lasting for some time. Momentum is conserved; rockets work.
| (https://www.dropbox.com/s/uho1fzo812sw95p/Expansion%20into%20Space%20-%20box%20closed.png?dl=1) With the box closed the gas at pressure, P1, is pressing on all sides of the box as on the diagram above. But when the right side is removed there is no longer any force on the right side of the box but during the expansion there is still a force on the left side of the box. Hence, while no work is done on the vacuum, the box does receive an impluse to the left. | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/h37a269w58ayb4g/Expansion%20into%20Space%20side%20removed.png?dl=1) |
3) If the formula for work done by gas is W = P x V how does a gas do work when pressure is 0?Because no one says that W = P x V is the work done by a gas.
4) Why do rocket types concentrate on Newtonian (solid body) physics and ignore gasses in a vacuum?They do not "ignore gasses in a vacuum"!
5) How does a rocket move if it never expends any energy? Liquid fuel = potential energy. Accelerated gasses = kinetic energy. Pressure against ship = potential Energy. A rocket is like a dollar you never get to spend, you just keep turning nickels into dimes and back again while someone steals the pennies.The rocket does expend a tremendous amount of energy!
Before you try to answer above questions, bear in mind the following, also :If a perfect vacuum is "nothing" so doesn't even have a temperature.
Space is not only a vacuum, it is also absolutely stone cold. There's nothing.
Both P (pressure) and T (temperature) are nearly zero. At least, that's what most of the sciences agree upon, hopefully also the science unspoiled by NASA.Sure, P is "P (pressure) and T (temperature) are nearly zero" but why bring NASA into it?
The ideal gas law P * V = n * R * T describes the key factors.Why is that even relevant?
P = almost 0, T = almost 0, R = non existent (no gases in a vacuum, only solids with such low T), V = almost infinite (floating molecules into space), n = ?
Now, given the laws of objective probabilities, tell me, is it more likely that people like me (so called conspiracy theorists) are 99 % right (choose any topic you want), and that people like you (main stream stupidity believers) were/are/going to be 99 % plainly wrong (and so - 99 times out of 100 cases - proven outright liars) or is it more likely that the opposite is true???It is vastly more likely that that it false, especially given how you insult those that accept reality.
The gas exiting the rocket. It pushes against the gases in the atmosphere. How does this translate to a foward movement of the rocket?
Whether or not rockets can work in a vacuum is not a question of probabilities or philosophy. It's a practical question that can be definitively answered by putting a rocket engine into a vacuum chamber and testing to see if it works.Since we have obviously done with this mega-thread, some of you may find equally interesting (phylosophicaly) what you can read in o.p. of the thread which i've just opened : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83281.msg2205833#msg2205833
Assert without proof
Ignore proof given to counter assertion
Rinse
Repeat
Check this out : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83399.0
Now, given the laws of objective probabilities, tell me, is it more likely that people like me (so called conspiracy theorists) are 99 % right (choose any topic you want), and that people like you (main stream stupidity believers) were/are/going to be 99 % plainly wrong (and so - 99 times out of 100 cases - proven outright liars) or is it more likely that the opposite is true???
There's apparently a super large vacuum chamber that a bowling ball and feather were dropped in.
Whether or not rockets can work in a vacuum is not a question of probabilities or philosophy. It's a practical question that can be definitively answered by putting a rocket engine into a vacuum chamber and testing to see if it works.
It's a practical question thatFTFY ;)can behas been definitively answered
and also having a nice big container of water in there to turn to iceI'm curious as to what you mean by this. Why would a big container of water turn into ice in a vacuum chamber?
The water would boil off, not freeze.There's apparently a super large vacuum chamber that a bowling ball and feather were dropped in.
Whether or not rockets can work in a vacuum is not a question of probabilities or philosophy. It's a practical question that can be definitively answered by putting a rocket engine into a vacuum chamber and testing to see if it works.
Imagine a small rocket in that massive space. That would certainly sort the wheat from the chaff.
Obviously it would have to be viewed in real time by impartial witnesses and also having a nice big container of water in there to turn to ice, plus a nice big balloon that will expand, just to prove the thing is what they say it is.
Because putting a rocket in a little glass box or tube is certainly not going to prove anything of moving a rocket in a so called vacuum.
Wrong.The water would boil off, not freeze.There's apparently a super large vacuum chamber that a bowling ball and feather were dropped in.
Whether or not rockets can work in a vacuum is not a question of probabilities or philosophy. It's a practical question that can be definitively answered by putting a rocket engine into a vacuum chamber and testing to see if it works.
Imagine a small rocket in that massive space. That would certainly sort the wheat from the chaff.
Obviously it would have to be viewed in real time by impartial witnesses and also having a nice big container of water in there to turn to ice, plus a nice big balloon that will expand, just to prove the thing is what they say it is.
Because putting a rocket in a little glass box or tube is certainly not going to prove anything of moving a rocket in a so called vacuum.
Wrong.The water would boil off, not freeze.There's apparently a super large vacuum chamber that a bowling ball and feather were dropped in.
Whether or not rockets can work in a vacuum is not a question of probabilities or philosophy. It's a practical question that can be definitively answered by putting a rocket engine into a vacuum chamber and testing to see if it works.
Imagine a small rocket in that massive space. That would certainly sort the wheat from the chaff.
Obviously it would have to be viewed in real time by impartial witnesses and also having a nice big container of water in there to turn to ice, plus a nice big balloon that will expand, just to prove the thing is what they say it is.
Because putting a rocket in a little glass box or tube is certainly not going to prove anything of moving a rocket in a so called vacuum.
Actually, it does both. First boils and then freezes.The water would boil off, not freeze.There's apparently a super large vacuum chamber that a bowling ball and feather were dropped in.
Whether or not rockets can work in a vacuum is not a question of probabilities or philosophy. It's a practical question that can be definitively answered by putting a rocket engine into a vacuum chamber and testing to see if it works.
Imagine a small rocket in that massive space. That would certainly sort the wheat from the chaff.
Obviously it would have to be viewed in real time by impartial witnesses and also having a nice big container of water in there to turn to ice, plus a nice big balloon that will expand, just to prove the thing is what they say it is.
Because putting a rocket in a little glass box or tube is certainly not going to prove anything of moving a rocket in a so called vacuum.
There's apparently a super large vacuum chamber that a bowling ball and feather were dropped in.You would still have the conspiracy nutters rejecting it, claiming that as soon as the rocket ignited it was no longer a vacuum.
Imagine a small rocket in that massive space. That would certainly sort the wheat from the chaff.
Obviously it would have to be viewed in real time by impartial witnessesAnd unless it was you, their impartiality would be rejected and they would be dismissed as shills.
also having a nice big container of water in there to turn to iceSo you can then claim it can't be a vacuum because a vacuum would sublimate the ice?
plus a nice big balloon that will expandAgain to say it isn't a real vacuum?
Because putting a rocket in a little glass box or tube is certainly not going to prove anything of moving a rocket in a so called vacuum.That's right. Simple physics does.
Who is afraid of the truth???You.
The water would boil off, not freeze.Initially it would boil.
No, you are afraid of the truth.If I was afraid of the truth then why I am sticking to a single issue which you need to repeatedly avoid?
This is the question :No, it isn't.
Now, i ask again :And my answer remains the same, you are wrong.
Now, given the laws of objective probabilities, tell me, is it more likely that people like me (so called conspiracy theorists) are 99 % right (choose any topic you want), and that people like you (main stream stupidity believers) were/are/going to be 99 % plainly wrong (and so - 99 times out of 100 cases - proven outright liars) or is it more likely that the opposite is true???
You'll be surprised at how many people do think it gets hot.
Of course it doesn't heat boil. Boiling is the rising of vapour bubbles through the liquid. It gives the same appearance as if the water were on the stove. Boil. Not gets hot.
No.
The lab guy on a roller platform throwing a ball at the wall.
He rolls backwards by his mass loss opposite reaction force.
You fe claim not true, but that he is pushing against air.
Yes no?
So you can’t push off a volley ball but the mass of the medicine ball plays no roll?No.
The lab guy on a roller platform throwing a ball at the wall.
He rolls backwards by his mass loss opposite reaction force.
You fe claim not true, but that he is pushing against air.
Yes no?
He isn't pushing just air...
He is pushing off the ball, which in turn is now pushing off the air...
I can sit quite comfortably in my very freewheeling chair or even stand on an even more freewheeling skateboard...
If I push a volleyball the way a guy pushes a medicine ball, I go nowhere...
If I push a medicine ball, of course I am going to move...
Rockets don't work in a vacuum...reason?
There is no "space."
End of story...
Rockets don't work in a vacuum...reason?So you claim they can't work in a vacuum because you reject the existence of a vacuum?
There is no "space."
So you can’t push off a volley ball but the mass of the medicine ball plays no roll?No.
The lab guy on a roller platform throwing a ball at the wall.
He rolls backwards by his mass loss opposite reaction force.
You fe claim not true, but that he is pushing against air.
Yes no?
He isn't pushing just air...
He is pushing off the ball, which in turn is now pushing off the air...
I can sit quite comfortably in my very freewheeling chair or even stand on an even more freewheeling skateboard...
If I push a volleyball the way a guy pushes a medicine ball, I go nowhere...
If I push a medicine ball, of course I am going to move...
Rockets don't work in a vacuum...reason?
There is no "space."
End of story...
See the problem?
Yeah, the medicine ball acts like a wall, a volleyball doesn't.So you can’t push off a volley ball but the mass of the medicine ball plays no roll?No.
The lab guy on a roller platform throwing a ball at the wall.
He rolls backwards by his mass loss opposite reaction force.
You fe claim not true, but that he is pushing against air.
Yes no?
He isn't pushing just air...
He is pushing off the ball, which in turn is now pushing off the air...
I can sit quite comfortably in my very freewheeling chair or even stand on an even more freewheeling skateboard...
If I push a volleyball the way a guy pushes a medicine ball, I go nowhere...
If I push a medicine ball, of course I am going to move...
Rockets don't work in a vacuum...reason?
There is no "space."
End of story...
See the problem?
Is there anything about a skater here?So you can’t push off a volley ball but the mass of the medicine ball plays no roll?No.
The lab guy on a roller platform throwing a ball at the wall.
He rolls backwards by his mass loss opposite reaction force.
You fe claim not true, but that he is pushing against air.
Yes no?
He isn't pushing just air...
He is pushing off the ball, which in turn is now pushing off the air...
I can sit quite comfortably in my very freewheeling chair or even stand on an even more freewheeling skateboard...
If I push a volleyball the way a guy pushes a medicine ball, I go nowhere...
If I push a medicine ball, of course I am going to move...
Rockets don't work in a vacuum...reason?
There is no "space."
End of story...
See the problem?
A previous example was also asked if these deniers believe figure skaters exist.
When a skater pulls their arms in, do they get spin faster because they changed their moment of inertia or because they flapped their arms and pushed off the air to spin faster?
Yeah, the medicine ball acts like a wall, a volleyball doesn't.Yes, I see the problem, you aren't describing reality.
In other words, I am not "ejecting," either of them...
There is no wall behind a rocket or under a rocket while in a vacuum.
See the problem?
So you can’t push off a volley ball but the mass of the medicine ball plays no roll?No.
The lab guy on a roller platform throwing a ball at the wall.
He rolls backwards by his mass loss opposite reaction force.
You fe claim not true, but that he is pushing against air.
Yes no?
He isn't pushing just air...
He is pushing off the ball, which in turn is now pushing off the air...
I can sit quite comfortably in my very freewheeling chair or even stand on an even more freewheeling skateboard...
If I push a volleyball the way a guy pushes a medicine ball, I go nowhere...
If I push a medicine ball, of course I am going to move...
Rockets don't work in a vacuum...reason?
There is no "space."
End of story...
See the problem?
A previous example was also asked if these deniers believe figure skaters exist.
When a skater pulls their arms in, do they get spin faster because they changed their moment of inertia or because they flapped their arms and pushed off the air to spin faster?
Yeah, the medicine ball acts like a wall, a volleyball doesn't.
In other words, I am not "ejecting," either of them...
There is no wall behind a rocket or under a rocket while in a vacuum.
See the problem?
Is there anything about a skater here?
Wtf does a skater increasing his speed in the confines of earth's atmoplane have to do with ejected matter?
Does air act like a wall? How far will you move by pushing off air?Yeah, the medicine ball acts like a wall, a volleyball doesn't.So you can’t push off a volley ball but the mass of the medicine ball plays no roll?No.
The lab guy on a roller platform throwing a ball at the wall.
He rolls backwards by his mass loss opposite reaction force.
You fe claim not true, but that he is pushing against air.
Yes no?
He isn't pushing just air...
He is pushing off the ball, which in turn is now pushing off the air...
I can sit quite comfortably in my very freewheeling chair or even stand on an even more freewheeling skateboard...
If I push a volleyball the way a guy pushes a medicine ball, I go nowhere...
If I push a medicine ball, of course I am going to move...
Rockets don't work in a vacuum...reason?
There is no "space."
End of story...
See the problem?
In other words, I am not "ejecting," either of them...
There is no wall behind a rocket or under a rocket while in a vacuum.
See the problem?
Yes I see the problem. You think rocket exhaust is massless. It’s not.Yeah, the medicine ball acts like a wall, a volleyball doesn't.So you can’t push off a volley ball but the mass of the medicine ball plays no roll?No.
The lab guy on a roller platform throwing a ball at the wall.
He rolls backwards by his mass loss opposite reaction force.
You fe claim not true, but that he is pushing against air.
Yes no?
He isn't pushing just air...
He is pushing off the ball, which in turn is now pushing off the air...
I can sit quite comfortably in my very freewheeling chair or even stand on an even more freewheeling skateboard...
If I push a volleyball the way a guy pushes a medicine ball, I go nowhere...
If I push a medicine ball, of course I am going to move...
Rockets don't work in a vacuum...reason?
There is no "space."
End of story...
See the problem?
In other words, I am not "ejecting," either of them...
There is no wall behind a rocket or under a rocket while in a vacuum.
See the problem?
That is a good example.So you can’t push off a volley ball but the mass of the medicine ball plays no roll?No.
The lab guy on a roller platform throwing a ball at the wall.
He rolls backwards by his mass loss opposite reaction force.
You fe claim not true, but that he is pushing against air.
Yes no?
He isn't pushing just air...
He is pushing off the ball, which in turn is now pushing off the air...
I can sit quite comfortably in my very freewheeling chair or even stand on an even more freewheeling skateboard...
If I push a volleyball the way a guy pushes a medicine ball, I go nowhere...
If I push a medicine ball, of course I am going to move...
Rockets don't work in a vacuum...reason?
There is no "space."
End of story...
See the problem?
A previous example was also asked if these deniers believe figure skaters exist.
When a skater pulls their arms in, do they get spin faster because they changed their moment of inertia or because they flapped their arms and pushed off the air to spin faster?
Say I throw the medicine ball from my skateboard, (no wall anywhere), and move backwards 3 feet.
Next, I do the same, but the ball flies a few feet, and hits a wall.
Should I expect a different reaction?
Of course it does.Does air act like a wall? How far will you move by pushing off air?Yeah, the medicine ball acts like a wall, a volleyball doesn't.So you can’t push off a volley ball but the mass of the medicine ball plays no roll?No.
The lab guy on a roller platform throwing a ball at the wall.
He rolls backwards by his mass loss opposite reaction force.
You fe claim not true, but that he is pushing against air.
Yes no?
He isn't pushing just air...
He is pushing off the ball, which in turn is now pushing off the air...
I can sit quite comfortably in my very freewheeling chair or even stand on an even more freewheeling skateboard...
If I push a volleyball the way a guy pushes a medicine ball, I go nowhere...
If I push a medicine ball, of course I am going to move...
Rockets don't work in a vacuum...reason?
There is no "space."
End of story...
See the problem?
In other words, I am not "ejecting," either of them...
There is no wall behind a rocket or under a rocket while in a vacuum.
See the problem?
Ummm... No, I don't think that I've ever heard anyone call it that.Does air act like a wall? How far will you move by pushing off air?Of course it does.
Even according to you guys, what you call the atmosphere is a wall against the evils of space.
No, we don't call the atmosphere a wall.Does air act like a wall? How far will you move by pushing off air?Of course it does.
Even according to you guys, what you call the atmosphere is a wall against the evils of space.
You'll be surprised at how many people do think it gets hot.
Of course it doesn't heat boil. Boiling is the rising of vapour bubbles through the liquid. It gives the same appearance as if the water were on the stove. Boil. Not gets hot.
But at least we have that out of the way.
Aside from intakes, there is no differentiating between how a rocket moves through the atmosphere and a jet engine moves through the atmosphere.Indeed, rockets are jets (which is why the Jet Propulsion Lab works with rockets) and neither push against the atmosphere to move.. The primary difference is the source of the reaction mass. A gas turbine engine uses the atmosphere as its primary source of reaction mass (the burning fuel provides a relatively small amount of reaction mass) while a rocket must carry every bit of its reaction mass (fuel and oxidizer).
Once again, the fact the medicine ball has mass sufficient to provide enough resistance for your arms to generate the sufficient energy to propel you backwards as a result of the effort to toss it away from you is purposefully ignored and otherwise obfuscated by the disingenuous RE adherents in this thread.
Claiming rockets can fly in a vacuum is pure bupkus...
Aside from intakes, there is no differentiating between how a rocket moves through the atmosphere and a jet engine moves through the atmosphere.
Hold up.More precisely, the claim is the medicine ball occupies enough space so that air is also a factor.
Space aside, the claim was that you were pushing off the air.
Hold up.More precisely, the claim is the medicine ball occupies enough space so that air is also a factor.
Space aside, the claim was that you were pushing off the air.
Mass is not dependent on size.Hold up.More precisely, the claim is the medicine ball occupies enough space so that air is also a factor.
Space aside, the claim was that you were pushing off the air.
What if the medball amd vball are the same size.
Are you then adhereing to sceptis denpressure?
Mass is not dependent on size.Hold up.More precisely, the claim is the medicine ball occupies enough space so that air is also a factor.
Space aside, the claim was that you were pushing off the air.
What if the medball amd vball are the same size.
Are you then adhereing to sceptis denpressure?
Why?Mass is not dependent on size.Hold up.More precisely, the claim is the medicine ball occupies enough space so that air is also a factor.
Space aside, the claim was that you were pushing off the air.
What if the medball amd vball are the same size.
Are you then adhereing to sceptis denpressure?
Correct
Care to take a 2nd look at your statement then?
More precisely, the claim is the medicine ball occupies enough space so that air is also a factor.
Mass is not dependent on size.Huh? ???
Different masses, same size. With the same surface area, they push against the air the same amount. Yet the reaction from tossing the different masses is different. (Because, you know, f=ma.) Therefore, the propulsion is not a matter of pushing against the air.
Once again, the fact the medicine ball has mass sufficient to provide enough resistance for your arms to generate the sufficient energy to propel you backwards as a result of the effort to toss it away from you is purposefully ignored and otherwise obfuscated by the disingenuous RE adherents in this thread.No, it seems that the fact the exhaust has mass sufficient to provide enough resistance for the rocket to generate the sufficient thrust to propel the rocket forwards as a result of the effort to toss it away from it is purposefully ignored and otherwise obfuscated by the disingenuous FE adherents in this thread.
Aside from intakes, there is no differentiating between how a rocket moves through the atmosphere and a jet engine moves through the atmosphere.You mean the main part which prevents a jet engine from operating in a vacuum, the fact that it needs to take in air as a source of oxidant, while a rocket has its own oxidant and thus doesn't need to suck in air?
Why?Mass is not dependent on size.Hold up.More precisely, the claim is the medicine ball occupies enough space so that air is also a factor.
Space aside, the claim was that you were pushing off the air.
What if the medball amd vball are the same size.
Are you then adhereing to sceptis denpressure?
Correct
Care to take a 2nd look at your statement then?
More precisely, the claim is the medicine ball occupies enough space so that air is also a factor.
There is no conflict.
An obvious experiment, take a Beach ball, and throw it from your skateboard how far did you move?Good example.
Take your medicine ball, of the same size, throw it from your skateboard how far did you move?
As the balls have the same displacement of air should they not move your skateboard the same amount?
What are the results?
And why?
More weight, serving in effect as a WALL that you are pushing off of when you hurl it.If it is when you hurl it, then it is ejecting it.
It is not the matter of ejection of the medicine ball from your grasp that is causing you to go in the opposite direction.
It is the force of your arms pushing against the medicine ball, serving as a temporary wall that is causing you to go the other way.Sure, the force to accelerate it and eject it.
More weight, serving in effect as a WALL that you are pushing off of when you hurl it.This is so exciting to read. You're almost there!
I know why you go the opposite way when you push off a stationary wall.More weight, serving in effect as a WALL that you are pushing off of when you hurl it.This is so exciting to read. You're almost there!
An obvious experiment, take a Beach ball, and throw it from your skateboard how far did you move?Good example.
Take your medicine ball, of the same size, throw it from your skateboard how far did you move?
As the balls have the same displacement of air should they not move your skateboard the same amount?
What are the results?
And why?
There is decidedly air reacting to the surface area of the beachball.
That serves to provide some resistance against the force of you pushing it.
A medicine ball of the same size?
More weight, serving in effect as a WALL that you are pushing off of when you hurl it.
It is not the matter of ejection of the medicine ball from your grasp that is causing you to go in the opposite direction.
It is the force of your arms pushing against the medicine ball, serving as a temporary wall that is causing you to go the other way.
Ok, I think I see what's going on. Yes, pushing against the medicine ball will act as a "wall" of sorts and push you backwards. However, once your arms are fully extended, there is no more push and the "wall" will immediately stop your backward movement. However, if you were to push the "wall" and then let go, you would continue moving backwards. This is what we are talking about when we say "ejecting" the reaction mass.An obvious experiment, take a Beach ball, and throw it from your skateboard how far did you move?Good example.
Take your medicine ball, of the same size, throw it from your skateboard how far did you move?
As the balls have the same displacement of air should they not move your skateboard the same amount?
What are the results?
And why?
There is decidedly air reacting to the surface area of the beachball.
That serves to provide some resistance against the force of you pushing it.
A medicine ball of the same size?
More weight, serving in effect as a WALL that you are pushing off of when you hurl it.
It is not the matter of ejection of the medicine ball from your grasp that is causing you to go in the opposite direction.
It is the force of your arms pushing against the medicine ball, serving as a temporary wall that is causing you to go the other way.
Here we have pencil nose attempting to state exhaust gases from a rocket are of equal mass to the rocket fuel...An obvious experiment, take a Beach ball, and throw it from your skateboard how far did you move?Good example.
Take your medicine ball, of the same size, throw it from your skateboard how far did you move?
As the balls have the same displacement of air should they not move your skateboard the same amount?
What are the results?
And why?
There is decidedly air reacting to the surface area of the beachball.
That serves to provide some resistance against the force of you pushing it.
A medicine ball of the same size?
More weight, serving in effect as a WALL that you are pushing off of when you hurl it.
It is not the matter of ejection of the medicine ball from your grasp that is causing you to go in the opposite direction.
It is the force of your arms pushing against the medicine ball, serving as a temporary wall that is causing you to go the other way.
So a bit like when a rocket pushes against its own exhaust gases then.......
Here we have pencil nose attempting to state exhaust gases from a rocket are of equal mass to the rocket fuel...Wow. I'm trying to read this without having my brain explode.
Wrong.
Thirdly, watch Black Adder. It's a hoot.Here we have pencil nose attempting to state exhaust gases from a rocket are of equal mass to the rocket fuel...Wow. I'm trying to read this without having my brain explode.
Wrong.
First of all, where do you think that the exhaust gasses from a rocket come from?
Secondly, are you under the impression that the rocket has to push against another body of the same mass in order to move? ???
You guys jumped ahead.The medicine ball does push the air... out of its way.
Figure out why a medball doesnt push the air.!
You guys jumped ahead.The medicine ball does push the air... out of its way.
Figure out why a medball doesnt push the air.!
The better question is how much does the air push back on the medicine ball?
How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?As much wood as a woodchuck could chuck, If a woodchuck could chuck wood
No one is going to tell me that the mass of rocket fuel remains the same once it is ignited and released from a closed system.No, I'm pretty literally all sane people that have any idea what they are talking about will tell you that.
No one is going to tell me that the mass of rocket fuel remains the same once it is ignited and released from a closed system.What do you think happens to the mass of the fuel when it's burned?
Again, the fuel, once ignited and burnt, is no longer part of a closed system.No one is going to tell me that the mass of rocket fuel remains the same once it is ignited and released from a closed system.What do you think happens to the mass of the fuel when it's burned?
Again, the fuel, once ignited and burnt, is no longer part of a closed system.What closed system?
Therefore, mass is not conserved.
How are you defining your closed system?Again, the fuel, once ignited and burnt, is no longer part of a closed system.No one is going to tell me that the mass of rocket fuel remains the same once it is ignited and released from a closed system.What do you think happens to the mass of the fuel when it's burned?
Therefore, mass is not conserved.
The same way everyone else defines a closed system.How are you defining your closed system?Again, the fuel, once ignited and burnt, is no longer part of a closed system.No one is going to tell me that the mass of rocket fuel remains the same once it is ignited and released from a closed system.What do you think happens to the mass of the fuel when it's burned?
Therefore, mass is not conserved.
The same way everyone else defines a closed system.So one in which matter cannot cross the boundary, i.e. one where it is physically impossible for the following statement to be true:
the fuel, once ignited and burnt, is no longer part of a closed system.One where the fuel, before and after being ignited and burnt is part of the system, or one where the fuel, before and after being ignited and burnt is not part of the system.
The same way everyone else defines a closed system.How are you defining your closed system?Again, the fuel, once ignited and burnt, is no longer part of a closed system.No one is going to tell me that the mass of rocket fuel remains the same once it is ignited and released from a closed system.What do you think happens to the mass of the fuel when it's burned?
Therefore, mass is not conserved.
Closed.
It's not.The same way everyone else defines a closed system.How are you defining your closed system?Again, the fuel, once ignited and burnt, is no longer part of a closed system.No one is going to tell me that the mass of rocket fuel remains the same once it is ignited and released from a closed system.What do you think happens to the mass of the fuel when it's burned?
Therefore, mass is not conserved.
Closed.
How is a closed system closed when it's open at one end?
That isn't a definition. Also, different scientific disciplines often define certain words differently that the rest of the world, and sometimes even other scientific disciplines. That's why context is so important.The same way everyone else defines a closed system.How are you defining your closed system?Again, the fuel, once ignited and burnt, is no longer part of a closed system.No one is going to tell me that the mass of rocket fuel remains the same once it is ignited and released from a closed system.What do you think happens to the mass of the fuel when it's burned?
Therefore, mass is not conserved.
Closed.
The same way everyone else defines a closed system.How are you defining your closed system?Again, the fuel, once ignited and burnt, is no longer part of a closed system.No one is going to tell me that the mass of rocket fuel remains the same once it is ignited and released from a closed system.What do you think happens to the mass of the fuel when it's burned?
Therefore, mass is not conserved.
How is a closed system closed when it's open at one end?
Closed.
It's not.
Congratulations
Mass of rocket + fuel after ignition but before ejection remains constant.No one mentioned the necessity of air for rocket fuel.
Once fuel is ejected then mass of rocket and fuel decreases BUT the mass of rocket + fuel + ejected fuel still remains constant. Conservation momentum over the rocket + fuel + ejected fuel demands that the rocket therefore accelerates in the opposite direction to ejected fuel.
No air required.
No one mentioned the necessity of air for rocket fuel.Except I did, when pointing out the distinction between a jet engine and a rocket engine.
:...BUT the mass of rocket + fuel + ejected fuel still remains constant."If you wish to claim such a massive violation of the laws of physics, tell us where the extra mass goes or were the extra mass comes from.
Wrong.
Exhaust cannot happen into a vacuum, because no more vacuum.You mean, no perfect vacuum. But no one is suggesting it does.
Exhaust cannot happen into a vacuum, because no more vacuum.
Hes back!No contradicting statements.
And avoids the two contradicting statements....
Forget vaccuums.
Hows your nose?
Or when TomB threw it at your face, did the med ball push the air which pushed your face out of the way?
And how does weight play into the air factor when it and the vball are the "same size"?
Although you claimed it due to size, you also claim its due to weight.
So size or volume all equal, the factor left is weight.
What if you had a vball shooter with a 1,000,000ball hopper?
Would you start moving then?
Why would you not move if you held onto the med ball?
All the shaking in the world wouldnt cause you to move, if you never pet go.
Is it pushing off air?
I reibtroduce a scepti arguement exhibit
Japaense water truck.
1 drip at a time.
Is the hose jet lifting offf the air?
Off the ground?
I guess lackless has given up.Lacking will be back stronger than ever, and even more determined. Rest assured.
Last 5or so have been winkle-esque.
A medicine ball of the same size?
More weight, serving in effect as a WALL that you are pushing off of when you hurl it.
Since the medball vs volleyball is too hard a concept for lackless we can try another example.
The claim is the vball lacks required "size" (he incorrectly meant "weight") to act as a wall to push on the air.
A shotgun slug weighs apprix 2ounces.
1/5th than a vball and way far less than a medball.
But if said slug were "ejected" at a high velocity, would the shooter move back?
If you loaded the vball into a cannon and shot it out at high velocity, would the shooter move back?
| Here's an "air-cannon" with plenty of recoil esp at 0:40: homemade recoiling artillery piece | And a replica "Howitzer" see from 2:00: Replica WW-2 Howitzer recoil test |
Are you sure what i have against re is pretty weak?Given the current status of RE vs FE, yes.
The coiled spring can now push Jack up only if it's attached to the base of the box, which it is.Wrong. It can only hold it up if that is the case. If it wasn't attached to the bottom and instead just held compressed by magic, then when it is released, it will still push the head away.
In all scenarios you need that foundation.That is a baseless claim you are yet to substantiate in any way, and which has been refuted countless times.
Compressed air allows thisSo the rocket can push against the compressed air in the combustion chamber and nozzle.
Jack in the box.Have you ever heard of force = mass x acceleration?
Pop the lid and up pops Jack.
Why?
The spring is coiled against the underside of Jack and the bottom of the box.
All that's needed is to uncoil it.
Jack's head is pushing the lid. The lid is closed.
Jack's head is holding back that coiled spring with the aid of a closed lid.
Pop the lid and Jack's head is no longer using the lid to resist the coiled spring.
The coiled spring can now push Jack up only if it's attached to the base of the box, which it is. It creates a continuity of the spring as one unit using the base as the springboard/leverage or mere foundation which allows the spring to uncoil against the much less dense Jack, meaning Jack launches into the air until his dense mass hits an equilibrium with the push of the uncoiling spring...and then he fall as the spring collapses, or he sits atop of the spring if it's a much more robust spring.
There's your rocket.
Jack in the box.
Pop the lid and up pops Jack.
Why?
The spring is coiled against the underside of Jack and the bottom of the box.
All that's needed is to uncoil it.
Jack's head is pushing the lid. The lid is closed.
Jack's head is holding back that coiled spring with the aid of a closed lid.
Pop the lid and Jack's head is no longer using the lid to resist the coiled spring.
The coiled spring can now push Jack up only if it's attached to the base of the box, which it is. It creates a continuity of the spring as one unit using the base as the springboard/leverage or mere foundation which allows the spring to uncoil against the much less dense Jack, meaning Jack launches into the air until his dense mass hits an equilibrium with the push of the uncoiling spring...and then he fall as the spring collapses, or he sits atop of the spring if it's a much more robust spring.
There's your rocket.
You could use compressed air in a box under Jack and use his head in the same manner as the foundation of the box.
Open the box and Jack launches by using the exact same type of scenario of foundation and compressed air spring like expansion once you allow that expansion to happen by opening the lid.
You could fill Jack up with compressed air and have that hit the foundation to do exactly the same.
In all scenarios you need that foundation. You need a leverage for any forward movement to happen or you simply have zero work.
If you take away a solid foundation then you require some other means of leverage or resistance to force.
Compressed air allows this, as in, in normal atmosphere being used by whatever force is pushed against it to compress it and that compression will expand back towards the force applied against it, creating an equal and opposite reaction. Hence why the medicine ball on a skateboard works to push back a person who throws it against atmosphere and compresses that atmosphere with the amount of force the dense medicine ball can compress it, creating a spring back resistance back onto the person.
Back to Jack in the box.
No matter which way you look at anything you always need a foundation or a resistant counter force against any force applied to it, as I explained above.
In fictional space vacuum you get zero counter force. You get zero resistance. You get zero leverage and the only foundation you could ever have is inside the rocket, both ends, assuming both are shut.
Open one end and you allow expansion of matter against zero resistance.
Inside the rocket you have a foundation, but all your expansion of gases would be happening at the opposite end. The open end.
further expansion can only happen towards the opposite end only when the major expansion happens as the gases leave the craft, meaning there is no push back towards the inner foundation, until the very last molecules that were squashed against it, expand but by that time all of the rest have expanded out against each other (and this is key)...meaning there is no work done at all.
Basically you have a magical rocket in suspended animation.
Naturally this is impossible for rockets to work in space or vacuums but I have to use it to show why.
The sooner people understand how and why atmospheric pressure actually works, the sooner people will understand why rockets and everything really do work.
The way people are told by the so called science world of space rocketry, in terms of how they supposedly work, is clever. It's a clever dupe and mind numb.
Very few people seem willing to question it because the brainwashing has elevated to levels way beyond their ability to even dare question for fear of ridicule.
Space and ll the gunk we've been schooled into is all well and good if you view it for what it is, which is sci-fi.
To believe it in how we're told, as in as a real thing, then all I can say is, fine...enjoy that fantasy as your reality.
You put a lot of effort into writing that very poor analogy.Not sure what you're trying to explain.
And unfortunately for ladder guy, you are incorrect.
feel free to explain what happens to my hypothetical cold gas thruster type rocket in a vacuum:
You have compressed air inside it (and this air has mass), but with an opening on one end, exposed to a vacuum.
What happens?
Does it magically remain inside the tank, even though it is open to a vacuum?
Or does it move, and thus even by your own claims, need something to push off, which when logically followed will result in the rocket being pushed away?
Even if you want to appeal to your expansion nonsense, it isn't expansion without resistance.
The gas is only capable of expanding in one direction, it will then push the obstruction away, just like a bomb pushes shrapnel away while it expands.No. A bomb works because it is encased and creates an equal and opposite reaction to action inside the casing, meaning it expands inside and creates a massive expanded pressure on the casing walls which shatters the walls at the weakest points.
If you like, you can consider that rocket as part of the expansion.
The very reason why rocket fuel burns like it does is to super expand the atmosphere under and around that flaming thrust.
There is absolutely no need to push on anything outside the rocket though, of course, the high velocity propellant moist be ejected at that velocity.
You put a lot of effort into writing that very poor analogy.Not sure what you're trying to explain.
And unfortunately for ladder guy, you are incorrect.
If you take away a solid foundation then you require some other means of leverage or resistance to force.
Compressed air allows this, as in, in normal atmosphere being used by whatever force is pushed against it to compress it and that compression will expand back towards the force applied against it, creating an equal and opposite reaction. Hence why the medicine ball on a skateboard works to push back a person who throws it against atmosphere and compresses that atmosphere with the amount of force the dense medicine ball can compress it, creating a spring back resistance back onto the person.
It is far from nonsense.Is that why you are completely unable to justify it in any way, nor answer very simple questions which show it to be wrong?
How do you think you can compress air in the first place?By reducing the volume. It is quite basic fluid mechanics.
The clue is in the word "compress" and you can't compress anything without making the molecules smaller.And more nonsense.
All the tank foundation is doing at this particular time is merely acting as a foundation.Which is pushed by the molecules.
No. A bomb works because it is encased and creates an equal and opposite reaction to action inside the casingOnly while it is encased. As soon as it cracks, you have your opening and according to you, that should mean just free expansion with no work.
Luckily there is resistance. It's called atmospheric pressure.No, it's call the mass of the exhaust.
The answer to "can rockets fly in a vacuum?" is a pretty simple one. Yes, they can. Apply the law of conservation of momentum to rocket and the gases it will exhaust. You will see fairly quickly that as mass moves out the back of the rocket, the rocket itself must move in a forward direction.
.
Lacki and scepti both dont believe in "conventional" physics.
Which is the issue here.
They believe rockets and med balls are pushing off the stationary air.
Hence why the medicine ball on a skateboard works to push back a person who throws it against atmosphere and compresses that atmosphere with the amount of force the dense medicine ball can compress it, creating a spring back resistance back onto the person.
Scepti doesn't believe that you need math to prove something so obvious.
Lacki and scepti both dont believe in "conventional" physics.
Which is the issue here.
They believe rockets and med balls are pushing off the stationary air.
You can "not believe" all you want. I would like to see a mathematically consistent and logical way to deal with every situation where conservation of momentum applies that does not use conservation of momentum.
So which part of the presentation is wrong? The one with arrows pointing where? Draw a freehand diagram of how rockets work.All of it.
Scepti has steered my previous ponts away from lackless.No because your hair sort equalises because atmosphere is all over and under it, unlike your dense body which is pushing into atmosphere by it's own dense mass and also that same dense mass displacing that amount of atmosphere.
Too bad.
But at least we have a new player.
So.
Explain this to us please.
If denpressure's underlying principle is that gravity doesnt exist ans the atmoplane pushes things down, then why do we see these two phenomena?:
1. If the air above my head pushes me down with the weight of my weight, wouldnt my head hair (that which is of highest displacement on my body) be seen as perma-flattened?
2. When air bubbles rise up in the water, are they flat on top? Or flat on bottom? The air bubble has a water column above it pushing down on it. Water is a fluid and will have near similar push down properties (in behaviour) of the air in the atmoplane.Not flat just slightly misshaped due to being squeezed up.
Yes, if the skater holds onto the ball then the action and equal and opposite reaction comes into play, meaning an equal atmospheric reaction to the medicine ball in a push forward or push back = zero gain.
The mass (medball) has to be ejected from the being or else there is no action-reaction.
If the skater does a throwing motion, but holds onto the ball, he goes no where.
Ladder guy attempts to jump but ends up just moving his legs and goes no where - now if his legs detached while kicking, he would move.Did the ladder collapse?
So now ill post the questions that lackless refuses to answer, to you -If you threw the medicine ball at me as I was stood at the end of a tube of dimensions that were just slightly larger than the medicine ball, then i'd likely have my head pushed back if you threw it hard enough, due to the air it compresses in that tube and the resulting air rush behind the medicine ball allowing it to create that compression by what it displaces of it's own mass of atmosphere.
If you stood in front of lackless and he threw a med ball at your face, would that med ball create a push of air to push you back?
What if it were a volleyball of similar dimension?The volley ball would be extremely minimal due to it already being mostly air and a simple outer skin of dense mass....which....if you were to take away the air and mould it into a denser ball, it would likely be as small as a dogs rubber ball.
You do realize that there is already a word for dense mass displacing less dense atmosphere, don't you? That word is "buoyancy". It's a well understood phenomenon and it requires gravity so that the more dense mass knows which way to go.Scepti has steered my previous ponts away from lackless.No because your hair sort equalises because atmosphere is all over and under it, unlike your dense body which is pushing into atmosphere by it's own dense mass and also that same dense mass displacing that amount of atmosphere.
Too bad.
But at least we have a new player.
So.
Explain this to us please.
If denpressure's underlying principle is that gravity doesnt exist ans the atmoplane pushes things down, then why do we see these two phenomena?:
1. If the air above my head pushes me down with the weight of my weight, wouldnt my head hair (that which is of highest displacement on my body) be seen as perma-flattened?
Throwing the medicine ball allows the atmosphere to create a barrier by the medicine ball and your energy compressing it. It creates a leverage.
If there was no atmosphere there would be no leverage and no opposite motion.
I do justify it. You not accepting that does not mean anything.It is far from nonsense.Is that why you are completely unable to justify it in any way, nor answer very simple questions which show it to be wrong?
You can't reduce a volume unless you reduce a container.How do you think you can compress air in the first place?By reducing the volume. It is quite basic fluid mechanics.
There is no space between them. Everything is attached. There is no space between anything. If there was we would not exist and nor would anything else...hence why space is nonsense.The clue is in the word "compress" and you can't compress anything without making the molecules smaller.And more nonsense.
You don't need to make the molecules smaller. All you need to do is reduce the space between them.
In fact, one of the limitations of the ideal gas law is that real gasses aren't ideal because they have a real, physical size of the atoms/molecules.Anything compressed enough will become a liquid or a solid. Or a more dense liquid or a more dense solid....And so on.
One of the drawbacks of this is that it can only be compressed to a certain extent before it becomes a liquid or a solid.
The molecules do push but they push off each other.All the tank foundation is doing at this particular time is merely acting as a foundation.Which is pushed by the molecules.
If it wasn't, the molecules can't push off it and thus can't expand.
A bomb will explode if it's encased and allows a burn expansion to shatter the shell which will allow that expansion to not only throw the casing a good distance but will also compress the atmosphere around it and create a massive wave/ripple effect not too dissimilar to throwing a big stone into a pond and seeing the circular ripple effect.No. A bomb works because it is encased and creates an equal and opposite reaction to action inside the casingOnly while it is encased. As soon as it cracks, you have your opening and according to you, that should mean just free expansion with no work.
That would mean bombs should just push out air, never shrapnel.
No. The rocket cannot push off its own exhaust. It's exhaust has to hit a barrier. Atmospheric pressure creates this and allows the rocket to move away from it as it super compresses it by expansion which creates a super equal reaction to that action of a compressed force back and creating a perfect leverage..Luckily there is resistance. It's called atmospheric pressure.No, it's call the mass of the exhaust.
That needs a force to accelerate it.
That is the resistance that the rocket needs to push off.
Remember, your entire objection is that you can't simply have the rocket push off nothing to move. That same applies to the gas inside the rocket.Yep and atmospheric pressure provides this.
You can't simply have it push off nothing to move.
It needs to push off something, which means it needs to push something.
Again, a rational line of reasoning goes like this:Nope. It's the actual gas itself being allowed to expand against a weaker resistant force. In this case it would be extreme low pressure.
The high pressure gas is exposed to a vacuum and thus will move to go into/towards the vacuum.
This means the gas is accelerating as it is changing its velocity.
This means it will need to have a force applied to it in order to accelerate.
This means it must push off something and apply a force to something.
The only available object is the rocket.
This means the gas must push off the rocket.The atmosphere is the stalker against the flame throwing rocket trying to escape it but the atmosphere just keeps on coming back. End result is a perfect fight against equal and opposite reactions of gases. The rocket simply sits atop it all like a rising stick on a fountain.
This means the rocket will be pushed by the expanding gas.Think of it like this.
This means that rockets MUST work in a vacuum.That means that rockets cannot work well in extreme low pressure and absolutely not in a so called vacuum.
Just which point do you disagree with here and why?All of what you say.
Do you claim a complete defiance of so much observed about gas and instead which to claim that even when exposed to a vacuum the gas will magically remain inside the tank?Exposed to an extreme low pressure the compressed gas will decompress into that low pressure environment extremely fast due to very little resistive force against its expansion....until the molecules cannot expand into each other anymore....in which case they become dormant....or basically freeze.
Do you claim that even though it is accelerating to move out of the rocket, it somehow isn't accelerating, a pure nonsense claim which contradicts itself? (The same applies to the last point)Initially it would accelerate for a short period. But only against each other.
Do you claim that even though it is accelerating it doesn't need a force applied to it? Again, a complete defiance of physics, this time with what is known about motion. Perhaps more importantly, a key part of what you are relying upon to falsely assert that rockets can't work, as if objects (like gas) can accelerate without a force applied, why can't a rocket?The force is the expansion and resistance to that expansion which is compression.
The latter points (except the last) are quite similar, in that rejecting them means rejecting quite well established physics, backed up by mountains of evidence which you are relying upon to claim rockets can't work.Nope.
If you reject any of them, it would mean that you are rejecting your arguments against rockets not being able to work.
If you can't justify a problem with that line of reasoning, you have no case.I think I've reasoned quite well and justified my reasoning.
Scepti has steered my previous ponts away from lackless.No because your hair sort equalises because atmosphere is all over and under it, unlike your dense body which is pushing into atmosphere by it's own dense mass and also that same dense mass displacing that amount of atmosphere.
Too bad.
But at least we have a new player.
So.
Explain this to us please.
If denpressure's underlying principle is that gravity doesnt exist ans the atmoplane pushes things down, then why do we see these two phenomena?:
1. If the air above my head pushes me down with the weight of my weight, wouldnt my head hair (that which is of highest displacement on my body) be seen as perma-flattened?Quote from: Themightykabool2. When air bubbles rise up in the water, are they flat on top? Or flat on bottom? The air bubble has a water column above it pushing down on it. Water is a fluid and will have near similar push down properties (in behaviour) of the air in the atmoplane.Not flat just slightly misshaped due to being squeezed up.
Yes, if the skater holds onto the ball then the action and equal and opposite reaction comes into play, meaning an equal atmospheric reaction to the medicine ball in a push forward or push back = zero gain.
The mass (medball) has to be ejected from the being or else there is no action-reaction.
If the skater does a throwing motion, but holds onto the ball, he goes no where.
Throwing the medicine ball allows the atmosphere to create a barrier by the medicine ball and your energy compressing it. It creates a leverage.
If there was no atmosphere there would be no leverage and no opposite motion.Quote from: ThemightykaboolLadder guy attempts to jump but ends up just moving his legs and goes no where - now if his legs detached while kicking, he would move.Did the ladder collapse?Quote from: ThemightykaboolSo now ill post the questions that lackless refuses to answer, to you -If you threw the medicine ball at me as I was stood at the end of a tube of dimensions that were just slightly larger than the medicine ball, then i'd likely have my head pushed back if you threw it hard enough, due to the air it compresses in that tube and the resulting air rush behind the medicine ball allowing it to create that compression by what it displaces of it's own mass of atmosphere.
If you stood in front of lackless and he threw a med ball at your face, would that med ball create a push of air to push you back?
The same would happen if you threw it at me in open air but the air hitting my face would be minimal due to the area allowing dissipation of the medicine ball's dense mass of air displacement.Quote from: ThemightykaboolWhat if it were a volleyball of similar dimension?The volley ball would be extremely minimal due to it already being mostly air and a simple outer skin of dense mass....which....if you were to take away the air and mould it into a denser ball, it would likely be as small as a dogs rubber ball.
It depends how you want to look at it.Hence why the medicine ball on a skateboard works to push back a person who throws it against atmosphere and compresses that atmosphere with the amount of force the dense medicine ball can compress it, creating a spring back resistance back onto the person.
Henceforthwith, what am I, the wheeled medicine ball tosser compressing against? How is my tossing of the medicine ball somehow compressing the entire earth's atmosphere and pushing me back? Do I have that much of an effect on all things on the planet by just touching or tossing them?
If I were inside a room, would I be 'compressing' off a wall?Think of the swimming pool.
If I were outside, would I be compressing off of a cloud?When it's cloudy or clear does the air pressure change?
How do you calculate this force, this 'compression' force? The springback, if you will.It depends what needs to be calculated, whether it's compressing it or decompressing it.
Your argument is woeful, suspect, and utterly incomprehensible. Try, much, much harder.I'm doing just fine.
Nothing requires gravity because gravity does not exist. I don't need to argue this point any further. Gravity does not exist to me and it's that simple, so by all means use it to argue a point but do not expect me to reply in any other way, except to dismiss it out of hand.You do realize that there is already a word for dense mass displacing less dense atmosphere, don't you? That word is "buoyancy". It's a well understood phenomenon and it requires gravity so that the more dense mass knows which way to go.Scepti has steered my previous ponts away from lackless.No because your hair sort equalises because atmosphere is all over and under it, unlike your dense body which is pushing into atmosphere by it's own dense mass and also that same dense mass displacing that amount of atmosphere.
Too bad.
But at least we have a new player.
So.
Explain this to us please.
If denpressure's underlying principle is that gravity doesnt exist ans the atmoplane pushes things down, then why do we see these two phenomena?:
1. If the air above my head pushes me down with the weight of my weight, wouldnt my head hair (that which is of highest displacement on my body) be seen as perma-flattened?
If I picked up text books to absorb then I wouldn't be arguing these points. I'd be like you and simply accepting what I'm schooled into.
Throwing the medicine ball allows the atmosphere to create a barrier by the medicine ball and your energy compressing it. It creates a leverage.
If there was no atmosphere there would be no leverage and no opposite motion.
Wrong.
Instead of just making stuff up, have you considered learning how all this stuff really works?
It doesn’t just apply to rocketry, the same rules of motion, pressure systems, fluid dynamics, etc. were used to create all the modern technology around you.
Of course you don’t deny the existence of cars, aeroplanes, power stations, refrigerators, washing machines, etc, etc. Yet they all depend on the same fundamental science as rockets do.
If you were right, then millions of physicists and engineers would be wrong and basically nothing would work. Since things do work, we can safely assume that the people who actually bothered to study these things are right, and that you, spouting whatever pops into your head are wrong.
Try picking up a text book or do an online course.
Water and atmospheric pressure upon that water.Scepti has steered my previous ponts away from lackless.No because your hair sort equalises because atmosphere is all over and under it, unlike your dense body which is pushing into atmosphere by it's own dense mass and also that same dense mass displacing that amount of atmosphere.
Too bad.
But at least we have a new player.
So.
Explain this to us please.
If denpressure's underlying principle is that gravity doesnt exist ans the atmoplane pushes things down, then why do we see these two phenomena?:
1. If the air above my head pushes me down with the weight of my weight, wouldnt my head hair (that which is of highest displacement on my body) be seen as perma-flattened?Quote from: Themightykabool2. When air bubbles rise up in the water, are they flat on top? Or flat on bottom? The air bubble has a water column above it pushing down on it. Water is a fluid and will have near similar push down properties (in behaviour) of the air in the atmoplane.Not flat just slightly misshaped due to being squeezed up.
So whats pushing DOWN?
You need to explain what you mean by this before I could even attempt to reply.
I would imagine then, by your description, bullets to have the same effect?
(Please dont try).
To compress air you are simply compressing the molecules into smaller size due to that crushing force.;D
You need to explain what you mean by this before I could even attempt to reply.
I would imagine then, by your description, bullets to have the same effect?
(Please dont try).
If you threw the medicine ball at me as I was stood at the end of a tube of dimensions that were just slightly larger than the medicine ball, then i'd likely have my head pushed back if you threw it hard enough, due to the air it compresses in that tube and the resulting air rush behind the medicine ball allowing it to create that compression by what it displaces of it's own mass of atmosphere.
The same would happen if you threw it at me in open air but the air hitting my face would be minimal due to the area allowing dissipation of the medicine ball's dense mass of air displacement.
your hair sort equalises because atmosphere is all over and under it, unlike your dense body which is pushing into atmosphere by it's own dense mass and also that same dense mass displacing that amount of atmosphere.
"So whats pushing DOWN?" - Water and atmospheric pressure upon that water.
If I picked up text books to absorb then I wouldn't be arguing these points. I'd be like you...
and simply accepting what I'm schooled into.
As for nothing working. Of course it would still work.
Certain stuff may not but then again certain stuff most likely doesn't and we're being duped, like nukes and what not.
No need to argue this here, I'm just saying.
It's all in the nuke thread.
I tried to explain this a while back by using sponge balls as a great analogy.
Get a container and feed sponge balls into it. The more effort you put in to compress, the smaller those sponge balls become and the more of them there is inside the container.
Quite simple really.
I think I've reasoned quite well and justified my reasoning.
I'm quite happy to accept you don't accept it.
and you would be mistaken with all of it.
it is not a great analogy and you've done an extremely poor show of reason, math and use of the english language in general.
All of it.i.e. you can't find a problem with any of it so you dismiss it all outright?
Throwing the medicine ball allows the atmosphere to create a barrier by the medicine ball and your energy compressing it.If the air was important you would get the same effect regardless of the mass of the ball. That is not observed.
If there was no atmosphere there would be no leverage and no opposite motion.So the ball just magically moves away?
The volley ball would be extremely minimal due to it already being mostly airThat doesn't matter, it still pushes the same amount of air. You can confirm this by pushing them through a tube which has the same radius as the ball, or just slightly larger.
I do justify it.You are yet to justify it in any way. The closest you have come to any justification is repeatedly contradicting yourself as you try to explain different things.
To compress air you are simply compressing the molecules into smaller size due to that crushing force.Repeating the same nonsense and ignoring the explaining that that is blatantly wrong wont help you.
I tried to explain this a while back by using sponge balls as a great analogy.By using a completely incorrect analogy.
There is no space between them.And that remains yet another baseless assertion from you.
Anything compressed enough will become a liquid or a solid.Only if you accept that you are excluding the free space between the molecules.
The molecules do push but they push off each other.And they push off the molecules of the rocket.
Each molecule uses the one behind as leverage to push into the one in front...and so oni.e. the molecules at the opening of the container push against the molecules next to them as leverage.
A bomb will explode if it's encased and allows a burn expansion to shatter the shell which will allow that expansion to not only throw the casing a good distanceHow?
No. The rocket cannot push off its own exhaust.Why not?
Yep and atmospheric pressure provides this.What atmospheric pressure?
Nope. It's the actual gas itself being allowed to expandAs I stated before, it is only allowed to expand in one direction. This means its expansion will push the object trying to stop it out of the way, just like a bomb.
Again, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A ROCKET IN A VACUUM!Quote from: JackBlackThis means the gas must push off the rocket.The atmosphere
Imagine you are laid on the floor of a sky divers tube where air rushes in and pushes you up.The closest this has to do with what we are disucssing is that the is air that is compressed below you, with this compressed air pushing you up.
So you reject the idea that gasses will equalise in pressure and instead claim that the gas will remain inside the rocket even when directly exposed to a vacuum/extreme low pressure?Quote from: JackBlackJust which point do you disagree with here and why?All of what you say.
If the rocket does this against zero resistanceYou can never have 0 resistance. The gas itself provides resistance.
There are no mountains of evidence for what you're arguing for.This isn't just discussing rockets. It is very simple physics. Newton's laws of motion.
There's mountains of evidence that rockets fly. That's it.
I think I've reasoned quite well and justified my reasoning.No, you have just repeatedly avoided the issues and contradicted yourself like you do so often.
I'd be like you and simply accepting what I'm schooled into.It has nothing to do with just accepting what we have been schooled into.
Do you think that buoyancy exists or do you dismiss that out of hand too?Nothing requires gravity because gravity does not exist. I don't need to argue this point any further. Gravity does not exist to me and it's that simple, so by all means use it to argue a point but do not expect me to reply in any other way, except to dismiss it out of hand.You do realize that there is already a word for dense mass displacing less dense atmosphere, don't you? That word is "buoyancy". It's a well understood phenomenon and it requires gravity so that the more dense mass knows which way to go.Scepti has steered my previous ponts away from lackless.No because your hair sort equalises because atmosphere is all over and under it, unlike your dense body which is pushing into atmosphere by it's own dense mass and also that same dense mass displacing that amount of atmosphere.
Too bad.
But at least we have a new player.
So.
Explain this to us please.
If denpressure's underlying principle is that gravity doesnt exist ans the atmoplane pushes things down, then why do we see these two phenomena?:
1. If the air above my head pushes me down with the weight of my weight, wouldnt my head hair (that which is of highest displacement on my body) be seen as perma-flattened?
There is no space.To compress air you are simply compressing the molecules into smaller size due to that crushing force.;D
Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts about the space between molecules?
responding to your nonsense required use of a word processor...You either refuse to understand it or can't. Which one is it?You need to explain what you mean by this before I could even attempt to reply.
I would imagine then, by your description, bullets to have the same effect?
(Please dont try).
i mean by what you describe a ball, going down a tube and exiting the other side.
kind of like a bullet.
If you threw the medicine ball at me as I was stood at the end of a tube of dimensions that were just slightly larger than the medicine ball, then i'd likely have my head pushed back if you threw it hard enough, due to the air it compresses in that tube and the resulting air rush behind the medicine ball allowing it to create that compression by what it displaces of it's own mass of atmosphere.
The same would happen if you threw it at me in open air but the air hitting my face would be minimal due to the area allowing dissipation of the medicine ball's dense mass of air displacement.
your hair sort equalises because atmosphere is all over and under it, unlike your dense body which is pushing into atmosphere by it's own dense mass and also that same dense mass displacing that amount of atmosphere.
"So whats pushing DOWN?" - Water and atmospheric pressure upon that water.
care to check back how your two statements conflict?
hells, your first statement conflicts with itself.
also, by your description, displacement of atmosphere has nothing to do with elevation?
because the hair is the highest point...
what if i jump?
then my whole body then has air all over it and under it.
will i stay in the air?
And if all of that is too long, this is the key issue for this thread:I'll draw a diagram sometime tomorrow showing you what I mean about how the rocket really works. The diagram may be crude but it'll make a point from my side and it's entirely up to you how you view it.
You have a simple rocket that looks like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/mP5b3FP.png)
The black is the body of the rocket: Note that it is open at one end.
The red is the high pressure gas inside the rocket.
Now, looking at the left edge of the rocket, it is pushing against the high pressure gas next to it. Can it move as it has this gas to push off? Or can it not, because it would just push against the gas and so on until it got to the other side where there is nothing to push against?
Before answering, we are also looking at the gas at the right edge. It is pushing against the high pressure gas next to it. Can it move as it has this gas to push off? Or can it not, because it would just push against the gas and so on until it got to the other side where there is nothing to push against?
Note: These are of the same form. Either both can move, or neither can.
Which is it?
Can the gas leave the rocket with the rocket being pushed away?
Or are they stuck together because there is nothing to push against?
If you wish to disagree you need to be able to explain why.
Why should the gas be able to leave the rocket when it has nothing to push against (other than the rocket), while the rocket can't leave the gas?
There is no space.To compress air you are simply compressing the molecules into smaller size due to that crushing force.;D
Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts about the space between molecules?
You can call it buoyancy if you want as long as you leave out the fictional stuff like gravity. If you can't then I simply refute it and use my own version.
Do you think that buoyancy exists or do you dismiss that out of hand too?
Molecular friction/vibration.There is no space.To compress air you are simply compressing the molecules into smaller size due to that crushing force.;D
Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts about the space between molecules?
How does heat work?
You were asked to provide an intelligent diagram of how atmoplane pushes me down when i stand in my house.You were provided with one. You refused to grasp it which is down to you, not me.
Still yet to see...
Molecular friction/vibration.There is no space.To compress air you are simply compressing the molecules into smaller size due to that crushing force.;D
Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts about the space between molecules?
How does heat work?
Buoyancy says that more dense things tend to sink into and below less dense things. Do you agree with that?You can call it buoyancy if you want as long as you leave out the fictional stuff like gravity. If you can't then I simply refute it and use my own version.
Do you think that buoyancy exists or do you dismiss that out of hand too?
responding to your nonsense required use of a word processor...You either refuse to understand it or can't. Which one is it?You need to explain what you mean by this before I could even attempt to reply.
I would imagine then, by your description, bullets to have the same effect?
(Please dont try).
i mean by what you describe a ball, going down a tube and exiting the other side.
kind of like a bullet.
If you threw the medicine ball at me as I was stood at the end of a tube of dimensions that were just slightly larger than the medicine ball, then i'd likely have my head pushed back if you threw it hard enough, due to the air it compresses in that tube and the resulting air rush behind the medicine ball allowing it to create that compression by what it displaces of it's own mass of atmosphere.
The same would happen if you threw it at me in open air but the air hitting my face would be minimal due to the area allowing dissipation of the medicine ball's dense mass of air displacement.
your hair sort equalises because atmosphere is all over and under it, unlike your dense body which is pushing into atmosphere by it's own dense mass and also that same dense mass displacing that amount of atmosphere.
"So whats pushing DOWN?" - Water and atmospheric pressure upon that water.
care to check back how your two statements conflict?
hells, your first statement conflicts with itself.
also, by your description, displacement of atmosphere has nothing to do with elevation?
because the hair is the highest point...
what if i jump?
then my whole body then has air all over it and under it.
will i stay in the air?
You were asked to provide an intelligent diagram of how atmoplane pushes me down when i stand in my house.You were provided with one. You refused to grasp it which is down to you, not me.
Still yet to see...
Asking me to provide again will gain you very little response.
The fact you refuse to look at it gains you nothing on the whole.
Not sure what you're getting at here.
How does a beer put in the freezer for too long, freeze, expand and burst?
Molecular friction/vibration.There is no space.To compress air you are simply compressing the molecules into smaller size due to that crushing force.;D
Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts about the space between molecules?
How does heat work?
Give me an example.
Buoyancy says that more dense things tend to sink into and below less dense things. Do you agree with that?
Like I said, after all this time you don't understand it.
Oh i understand it.
I am smart.
You dont seem to undersrand your own theory.
The hair is has air all around it so it stays up.
If i jump, i have air all around me - should i stay up?
But you claim Air pushes things down.
If its pushing from the top, my hair will be flattened.
Is it?
You claim air is stacked sponges upon spongese in a long chain all the way up to the ice dome.
Yet the air somehow disconndcts when it decides my hair is not part of my body?
Air is displaced in all directions?
So how does that equate to a total net down direction?
It is a great theory and one that people like yourself dismiss without even trying to grasp it. I can't help people like you.You were asked to provide an intelligent diagram of how atmoplane pushes me down when i stand in my house.You were provided with one. You refused to grasp it which is down to you, not me.
Still yet to see...
Asking me to provide again will gain you very little response.
The fact you refuse to look at it gains you nothing on the whole.
You drew a house.
With a line on each side that said "denpressure".
Great theory.
They don't require space to move at all. They just require the ability to expand and contract against and into each other or out of each other, depending.Molecular friction/vibration.There is no space.To compress air you are simply compressing the molecules into smaller size due to that crushing force.;D
Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts about the space between molecules?
How does heat work?
Friction & vibration are movements. Movements require space within which to move. Ergo, there is space between molecules.
Not sure what you're getting at here.
How does a beer put in the freezer for too long, freeze, expand and burst?
Like I said, after all this time you don't understand it.
Oh i understand it.
I am smart.
You dont seem to undersrand your own theory.
The hair is has air all around it so it stays up.
If i jump, i have air all around me - should i stay up?
But you claim Air pushes things down.
If its pushing from the top, my hair will be flattened.
Is it?
You claim air is stacked sponges upon spongese in a long chain all the way up to the ice dome.
Yet the air somehow disconndcts when it decides my hair is not part of my body?
Air is displaced in all directions?
So how does that equate to a total net down direction?
It's fine proclaiming you're smart but clearly you're not paying attention or are doing this deliberately even after clear explanation from my side.
Maybe you simply go into your schooled stuff which makes you fail to grasp. It doesn't make you less smart but it certainly makes you ignorant.
The fact you used the jump as if you were explaining something, tells me you fail to grasp.
It is a great theory and one that people like yourself dismiss without even trying to grasp it. I can't help people like you.You were asked to provide an intelligent diagram of how atmoplane pushes me down when i stand in my house.You were provided with one. You refused to grasp it which is down to you, not me.
Still yet to see...
Asking me to provide again will gain you very little response.
The fact you refuse to look at it gains you nothing on the whole.
You drew a house.
With a line on each side that said "denpressure".
Great theory.
Umm... Oil floating on water.Give me an example.
Buoyancy says that more dense things tend to sink into and below less dense things. Do you agree with that?
I'll draw a diagram sometime tomorrow showing you what I mean about how the rocket really works. The diagram may be crude but it'll make a point from my side and it's entirely up to you how you view it.I'll be waiting.
You either refuse to understand it or can't. Which one is it?Or, we understand it and understand that it is wrong as it contradicts reality and/or itself.
You can call it buoyancy if you want as long as you leave out the fictional stuff like gravity. If you can't then I simply refute it and use my own version.You mean leave out the real stuff like gravity. If we use reality then you will reject, not refute. There is a big difference between reject and refute.
Like I said, after all this time you don't understand it.No, after all this time, you are still unable to make a coherent model and instead you are still contradicting yourself, and we understand that.
There cannot be any free space where nothing exists in it. It's impossible and makes no sense at all.Again, all we have for that is your baseless assertion.
Friction & vibration are movements. Movements require space within which to move. Ergo, there is space between molecules.While movement requires space, it doesn't require that space to be free as it can just push objects out of the way.
Nothing is added to the beer as it is pressure sealed.While some may argue over exactly what constitutes the size of the molecule, for the simple level, the molecule remains the same size.
Yet when freezing process the moecule (in the conventional physics terms) expand, and eventually the bottle fails.
Hes proving that space is a thing.
I guess I am still confused as to why someone could not simply apply conservation of momentum to show that rockets can fly in a vacuum since my previous question has not been answered. There is a lot of talk about air pressure and expansion of gases that is really not necessary to answer the primary question. I think we all agree that when a rocket is launched, gas is pushed out of the back of the rocket. Since a rocket starts at rest, the initial momentum of the rocket, its fuel, and the gas that will eventually be formed is zero. As gas gets pushed out the back of the rocket, the rocket and the remaining fuel MUST move forward to conserve momentum.
p0=pf
0 = mgasvgas+mrocketvrocket
-mgasvgas/mrocket = vrocket
Seems pretty straight forward that a rocket would move in the opposite direction of the gases being expelled from the back of rocket.
Because they believe its pushing off the air.
I guess I am still confused as to why someone could not simply apply conservation of momentum to show that rockets can fly in a vacuum since my previous question has not been answered.While it is pretty straight forwards, they reject a lost of physics, including things like conservation of momentum.
He's not proving space is a thing. He's simply showing how liquid and gas react against a solid, by expansion and contraction of molecules, inside and outside.Not sure what you're getting at here.
How does a beer put in the freezer for too long, freeze, expand and burst?
Nothing is added to the beer as it is pressure sealed.
Yet when freezing process the moecule (in the conventional physics terms) expand, and eventually the bottle fails.
Hes proving that space is a thing.
Forget your formulas when trying to argue against what I'm saying.
Im one of the few who stays within your model.
You prove to have no intelligent response and thus run away instead of "correcting".
Maybe take responsibility for your inability to cpherently explain the basic mechanics of your theory.
Or why the rest of the industrialized world gets along fine with pv=nrt and other basic physics formulas.
I think I do answer 99% of all questions, which is impressive when you understand the sheer amount of posters throwing stuff at me.
Nope
You cant answer the simplest of questions.
Ok let's argue this a little bit.Umm... Oil floating on water.Give me an example.
Buoyancy says that more dense things tend to sink into and below less dense things. Do you agree with that?
He's not proving space is a thing. He's simply showing how liquid and gas react against a solid, by expansion and contraction of molecules, inside and outside.Not sure what you're getting at here.
How does a beer put in the freezer for too long, freeze, expand and burst?
Nothing is added to the beer as it is pressure sealed.
Yet when freezing process the moecule (in the conventional physics terms) expand, and eventually the bottle fails.
Hes proving that space is a thing.
I won't bother drawing a diagram for what you ask. It would be pointless.I'll draw a diagram sometime tomorrow showing you what I mean about how the rocket really works. The diagram may be crude but it'll make a point from my side and it's entirely up to you how you view it.I'll be waiting.
But remember, this is mainly focusing on a vacuum. So don't draw a diagram of how a rocket works in the atmosphere, draw/indicate exactly what happens with that setup of a rocket in a vacuum (or as you call it extreme low pressure).
Because that's what happens.
The same applies to other negative thermal expansion coefficient materials.
Denpressure needs them to magically expand when cooling.
Explain this conservation of momentum with your rocket so I know what you're trying to get at.Because they believe its pushing off the air.
That is why I am asking about conservation of momentum. By applying this general principle of physics, we can show that the rocket can indeed move forward without the need of an external pushing force (air pushing the rocket).
In the way we're told, yes.
So, in essence, you claim that how heat and cold affect substances from a conventional bio-chemical perspective is incorrect? So not only do you reject basic physics, you reject the basics of bio-chemistry as well?
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/46/e4/e1/46e4e18e542fa0aef389c2e6481aa24e.png)You're basically talking about action and equal and opposite reaction, right?
(https://slideplayer.com/slide/6614564/23/images/14/Conservation+of+Momentum.jpg)
(http://www.scienceclarified.com/images/uesc_03_img0155.jpg)
Well, I guess that is settled then! No way in hell rockets can fly in space!Glad you accept it.
Like I said, after all this time you don't understand it.
Oh i understand it.
I am smart.
You dont seem to undersrand your own theory.
The hair is has air all around it so it stays up.
If i jump, i have air all around me - should i stay up?
But you claim Air pushes things down.
If its pushing from the top, my hair will be flattened.
Is it?
You claim air is stacked sponges upon spongese in a long chain all the way up to the ice dome.
Yet the air somehow disconndcts when it decides my hair is not part of my body?
Air is displaced in all directions?
So how does that equate to a total net down direction?
It's fine proclaiming you're smart but clearly you're not paying attention or are doing this deliberately even after clear explanation from my side.
Maybe you simply go into your schooled stuff which makes you fail to grasp. It doesn't make you less smart but it certainly makes you ignorant.
The fact you used the jump as if you were explaining something, tells me you fail to grasp.
But may I suggest you register at scienceforums.net, and tell them of your findings?I'm not rewriting science history I'm merely giving my theory out for those who wish to see alternatives to the schooled versions we've all been forced to devour in order to be graded on paper for our ability to memorise and mimic.
Not much use for you to spend your time here, when you could be rewriting science history.
I won't bother drawing a diagram for what you ask. It would be pointless.Why? Because it shows you are completely wrong?
So let's argue a spring.No. Lets argue gas in the cylinder.
Just answer this one on its own and we'll go on from this point.So you can try to avoid the question yet again?
I know what happens in reality. The bulk material expands. The atoms do not.Quote from: JackBlackBecause that's what happens.
The same applies to other negative thermal expansion coefficient materials.
Denpressure needs them to magically expand when cooling.
He's not proving space is a thing. He's simply showing how liquid and gas react against a solid, by expansion and contraction of molecules, inside and outside.Empty space is the only justification for this expansion. This is because cooling causes expansion in this case. (or to put it another way, heating causes it to shrink).
You're only arguing from a point of adherence to diagramNo, we are arguing from evidence and explanatory power. Two things your model severely lacks.
I think I do answer 99% of all questionsNo you don't, you avoid them, such as by dismissing them as stupid, or claiming we don't understand.
You're basically talking about action and equal and opposite reaction, right?Or the more basic conservation of momentum. But yes, action-reaction covers it as well.
This would be fine as long as you have leverage. Everything requires leverage/resistance in order to create the action and equal and opposite reaction.Which as I have already established, you do.
A ship of known measured mass.Yes, because buoyancy actually explains it. Do you understand it?
A block of metal made from the exact same mass of the ship.
One floats and the other sinks, yet the dense mass is exactly the same.
Now of course you're going to say buoyancy. However we need to argue what is really happening, even though your text books will explain it from your side.
Over to you.
I'm not rewriting science history I'm merely giving my theoryYou are rejecting established science which is based upon mountains of evidence which those using rational thought would accept and providing in its place a collection of nonsense (it isn't a theory, it isn't even an internally consistent hypothesis).
The hairNo because your dense mass is pushing into the atmosphere and that atmosphere directly above you is also stacked on your head and shoulders.ishas air all around it so it stays up.
If i jump, i have air all around me - should i stay up?
Your hair can be flattened depending on how it grows against that atmosphere.
But you claim Air pushes things down.
If its pushing from the top, my hair will be flattened.
Is it?
As above.
You claim air is stacked sponges upon spongese in a long chain all the way up to the ice dome.
Yet the air somehow disconndcts when it decides my hair is not part of my body?
Air is displaced in all directions but you are equalised in horizontal directions and are not equalised in a vertical.
Air is displaced in all directions?
So how does that equate to a total net down direction?
I think I've put a lot of effort into explaining. I did explain briefly before but this time you have in depth.
If youre so great and your theory has no chinks then have at it.
Answer a few of these.
Theres only 4 questions
Yet those things appear to work quite well.
What you have is unproven. Hence my suggestion.
This would be fine as long as you have leverage. Everything requires leverage/resistance in order to create the action and equal and opposite reaction.
No. You go grill bigger dogs than I. There are a lot of physicists out there who'd love to hear your model.Yet those things appear to work quite well.
What you have is unproven. Hence my suggestion.
What do you know is proven in terms of physically knowing, not just a reliance on what you're told, in terms of what I'm arguing.
Let me know and I'll grill you on it.
The hairNo because your dense mass is pushing into the atmosphere and that atmosphere directly above you is also stacked on your head and shoulders.ishas air all around it so it stays up.
If i jump, i have air all around me - should i stay up?
Your feet resist the crush by using the solid ground as your foundation.
The rest of the atmosphere is enveloped around you and is equalised around you.
For a better analogy of how it works just picture yourself in a large swimming pool. You're enveloped by it and you can feel it crush you very mildly, much more than the atmosphere you're used to living in.
The only difference you have with the water is in terms of inversion, meaning, unlike you pushing into atmosphere and using the ground as your foundation, you're also part of the air in your inflated lungs and cavity gases.
It means you cannot be buoyant.
However, you can in water due to these gases and the denser water squeezes you up as if you were a helium balloon in atmosphere, kind of thing.
However, if you were to try and dive down you would realise the water pushes you back up. It tries to crush you against your energetic push against it.
An inverted way to look at what atmosphere is doing.
However, if we want to take it further and use the swimming pool as a sort of better analogy in terms of being sort of equal, simply go into a pool and blow as much air out of your body as you can and you sink, right?
Imagine if you could release a lot more and end up walking on the bottom of the swimming pool. Now try and jump up.
You'll soon see that you're crushed back down to the bottom.
This happens because you have water directly above you on your head and shoulders and to jump you have to displace it, just as you would have to do against the stacked atmosphere.Quote from: ThemightykaboolYour hair can be flattened depending on how it grows against that atmosphere.
But you claim Air pushes things down.
If its pushing from the top, my hair will be flattened.
Is it?
Look at people with long hair. It's not sticking up into the air.
People with more wiry hair or extremely short hair will see it stick up but then again each hair is under so little pressure per strand point and yet it is enveloped down to the skull which is a larger area that is directly pushing into the above atmospheric stack.Quote from: ThemightykaboolAs above.
You claim air is stacked sponges upon spongese in a long chain all the way up to the ice dome.
Yet the air somehow disconndcts when it decides my hair is not part of my body?Quote from: ThemightykaboolAir is displaced in all directions but you are equalised in horizontal directions and are not equalised in a vertical.
Air is displaced in all directions?
So how does that equate to a total net down direction?
If you stand up your feet against solid ground help push your body up against the atmospheric stack directly above all parts of your body that resist that push, such as head and shoulders and even a slightly bended knee or whatever.
The rest of your body is enveloped in a sort of equal all around horizontal direction. It's being squeezed but in equal parts ensuring you are stable.
The same would happen if you laid down, except, instead of the above atmospheric stack pushing down on your head and shoulders as your feet push your head and shoulders into that stack via the use of solid foundation/ground, it's now pushing back against your horizontal body from head to feet...back or front and the width and depth of your horizontally laid out body, meaning stacked pressure is spread out over that lower body and you fell this massive change in pressure by the comfort you get from lying down under that stack.Quote from: ThemightykaboolI think I've put a lot of effort into explaining. I did explain briefly before but this time you have in depth.
If youre so great and your theory has no chinks then have at it.
Answer a few of these.
Theres only 4 questions
I've just explained the gas earlier on.This would be fine as long as you have leverage. Everything requires leverage/resistance in order to create the action and equal and opposite reaction.Which as I have already established, you do.
The gas has the rocket to push against. The rocket has the gas to push against.
The gas and the rocket both provide the necessary resistance to allow them to push each other apart.
If that wasn't the case then the gas has nothing to push against and would need to remain trapped inside a container even though it is exposed to vacuum.
This is the same scenario as the medicine ball and skateboard carry on which I've explained clearly.This would be fine as long as you have leverage. Everything requires leverage/resistance in order to create the action and equal and opposite reaction.
Where would you attribute the 'leverage/resistance' here?
No afraid. I just suspect I'd be banned almost immediately when they can't put me down.No. You go grill bigger dogs than I. There are a lot of physicists out there who'd love to hear your model.Yet those things appear to work quite well.
What you have is unproven. Hence my suggestion.
What do you know is proven in terms of physically knowing, not just a reliance on what you're told, in terms of what I'm arguing.
Let me know and I'll grill you on it.
Are you afraid of them? They did shut down Sandokhan even though he, too, thought he had it all figured out. Maybe you can do better?
What you have is Dunning-Kruger, and in spades.
You failed to see the conflict in all 4 questions and ad hoc'd your way through them individually.There's no conflict but feel free to show me if you think there is.
In doing so provided further confliction to your theory.
In summary
If the origin of "down" is from stacked atmoplane above your head, then how does a weak little hair, being pushed down with the force of your entire body, manage to not be flattened?
In summary
If the origin of "down" is from stacked atmoplane above your head, then how does a weak little hair, being pushed down with the force of your entire body, manage to not be flattened?
This is the same scenario as the medicine ball and skateboard carry on which I've explained clearly.This would be fine as long as you have leverage. Everything requires leverage/resistance in order to create the action and equal and opposite reaction.
Where would you attribute the 'leverage/resistance' here?
This is just another fancy way of showing it but the same applies in terms of pushing away atmospheric resistance into compression both ways which creates a lower pressure in between the two inner separating metals, which is filled by the dropped stack into that area.
Whatever is compressed has to be equalised, no matter how much energy is applied.
In summary
If the origin of "down" is from stacked atmoplane above your head, then how does a weak little hair, being pushed down with the force of your entire body, manage to not be flattened?
I explained the hair. Are you deliberately overlooking it or don't you get it?
If you straighten one hair you will create an equal-ish envelope horizontally around it and your skull will have it embedded like a skinny pointed fence post, if you like.
Now bearing in mind that the stacked atmosphere is putting around 15 lb's per square inch of pressure onto anything pushing up against it, you can understand that one hair point is hardly going to have much pressure against its point....right?
Let's go through this slowly and carefully...and clearly.This is the same scenario as the medicine ball and skateboard carry on which I've explained clearly.This would be fine as long as you have leverage. Everything requires leverage/resistance in order to create the action and equal and opposite reaction.
Where would you attribute the 'leverage/resistance' here?
This is just another fancy way of showing it but the same applies in terms of pushing away atmospheric resistance into compression both ways which creates a lower pressure in between the two inner separating metals, which is filled by the dropped stack into that area.
Whatever is compressed has to be equalised, no matter how much energy is applied.
That's just the thing:
- What are the two objects compressing against? Why are both objects moving in opposite directions?
- And why would a lower pressure be created between the two separating objects? If you and I stood back to back and walked away from each other, would a lower pressure be created between us? Would the stack drop down between us and push us further apart?
If I stood on a scale then the atmospheric stack above me would register my scale measurement by me using the scale plate as my new moving foundation as I push into that stack.
If you stood on a scale and i sat on your head.
Why then would your hair be flattened?
Would the scale show our combindd wieght?
Let's go through this slowly and carefully...and clearly.This is the same scenario as the medicine ball and skateboard carry on which I've explained clearly.This would be fine as long as you have leverage. Everything requires leverage/resistance in order to create the action and equal and opposite reaction.
Where would you attribute the 'leverage/resistance' here?
This is just another fancy way of showing it but the same applies in terms of pushing away atmospheric resistance into compression both ways which creates a lower pressure in between the two inner separating metals, which is filled by the dropped stack into that area.
Whatever is compressed has to be equalised, no matter how much energy is applied.
That's just the thing:
- What are the two objects compressing against? Why are both objects moving in opposite directions?
- And why would a lower pressure be created between the two separating objects? If you and I stood back to back and walked away from each other, would a lower pressure be created between us? Would the stack drop down between us and push us further apart?
If me and you stood back to back and walked away from each other, so you agree that by doing so we use the ground as our leverage point in order to perform the walk by using our energy to push into the atmosphere in front of us.
And if you agree with that, do you agree that in order to walk your body away from your initial starting point you would other leave a lower pressure that has to be filled as you compress the air in front of you.
We'll get this point out of the way first before we move on.
I've just explained the gas earlier on.No you didn't. You avoided it because you know you can't explain without admitting rockets work in a vacuum.
The feet aren't on solid ground.The hairNo because your dense mass is pushing into the atmosphere and that atmosphere directly above you is also stacked on your head and shoulders.ishas air all around it so it stays up.
If i jump, i have air all around me - should i stay up?
Your feet resist the crush by using the solid ground as your foundation.
An inverted way to look at what atmosphere is doing.Nope, just like what the atmosphere is ACTUALLY doing, where it pushes objects immersed in it upwards, just like the atmosphere.
Air is displaced in all directions but you are equalised in horizontal directions and are not equalised in a vertical.That is right. The pressure below you is higher, meaning you are pushed up.
If you stand up your feet against solid groundWe are talking about an object in the air.
I think I've put a lot of effort into explaining.No, like so often, you repeatedly avoided it.
What do you know is proven in terms of physically knowing, not just a reliance on what you're told, in terms of what I'm arguing.We have already been over this.
Let me know and I'll grill you on it.
No afraid. I just suspect I'd be banned almost immediately when they can't put me down.You mean after you continue to spam the same refuted nonsense and fail to address the issues they raised, instead claiming you already have or that they just don't understand?
Now bearing in mind that the stacked atmosphere is putting around 15 lb's per square inch of pressure onto anything pushing up against it, you can understand that one hair point is hardly going to have much pressure against its point....right?And thanks for admitting that if it was due to pressure, it would be entirely dependent upon the horizontal area.
As jackb mentioned many times agoAnd you said you knew my theory.
In your denP cell theory, if therw is a horizontal limit where the dome meets the ground, the air would behave the same vertically as it doss horizontally.
In this walking away analogy, the "foundation" has no difference in directional bearing than anything else.
You have yet to shown in all thwse yes why down is down.
How does earth down differ from dome side or dome top?
Is the dome not solid?
If my feet are resisting the foindation of ground, what is resisting on the opposite side?
Can the dome not resist the crush and push of the stacked on stacked sponges?
If you took a spring, put on ground, and pushed with your hand, doss it compress?
Hand-spring-wall, does it compress?
Hand-spring-ceiling, doss it compress?
Hand-spring-air, does it cpmprewss?
And you said you knew my theory.The point is your model contradicts itself. You need to rely upon vastly different and contradictory explanations for so many things rather than having a consistent theory where the one explanation (or set of consistent explanations) can be used for lots of things.
Ifr you did you would not require me to explain it again and again.
Also this is a rocket thread so make another.Yes, this is a rocket thread, specifically one for discussing rockets in a vacuum.
How am I compressing the air in front of me as I walk when there is nothing to compress it against?There is plenty to compress against. Air molecules crushing air molecules crushing air molecules and so on which will compress and create a resistance.
One question at a time or you're getting blanked.I've just explained the gas earlier on.No you didn't. You avoided it because you know you can't explain without admitting rockets work in a vacuum.
You said you would make a diagram, and then never did.
Here the issue is again:
You have a simple rocket that looks like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/mP5b3FP.png)
The black is the body of the rocket: Note that it is open at one end.
The red is the high pressure gas inside the rocket.
Now, looking at the left edge of the rocket, it is pushing against the high pressure gas next to it. Can it move as it has this gas to push off? Or can it not, because it would just push against the gas and so on until it got to the other side where there is nothing to push against?
Before answering, we are also looking at the gas at the right edge. It is pushing against the high pressure gas next to it. Can it move as it has this gas to push off? Or can it not, because it would just push against the gas and so on until it got to the other side where there is nothing to push against?
Note: These are of the same form. Either both can move, or neither can.
Which is it?
Can the gas leave the rocket with the rocket being pushed away?
Or are they stuck together because there is nothing to push against?
Care to actually try explaining it this time?
You wish to claim that an object needs leverage/resistance to move. Well the only thing for the gas to use is the rocket, or the gas between the rocket and itself (which the rocket can also use).
So does the gas push the rocket away, using it as leverage, or does the gas stay in the rocket?
There is no alternative.
If you wish to disagree you need to be able to explain why.
Why should the gas be able to leave the rocket when it has nothing to push against (other than the rocket), while the rocket can't leave the gas?The feet aren't on solid ground.The hairNo because your dense mass is pushing into the atmosphere and that atmosphere directly above you is also stacked on your head and shoulders.ishas air all around it so it stays up.
If i jump, i have air all around me - should i stay up?
Your feet resist the crush by using the solid ground as your foundation.
He has jumped. He is in the air.
There is literally no reason for the air to push some objects down and not others.
Your model is pure nonsense.An inverted way to look at what atmosphere is doing.Nope, just like what the atmosphere is ACTUALLY doing, where it pushes objects immersed in it upwards, just like the atmosphere.Air is displaced in all directions but you are equalised in horizontal directions and are not equalised in a vertical.That is right. The pressure below you is higher, meaning you are pushed up.
Again, there is no reason to be pushed down.If you stand up your feet against solid groundWe are talking about an object in the air.
Why should that get pushed down? It is surrounded by air all around, and the lower the air is, the higher the pressure.I think I've put a lot of effort into explaining.No, like so often, you repeatedly avoided it.
You are yet to talk about an object in the air. Instead you repeatedly referred to an object on the ground.
Try again.What do you know is proven in terms of physically knowing, not just a reliance on what you're told, in terms of what I'm arguing.We have already been over this.
Let me know and I'll grill you on it.
You tried to grill me and failed miserably.
What makes you think you will do better now?
The real thing is what do you know is proven in terms of physically knowing, not juts a reliance on pure fantasy?No afraid. I just suspect I'd be banned almost immediately when they can't put me down.You mean after you continue to spam the same refuted nonsense and fail to address the issues they raised, instead claiming you already have or that they just don't understand?
You have already been refuted with all the nonsense you have brought up here. What makes you think it will be different there?Now bearing in mind that the stacked atmosphere is putting around 15 lb's per square inch of pressure onto anything pushing up against it, you can understand that one hair point is hardly going to have much pressure against its point....right?And thanks for admitting that if it was due to pressure, it would be entirely dependent upon the horizontal area.
That if you take a long, thin rod and have it vertical, there will be very little pressure pushing down on it. But if you were to lay it sideways, then there will be push more pressure pushing down on it.
Now this means that if denpressure was the cause of an object's weight, that would result in very different weights for the same object in the same location, in the same atmosphere. But this is never observed.
Thank's for once again refuting your own model.
And also note, that pressure is IN ALL DIRECTIONS! Not down, in every direction.
That means if you take an object in mid air, it is being pushed from all directions, roughly equally. In calm air there is a slight imbalance as the pressure increases with decreasing height, meaning the object is being pushed up more than down.
This can also be used to hold things together, for example, a suction cap against a wall, where there is no air between them so the air pushes the suction cap into the wall (and the air on the other side of the wall pushes it into the suction cap). Note that this isn't pushing down, it pushes into whatever direction the wall is, which can be up or sideways as well as down.
So air pressure is clearly not what is pushing people down.
Now how about you stop bringing up your failed model in general and just deal with the issue at hand.
You have compressed gas inside a tube, open at one end. What happens?
Does it all stay together or does the tube and gas push off each other causing them to each more away from one another.
The gas will only push the tube away when the end is opened and it can hit resistance as it expands out of that tube.Also this is a rocket thread so make another.Yes, this is a rocket thread, specifically one for discussing rockets in a vacuum.
So please explain what happens to the compressed gas and tube.
Does it stay together, or does the gas push the tube away?
Here is JackBlack's tube again. Now what happens if the tube is in a vacuum? It seems that your above explanation should still apply in a vacuum.The gas will only push the tube away when the end is opened and it can hit resistance as it expands out of that tube.Also this is a rocket thread so make another.Yes, this is a rocket thread, specifically one for discussing rockets in a vacuum.
So please explain what happens to the compressed gas and tube.
Does it stay together, or does the gas push the tube away?
It does not push on to inner top of the container it pushes on gas molecules all the way through
The gas molecules exposed to the open container decompress against the lesser compressed atmosphere by using the gas molecules behind them to lever off and those gas molecules use the one's behind them to lever off as they push into the one's in front.....and so on all the way through the tank.
It becomes a gas on gas fight, not a gas against rocket push.
The rocket merely sits on this compression and expansion cushion fight. I've explained this so why can;t you grasp it?
There is plenty to compress against. Air molecules crushing air molecules crushing air molecules and so on which will compress and create a resistance.You mean like what happens with a rocket in a vacuum, with the air molecules in the exhaust creating resistance?
The gas will only push the tube away when the end is opened and it can hit resistance as it expands out of that tube.Yes, all the way through the tank, and what is at the end of it? What is the foundation? The tank itself.
It does not push on to inner top of the container it pushes on gas molecules all the way through
The gas molecules exposed to the open container decompress against the lesser compressed atmosphere by using the gas molecules behind them to lever off and those gas molecules use the one's behind them to lever off as they push into the one's in front.....and so on all the way through the tank.
This pigeon has bolded the part you seemed to have missed.Here is JackBlack's tube again. Now what happens if the tube is in a vacuum? It seems that your above explanation should still apply in a vacuum.The gas will only push the tube away when the end is opened and it can hit resistance as it expands out of that tube.Also this is a rocket thread so make another.Yes, this is a rocket thread, specifically one for discussing rockets in a vacuum.
So please explain what happens to the compressed gas and tube.
Does it stay together, or does the gas push the tube away?
It does not push on to inner top of the container it pushes on gas molecules all the way through
The gas molecules exposed to the open container decompress against the lesser compressed atmosphere by using the gas molecules behind them to lever off and those gas molecules use the one's behind them to lever off as they push into the one's in front.....and so on all the way through the tank.
It becomes a gas on gas fight, not a gas against rocket push.
The rocket merely sits on this compression and expansion cushion fight. I've explained this so why can;t you grasp it?
OK then, what happens if the tube is in a vacuum?This pigeon has bolded the part you seemed to have missed.Here is JackBlack's tube again. Now what happens if the tube is in a vacuum? It seems that your above explanation should still apply in a vacuum.The gas will only push the tube away when the end is opened and it can hit resistance as it expands out of that tube.Also this is a rocket thread so make another.Yes, this is a rocket thread, specifically one for discussing rockets in a vacuum.
So please explain what happens to the compressed gas and tube.
Does it stay together, or does the gas push the tube away?
It does not push on to inner top of the container it pushes on gas molecules all the way through
The gas molecules exposed to the open container decompress against the lesser compressed atmosphere by using the gas molecules behind them to lever off and those gas molecules use the one's behind them to lever off as they push into the one's in front.....and so on all the way through the tank.
It becomes a gas on gas fight, not a gas against rocket push.
The rocket merely sits on this compression and expansion cushion fight. I've explained this so why can;t you grasp it?
Nope. I've already explained.There is plenty to compress against. Air molecules crushing air molecules crushing air molecules and so on which will compress and create a resistance.You mean like what happens with a rocket in a vacuum, with the air molecules in the exhaust creating resistance?
Once opened at one end the gas inside simply expands against itself and into the extreme low pressure environment with negligible resistance to that, plus the expansion from the breached end is allowed to expand on it's own with near zero resistance, out. The next molecules expands into that and pushes it forward whilst the molecule behind that one pushes that one forward and so on and so on all the way up that tube, until the very last molecules expand by using the inner wall of the other end of the tube as a mere foundation to expand into the tube towards the exit but, by this time they will be frozen due to having no more push or vibration.
OK then, what happens if the tube is in a vacuum?
Before the tube is opened there is equal pressure on each end.
When the right-hand end is opened there is, at least for a very short time, still pressure on the left-hand end but no pressure on the right.
So it would seem that for that very short time there was an unbalanced force pushing the tube to the left.
As jackb mentioned many times agoAnd you said you knew my theory.
In your denP cell theory, if therw is a horizontal limit where the dome meets the ground, the air would behave the same vertically as it doss horizontally.
In this walking away analogy, the "foundation" has no difference in directional bearing than anything else.
You have yet to shown in all thwse yes why down is down.
How does earth down differ from dome side or dome top?
Is the dome not solid?
If my feet are resisting the foindation of ground, what is resisting on the opposite side?
Can the dome not resist the crush and push of the stacked on stacked sponges?
If you took a spring, put on ground, and pushed with your hand, doss it compress?
Hand-spring-wall, does it compress?
Hand-spring-ceiling, doss it compress?
Hand-spring-air, does it cpmprewss?
Ifr you did you would not require me to explain it again and again.
Also this is a rocket thread so make another.
This would be fine as long as you have leverage. Everything requires leverage/resistance in order to create the action and equal and opposite reaction.I think the word you're looking for is "inertia". All mass has inertia, so you're good to go.
This would be fine as long as you have leverage. Everything requires leverage/resistance in order to create the action and equal and opposite reaction.I think the word you're looking for is "inertia". All mass has inertia, so you're good to go.
If you want to argue rockets, fill your boots.As jackb mentioned many times agoAnd you said you knew my theory.
In your denP cell theory, if therw is a horizontal limit where the dome meets the ground, the air would behave the same vertically as it doss horizontally.
In this walking away analogy, the "foundation" has no difference in directional bearing than anything else.
You have yet to shown in all thwse yes why down is down.
How does earth down differ from dome side or dome top?
Is the dome not solid?
If my feet are resisting the foindation of ground, what is resisting on the opposite side?
Can the dome not resist the crush and push of the stacked on stacked sponges?
If you took a spring, put on ground, and pushed with your hand, doss it compress?
Hand-spring-wall, does it compress?
Hand-spring-ceiling, doss it compress?
Hand-spring-air, does it cpmprewss?
Ifr you did you would not require me to explain it again and again.
Also this is a rocket thread so make another.
This is a rocket thread.
Your theory is sht if you cant answer these questions.
So in summary your refutation that rockets cant work based on a nonexistient undersranding of workable (WORKABLE) physics, you are worng and gtfo.
You can then re-represent your theory in the denP thread.
Scepti has his own ridiculous redefinitions of come words.Like "molecule"! I'd love to hear more about his personal atomic theory, but we've got to stay focused.
If you want to argue rockets, fill your boots.As jackb mentioned many times agoAnd you said you knew my theory.
In your denP cell theory, if therw is a horizontal limit where the dome meets the ground, the air would behave the same vertically as it doss horizontally.
In this walking away analogy, the "foundation" has no difference in directional bearing than anything else.
You have yet to shown in all thwse yes why down is down.
How does earth down differ from dome side or dome top?
Is the dome not solid?
If my feet are resisting the foindation of ground, what is resisting on the opposite side?
Can the dome not resist the crush and push of the stacked on stacked sponges?
If you took a spring, put on ground, and pushed with your hand, doss it compress?
Hand-spring-wall, does it compress?
Hand-spring-ceiling, doss it compress?
Hand-spring-air, does it cpmprewss?
Ifr you did you would not require me to explain it again and again.
Also this is a rocket thread so make another.
This is a rocket thread.
Your theory is sht if you cant answer these questions.
So in summary your refutation that rockets cant work based on a nonexistient undersranding of workable (WORKABLE) physics, you are worng and gtfo.
You can then re-represent your theory in the denP thread.
This pigeon has bolded the part you seemed to have missed.You mean this pigeon has avoided the issue yet again?
Nope. I've already explained.No you haven't.
Read back what I said.
Once opened at one end the gas inside simply expands against itselfAs you have repeatedly said, IT REQUIRES LEVERAGE!!
The next molecules expands into that and pushes it forwardAnd why aren't these magical expanding molecules also pushing the rocket?
I'm being very consistent and on point.This pigeon has bolded the part you seemed to have missed.You mean this pigeon has avoided the issue yet again?Nope. I've already explained.No you haven't.
Read back what I said.
You have repeatedly avoided it because you know your claims contradict each other.
It is quite simple, can the air create resistance? If so, rockets work in a vacuum, because the gas inside them can create the necessary resistance.
If the gas alone can't and instead you need something for that gas to push against (i.e. a foundation), then there is no reason for there to be resistance in that example as you are just pushing the air without it having something to use as a foundation.Once opened at one end the gas inside simply expands against itselfAs you have repeatedly said, IT REQUIRES LEVERAGE!!
What is it using as leverage?The next molecules expands into that and pushes it forwardAnd why aren't these magical expanding molecules also pushing the rocket?
Again, you are applying a massive double standard to try to avoid the massive with your claims.
Again, you have very few options if you want to remain internally consistent (i.e. not refute yourself).
You can have the pressurised gas in the middle act as a foundation and have leverage applied to it.
That means that the gas and rocket can push against it to move outwards. Thus rockets work in a vacuum.
Alternatively you can say the gas in the middle is just transferring the force as it would need something to push against as well. Instead, the gas at the edge pushes through the gas in the middle to the rocket. These then push each other apart so the gas moves one way and the rocket moves the other. Thus rockets work in a vacuum.
Alternatively you can say that the rocket too would only be able to transfer the force and needs a foundation/leverage and there is nothing outside the rocket to be used as leverage or a foundation, thus the rocket and the gas remain where they are. That will mean that rockets don't work in a vacuum, but that also means you have pressurised gas directly next to a vacuum, not moving into the vacuum.
Again, if you want to disagree, and have anyone take you seriously and/or have an internally consistent model, you need to explain what the gas is pushing against which allows it to move/expand into the vacuum, which isn't the rocket and which the rocket can't push against.
You are yet to do this and as such, you are yet to explain anything.
I'm being very consistent and on point.No you aren't.
I've tried to explain it's a gas on gas fight and the rocket sits atop of it.And I have explained how you can't just rely upon that, i.e. your explanation failed.
Let's see how you answer this.I'm being very consistent and on point.No you aren't.
If you were, you would be able to explain what the gas is using for leverage, and accept that it is either the rocket itself, or the gas in between which the rocket would then also be able to use and thus admit that rockets do work in a vacuum.
But you can't. Instead all you do is repeatedly insult those who show you are wrong and dodge the issue again and again and again.
Here you are dodging yet again.I've tried to explain it's a gas on gas fight and the rocket sits atop of it.And I have explained how you can't just rely upon that, i.e. your explanation failed.
If it was just gas on gas, the gas would expand outwards in all directions.
You claim that in order to move there must be leverage.
So what is the gas at the edge using as leverage?
If it is the gas in the middle, the rocket can use that as well and thus there is no problem with rockets working in a vacuum.
This is where the massive inconsistency comes from. You claim that the gas at the edge is using the gas in the middle as leverage, even though it would transfer the force all the way through, with the logical conclusion being all the way through to the tank and thus push the tank itself, yet you then ignore that logical conclusion and instead have the force propagation magically stop before the tank and claim the tank has nothing to push against even though all that gas is there for the tank to push against.
Either you can push against the gas, or you can't.
If you can, the rocket has something to push against.
If you can't then the gas has nothing to push against and thus must remain.
If instead that gas needs a foundation/leverage, then the only possible source in this situation is the rocket itself.
That would mean it isn't a gas on gas fight. It is a rocket on gas fight.
The rocket pushes the gas one way, and the gas pushes the rocket the other way.
If that isn't enough, then there is no foundation or leverage and thus the rocket and gas remain where they are, with the high pressure gas remaining right next to a vacuum.
This is the same issue you have avoided every single post in this thread.
Now again, what is the gas pushing against which isn't the rocket itself and which the rocket can't push against?
There is literally nothing that matches that.
Let's see how you answer this.
Picture a small tube and a mass of sponge balls much bigger than the tube entrance.
Now start to fill the tube. How do you do this?
You have to compress each sponge to fit in that tube and then with each sponge ball pushed into it, that sponge ball will push the other further into that tube until it hits the other sealed end.
Fair enough?
Now that you've filled the tube to the point where the last sponge ball simply sits at the open end but not expanding out.
Now you add more sponge balls into that tube and in doing so you compress the sponge ball closest to it and that sponge ball is compressed into the next and so on and so on, until the compression evens out, as long as you close the exit with each inserted ball.
Now we have what's know as a compressed gas inside that tube that is creating the same pressure on each end as long as it's closed at each end.
Now allow them to decompress and you'll notice that the very last sponge ball you placed in will be the first out...naturally.
This will be the first one to fully expand, followed by the one behind that is pushing it out by using the third in line as leverage.
This will happen until the sponge balls cannot hold the compression enough to expand any more out. This is what we would call a freeze inside the tube.
Notice that the sealed end of the tube does not offer any push into it, it all happens at the open end.
Surely you can grasp this.
Can anyone understand what I'm saying?
Testing it out is easy. A freeze up will prove the point with any extreme expansion.
So you're claiming that under a certain pressure limit, gas can't pass through an orifice? Should be simple enough to test. How about some example numbers on that?
Let's see how you answer this.Why, so you can try to deflect yet again?
Notice that the sealed end of the tube does not offer any push into it, it all happens at the open end.No, I don't notice that, as you are yet to show it in any way.
Can anyone understand what I'm saying?Again, we understand, we also understand that it is wrong.
I've given the reason why they do and the reason why they cannot work in extreme low pressure, or space as people believe there is.No, you haven't.
Let's see how you answer this.
Picture a small tube and a mass of sponge balls much bigger than the tube entrance.
Now start to fill the tube. How do you do this?
You have to compress each sponge to fit in that tube and then with each sponge ball pushed into it, that sponge ball will push the other further into that tube until it hits the other sealed end.
Fair enough?
Now that you've filled the tube to the point where the last sponge ball simply sits at the open end but not expanding out.
Now you add more sponge balls into that tube and in doing so you compress the sponge ball closest to it and that sponge ball is compressed into the next and so on and so on, until the compression evens out, as long as you close the exit with each inserted ball.
Now we have what's know as a compressed gas inside that tube that is creating the same pressure on each end as long as it's closed at each end.
Now allow them to decompress and you'll notice that the very last sponge ball you placed in will be the first out...naturally.
This will be the first one to fully expand, followed by the one behind that is pushing it out by using the third in line as leverage.
This will happen until the sponge balls cannot hold the compression enough to expand any more out. This is what we would call a freeze inside the tube.
Notice that the sealed end of the tube does not offer any push into it, it all happens at the open end.
Surely you can grasp this.
Can anyone understand what I'm saying?
So you're claiming that under a certain pressure limit, gas can't pass through an orifice? Should be simple enough to test. How about some example numbers on that?
I've more than explained and in no way am I deflecting anything. You seem irate and bad tempered. Sort this out before you correspond with me from this point on.Let's see how you answer this.Why, so you can try to deflect yet again?
No thanks. I've given you enough chances with you repeatedly avoiding a very simple question.
Why can't you just answer the simple questions asked of you?
What is the gas using as leverage?
Read back to what I said about the sponge ball being larger than the tube opening and having to be pushed in.
In trying to understand your analogy and how it relates to a rocket, wouldn't the first 'expansion' take place with the first sponge put in, not the last?
YesStop making stuff up. Try and act honestly.
Have a reeeal good think about it.
Rebemebr this video?
Scepti posted it.
Accodding to sceptis theory, the spognes expand to raise the hose nozzle head.
The nozzle uses air and foundation to rise.
But at 1:06, and all things equal, magically the sponges dont ruse the nozzle any higher, even though the foundation height has changed (from ground to window).
Whats up with that?
Read back to what I said about the sponge ball being larger than the tube opening and having to be pushed in.
In trying to understand your analogy and how it relates to a rocket, wouldn't the first 'expansion' take place with the first sponge put in, not the last?
Naturally it's going to compress.
Think of this as filling a gas cylinder, so although the first sponge ball would only be up against little resistance at first, it would soon be up against a lot more as each sponge ball is squashed in against it.
It means it hits the sealed end of the cylinder and gets compressed more and more as more sponge balls are added.
If you pack enough in they will become more compressed and enabling more balls to be added which means the balls become smaller and smaller.
By this time the cylinder will be under immense pressure but it will be equalised, sort of, if the open end is now closed off leaving a sealed unit.
Now then, bearing that in mind; if you imagine external to that cylinder being covered in sponge balls as if it was external atmosphere, these would be less compressed than the one's inside the cylinder.
If you were to open that cylinder to allow the sponge balls out, you'd notice that the first ball out would expand into the more expanded ball outside, followed by a push from the ball behind and the ball behind that, all expanding into the external balls and actually starting to compress those due to the force of sheer follow on expansion into expansion out of that cylinder.
The external balls now become a barrier to the expanding balls from that cylinder and now the cylinder is pushed up due to that expansion v Compression fight from internal to external.
Have a real good think about it and familiarise yourself.
YesStop making stuff up. Try and act honestly.
Have a reeeal good think about it.
Rebemebr this video?
Scepti posted it.
Accodding to sceptis theory, the spognes expand to raise the hose nozzle head.
The nozzle uses air and foundation to rise.
But at 1:06, and all things equal, magically the sponges dont ruse the nozzle any higher, even though the foundation height has changed (from ground to window).
Whats up with that?
I've more than explained and in no way am I deflecting anything.And this is yet another deflection from you filled with more insults.
Stop making stuff up. Try and act honestly.Good advice. You should try following it sometimes.
So combustion happens at the closed end does it.Read back to what I said about the sponge ball being larger than the tube opening and having to be pushed in.
In trying to understand your analogy and how it relates to a rocket, wouldn't the first 'expansion' take place with the first sponge put in, not the last?
Naturally it's going to compress.
Think of this as filling a gas cylinder, so although the first sponge ball would only be up against little resistance at first, it would soon be up against a lot more as each sponge ball is squashed in against it.
It means it hits the sealed end of the cylinder and gets compressed more and more as more sponge balls are added.
If you pack enough in they will become more compressed and enabling more balls to be added which means the balls become smaller and smaller.
By this time the cylinder will be under immense pressure but it will be equalised, sort of, if the open end is now closed off leaving a sealed unit.
Now then, bearing that in mind; if you imagine external to that cylinder being covered in sponge balls as if it was external atmosphere, these would be less compressed than the one's inside the cylinder.
If you were to open that cylinder to allow the sponge balls out, you'd notice that the first ball out would expand into the more expanded ball outside, followed by a push from the ball behind and the ball behind that, all expanding into the external balls and actually starting to compress those due to the force of sheer follow on expansion into expansion out of that cylinder.
The external balls now become a barrier to the expanding balls from that cylinder and now the cylinder is pushed up due to that expansion v Compression fight from internal to external.
Have a real good think about it and familiarise yourself.
For your sponges in a tube to be analogous to how a rocket works, the sponge expansion occurs at the ignition point. Which is at the closed end of the tube, not the open end. In a rocket, the closed end is where the fuel is and is ignited, pushing the gas off of the closed end and forcing its way out toward the open end.
Having the sponge at the open end as the first one to expand is not analogous to a rocket, it's the opposite.
I'll give you more time to actually absorb it all instead of going into long typing mode without giving it much thought.I've more than explained and in no way am I deflecting anything.And this is yet another deflection from you filled with more insults.
If you had really explained it before it would be very easy for you to do so again.
The problem is you haven't explained it. All you do is avoid the explanation.Stop making stuff up. Try and act honestly.Good advice. You should try following it sometimes.
Stop making stuff up and try and act honestly.
Admit that the rocket is in the same situation as the gas.
Either they can push off each other (or the gas in the middle) and thus rockets do work in a vacuum, or there is no leverage for the gas to push against and the gas can't leave the rocket.
If you wish to claim otherwise, then explain it.
Explain what the gas is pushing against which the rocket can't also use.
Stop just saying expansion and the like. Actually tell us what the gas is using as leverage.
Remember, if it is the gas in the tube, then the rocket can use it as well.
So combustion happens at the closed end does it.Read back to what I said about the sponge ball being larger than the tube opening and having to be pushed in.
In trying to understand your analogy and how it relates to a rocket, wouldn't the first 'expansion' take place with the first sponge put in, not the last?
Naturally it's going to compress.
Think of this as filling a gas cylinder, so although the first sponge ball would only be up against little resistance at first, it would soon be up against a lot more as each sponge ball is squashed in against it.
It means it hits the sealed end of the cylinder and gets compressed more and more as more sponge balls are added.
If you pack enough in they will become more compressed and enabling more balls to be added which means the balls become smaller and smaller.
By this time the cylinder will be under immense pressure but it will be equalised, sort of, if the open end is now closed off leaving a sealed unit.
Now then, bearing that in mind; if you imagine external to that cylinder being covered in sponge balls as if it was external atmosphere, these would be less compressed than the one's inside the cylinder.
If you were to open that cylinder to allow the sponge balls out, you'd notice that the first ball out would expand into the more expanded ball outside, followed by a push from the ball behind and the ball behind that, all expanding into the external balls and actually starting to compress those due to the force of sheer follow on expansion into expansion out of that cylinder.
The external balls now become a barrier to the expanding balls from that cylinder and now the cylinder is pushed up due to that expansion v Compression fight from internal to external.
Have a real good think about it and familiarise yourself.
For your sponges in a tube to be analogous to how a rocket works, the sponge expansion occurs at the ignition point. Which is at the closed end of the tube, not the open end. In a rocket, the closed end is where the fuel is and is ignited, pushing the gas off of the closed end and forcing its way out toward the open end.
Having the sponge at the open end as the first one to expand is not analogous to a rocket, it's the opposite.
Ok then, no further point in dealing with your dishonesty.
So combustion happens at the closed end does it.That is certainly where it starts for a conventional rocket.
Ok then, no further point in dealing with your dishonesty.You are the dishonest one here.
I'll give you more time to actually absorb it all instead of going into long typing mode without giving it much thought.You mean you will continue to deflect rather than answering a very simple question which shows you to be completely wrong.
I'll give you more time to actually absorb it all instead of going into long typing mode without giving it much thought.I've more than explained and in no way am I deflecting anything.And this is yet another deflection from you filled with more insults.
If you had really explained it before it would be very easy for you to do so again.
The problem is you haven't explained it. All you do is avoid the explanation.Stop making stuff up. Try and act honestly.Good advice. You should try following it sometimes.
Stop making stuff up and try and act honestly.
Admit that the rocket is in the same situation as the gas.
Either they can push off each other (or the gas in the middle) and thus rockets do work in a vacuum, or there is no leverage for the gas to push against and the gas can't leave the rocket.
If you wish to claim otherwise, then explain it.
Explain what the gas is pushing against which the rocket can't also use.
Stop just saying expansion and the like. Actually tell us what the gas is using as leverage.
Remember, if it is the gas in the tube, then the rocket can use it as well.
How about you tell me where the first expansion of gas would come from.
Correct, combustion happens at the closed end, not the open end (nozzle)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Staged_combustion_rocket_cycle.png)
So your sponge expansion first at the open end analogy is not analogous to a rocket engine. It's unrelated and irrelevant as, well, that's not how rockets are designed and built.
How about you tell me where the first expansion of gas would come from.
Correct, combustion happens at the closed end, not the open end (nozzle)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Staged_combustion_rocket_cycle.png)
So your sponge expansion first at the open end analogy is not analogous to a rocket engine. It's unrelated and irrelevant as, well, that's not how rockets are designed and built.
Do you agree that the gas inside that rocket is contained.
I'd guess you would agree.
Once the valves are opened it expands out into an open area or it wouldn't expand.
The open area is the combustion chamber with is also open to the nozzle. It's all one opening, which means expansion starts at the opening.
The only thing in the opening is atmospheric compression waiting for that expansion to compress it back more and create that gas on gas push, like I explained.
So combustion happens at the closed end does it.
Ok then, no further point in dealing with your dishonesty.
How about you tell me where the first expansion of gas would come from.How about you tell us what the gas in my example can use as leverage?
Do you agree that the gas inside that rocket is contained.It is only "contained" by more gas, so no, it isn't contained.
No I wasn't wrong. Your problem is in wanting to turn a simple analogy into the entirety of what you think your rocket does, as if to negate my tube and sponge compression and expansion explanation.How about you tell me where the first expansion of gas would come from.
Correct, combustion happens at the closed end, not the open end (nozzle)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Staged_combustion_rocket_cycle.png)
So your sponge expansion first at the open end analogy is not analogous to a rocket engine. It's unrelated and irrelevant as, well, that's not how rockets are designed and built.
Do you agree that the gas inside that rocket is contained.
I'd guess you would agree.
Once the valves are opened it expands out into an open area or it wouldn't expand.
The open area is the combustion chamber with is also open to the nozzle. It's all one opening, which means expansion starts at the opening.
The only thing in the opening is atmospheric compression waiting for that expansion to compress it back more and create that gas on gas push, like I explained.
Well, first off, you said:So combustion happens at the closed end does it.
Ok then, no further point in dealing with your dishonesty.
So you were wrong (and claimed I was dishonest, but we'll let that slide)
In your analogy, the sponge balls are meant to represent expansion due to ignition/combustion. As has been shown, ignition/combustion does not happen at the open end, but at the closed end. Closest to the closed end, furthest from the open end with a 'choke' point inbetween.Not quite.
In essence, your theory is moving backward. When in reality expansion starts at combustion, on the closed end, and pushes out toward the open end. Your theory has combustion starting at the open end, which again, is not analogous to how rockets are designed and built.It depends on the rocket and what we're told one is against the other.
So unless you have designed a new kind of rocket that no one, from model rocketeers to pros, has ever built, then I'm afraid your entire notion is moot.No. Your entire argument is moot.
Here's the deal with you.How about you tell me where the first expansion of gas would come from.How about you tell us what the gas in my example can use as leverage?Do you agree that the gas inside that rocket is contained.It is only "contained" by more gas, so no, it isn't contained.
For a rocket engine, the pressure of the gas is highest at the throat of the nozzle. After that it decompresses. For a good one (which is perfectly expanded) the expansion is done by the time it reaches the opening.
It is the gas inside the combustion chamber which is pushing the gas in the nozzle out, and it is using the rocket as "leverage/resistance" which means it pushes the rocket.
No need for any air outside.
No I wasn't wrong. Your problem is in wanting to turn a simple analogy into the entirety of what you think your rocket does, as if to negate my tube and sponge compression and expansion explanation.How about you tell me where the first expansion of gas would come from.
Correct, combustion happens at the closed end, not the open end (nozzle)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Staged_combustion_rocket_cycle.png)
So your sponge expansion first at the open end analogy is not analogous to a rocket engine. It's unrelated and irrelevant as, well, that's not how rockets are designed and built.
Do you agree that the gas inside that rocket is contained.
I'd guess you would agree.
Once the valves are opened it expands out into an open area or it wouldn't expand.
The open area is the combustion chamber with is also open to the nozzle. It's all one opening, which means expansion starts at the opening.
The only thing in the opening is atmospheric compression waiting for that expansion to compress it back more and create that gas on gas push, like I explained.
Well, first off, you said:So combustion happens at the closed end does it.
Ok then, no further point in dealing with your dishonesty.
So you were wrong (and claimed I was dishonest, but we'll let that slide)Quote from: StashIn your analogy, the sponge balls are meant to represent expansion due to ignition/combustion. As has been shown, ignition/combustion does not happen at the open end, but at the closed end. Closest to the closed end, furthest from the open end with a 'choke' point inbetween.
Not quite.
My sponge balls represent two things related to the rocket but you've dived right in to put your own spin on what you think a rocket should do in relation to what I've said.
Quote from: StashIn essence, your theory is moving backward. When in reality expansion starts at combustion, on the closed end, and pushes out toward the open end. Your theory has combustion starting at the open end, which again, is not analogous to how rockets are designed and built.
It depends on the rocket and what we're told one is against the other.
The firework is a rocket. It's a solid fuel.
The other is a compressed gas inside tanks and released to expand for a burn.
We are dealing with a gas, as I've mentioned.
We can get to the other firework as and when.
No matter where in that rocket there is a sealed unit of gas that has a valve, that gas will not expand until that valve is opened and the expansion will happen via that opening....unless there is a larger compression than what's compressed inside that tank, external to it, which generally there isn't in this case/scenario.
Any opening from a compressed gas container will allow expansion of it into resistant but less compressed atmosphere, which will naturally take the reaction from that action as a opposite compression from that expansion.
No matter which way you look at it and no matter how far up a rocket you want to go for expansion, the open end is the crux of it.
Saying it's at a shut off at the other end, is wrong.
Quote from: StashSo unless you have designed a new kind of rocket that no one, from model rocketeers to pros, has ever built, then I'm afraid your entire notion is moot.No. Your entire argument is moot.
Your idea of the reality of gas rockets is totally wrong.No I wasn't wrong. Your problem is in wanting to turn a simple analogy into the entirety of what you think your rocket does, as if to negate my tube and sponge compression and expansion explanation.How about you tell me where the first expansion of gas would come from.
Correct, combustion happens at the closed end, not the open end (nozzle)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Staged_combustion_rocket_cycle.png)
So your sponge expansion first at the open end analogy is not analogous to a rocket engine. It's unrelated and irrelevant as, well, that's not how rockets are designed and built.
Do you agree that the gas inside that rocket is contained.
I'd guess you would agree.
Once the valves are opened it expands out into an open area or it wouldn't expand.
The open area is the combustion chamber with is also open to the nozzle. It's all one opening, which means expansion starts at the opening.
The only thing in the opening is atmospheric compression waiting for that expansion to compress it back more and create that gas on gas push, like I explained.
Well, first off, you said:So combustion happens at the closed end does it.
Ok then, no further point in dealing with your dishonesty.
So you were wrong (and claimed I was dishonest, but we'll let that slide)Quote from: StashIn your analogy, the sponge balls are meant to represent expansion due to ignition/combustion. As has been shown, ignition/combustion does not happen at the open end, but at the closed end. Closest to the closed end, furthest from the open end with a 'choke' point inbetween.
Not quite.
My sponge balls represent two things related to the rocket but you've dived right in to put your own spin on what you think a rocket should do in relation to what I've said.
No, your sponge analogy is about expansion, expansion that is due to combustion. And you stated that said expansion would happen first at the open end and that expansion didn't start in the combustion chamber at the closed end. Which is not how rockets work. As evidenced. No spin. Just stating fact.Quote from: StashIn essence, your theory is moving backward. When in reality expansion starts at combustion, on the closed end, and pushes out toward the open end. Your theory has combustion starting at the open end, which again, is not analogous to how rockets are designed and built.
It depends on the rocket and what we're told one is against the other.
The firework is a rocket. It's a solid fuel.
The other is a compressed gas inside tanks and released to expand for a burn.
We are dealing with a gas, as I've mentioned.
We can get to the other firework as and when.
No matter where in that rocket there is a sealed unit of gas that has a valve, that gas will not expand until that valve is opened and the expansion will happen via that opening....unless there is a larger compression than what's compressed inside that tank, external to it, which generally there isn't in this case/scenario.
Any opening from a compressed gas container will allow expansion of it into resistant but less compressed atmosphere, which will naturally take the reaction from that action as a opposite compression from that expansion.
No matter which way you look at it and no matter how far up a rocket you want to go for expansion, the open end is the crux of it.
Saying it's at a shut off at the other end, is wrong.
All that said, wrong again. The basics are that the combustion/expansion is created at the closed end, not the open end in your sponge analogy. Because it's at the closed end, it quite simply pushes through the choke (throat) and out the nozzle as its the only place it can expand to. Your analogy has it moving backward from the nozzle, through the throat to the combustion chamber, which makes no sense.
So it does matter where expansion occurs. And your notion has it occurring at the wrong end which would mean nothing would happen. It's backwards rocket science at best.
And, "Saying it's at a shut off at the other end, is wrong," is the whole point why it's right. Where combustion occurs its right up against the closed end of the rocket, where it's "shut off". So yeah, it's completely 'shut off' on that end. And that is not rocket science, just reality.Quote from: StashSo unless you have designed a new kind of rocket that no one, from model rocketeers to pros, has ever built, then I'm afraid your entire notion is moot.No. Your entire argument is moot.
Again, unless you have designed a new kind of rocket that no one, from model rocketeers to pros, has ever built, then I'm afraid your entire notion is moot.
In summary:
- Combustion occurs closest to the closed end of the 'tube', pushing off the closed end...
- Forcing gas through the throat (choke) as it expands out the nozzle
- Combustion does not occur at the nozzle and work it's way backward through the choke into what is known as the 'combustion chamber' - That would be ridiculous and makes no sense.
stash is doing a good job not falling for you sht, scepti.You ask me and I ask you.
you love to deflect and string along and waste pg and pg of thread in asking for explanintions only to in the end hand wave and dismiss them all.
why didn't the hose nozzle head jump when passing through the window?Not even sure what you mean by this.
why don't water rockets work when there's no water?How can a water rocket work if there's no water? It wouldn't be a water rocket if that was the case.
you can't answerr two very simple questions?Give me something to answer that you can explain properly.
two very simple questions that are related.
i thought your theory was indestructible and foolproof.
Note that the values I'll use are for the commonly used Russian RD-180 rocket engine, though they are similar for others.How about you tell me where the first expansion of gas would come from.
Correct, combustion happens at the closed end, not the open end (nozzle)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Staged_combustion_rocket_cycle.png)
So your sponge expansion first at the open end analogy is not analogous to a rocket engine. It's unrelated and irrelevant as, well, that's not how rockets are designed and built.
Do you agree that the gas inside that rocket is contained.
I'd guess you would agree.
Once the valves are opened it expands out into an open area or it wouldn't expand.
The open area is the combustion chamber with is also open to the nozzle.
It's all one opening, which means expansion starts at the opening.It's not really "all one opening" because the throat isolates the combustion chamber but you are correct in that "expansion starts at the opening" of the throat into the expanding section.
The only thing in the opening is atmospheric compression waiting for that expansion to compress it back more and create that gas on gas push, like I explained.Ideally there should be no "gas on gas push, like" you incorrectly explained.
And that's what we need to deal with, not the other stuff designed to deviate.Quote from: sceptimaticIt's all one opening, which means expansion starts at the opening.It's not really "all one opening" because the throat isolates the combustion chamber but you are correct in that "expansion starts at the opening" of the throat into the expanding section.
Ideally there should because that's how rockets really work.Quote from: sceptimaticThe only thing in the opening is atmospheric compression waiting for that expansion to compress it back more and create that gas on gas push, like I explained.Ideally there should be no "gas on gas push, like" youincorrectlyexplained.
The outside pressure has only a minor effect on the thrust and maybe surprisingly the thrust is about 8% higher in a vacuum!And you know this, how?
Your idea of the reality of gas rockets is totally wrong.No I wasn't wrong. Your problem is in wanting to turn a simple analogy into the entirety of what you think your rocket does, as if to negate my tube and sponge compression and expansion explanation.How about you tell me where the first expansion of gas would come from.
Correct, combustion happens at the closed end, not the open end (nozzle)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Staged_combustion_rocket_cycle.png)
So your sponge expansion first at the open end analogy is not analogous to a rocket engine. It's unrelated and irrelevant as, well, that's not how rockets are designed and built.
Do you agree that the gas inside that rocket is contained.
I'd guess you would agree.
Once the valves are opened it expands out into an open area or it wouldn't expand.
The open area is the combustion chamber with is also open to the nozzle. It's all one opening, which means expansion starts at the opening.
The only thing in the opening is atmospheric compression waiting for that expansion to compress it back more and create that gas on gas push, like I explained.
Well, first off, you said:So combustion happens at the closed end does it.
Ok then, no further point in dealing with your dishonesty.
So you were wrong (and claimed I was dishonest, but we'll let that slide)Quote from: StashIn your analogy, the sponge balls are meant to represent expansion due to ignition/combustion. As has been shown, ignition/combustion does not happen at the open end, but at the closed end. Closest to the closed end, furthest from the open end with a 'choke' point inbetween.
Not quite.
My sponge balls represent two things related to the rocket but you've dived right in to put your own spin on what you think a rocket should do in relation to what I've said.
No, your sponge analogy is about expansion, expansion that is due to combustion. And you stated that said expansion would happen first at the open end and that expansion didn't start in the combustion chamber at the closed end. Which is not how rockets work. As evidenced. No spin. Just stating fact.Quote from: StashIn essence, your theory is moving backward. When in reality expansion starts at combustion, on the closed end, and pushes out toward the open end. Your theory has combustion starting at the open end, which again, is not analogous to how rockets are designed and built.
It depends on the rocket and what we're told one is against the other.
The firework is a rocket. It's a solid fuel.
The other is a compressed gas inside tanks and released to expand for a burn.
We are dealing with a gas, as I've mentioned.
We can get to the other firework as and when.
No matter where in that rocket there is a sealed unit of gas that has a valve, that gas will not expand until that valve is opened and the expansion will happen via that opening....unless there is a larger compression than what's compressed inside that tank, external to it, which generally there isn't in this case/scenario.
Any opening from a compressed gas container will allow expansion of it into resistant but less compressed atmosphere, which will naturally take the reaction from that action as a opposite compression from that expansion.
No matter which way you look at it and no matter how far up a rocket you want to go for expansion, the open end is the crux of it.
Saying it's at a shut off at the other end, is wrong.
All that said, wrong again. The basics are that the combustion/expansion is created at the closed end, not the open end in your sponge analogy. Because it's at the closed end, it quite simply pushes through the choke (throat) and out the nozzle as its the only place it can expand to. Your analogy has it moving backward from the nozzle, through the throat to the combustion chamber, which makes no sense.
So it does matter where expansion occurs. And your notion has it occurring at the wrong end which would mean nothing would happen. It's backwards rocket science at best.
And, "Saying it's at a shut off at the other end, is wrong," is the whole point why it's right. Where combustion occurs its right up against the closed end of the rocket, where it's "shut off". So yeah, it's completely 'shut off' on that end. And that is not rocket science, just reality.Quote from: StashSo unless you have designed a new kind of rocket that no one, from model rocketeers to pros, has ever built, then I'm afraid your entire notion is moot.No. Your entire argument is moot.
Again, unless you have designed a new kind of rocket that no one, from model rocketeers to pros, has ever built, then I'm afraid your entire notion is moot.
In summary:
- Combustion occurs closest to the closed end of the 'tube', pushing off the closed end...
- Forcing gas through the throat (choke) as it expands out the nozzle
- Combustion does not occur at the nozzle and work it's way backward through the choke into what is known as the 'combustion chamber' - That would be ridiculous and makes no sense.
This is why you believe in space rockets.
So you say but based on your ideas and nothing else.And that's what we need to deal with, not the other stuff designed to deviate.Quote from: sceptimaticIt's all one opening, which means expansion starts at the opening.It's not really "all one opening" because the throat isolates the combustion chamber but you are correct in that "expansion starts at the opening" of the throat into the expanding section.
No, that's how YOU say "rockets really work" but based only on your unproven ideas!Quote from: rabinozIdeally there should because that's how rockets really work.Quote from: sceptimaticThe only thing in the opening is atmospheric compression waiting for that expansion to compress it back more and create that gas on gas push, like I explained.Ideally there should be no "gas on gas push, like" youincorrectlyexplained.
Anybody that understands rockets and everybody that designs rockets say so! And who claims otherwise apart from you?Quote from: rabinozThe outside pressure has only a minor effect on the thrust and maybe surprisingly the thrust is about 8% higher in a vacuum!And you know this, how?
This 8% higher thrust in a vacuum makes zero sense. It's just made up gunk to con people into believing they work in so called space.So sorry, but it makes perfect sense to anyone that understands how rocket engines work! But why should they "believe they work in
stash is doing a good job not falling for you sht, scepti.You ask me and I ask you.
you love to deflect and string along and waste pg and pg of thread in asking for explanintions only to in the end hand wave and dismiss them all.
None of you provide adequate explanations, just hand waving.
Strange that, eh?Quote from: Themightykaboolwhy didn't the hose nozzle head jump when passing through the window?Not even sure what you mean by this.
How about you really explain what you're on about.Quote from: Themightykaboolwhy don't water rockets work when there's no water?How can a water rocket work if there's no water? It wouldn't be a water rocket if that was the case.Quote from: Themightykaboolyou can't answerr two very simple questions?Give me something to answer that you can explain properly.
two very simple questions that are related.
i thought your theory was indestructible and foolproof.
So you say but based on your ideas and nothing else.And that's what we need to deal with, not the other stuff designed to deviate.Quote from: sceptimaticIt's all one opening, which means expansion starts at the opening.It's not really "all one opening" because the throat isolates the combustion chamber but you are correct in that "expansion starts at the opening" of the throat into the expanding section.Quote from: sceptimaticNo, that's how YOU say "rockets really work" but based only on your unproven ideas!Quote from: rabinozIdeally there should because that's how rockets really work.Quote from: sceptimaticThe only thing in the opening is atmospheric compression waiting for that expansion to compress it back more and create that gas on gas push, like I explained.Ideally there should be no "gas on gas push, like" youincorrectlyexplained.Quote from: sceptimaticAnybody that understands rockets and everybody that designs rockets say so! And who claims otherwise apart from you?Quote from: rabinozThe outside pressure has only a minor effect on the thrust and maybe surprisingly the thrust is about 8% higher in a vacuum!And you know this, how?Quote from: sceptimaticThis 8% higher thrust in a vacuum makes zero sense. It's just made up gunk to con people into believing they work in so called space.So sorry, but it makes perfect sense to anyone that understands how rocket engines work! But why should they "believe they work inso calledspace" when they really do?
I know you don't like "sums" but if one has to really design things that work then "sums" are necessary, tough but thems the facts!
All around the rocket, except for the exhaust area, say Ae the pressure is the ambient pressure, say po.
But over the exhaust area, Ae, the pressure is the exhaust pressure of the rocket engine, say pe.
So this leads to an extra force (or thrust component) of Ae x (pe - po) due to this pressure difference.
And this thrust component is a maximum when the outside pressure is a minimum, ie in a vacuum!
So that is why the the complete thrust equation for a rocket engine is F = ṁ Ve + Ae (Pe - Pa) where F is the thrust, ṁ is the mass flow rate and Ve is the exhaust velocity.
So sorry about the equations but it is Rocket Science ;D after all!
No but I can ignore all his complaints.
So sorry about the equations but it is Rocket Science ;D after all!
You cant math this guy
No but I can ignore all his complaints.
So sorry about the equations but it is Rocket Science ;D after all!
You cant math this guy
You do not combust anything from the top down, unless you have an open area to allow expansion due to combustion out of the tube.
No, it's how all amateur and pro rocketeers design and build rockets. All of them. Period. Show me one that isn't designed and built this way. You can't, because one doesn't exist.
You claimed combustion occurs at the open end. No, in fact, it occurs at the closed end. So you're wrong there. Again, show me a rocket that is engineered and built to work backwards like you claim. Can you?
How is my idea of the reality of gas rockets totally wrong when you can show no example of how any rocket is built to work in the backwards fashion you claim? Not a single one.
Regardless of whether I believe rockets work in space, they work in the exact opposite way you purport in the plain old atmosphere of earth. And that's evidenced by the fact that combustion takes place at the closed end and not at the open end that you claim.
And feel free to do this as much as you feel. It means nothing to me what you ignore.No but I can ignore all his complaints.
So sorry about the equations but it is Rocket Science ;D after all!
You cant math this guy
You do not combust anything from the top down, unless you have an open area to allow expansion due to combustion out of the tube.
No, it's how all amateur and pro rocketeers design and build rockets. All of them. Period. Show me one that isn't designed and built this way. You can't, because one doesn't exist.
You claimed combustion occurs at the open end. No, in fact, it occurs at the closed end. So you're wrong there. Again, show me a rocket that is engineered and built to work backwards like you claim. Can you?
How is my idea of the reality of gas rockets totally wrong when you can show no example of how any rocket is built to work in the backwards fashion you claim? Not a single one.
Regardless of whether I believe rockets work in space, they work in the exact opposite way you purport in the plain old atmosphere of earth. And that's evidenced by the fact that combustion takes place at the closed end and not at the open end that you claim.
You cannot combust anything against a shut end of a container. You simply can't so it's not how rockets.
Let's save argument here and use a water bottle rocket, seeing how you argue that a water bottle rocket is the same set up.
A simple cylinder filled with water and gas.
Fair enough?
I'll make sure you're ok with this before I start and we can get back to combustion later on.
You do not combust anything from the top down, unless you have an open area to allow expansion due to combustion out of the tube.
No, it's how all amateur and pro rocketeers design and build rockets. All of them. Period. Show me one that isn't designed and built this way. You can't, because one doesn't exist.
You claimed combustion occurs at the open end. No, in fact, it occurs at the closed end. So you're wrong there. Again, show me a rocket that is engineered and built to work backwards like you claim. Can you?
How is my idea of the reality of gas rockets totally wrong when you can show no example of how any rocket is built to work in the backwards fashion you claim? Not a single one.
Regardless of whether I believe rockets work in space, they work in the exact opposite way you purport in the plain old atmosphere of earth. And that's evidenced by the fact that combustion takes place at the closed end and not at the open end that you claim.
You cannot combust anything against a shut end of a container. You simply can't so it's not how rockets.
Let's save argument here and use a water bottle rocket, seeing how you argue that a water bottle rocket is the same set up.
A simple cylinder filled with water and gas.
Fair enough?
I'll make sure you're ok with this before I start and we can get back to combustion later on.
I'm using sponges as a basic and simple analogy to save all the complicated stuff that would get lost.
Your claim it requires sponges of air expanding out and stacking up.
In conventional science, Water rockets use air pressure to shoot water out the back end causing a mass flow, which launches the rocket.It's incorrect in how we're told it works.
The very mass flow that a nasa rocket uses to get into space and the very mass flow that works in a vacuum.
You claim this is incorrect.
So
Under your "correct" version of science.
Compressed sponge air expands against outsidenon-compressed sponge air and these all stack up against the foundation to generate liftoff.
But by that theory, in a water rocket, if you take out the water, and fill it with all air, it should go higher -because we can fit way more sponges.Dense mass of the water being pushed by the compressed air in the way I mentioned earlier about how it decompresses as gas molecule on gas molecule or sponge on sponge. (Remember?)
Yet it doesn't.
Why not?
Looks like you don't have an answer.
In the fireman water machine video.What do you think's holding the actual nozzle and hose up as it goes through that window?
At 1:06 the nozzle goes through a window.
Again, your theory relies on a foundation to stack the sponges against.
Why didn't the nozzle jump when passing through the window?
The window provided a raised foundation.
If you climbed a set of stairs do you go up?
Why can't this nozzle go up a set of stairs?
Quote from: ThemightykaboolBut by that theory, in a water rocket, if you take out the water, and fill it with all air, it should go higher -because we can fit way more sponges.Dense mass of the water being pushed by the compressed air in the way I mentioned earlier about how it decompresses as gas molecule on gas molecule or sponge on sponge. (Remember?)
Yet it doesn't.
Why not?
Looks like you don't have an answer.
This dense mass of water is able to super compress the atmosphere or sponges directly under it and around that water and it compresses enough for the force placed on it to now decompress right back and create a foundation. A gas foundation on that stack.
The floor is simply a foundation in itself holding the entirety of the atmosphere.
Ok let's start there. Explain how a water bottle rocket works.
Ok let's start there. Explain how a water bottle rocket works.
Ok, I'll use what we see and my theory with sponge ball analogy as we go.
Ok, the water bottle is half filled. Let's call this water more compressed sponges than the normal atmosphere, meaning far more sponges crammed into that bottle in their denser state. This water easily pushes out the less compressed atmospheric sponges and to make the atmospheric sponges overcome the denser water sponges, we have to add energy as in, we have to cram more atmospheric sponges into the bottle to push those water sponges out of the way in order to push through to the top (which is now the base) of the bottle.
To keep on doing this creates a massive build up of pressure above the water, or basically many many more sponges compressed into that area above the dense water sponges.
The only reason the water isn't pushed out is due to the end of the bottle top being closed off.
Ok so what's happening at this point?
The water is trying to breach the neck of the bottle due to the pressure of air above.
The air more compressed and spongy against the more dense and much less spongy water.
The base (top) of the bottle on the inner skin and the sides above the water are all compressed and sort of in equilibrium, meaning the inner top is feeling the push in equal terms as the water below it is.
This is where the problem starts for those who believe rockets work without atmosphere, because this is the very push on the inner top that people think pushes the rocket up against that water just below it and why they think letting the water be pushed out allows that push up from inside.
This is blatantly wrong but it's easy to see how people can be duped.
So what's really happening?
Once the lid is opened the air does push the water out against the normal atmosphere....but, like the sponge analogy it becomes a sponge decompress with that air from the very top of the water and it happens by the sponges behind the first sponges pushing onto the third stack to use as leverage to push the second and the second uses third to push the first.
This happens all the way back up until the water is pushed out but also before anything of that air pushes into the base (top) of the rocket inner, so therefore there is no direct push that way.
So what's happening under the water being pushed out at the nozzle ( open cap end).
If you notice when a bottle rocket takes off, the water is spread. Why?
It's because the denser water directly hits the atmosphere below and does exactly the same as it does inside the bottle, only in the opposite effect, whereas inside the bottle, the air is decompressing in how I said but externally that water is now hitting the resistant atmosphere and actually compressing it stack by stack downwards, meaning the water hitting the first stack of air (sponges) it compresses them hard and that hard compression is quickly placed on to the one below that and so on and so on.
The ground is simply a foundation for the stacking not as a hard foundation for lift off.
It's merely the gases that compress to decompress and back to compress to create the gas fight to push against each other to send that rocket up.
If it was simply air inside the rocket under compression it would be extremely weak to push into the atmosphere below it and you would get a weak lift off and quick dissipation or air due to less force of compression due to mass expansion inside the bottle with no denser fluid to arrest that expansion and create that dense push.
no, it starts from the open end.
Ok let's start there. Explain how a water bottle rocket works.
Ok, I'll use what we see and my theory with sponge ball analogy as we go.
Ok, the water bottle is half filled. Let's call this water more compressed sponges than the normal atmosphere, meaning far more sponges crammed into that bottle in their denser state. This water easily pushes out the less compressed atmospheric sponges and to make the atmospheric sponges overcome the denser water sponges, we have to add energy as in, we have to cram more atmospheric sponges into the bottle to push those water sponges out of the way in order to push through to the top (which is now the base) of the bottle.
To keep on doing this creates a massive build up of pressure above the water, or basically many many more sponges compressed into that area above the dense water sponges.
The only reason the water isn't pushed out is due to the end of the bottle top being closed off.
Ok so what's happening at this point?
The water is trying to breach the neck of the bottle due to the pressure of air above.
The air more compressed and spongy against the more dense and much less spongy water.
The base (top) of the bottle on the inner skin and the sides above the water are all compressed and sort of in equilibrium, meaning the inner top is feeling the push in equal terms as the water below it is.
This is where the problem starts for those who believe rockets work without atmosphere, because this is the very push on the inner top that people think pushes the rocket up against that water just below it and why they think letting the water be pushed out allows that push up from inside.
This is blatantly wrong but it's easy to see how people can be duped.
So what's really happening?
Once the lid is opened the air does push the water out against the normal atmosphere....but, like the sponge analogy it becomes a sponge decompress with that air from the very top of the water and it happens by the sponges behind the first sponges pushing onto the third stack to use as leverage to push the second and the second uses third to push the first.
This happens all the way back up until the water is pushed out but also before anything of that air pushes into the base (top) of the rocket inner, so therefore there is no direct push that way.
So what's happening under the water being pushed out at the nozzle ( open cap end).
If you notice when a bottle rocket takes off, the water is spread. Why?
It's because the denser water directly hits the atmosphere below and does exactly the same as it does inside the bottle, only in the opposite effect, whereas inside the bottle, the air is decompressing in how I said but externally that water is now hitting the resistant atmosphere and actually compressing it stack by stack downwards, meaning the water hitting the first stack of air (sponges) it compresses them hard and that hard compression is quickly placed on to the one below that and so on and so on.
The ground is simply a foundation for the stacking not as a hard foundation for lift off.
It's merely the gases that compress to decompress and back to compress to create the gas fight to push against each other to send that rocket up.
If it was simply air inside the rocket under compression it would be extremely weak to push into the atmosphere below it and you would get a weak lift off and quick dissipation or air due to less force of compression due to mass expansion inside the bottle with no denser fluid to arrest that expansion and create that dense push.
So expansion occurs near the closed end of the tube/bottle?
What’s with the sponges?Scepti's horrible example to explain his atomic structure and expansion/contraction.
What’s with the sponges?Simple analogies. If you haven't been taking notice then you'll naturally be none the wiser.
Only horrible to those that can't or refuse to understand it.What’s with the sponges?Scepti's horrible example to explain his atomic structure and expansion/contraction.
no, it starts from the open end.
Ok let's start there. Explain how a water bottle rocket works.
Ok, I'll use what we see and my theory with sponge ball analogy as we go.
Ok, the water bottle is half filled. Let's call this water more compressed sponges than the normal atmosphere, meaning far more sponges crammed into that bottle in their denser state. This water easily pushes out the less compressed atmospheric sponges and to make the atmospheric sponges overcome the denser water sponges, we have to add energy as in, we have to cram more atmospheric sponges into the bottle to push those water sponges out of the way in order to push through to the top (which is now the base) of the bottle.
To keep on doing this creates a massive build up of pressure above the water, or basically many many more sponges compressed into that area above the dense water sponges.
The only reason the water isn't pushed out is due to the end of the bottle top being closed off.
Ok so what's happening at this point?
The water is trying to breach the neck of the bottle due to the pressure of air above.
The air more compressed and spongy against the more dense and much less spongy water.
The base (top) of the bottle on the inner skin and the sides above the water are all compressed and sort of in equilibrium, meaning the inner top is feeling the push in equal terms as the water below it is.
This is where the problem starts for those who believe rockets work without atmosphere, because this is the very push on the inner top that people think pushes the rocket up against that water just below it and why they think letting the water be pushed out allows that push up from inside.
This is blatantly wrong but it's easy to see how people can be duped.
So what's really happening?
Once the lid is opened the air does push the water out against the normal atmosphere....but, like the sponge analogy it becomes a sponge decompress with that air from the very top of the water and it happens by the sponges behind the first sponges pushing onto the third stack to use as leverage to push the second and the second uses third to push the first.
This happens all the way back up until the water is pushed out but also before anything of that air pushes into the base (top) of the rocket inner, so therefore there is no direct push that way.
So what's happening under the water being pushed out at the nozzle ( open cap end).
If you notice when a bottle rocket takes off, the water is spread. Why?
It's because the denser water directly hits the atmosphere below and does exactly the same as it does inside the bottle, only in the opposite effect, whereas inside the bottle, the air is decompressing in how I said but externally that water is now hitting the resistant atmosphere and actually compressing it stack by stack downwards, meaning the water hitting the first stack of air (sponges) it compresses them hard and that hard compression is quickly placed on to the one below that and so on and so on.
The ground is simply a foundation for the stacking not as a hard foundation for lift off.
It's merely the gases that compress to decompress and back to compress to create the gas fight to push against each other to send that rocket up.
If it was simply air inside the rocket under compression it would be extremely weak to push into the atmosphere below it and you would get a weak lift off and quick dissipation or air due to less force of compression due to mass expansion inside the bottle with no denser fluid to arrest that expansion and create that dense push.
So expansion occurs near the closed end of the tube/bottle?
Think carefully about it and you'll understand.
You can't have any expansion from anywhere inside the container unless you allow that expansion to happen, which can only happen at a breach or open end, or nozzle or whatever.
It never starts from the closed end.....ever.
No...I'm saying that lower pressure is compressed by higher pressure
I did think about it.
Compressed air = High Pressure
High Pressure Moves to Low Pressure.
The compressed, expands.
Are you saying that the Low pressure compresses to allow the high pressure to decompress?
No...I'm saying that lower pressure is compressed by higher pressure
I did think about it.
Compressed air = High Pressure
High Pressure Moves to Low Pressure.
The compressed, expands.
Are you saying that the Low pressure compresses to allow the high pressure to decompress?
So what's really happening?
Once the lid is opened the air does push the water out against the normal atmosphere....but, like the sponge analogy it becomes a sponge decompress with that air from the very top of the water and it happens by the sponges behind the first sponges pushing onto the third stack to use as leverage to push the second and the second uses third to push the first.
This happens all the way back up until the water is pushed out but also before anything of that air pushes into the base (top) of the rocket inner, so therefore there is no direct push that way.
So what's happening under the water being pushed out at the nozzle ( open cap end).
Here's the deal with you.Your promises are worthless.
Show me the basic of your rocket and explain how it pushes away into the air or in your space from the action and reaction of the gases.
Don't just draw an arrow. Explain what's happening to move it and I'll happily use that very same drawing to show you how it really works.
Nice and basic. As basic a rocket you can make and to clearly show.
Let's see what you've got.
I promise you if you do this I will counteract it with my own diagram on the very same rocket, with explanations as to why they do not work as you think.
No I wasn't wrong. Your problem is in wanting to turn a simple analogy into the entirety of what you think your rocket does, as if to negate my tube and sponge compression and expansion explanation.There is so much that negates your tube and sponge explanation it isn't funny, especially the fact that you ignore key parts, like you can't just stuff the balls in by only applying a force on the balls at one end. That will push the tube along.
The other is a compressed gas inside tanks and released to expand for a burn.You mean liquid, which is injected and allowed to boil and combust to massively increase its pressure.
unless there is a larger compression than what's compressed inside that tank, external to itWhich for a normal rocket which relies upon combustion, there effectively is.
Any opening from a compressed gas container will allow expansion of it into resistant but less compressed atmosphereSo not into a vacuum? So you are claiming that in a vacuum the gas just stays put?
No matter which way you look at it and no matter how far up a rocket you want to go for expansion, the open end is the crux of it.While it is quite important, that isn't where the force is transferred.
None of you provide adequate explanations, just hand waving.We do, you just ignore them because you can't refute them.
How about you really explain what you're on about.It has been explained to you countless time.
How can a water rocket work if there's no water? It wouldn't be a water rocket if that was the case.I think he means outside.
This 8% higher thrust in a vacuum makes zero sense. It's just made up gunk to con people into believing they work in so called space.No, it makes perfect sense.
You do not combust anything from the top down, unless you have an open area to allow expansion due to combustion out of the tube.So simple (low explosive) bombs aren't real?
You cannot combust anything against a shut end of a container. You simply can't so it's not how rockets.
Let's save argument here and use a water bottle rocket, seeing how you argue that a water bottle rocket is the same set up.It isn't one that uses combustion.
I'm using sponges as a basic and simple analogy to save all the complicated stuff that would get lost.You mean to try and use very significant limitations in the analogy to avoid reality.
The weird bit is in people not graspingAgain, we grasp it, we just realise it is wrong.
That sounds, I don’t know, odd...?Ok think of this.
Or do you mean the same way as temperatures even out, or salinity or acidity?
Playing this game will not help you.No...I'm saying that lower pressure is compressed by higher pressure
I did think about it.
Compressed air = High Pressure
High Pressure Moves to Low Pressure.
The compressed, expands.
Are you saying that the Low pressure compresses to allow the high pressure to decompress?
So the high pressure at the top/closed part of the bottle would expand pushing the water out compressing the lower pressure outside of the bottle.
So expansion starts and occurs at the top of the bottle.
You're getting there but the bottom picture is not quite correct.So what's really happening?
Once the lid is opened the air does push the water out against the normal atmosphere....but, like the sponge analogy it becomes a sponge decompress with that air from the very top of the water and it happens by the sponges behind the first sponges pushing onto the third stack to use as leverage to push the second and the second uses third to push the first.
This happens all the way back up until the water is pushed out but also before anything of that air pushes into the base (top) of the rocket inner, so therefore there is no direct push that way.
So what's happening under the water being pushed out at the nozzle ( open cap end).
So are you saying that the compressed air above the water when the valve is closed is pressing in all directions, as represented by the red arrows here:
(https://i.imgur.com/YCTqWvm.png)
But that when the nozzle is opened, all of a sudden the compressed air is no longer pressing against the top, represented by top arrows now missing:
(https://i.imgur.com/re7MXOU.png)
Why would opening the valve all of a sudden, selectively, stop the force from pressing only against the top?
Here you go, like I promised.Here's the deal with you.Your promises are worthless.
Show me the basic of your rocket and explain how it pushes away into the air or in your space from the action and reaction of the gases.
Don't just draw an arrow. Explain what's happening to move it and I'll happily use that very same drawing to show you how it really works.
Nice and basic. As basic a rocket you can make and to clearly show.
Let's see what you've got.
I promise you if you do this I will counteract it with my own diagram on the very same rocket, with explanations as to why they do not work as you think.
You have made such promises before, and just ran away when I met my end.
But here you go again:
(https://i.imgur.com/iTlCgNi.png)
For the simplest explanation, we just focus on the right hand side.
There is pressurised gas.
This gas exerts pressure outwards in all directions.
This applies force to the rocket, pushing it away to the left (red arrow).
This results in a reactionary force being applied to the gas, pushing it to the right (black arrow).
This means the rocket is pushed one way while the gas is pushed the other.
For a less basic view, the gas in the middle can't just leave the rocket, as there is gas in the way on the right hand side.
So the gas in the middle, in its attempt to expand, will push the last layer of gas (in purple) out to the right.
Again, this results in a reactionary force pushing the gas in the middle to the left.
Is this way the gas in the middle is acting as a force carrier, allowing the gas at the edge to push the rocket while the rocket pushes the gas at the edge to the right.
This means the gas at the right will be pushed out and the rocket will be pushed to the left, and the gas in the middle will expand outwards, and a new layer will take the place of the purple.
This continues until the pressure drops to 0.
Either way, the end result is the gas pushes the rocket one way and the rocket pushes the gas the other way.
Or in your terms, the gas uses the rocket as leverage/resistance, and the rocket uses the gas as leverage/resistance.
Thus rockets work in a vacuum.
Your turn.
Why do the forces only apply to one direction? That direction is the outlet, yes, but the gas still tried to expand in all directions, right? Like explosives (and shaped charges and so on).Explosives only work if there's massive resistance to the expansion...as in a casing or some sort that resists that expansion until it's breached, which creates a massive potential energy build.
Here you go, like I promised.But gas has mass. If those gas molecules are going to come out of the nozzle they must start to move, in other words, to accelerate.
(https://i.postimg.cc/kGRM9VJh/iTlCgNi.png) (https://postimages.org/)
As you can see how the expansion of the gas works.
The larger black arrows are the immediate expansion and the second set of arrows from the front are pushing into the first as the first are pushing off of the second...and so on all the way down the rocket.
The arrows at the very back would likely be left inside due to having zero push left, meaning no force is applied to the closed end of the rocket.
If there is no resistance to the expansion of arrows coming out of the nozzle as in your vacuum mindset, then there is no reaction and therefore zero movement of the rocket...and thus, no rockets will every work in extreme low pressure.
Explosions (intentional ones) are controlled burn, too.Why do the forces only apply to one direction? That direction is the outlet, yes, but the gas still tried to expand in all directions, right? Like explosives (and shaped charges and so on).Explosives only work if there's massive resistance to the expansion...as in a casing or some sort that resists that expansion until it's breached, which creates a massive potential energy build.
A rocket doesn't work like a bomb. If it did, it would be a bomb and simply explode.
A rocket is a controlled burn. Simple as that. It's a firework.
You're getting there but the bottom picture is not quite correct.So what's really happening?
Once the lid is opened the air does push the water out against the normal atmosphere....but, like the sponge analogy it becomes a sponge decompress with that air from the very top of the water and it happens by the sponges behind the first sponges pushing onto the third stack to use as leverage to push the second and the second uses third to push the first.
This happens all the way back up until the water is pushed out but also before anything of that air pushes into the base (top) of the rocket inner, so therefore there is no direct push that way.
So what's happening under the water being pushed out at the nozzle ( open cap end).
So are you saying that the compressed air above the water when the valve is closed is pressing in all directions, as represented by the red arrows here:
(https://i.imgur.com/YCTqWvm.png)
But that when the nozzle is opened, all of a sudden the compressed air is no longer pressing against the top, represented by top arrows now missing:
(https://i.imgur.com/re7MXOU.png)
Why would opening the valve all of a sudden, selectively, stop the force from pressing only against the top?
Take away the side arrows and simply have the entire tank of arrows pointing down.
There's a bit more to this but I'll let you do this before I proceed and this may help you understand where I'm coming from.
Here you go, like I promised.Just where is the reaction/leverage in this?
If there is no resistance to the expansion of arrows coming out of the nozzle as in your vacuum mindsetNo, that seems to be in your contradictory vacuum mindset.
Explosives only work if there's massive resistance to the expansion...as in a casing or some sort that resists that expansion until it's breachedAt which point according to your contradictory nonsense about rockets, the gas should just leak out.
A rocket doesn't work like a bomb. If it did, it would be a bomb and simply explode.It works like shrapnel in a bomb. It has a large pressure gradient across it and that pushes it.
You're getting there but the bottom picture is not quite correct.That's right. There is no reason at all for the top arrows to have vanished.
Take away the side arrows and simply have the entire tank of arrows pointing down.What is causing the gas to magically decide to only push down?
There's a bit more to this but I'll let you do this before I proceed and this may help you understand where I'm coming from.Really? It seems far more likely that you have no answer at all and are just doing whatever you can to avoid the question.
As soon as this happens the air inside can expand and it will do directly on that water then continue to expand like an uncoiling spring all the way back to the inverted base.And why can't the same happen with gas, with the gas inside expanding, pushing out the gas further out?
Now ahat the first thing you'd notice?My legs stretching out, and the tube getting pushed away.
So as you can see, there's no reaction to the sealed endNo, I can see that there definately is a reaction.
They do move. They expand and are all attached. No free space to simply freely move as one molecular unit.Here you go, like I promised.But gas has mass. If those gas molecules are going to come out of the nozzle they must start to move, in other words, to accelerate.
(https://i.postimg.cc/kGRM9VJh/iTlCgNi.png) (https://postimages.org/)
As you can see how the expansion of the gas works.
The larger black arrows are the immediate expansion and the second set of arrows from the front are pushing into the first as the first are pushing off of the second...and so on all the way down the rocket.
The arrows at the very back would likely be left inside due to having zero push left, meaning no force is applied to the closed end of the rocket.
If there is no resistance to the expansion of arrows coming out of the nozzle as in your vacuum mindset, then there is no reaction and therefore zero movement of the rocket...and thus, no rockets will every work in extreme low pressure.
You could say that mass is resistance to motion, though resistance to a change in motion would be more accurate.We don't need to go on about something that means nothing. We've been through this.
Resistance to a change in motion is just inertia.
Now force = mass x acceleration and that force must be supplied by the closed end of the tube.Absolutely not.
Hence there is a reaction and therefore movement of the tube ... and thus, rockets will work in extreme low pressure. QED.
In a real rocket engine the same thing applies except that now a continual supply of gas at very high pressure (around 1500 psi) is fed into the carefully shaped nozzle.It doesn't matter what carefully shaped nozzle any psi is fed into. It will not create any reaction against extreme low pressure to do any work other than to expend just about all of its internal gas to full expansion into that extreme low pressure environment.
Hence rockets work very well in extreme low pressure.
They do move. They expand and are all attached. No free space to simply freely move as one molecular unit.I noticed you ignored the vast majority of what I said.
We don't need to go on about something that means nothing. We've been through this.So you will stop bringing up your meaningless nonsense of denpressure and just admit rockets work in a vacuum?
It doesn't matter what carefully shaped nozzle any psi is fed into. It will not create any reaction against extreme low pressureIt is the reaction against the high pressure gas.
Ok, there you go.Here you go, like I promised.Just where is the reaction/leverage in this?
What is all the gas pushing against, or do you think gas can just magically push with no leverage at all?
If that is the case, what is wrong with the arrows being the other way around and pushing the rocket?
i.e. something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/9aX9YKp.png)
As you have repeatedly said, you need leverage/resistance to move.
So what is the gas using? Your arrows can't all be in one direction.
So just like always you deflect and don't bother providing an explanation at all.
So thanks for yet again showing your promises are worthless.
A bunch of arrows, ignoring key parts of your model, doesn't make an explanation.
My question remains unanswered, what is the gas using as leverage?
They do move. They expand and are all attached. No free space to simply freely move as one molecular unit.Here you go, like I promised.But gas has mass. If those gas molecules are going to come out of the nozzle they must start to move, in other words, to accelerate.
(https://i.postimg.cc/kGRM9VJh/iTlCgNi.png) (https://postimages.org/)
As you can see how the expansion of the gas works.
The larger black arrows are the immediate expansion and the second set of arrows from the front are pushing into the first as the first are pushing off of the second...and so on all the way down the rocket.
The arrows at the very back would likely be left inside due to having zero push left, meaning no force is applied to the closed end of the rocket.
If there is no resistance to the expansion of arrows coming out of the nozzle as in your vacuum mindset, then there is no reaction and therefore zero movement of the rocket...and thus, no rockets will every work in extreme low pressure.
Oh yes we do! You cannot possibly deny that gas has mass!Quote from: rabinozYou could say that mass is resistance to motion, though resistance to a change in motion would be more accurate.We don't need to go on about something that means nothing. We've been through this.
Resistance to a change in motion is just inertia.
Let's stop right there! After your admissions and undeniable points about how can you possibly claim "Absolutely not".Quote from: rabinozNow force = mass x acceleration and that force must be supplied by the closed end of the tube.Absolutely not.
Hence there is a reaction and therefore movement of the tube ... and thus, rockets will work in extreme low pressure. QED.
Gas has mass: You cannot possibly deny that!I'm not denying it.
I don't agree with "simply freely move as one molecular unit" but even if they did, you admit that "They do move".Of course they move. I've never denied that, either.
But to go from a state of not moving (at rest) to moving requires acceleration. You cannot possibly deny that!I have never denied that.
To accelerate any mass requires a force. To accelerate your car from rest to 100 kph requires a force - a lot of force.I also accept that and have never denied it.
You could say that mass is resistance to motion, though resistance to a change in motion would be more accurate.Yep I'd agree that mass will resist motion until a force is used that is capable of changing that resistance to motion into a motion.
Resistance to a change in motion is just inertia.Call it what you want but it is a nothing. It really means nothing in terms of explanation of anything, so why use it?
You admit that "They do move" and surely you cannot deny that a force of required to make a mass that was at rest start to move!I accept they need a force applied to move. Contraction and expansion of molecules means they move against each other, just as a wave does. And the end product of any movement, is work, as long as there is something of a mass that is resisting it, as you mention with your mass, which totally kills your space rocket.
Suppose you had a 100 kg weight hanging stationary on a long wire. The friction would be quite negligible.All you have is potential energy from the force applied to get the weight onto the long hanging wire.
Would you suggest that weight coild be set in motion without applying a force? Of course not! That would be ridiculous!
Because I've admitted to nothing that shows the fictional rocket working in a vacuum. I've showed otherwise.Quote from: sceptimaticLet's stop right there! After your admissions and undeniable points about how can you possibly claim "Absolutely not".Quote from: rabinozNow force = mass x acceleration and that force must be supplied by the closed end of the tube.Absolutely not.
Hence there is a reaction and therefore movement of the tube ... and thus, rockets will work in extreme low pressure. QED.
You simply are forced to deny the undeniable because to do anything else would destroy you imagined World View.I'm not forced to deny anything. I'll argue any point with my points. That's it, as I have done.
One genuine photo from space destroys your whole world!I'd agree.
Ok, there you go.And still my question remains unanswered.
Call it what you want but it is a nothing. It really means nothing in terms of explanation of anything, so why use it?Pretend all you want, but it is a very real thing with great explanatory power.
And the end product of any movement, is work, as long as there is something of a mass that is resisting it, as you mention with your mass, which totally kills your space rocket.How?
I'd agree.Good. So the countless photos from space destroy your argument.
It's been explained. Feel free to deny it.
And still my question remains unanswered.
All you can do is come up with pathetic diagrams and analogies.
Why are you unable to answer such a simple question.
What is the gas using as leverage/resistance/foundation?
The term "inertia" is used because:Quote from: rabinozResistance to a change in motion is just inertia.Call it what you want but it is a nothing. It really means nothing in terms of explanation of anything, so why use it?
But "contraction and expansion of molecules" and simply moving "against each other" cannot cause a nett movement in a single direction which is where your whole thing falls apart.Quote from: rabinozYou admit that "They do move" and surely you cannot deny that a force of required to make a mass that was at rest start to move!I accept they need a force applied to move. Contraction and expansion of molecules means they move against each other, just as a wave does. And the end product of any movement, is work, as long as there is something of a mass that is resisting it, as you mention with your mass, which totally kills your space rocket.
I'm sorry, but I meant that a force must be applied laterally to start the weight swinging.Quote from: rabinozSuppose you had a 100 kg weight hanging stationary on a long wire. The friction would be quite negligible.All you have is potential energy from the force applied to get the weight onto the long hanging wire.
Would you suggest that weight could be set in motion without applying a force? Of course not! That would be ridiculous!
To realise it back to the energy applied would be to wait for the wire to weaken or to cut it.
Because I've admitted to nothing that shows the fictional rocket working in a vacuum. I've showed otherwise.Quote from: sceptimaticLet's stop right there! After your admissions and undeniable points about how can you possibly claim "Absolutely not".Quote from: rabinozNow force = mass x acceleration and that force must be supplied by the closed end of the tube.Absolutely not.
Hence there is a reaction and therefore movement of the tube ... and thus, rockets will work in extreme low pressure. QED.
You simply are forced to deny the undeniable because to do anything else would destroy you imagined World View.I'm not forced to deny anything. I'll argue any point with my points. That's it, as I have done.
I didn't "use this as an argument". I just used that to explain why you dare not accept that space flights can possibly be real.Quote from: rabinozOne genuine photo from space destroys your whole world!I'd agree.
The issue from this point on is to get a genuine photo from your space. And if this comes down to you personally showing me the genuine photo, then you must absolutely back it up as a 100% physical proof from your side.
Merely grabbing a photo and proclaiming it's genuine by massive appeal to authority, is not evidence of anything genuine, at all. I'm sure you'll agree with this.
I'm actually shocked you used this as an argument.
They would cause a wave and the very end product of that wave against any mass, will create a nett force/movement/work.Quote from: sceptimaticBut "contraction and expansion of molecules" and simply moving "against each other" cannot cause a nett movement in a single direction which is where your whole thing falls apart.Quote from: rabinozYou admit that "They do move" and surely you cannot deny that a force of required to make a mass that was at rest start to move!I accept they need a force applied to move. Contraction and expansion of molecules means they move against each other, just as a wave does. And the end product of any movement, is work, as long as there is something of a mass that is resisting it, as you mention with your mass, which totally kills your space rocket.
Then you still have to re-apply lateral energy to that already hanging mass on the wire.Quote from: sceptimaticI'm sorry, but I meant that a force must be applied laterally to start the weight swinging.Quote from: rabinozSuppose you had a 100 kg weight hanging stationary on a long wire. The friction would be quite negligible.All you have is potential energy from the force applied to get the weight onto the long hanging wire.
Would you suggest that weight could be set in motion without applying a force? Of course not! That would be ridiculous!
To realise it back to the energy applied would be to wait for the wire to weaken or to cut it.
Unless you have a mass and applied energy, which I've just explained.Quote from: sceptimaticBut your important explanation was quite incorrect. This one: "contraction and expansion of molecules" and simply moving "against each other".Quote from: rabinozYou simply are forced to deny the undeniable because to do anything else would destroy you imagined World View.I'm not forced to deny anything. I'll argue any point with my points. That's it, as I have done.
Moving "against each other" cannot cause a nett movement in a single direction - to the right in this case.
You used it as a weak attempt of an appeal to authority.Quote from: sceptimaticI didn't "use this as an argument". I just used that to explain why you dare not accept that space flights can possibly be real.Quote from: rabinozOne genuine photo from space destroys your whole world!I'd agree.
The issue from this point on is to get a genuine photo from your space. And if this comes down to you personally showing me the genuine photo, then you must absolutely back it up as a 100% physical proof from your side.
Merely grabbing a photo and proclaiming it's genuine by massive appeal to authority, is not evidence of anything genuine, at all. I'm sure you'll agree with this.
I'm actually shocked you used this as an argument.
Now I can never prove it and you would not believe me if I claimed that these two photos are genuine photos taken on a genuine film camera:
I fail to see what logical reason you might have to claim that they are not genuine photos.
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/0KbaTL.jpg)
And this one and it has nothing to do with NASA but was taken on a film camera from near the moon:
(http://mentallandscape.com/C_Zond07_9.jpg)
Other than you own prejudice, what reasons have you to claim that either photo is not genuine?I've been giving reasons for many years on here.
How does a molecule measuring in the nanometer range expand to the meter range?
It doesn't. Only you decided on this for some weird reason.Quote from: many years agoHow does a molecule measuring in the nanometer range expand to the meter range?
So what is the limit of expansion?It varies with each molecular density.
That sounds, I don’t know, odd...?Ok think of this.
Or do you mean the same way as temperatures even out, or salinity or acidity?
If I were to place you inside a tube in a cramped up position, meaning knees to chin, meaning your head touches the closed lid on one side and your feet touching the sealed bottom.
Let's call this the rocket gas under equal pressure as in, compression. Fair enough?
Ok, this tube is laid on its side or horizontal so you have equal atmosphere each end.
Ok, now we want the rocket to thrust out its gas, or your decompression of your body, so the lid gets popped for you to now decompress...how do you do it?
You see, your head was initially pushing into the sealed end the same as your feet were pushing into the lid, so you had equal pressure on both...until that lid is popped off.
Now ahat the first thing you'd notice?
It would be the pressure release from your head as your feet push out into the external atmosphere.
here is no now more push on that sealed end of the tube...it's merely acting nothing in terms of resistance because your own body is simply expanding out from the very front, or your feet, until you are basically sort of, prostrate.
So as you can see, there's no reaction to the sealed end, so that cannot be how rockets work by push in that way.
Try it yourself inside a box or something.
What you will find is the reaction to your feet as you try to push the air away from you as you do stretch out. It would be minimal in terms of your energy and mass but it comes right back to the Jack in the box scenario of expansion in one direction and hitting a resistance in that direction.
To put it in gas terms, it means the gas in the rocket expands into the atmospheric gas and compresses that which creates a action/reaction sequence which the rocket actually sits atop of.
For the genuine Photo from space, I suggest you go to your local weather channel, or turn into, the weather news, and there you go you got them, just look out your window, for verification.Quote from: rabinozOne genuine photo from space destroys your whole world!I'd agree.
The issue from this point on is to get a genuine photo from your space. And if this comes down to you personally showing me the genuine photo, then you must absolutely back it up as a 100% physical proof from your side.
Merely grabbing a photo and proclaiming it's genuine by massive appeal to authority, is not evidence of anything genuine, at all. I'm sure you'll agree with this.
I'm actually shocked you used this as an argument.
Ok, there you go.Here you go, like I promised.Just where is the reaction/leverage in this?
What is all the gas pushing against, or do you think gas can just magically push with no leverage at all?
If that is the case, what is wrong with the arrows being the other way around and pushing the rocket?
i.e. something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/9aX9YKp.png)
As you have repeatedly said, you need leverage/resistance to move.
So what is the gas using? Your arrows can't all be in one direction.
So just like always you deflect and don't bother providing an explanation at all.
So thanks for yet again showing your promises are worthless.
A bunch of arrows, ignoring key parts of your model, doesn't make an explanation.
My question remains unanswered, what is the gas using as leverage?
(https://i.postimg.cc/8khtmM2y/iTlCgNi.png) (https://postimages.org/)
It's been explained. Feel free to deny it.No it hasn't. You have repeatedly avoided answering these simple questions and providing an explanation.
Unless you have a mass and applied energy, which I've just explained.So if you have a rocket, and the applied energy of its burning fuel, then it can move, just by moving against itself?
So Scepti....Because one sponge ball represents one molecule and you need quite a few sponge balls to compress into the tube and into each other to create the pressure build.
I stuck a compressed spongeball at the bottom a tube. The bottom was closed and the top was open.. The spongeball did not fully expand and didn't leave the tube. Why didn't it work?
Only if it's contained at both ends.That sounds, I don’t know, odd...?Ok think of this.
Or do you mean the same way as temperatures even out, or salinity or acidity?
If I were to place you inside a tube in a cramped up position, meaning knees to chin, meaning your head touches the closed lid on one side and your feet touching the sealed bottom.
Let's call this the rocket gas under equal pressure as in, compression. Fair enough?
Ok, this tube is laid on its side or horizontal so you have equal atmosphere each end.
Ok, now we want the rocket to thrust out its gas, or your decompression of your body, so the lid gets popped for you to now decompress...how do you do it?
You see, your head was initially pushing into the sealed end the same as your feet were pushing into the lid, so you had equal pressure on both...until that lid is popped off.
Now ahat the first thing you'd notice?
It would be the pressure release from your head as your feet push out into the external atmosphere.
here is no now more push on that sealed end of the tube...it's merely acting nothing in terms of resistance because your own body is simply expanding out from the very front, or your feet, until you are basically sort of, prostrate.
So as you can see, there's no reaction to the sealed end, so that cannot be how rockets work by push in that way.
Try it yourself inside a box or something.
What you will find is the reaction to your feet as you try to push the air away from you as you do stretch out. It would be minimal in terms of your energy and mass but it comes right back to the Jack in the box scenario of expansion in one direction and hitting a resistance in that direction.
To put it in gas terms, it means the gas in the rocket expands into the atmospheric gas and compresses that which creates a action/reaction sequence which the rocket actually sits atop of.
Gas expands in all directions, which means: as you expand your body your head keeps pushing the sealed end throwing it eventually away together with the rest of the rocket.
It would if the pressure was not dissipated.Ok, there you go.Here you go, like I promised.Just where is the reaction/leverage in this?
What is all the gas pushing against, or do you think gas can just magically push with no leverage at all?
If that is the case, what is wrong with the arrows being the other way around and pushing the rocket?
i.e. something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/9aX9YKp.png)
As you have repeatedly said, you need leverage/resistance to move.
So what is the gas using? Your arrows can't all be in one direction.
So just like always you deflect and don't bother providing an explanation at all.
So thanks for yet again showing your promises are worthless.
A bunch of arrows, ignoring key parts of your model, doesn't make an explanation.
My question remains unanswered, what is the gas using as leverage?
(https://i.postimg.cc/8khtmM2y/iTlCgNi.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Great picture
That proves your fireman nozzle is lifting off mass flow and not air denP.
Because according to your picture, the nozzle should hvae raised after hitting the window.
You're not helping yourself. Most likely deliberate.It's been explained. Feel free to deny it.No it hasn't. You have repeatedly avoided answering these simple questions and providing an explanation.
Do you know why?
Because as I said, you are left with 2 options:
1 - There is leverage and thus rockets can work.
2 - There is no leverage and thus the gas remains inside the rocket next to a vacuum.
You can lie all you want and say that you have explained it but everyone here can see that you haven't.
If you had actually explained it, then it would be very easy for you to directly answer my question and tell me what is being used as leverage.Unless you have a mass and applied energy, which I've just explained.So if you have a rocket, and the applied energy of its burning fuel, then it can move, just by moving against itself?
Again, the same claims you make for the gas can still allow the rocket to move in a vacuum.
Again, the only way you can be internally consistent and claim that the rocket can't move is if you also claim the gas can't, i.e. that it will remain trapped inside the rocket, even though there is an opening exposing it to the vacuum of space.
You're not helping yourself. Most likely deliberate.I'm not the one needs help here. That would be you, as clearly demonstrated by your complete inability to answer a very simple question.
You've been told how it works.
Only if it's contained at both ends.Which again would mean bombs don't work.
Open one end and your legs straighten out without the need to push your head off the closed end.But it still pushes away the other end.
It would if the pressure was not dissipated.So if the pressure is dissipated by the gas before it leaves the rocket, then it doesn't matter what it is pushing into, i.e. if it is pushing into air or a vacuum.
Or go to the Bureau of Meteorology like this? Himawari-8 Satellite and smoke from fires in Eastern Australia « on: Today at 07:00:05 AM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83933.msg2215038#msg2215038)QuoteFor the genuine Photo from space, I suggest you go to your local weather channel, or turn into, the weather news, and there you go you got them, just look out your window, for verification.Quote from: rabinozOne genuine photo from space destroys your whole world!I'd agree.
The issue from this point on is to get a genuine photo from your space. And if this comes down to you personally showing me the genuine photo, then you must absolutely back it up as a 100% physical proof from your side.
Merely grabbing a photo and proclaiming it's genuine by massive appeal to authority, is not evidence of anything genuine, at all. I'm sure you'll agree with this.
I'm actually shocked you used this as an argument.
It's not dissipated before it leaves the rocket. It's dissipated into the extreme low pressure you call space, meaning space rockets are a fantasy.
So if the pressure is dissipated by the gas before it leaves the rocket, then it doesn't matter what it is pushing into, i.e. if it is pushing into air or a vacuum.
So yet again, rockets work in a vacuum
Only if it's contained at both ends.That sounds, I don’t know, odd...?Ok think of this.
Or do you mean the same way as temperatures even out, or salinity or acidity?
If I were to place you inside a tube in a cramped up position, meaning knees to chin, meaning your head touches the closed lid on one side and your feet touching the sealed bottom.
Let's call this the rocket gas under equal pressure as in, compression. Fair enough?
Ok, this tube is laid on its side or horizontal so you have equal atmosphere each end.
Ok, now we want the rocket to thrust out its gas, or your decompression of your body, so the lid gets popped for you to now decompress...how do you do it?
You see, your head was initially pushing into the sealed end the same as your feet were pushing into the lid, so you had equal pressure on both...until that lid is popped off.
Now ahat the first thing you'd notice?
It would be the pressure release from your head as your feet push out into the external atmosphere.
here is no now more push on that sealed end of the tube...it's merely acting nothing in terms of resistance because your own body is simply expanding out from the very front, or your feet, until you are basically sort of, prostrate.
So as you can see, there's no reaction to the sealed end, so that cannot be how rockets work by push in that way.
Try it yourself inside a box or something.
What you will find is the reaction to your feet as you try to push the air away from you as you do stretch out. It would be minimal in terms of your energy and mass but it comes right back to the Jack in the box scenario of expansion in one direction and hitting a resistance in that direction.
To put it in gas terms, it means the gas in the rocket expands into the atmospheric gas and compresses that which creates a action/reaction sequence which the rocket actually sits atop of.
Gas expands in all directions, which means: as you expand your body your head keeps pushing the sealed end throwing it eventually away together with the rest of the rocket.
Try and expand your body with both ends sealed and you get what you are implying.
Open one end and your legs straighten out without the need to push your head off the closed end.
If the rocket nozzle is correctly designed there is no "extreme low pressure we call space" inside it!It's not dissipated before it leaves the rocket. It's dissipated into the extreme low pressure you call space, meaning space rockets are a fantasy.
So if the pressure is dissipated by the gas before it leaves the rocket, then it doesn't matter what it is pushing into, i.e. if it is pushing into air or a vacuum.
So yet again, rockets work in a vacuum
It would if the pressure was not dissipated.Ok, there you go.Here you go, like I promised.Just where is the reaction/leverage in this?
What is all the gas pushing against, or do you think gas can just magically push with no leverage at all?
If that is the case, what is wrong with the arrows being the other way around and pushing the rocket?
i.e. something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/9aX9YKp.png)
As you have repeatedly said, you need leverage/resistance to move.
So what is the gas using? Your arrows can't all be in one direction.
So just like always you deflect and don't bother providing an explanation at all.
So thanks for yet again showing your promises are worthless.
A bunch of arrows, ignoring key parts of your model, doesn't make an explanation.
My question remains unanswered, what is the gas using as leverage?
(https://i.postimg.cc/8khtmM2y/iTlCgNi.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Great picture
That proves your fireman nozzle is lifting off mass flow and not air denP.
Because according to your picture, the nozzle should hvae raised after hitting the window.
What do you think is keeping the hose up?
Which I've already explained.
Expansion begins only AFTER one end is open.
A rocket nozzle would be as pointless as a chocolate fireguard in your space or extreme low pressure.If the rocket nozzle is correctly designed there is no "extreme low pressure we call space" inside it!It's not dissipated before it leaves the rocket. It's dissipated into the extreme low pressure you call space, meaning space rockets are a fantasy.
So if the pressure is dissipated by the gas before it leaves the rocket, then it doesn't matter what it is pushing into, i.e. if it is pushing into air or a vacuum.
So yet again, rockets work in a vacuum
There might be almost 3000 kg/sec of gas exiting that nozzle at 2570 m/s (for the SpaceX Merlin 1D engine).
So there is no chance of a vacuum in there.
Go and learn something about the design of the correct profile of that rocket nozzle. Learning a bit about hypersonic gas flow wouldn't hurt either.
Look at how many breaches that hose has. Each breach loses force. It's dissipated with some, including the one through the window, because that's not designed to be a massive force but the one's holding up the hose, are.It would if the pressure was not dissipated.Ok, there you go.Here you go, like I promised.Just where is the reaction/leverage in this?
What is all the gas pushing against, or do you think gas can just magically push with no leverage at all?
If that is the case, what is wrong with the arrows being the other way around and pushing the rocket?
i.e. something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/9aX9YKp.png)
As you have repeatedly said, you need leverage/resistance to move.
So what is the gas using? Your arrows can't all be in one direction.
So just like always you deflect and don't bother providing an explanation at all.
So thanks for yet again showing your promises are worthless.
A bunch of arrows, ignoring key parts of your model, doesn't make an explanation.
My question remains unanswered, what is the gas using as leverage?
(https://i.postimg.cc/8khtmM2y/iTlCgNi.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Great picture
That proves your fireman nozzle is lifting off mass flow and not air denP.
Because according to your picture, the nozzle should hvae raised after hitting the window.
What do you think is keeping the hose up?
Sorry
Did anyone address this?
Theres so many different discussioms going on right now.
Either way
Then lets adress the inconsistency -
If the stack of spoges holds up the rocket/ nozzle, how could it dissipate?
If dissipated it wiuld cease to hold the stack of sponges!
The hose provides the water to the nozzle, as long as the water leaving the nozzle creates a pressure greater than the weight of the hose and nozzle, it will move upwards, to the point of equalization, by which time it stabilizes and stays level. The hose under pressure, stays stiff, as you can see it being moved in and out. The narrow window ledge has little effect.Look at how many breaches that hose has. Each breach loses force. It's dissipated with some, including the one through the window, because that's not designed to be a massive force but the one's holding up the hose, are.It would if the pressure was not dissipated.Ok, there you go.Here you go, like I promised.Just where is the reaction/leverage in this?
What is all the gas pushing against, or do you think gas can just magically push with no leverage at all?
If that is the case, what is wrong with the arrows being the other way around and pushing the rocket?
i.e. something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/9aX9YKp.png)
As you have repeatedly said, you need leverage/resistance to move.
So what is the gas using? Your arrows can't all be in one direction.
So just like always you deflect and don't bother providing an explanation at all.
So thanks for yet again showing your promises are worthless.
A bunch of arrows, ignoring key parts of your model, doesn't make an explanation.
My question remains unanswered, what is the gas using as leverage?
(https://i.postimg.cc/8khtmM2y/iTlCgNi.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Great picture
That proves your fireman nozzle is lifting off mass flow and not air denP.
Because according to your picture, the nozzle should hvae raised after hitting the window.
What do you think is keeping the hose up?
Sorry
Did anyone address this?
Theres so many different discussioms going on right now.
Either way
Then lets adress the inconsistency -
If the stack of spoges holds up the rocket/ nozzle, how could it dissipate?
If dissipated it wiuld cease to hold the stack of sponges!
Explain to me what's keeping that hose off the ground to actually go through that window.
Explain what you think is happening.
The water flows along the horizontal of the hose, right?
The hose provides the water to the nozzle, as long as the water leaving the nozzle creates a pressure greater than the weight of the hose and nozzle, it will move upwards, to the point of equalization, by which time it stabilizes and stays level. The hose under pressure, stays stiff, as you can see it being moved in and out. The narrow window ledge has little effect.
It's not dissipated before it leaves the rocket.The vast majority of it is. That is the entire point of the nozzle.
Explain to me what's keeping that hose off the ground to actually go through that window.You sure seem to love asking for others to explain, but don't want to give explanations of your own.
Explain what you think is happening.
In other words you have no knowledge of the design of the expanding bell of a rocket engine nozzle nor of hypersonic gas flow, I realised that long ago.If the rocket nozzle is correctly designed there is no "extreme low pressure we call space" inside it!A rocket nozzle would be as pointless as a chocolate fireguard in your space or extreme low pressure.
There might be almost 3000 kg/sec of gas exiting that nozzle at 2570 m/s (for the SpaceX Merlin 1D engine).
So there is no chance of a vacuum in there.
Go and learn something about the design of the correct profile of that rocket nozzle. Learning a bit about hypersonic gas flow wouldn't hurt either.
I notice you are still ignoring the very simple question which shows you are wrong.Gas, like I've already told you many times and even drew you the diagram showing you. Surely you can't be this ignorant.
Again, what is the gas using as leverage/resistance/foundation?
What is it pushing against (which must in turn be pushed)?
The entire point of a nozzle is to allow a controlled expansion to ensure the rocket creates enough compression directly beneath it by that expansion to effect vertical movement off of it, in atmosphere.It's not dissipated before it leaves the rocket.The vast majority of it is. That is the entire point of the nozzle.
It does push off the atmosphere.
But if it wasn't, that means just outside the rocket you have high pressure gas. Why can't the rocket push off that like it pushes off the atmosphere?
Understand that a water hose can push a person back a good distance.
The water, as an analogy for air, would be required to push off something in your model. The window provides far more resistance than the air, and thus should push the hose up a lot more.
But that isn't observed.
Why?
Is it because your model is entirely wrong?
Don't give me this "cannot know what's outside" nonsense.In other words you have no knowledge of the design of the expanding bell of a rocket engine nozzle nor of hypersonic gas flow, I realised that long ago.If the rocket nozzle is correctly designed there is no "extreme low pressure we call space" inside it!A rocket nozzle would be as pointless as a chocolate fireguard in your space or extreme low pressure.
There might be almost 3000 kg/sec of gas exiting that nozzle at 2570 m/s (for the SpaceX Merlin 1D engine).
So there is no chance of a vacuum in there.
Go and learn something about the design of the correct profile of that rocket nozzle. Learning a bit about hypersonic gas flow wouldn't hurt either.
But whether you like it or not the propagation velocity of disturbances is the speed of sound.
"Rockets can't fly in a vacuum" aficionado, Cikljamas, "proved" that earlier.
The velocity of the exhaust gas in a properly designed rocket nozzle is everywhere greater than Mach 1.
Hence the gas inside the nozzle cannot "know" about the vacuum outside. So there is not "vacuum" inside the nozzle
Learn about de Laval nozzles used in steam turbines - almost the same theory!
Gas, like I've already told you many times and even drew you the diagram showing you.So the gas inside the rocket can act as leverage?
The entire point of a nozzle is to allow a controlled expansion to ensure the rocket creates enough compression directly beneath itNo it isn't.
If that gas was allowed out of the nozzle against extreme low pressure, or your fictional vacuum of space then that gas would simply follow a one way street into that with no reaction to the rocket.Why?
It also pushes back by equal reaction any dense mass holding the hose.Yes, just like a rocket. Water is forced one way, the hose is forced the other.
Let's put this simply.Yes, lets put this simply.
Ha!Gas, like I've already told you many times and even drew you the diagram showing you.So the gas inside the rocket can act as leverage?
Do you understand what that means?
That means the rocket can push against it.
That means rockets work in vacuum.
The rocket does none of the pushing. The gases do all the work. The rocket simply sits atop of the gases, along for the ride.Gas, like I've already told you many times and even drew you the diagram showing you.So the gas inside the rocket can act as leverage?
Do you understand what that means?
That means the rocket can push against it.
That means rockets work in vacuum.
That is the key part you are ignoring.
You need to explain what is there that the gas can push off that the rocket can't.
The gas ejects itself once you breach the container.The entire point of a nozzle is to allow a controlled expansion to ensure the rocket creates enough compression directly beneath itNo it isn't.
It has nothing to do with compression beneath it.
The entire point of a nozzle is to expand the gas to utilise as much of the pressure of the reaction as possible.
If you eject high pressure gas, you are wasting potential energy.
Because the fantasy vacuum offers zero resistanceIf that gas was allowed out of the nozzle against extreme low pressure, or your fictional vacuum of space then that gas would simply follow a one way street into that with no reaction to the rocket.
Why does only a vacuum make it a one way street?
The rocket is moved as it sits atop the gas fight.Let's put this simply.Yes, lets put this simply.
Gas has mass.
The gas and the rocket interact.
That makes the gas go one way and the rocket go the other.
Any magic you invoke to stop the rocket moving works equally well for the gas.
Either the gas doesn't move, or the rocket does.
Or another way:Only when contained.
Pressure pushes outwards equally in all directions.
This means the rocket is pushed by the pressurised gas.Yep, from outside, not inside and it's only sitting atop that gas.
The only way to stop it is to contain the gas.Absolutely a need or you have nothing that works, let alone a rocket...but never a fantasy space rocket.
If the gas is not contained then the pressure will be unbalanced.
So yet again, the rocket works.
No need for any expansion or atmosphere nonsense.
I'm using sponges as a basic and simple analogy to save all the complicated stuff that would get lost.
Your claim it requires sponges of air expanding out and stacking up.
The weird bit is in people not grasping the basic stuff but maybe that's deliberate or simply because people refuse to stray from their comfort zone.Quote from: ThemightykaboolIn conventional science, Water rockets use air pressure to shoot water out the back end causing a mass flow, which launches the rocket.It's incorrect in how we're told it works.
The very mass flow that a nasa rocket uses to get into space and the very mass flow that works in a vacuum.
You claim this is incorrect.Quote from: ThemightykaboolSo
Under your "correct" version of science.
Compressed sponge air expands against outsidenon-compressed sponge air and these all stack up against the foundation to generate liftoff.Quote from: ThemightykaboolBut by that theory, in a water rocket, if you take out the water, and fill it with all air, it should go higher -because we can fit way more sponges.Dense mass of the water being pushed by the compressed air in the way I mentioned earlier about how it decompresses as gas molecule on gas molecule or sponge on sponge. (Remember?)
Yet it doesn't.
Why not?
Looks like you don't have an answer.
This dense mass of water is able to super compress the atmosphere or sponges directly under it and around that water and it compresses enough for the force placed on it to now decompress right back and create a foundation. A gas foundation on that stack.
The floor is simply a foundation in itself holding the entirety of the atmosphere.Quote from: ThemightykaboolIn the fireman water machine video.What do you think's holding the actual nozzle and hose up as it goes through that window?
At 1:06 the nozzle goes through a window.
Again, your theory relies on a foundation to stack the sponges against.
Why didn't the nozzle jump when passing through the window?
The window provided a raised foundation.
If you climbed a set of stairs do you go up?
Why can't this nozzle go up a set of stairs?
Lets take the recent nonsense and bring it back to this post.No, that is not my claim, at all.
The water rocket.
Your claim is the water super compresses which allows it to work.
So lets switch it up back to the med ball.The bullet is expanded against by the expanding gas created inside the shell casing which creates an action/reaction between that casing and the back of the bullet until the build up forces that bullet from the casing.
A gun-bullet.
Solid "exhaust".
Is the bullet or med ball being "super compressed"?
Quote from: ThemightykaboolLets take the recent nonsense and bring it back to this post.No, that is not my claim, at all.
The water rocket.
Your claim is the water super compresses which allows it to work.
Gas or atmosphere super compresses, depending on the force applied or contained and that containment being breached.
The water pressure is an end product of that compressed gas released as a super expanding gas pressure upon it.Quote from: ThemightykaboolSo lets switch it up back to the med ball.The bullet is expanded against by the expanding gas created inside the shell casing which creates an action/reaction between that casing and the back of the bullet until the build up forces that bullet from the casing.
A gun-bullet.
Solid "exhaust".
Is the bullet or med ball being "super compressed"?
The dense mass of the bullet, casing and propellant is acted upon once it displaces the atmosphere it is in at the time, which reacts accordingly to refill the lower pressure created from the high pressure push.
The medicine ball is simply held and launched against the atmospheric stack which is compressed and that compression is then equalised back to the person who threw the ball, creating a action/reaction push back.
Or recoil if you want to look at it that way.
It's all gas on gas.
Take away the reactionary gas and you have zero work done.
This is where the fantasy space vacuum remains just that for rockets.
You need to understand what you're saying.
So then water is not required for the water rocket to work?
Pick a stance man!
In your theory.The function of the water is it's natural density and ability to resist basic gas compression due to its dense make up.
You claim the sponges are doing x y z.
What function does the water play in your theory?
Because in your theory, the water rocket should go much higher due to a greater number of sponges being able to be crammed in the tube if the water were not included.
And we all know what the water does because we understand convention physics.No, it wasn't a stupid response. It was a fair response to your query which was stupid.
And i shouldnt be surpised you claim "it requires water because its called a water rocket".
What a stupid response that doesnt answer the question.
Quote from: JackBlackOr another way:Only when contained.
Pressure pushes outwards equally in all directions.
In your theory.The function of the water is it's natural density and ability to resist basic gas compression due to its dense make up.
You claim the sponges are doing x y z.
What function does the water play in your theory?
Because in your theory, the water rocket should go much higher due to a greater number of sponges being able to be crammed in the tube if the water were not included.
I did give you this "cannot know what's outside"Don't give me this "cannot know what's outside" nonsense.In other words you have no knowledge of the design of the expanding bell of a rocket engine nozzle nor of hypersonic gas flow, I realised that long ago.If the rocket nozzle is correctly designed there is no "extreme low pressure we call space" inside it!A rocket nozzle would be as pointless as a chocolate fireguard in your space or extreme low pressure.
There might be almost 3000 kg/sec of gas exiting that nozzle at 2570 m/s (for the SpaceX Merlin 1D engine).
So there is no chance of a vacuum in there.
Go and learn something about the design of the correct profile of that rocket nozzle. Learning a bit about hypersonic gas flow wouldn't hurt either.
But whether you like it or not the propagation velocity of disturbances is the speed of sound.
"Rockets can't fly in a vacuum" aficionado, Cikljamas, "proved" that earlier.
The velocity of the exhaust gas in a properly designed rocket nozzle is everywhere greater than Mach 1.
Hence the gas inside the nozzle cannot "know" about the vacuum outside. So there is not "vacuum" inside the nozzle
Learn about de Laval nozzles used in steam turbines - almost the same theory!
The rocket does none of the pushing. The gases do all the work.So the gases just push the rocket, pushing the rocket away while the gas just sits there?
It also means you have to have two gases interacting with each other.So, because there aren't 2 gases interacting with each other in the vacuum, the gas stays put?
The gas ejects itself once you breach the container.Again, HOW?
Because the fantasy vacuum offers zero resistanceThe gas still has mass which still provides resistance.
The rocket is moved as it sits atop the gas fight.No, the rocket is moved as it is pushed away by the gas.
Only when contained.No. Even when not contained, pressure is still exerted in all directions.
Absolutely a need or you have nothing that works, let alone a rocket...but never a fantasy space rocket.Nope, my explanation works without any atmosphere or expansion nonsense.
The function of the water is it's natural density and ability to resist basic gas compression due to its dense make up.And how does that help?
No I'm not saying anything of the sort.Quote from: JackBlackOr another way:Only when contained.
Pressure pushes outwards equally in all directions.
Why only when contained? Are you saying the when the container is breached, the gas is being sucked out and not pushed out?
Start making sense.In your theory.The function of the water is it's natural density and ability to resist basic gas compression due to its dense make up.
You claim the sponges are doing x y z.
What function does the water play in your theory?
Because in your theory, the water rocket should go much higher due to a greater number of sponges being able to be crammed in the tube if the water were not included.
No it definitely was a stupid response.
To paraphrase - What does the water do? - "its part of the name, duh"
Ok
Your new response is - Water resists compression.
And ill follow that up -
So does the plastic tube container.
What now?
Correct I can't learn by using this.I did give you this "cannot know what's outside"Don't give me this "cannot know what's outside" nonsense.In other words you have no knowledge of the design of the expanding bell of a rocket engine nozzle nor of hypersonic gas flow, I realised that long ago.If the rocket nozzle is correctly designed there is no "extreme low pressure we call space" inside it!A rocket nozzle would be as pointless as a chocolate fireguard in your space or extreme low pressure.
There might be almost 3000 kg/sec of gas exiting that nozzle at 2570 m/s (for the SpaceX Merlin 1D engine).
So there is no chance of a vacuum in there.
Go and learn something about the design of the correct profile of that rocket nozzle. Learning a bit about hypersonic gas flow wouldn't hurt either.
But whether you like it or not the propagation velocity of disturbances is the speed of sound.
"Rockets can't fly in a vacuum" aficionado, Cikljamas, "proved" that earlier.
The velocity of the exhaust gas in a properly designed rocket nozzle is everywhere greater than Mach 1.
Hence the gas inside the nozzle cannot "know" about the vacuum outside. So there is not "vacuum" inside the nozzle
Learn about de Laval nozzles used in steam turbines - almost the same theory!nonsensefact.
Here go back to school and learn a little about supersonic aerodynamics:
Introduction to Compressible Flow, ME 322 Lecture Slides, Winter 2007 (http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~gerry/class/ME322/notes/pdf/ME322_CompressibleFlowIntro_slides.pdf) and Engineering: De laval nozzle, Mechanical engineering, Spacecraft propulsion, Turbines (https://engineering.fandom.com/wiki/De_laval_nozzle)
You can't learn about compressible flow (gas flow near and above the speed of sound) by dreaming about it!
So it is all blow, not suck? That is the basis of it?No I'm not saying anything of the sort.Quote from: JackBlackOr another way:Only when contained.
Pressure pushes outwards equally in all directions.
Why only when contained? Are you saying the when the container is breached, the gas is being sucked out and not pushed out?
There's no suck in anything. It's all push. It has to be all push.
Suck is just a word we use to describe what happens with pressure change, such as so called vacuum...but it's all push and that's due to compression and expansion of gases that are all attached with zero free space and which moves by expansion by being crushed forward from any expansion point, by more compressed gas molecules.
However, if you contain them then you have almost equalisation of molecules, until the breach of the container and only then does the compressed molecules at the front of that breach expand into the external gas/fluid molecules, in terms of atmosphere or even water, which creates a resistance to that decompression.
The first molecules out simply expand on their own but seeing as they expand into that resistance they are naturally expanded into from behind by those gas molecules that follow....and so on and so on which creates a gas on gas fight.
Anything materialistic that contains them will be pushed away on that gas fight.
Start making sense.In your theory.The function of the water is it's natural density and ability to resist basic gas compression due to its dense make up.
You claim the sponges are doing x y z.
What function does the water play in your theory?
Because in your theory, the water rocket should go much higher due to a greater number of sponges being able to be crammed in the tube if the water were not included.
No it definitely was a stupid response.
To paraphrase - What does the water do? - "its part of the name, duh"
Ok
Your new response is - Water resists compression.
And ill follow that up -
So does the plastic tube container.
What now?
No I'm not saying anything of the sort.Quote from: JackBlackOr another way:Only when contained.
Pressure pushes outwards equally in all directions.
Why only when contained? Are you saying the when the container is breached, the gas is being sucked out and not pushed out?
There's no suck in anything. It's all push. It has to be all push.
Suck is just a word we use to describe what happens with pressure change, such as so called vacuum...but it's all push and that's due to compression and expansion of gases that are all attached with zero free space and which moves by expansion by being crushed forward from any expansion point, by more compressed gas molecules.
However, if you contain them then you have almost equalisation of molecules, until the breach of the container and only then does the compressed molecules at the front of that breach expand into the external gas/fluid molecules, in terms of atmosphere or even water, which creates a resistance to that decompression.
The first molecules out simply expand on their own but seeing as they expand into that resistance they are naturally expanded into from behind by those gas molecules that follow....and so on and so on which creates a gas on gas fight.
Anything materialistic that contains them will be pushed away on that gas fight.
And that's exactly why you will never understand why rockets work better in a vacuum than in the atmosphere.
A rocket is basically a firework in the burn stakes. Engines are an idiocy in the way we're told they work for so called space rockets.
Nope.The rocket does none of the pushing. The gases do all the work.So the gases just push the rocket, pushing the rocket away while the gas just sits there?
Got it.
Nope.It also means you have to have two gases interacting with each other.So, because there aren't 2 gases interacting with each other in the vacuum, the gas stays put?
You diagram shows nothing of use.It's clear to see the massively unbalanced forces.
You have massively unbalanced forces and do not show the leverage/resistance at all.
Your diagram directly contradicts your claims of how your model works.No. It actually does a good job in showing the gas fight.
But that isn't surprising, as following your model would lead to one of 2 results:Neither happens...except, some gas would be left inside the casing.
The rocket works in a vacuum or the gas remains inside the tube even though it is exposed to the vacuum.
And we all know you can't accept either of them.
Itself.The gas ejects itself once you breach the container.Again, HOW?
What is it pushing against to eject itself?
Either it is the rocket, and thus it is pushing the rocket, or it is something the rocket can also push against.The rocket sits on the gas and the gas pushes the rocket up by the gas build under it.
Only to itself against following gas molecules that are expanding because of the breach.Because the fantasy vacuum offers zero resistanceThe gas still has mass which still provides resistance.
Again, if there was no resistance, then according nothing can move. That means the gas needs to remain inside the rocket.Only the very last of it that cannot expand any further out of it into extreme low pressure or your fictional space vacuum.
Yes, you could look at it this way. It is moved to your vision. You can see it move to your vision.The rocket is moved as it sits atop the gas fight.No, the rocket is moved as it is pushed away by the gas.
The atmosphere can be ignored. All it does is complicate matters.No, no, no, it does not complicate matters. It's an absolute major part of the argument. To leave it out would be to hand your the fictional vacuum argument of a rocket supposedly working in space.
Not equally it's not.Only when contained.No. Even when not contained, pressure is still exerted in all directions.
Again, if this was not the case, bombs wouldn't work. That is because as soon as it cracks, the gas is not contained and thus according to you would only push in the direction of the crack.Bombs work because of internal expansion inside a vessel being allowed to breach casing/shell without having any suitable opening to allow that expansion, which causes the stress fracturing of that casing and the explosion of that gas against that casing which creates shrapnel and also a mass contraction of atmosphere by that super expansion of gases.
It would also mean that rockets don't even work in the atmosphere.
But if you want an even simpler experiment, look at a balloon.A balloon filled with air is now a compressed air container, if the end is tied.
Fill it up.
What is holding the balloon stretched out?
The pressure of the air pushing the skin of the balloon away.
According to you, as soon as you release the balloon such that the air can leak out the opening, then the pressure no longer pushes in every direction, instead it just pushes out the opening. That means the balloon would instantly shrink.
But it doesn't.
Instead it is held open by the pressure still pushing against the skin of the balloon.
So no, pressure is still exerted in all directions.
Absolutely a need or you have nothing that works, let alone a rocket...but never a fantasy space rocket.Nope, my explanation works without any atmosphere or expansion nonsense.
You were unable to show a single problem with it.I've shown massive problems with it but you don;t accept them. I'm hardly surprised at that.
Instead you just do you typical rejection of reality appealing to nonsense which is easily disproven.Clearly it is not easily dis-proven or you wouldn't be arguing the points. You would simply sit back and
The only way water will be released from the rocket is if there's a compression behind that water. Compressed air provides that compression which will only turn to expansion if the bottle is breached.The function of the water is it's natural density and ability to resist basic gas compression due to its dense make up.And how does that help?
You said you wanted the atmosphere to do that, not the stuff inside the rocket.
Remember, if what is inside the rocket can do it, then there is no problem with rockets in a vacuum.
Now again, in my rocket example, what is the gas pushing against which isn't the rocket and which the rocket can't push against?The gas expands all on its own due to being allowed to by a breach in the containment of it, against lesser compressed resistance, which is, in turn compressed by this to create it's own equal resistance and this is what the rocket sits atop of.
You have been avoiding this very simple question for so long. Why not just admit you were wrong?
It's all push.So it is all blow, not suck? That is the basis of it?No I'm not saying anything of the sort.Quote from: JackBlackOr another way:Only when contained.
Pressure pushes outwards equally in all directions.
Why only when contained? Are you saying the when the container is breached, the gas is being sucked out and not pushed out?
There's no suck in anything. It's all push. It has to be all push.
Suck is just a word we use to describe what happens with pressure change, such as so called vacuum...but it's all push and that's due to compression and expansion of gases that are all attached with zero free space and which moves by expansion by being crushed forward from any expansion point, by more compressed gas molecules.
However, if you contain them then you have almost equalisation of molecules, until the breach of the container and only then does the compressed molecules at the front of that breach expand into the external gas/fluid molecules, in terms of atmosphere or even water, which creates a resistance to that decompression.
The first molecules out simply expand on their own but seeing as they expand into that resistance they are naturally expanded into from behind by those gas molecules that follow....and so on and so on which creates a gas on gas fight.
Anything materialistic that contains them will be pushed away on that gas fight.
The terminology is fascinating.
Water is needed for a water rocket because the words "water rocket" requires that water be used.
your claim is that water is needed because it "resists compression" which answers nothing.
the end of the plastic tube also resists compression.
the ground resists compression.
why is water needed for the water rocket when your claim that liftoff is provided by the expansion of sponges?
Water is needed for a water rocket because the words "water rocket" requires that water be used.
your claim is that water is needed because it "resists compression" which answers nothing.
the end of the plastic tube also resists compression.
the ground resists compression.
why is water needed for the water rocket when your claim that liftoff is provided by the expansion of sponges?
If it was an air rocket, air would be used.
If it was a firework then a fire would have to be used.
And so on.
Unless you want to get to the point.
There's always a push, right? And in the closed container, the pressurized or combusted gas is pushing in all directions within the closed container, right?Right.
The container is breached in some manner, let's say at one end where a nozzle is, and logic would dictate that the pressurized or combusted gas that was just a second ago pushing on all sides of the inside of the container, keeps pushing, expanding, but now it has somewhere to go, out the breach/nozzle.Correct.
When the pressurized or combusted gas is pushing in all directions within the closed container, why does it stop doing so when the container is breached? What's causing that existing pressure to completely evaporate? Why does it no longer push? Where did it go?It expands away from the containment and straight into awaiting resistance. In this case it would be atmospheric pressure for resistance to that.
Potential energy and dense mass.
Wow...
Just wow.
What does the water add to the rocket that makes it go?
Which I've already explained.
Expansion begins only AFTER one end is open.
Nope. I've already explained all directions when contained and one direction when breached container allows expansion.Which I've already explained.
Expansion begins only AFTER one end is open.
You just tried to avoid the fact that the said expansion goes in all direction, including the push on the sealed end.
No I'm not saying anything of the sort.If that was the case it would continue pushing in all directions.
Start making sense.Good advice, you should follow it.
I don't believe in space craft for the reasons I gave.You don't believe in them because they show your model is wrong.
I'm telling you from my side why it does what it doesAnd then you directly contradict it.
usage of super large engines which are an idiotic way to move any rocket with the way they're set upHow do you plan to move it without an engine? A crane? Just put a bunch of explosives below it and destroy it?
unless you can absolutely back it up to a point where I cannot dispute it.You have failed to provide a rational argument against it and instead just appealed to your self contradictory nonsense.
It's clear to see the massively unbalanced forces.Yes, which shows your diagram is complete garbage and in no way explains how it works.
Itself.So you are saying objects can push themselves to move?
The rocket sits on the gas and the gas pushes the rocket upAnd thanks, you finally admit that rockets work in a vacuum.
However, it's how and why it moves which is the crux of the matter, of which I've explained.You have explained nothing.
Instead you have repeatedly contradicted yourself.it does not complicate matters.It does, quite a bit, especially for fools that have no idea what they are talking about which then go and spout all sorts of nonsense.
There are 2 quite simple ways to explain how rockets work, which do not need the atmosphere at all, and unlike your nonsense, it is actually capable of explaining how rockets work, and the same principles explain so much.To leave it out would be to hand your the fictional vacuum argument of a rocket supposedly working in space.You mean to accept the REALITY of rockets working in a vacuum.Not equally it's not.Do you understand the definition of pressure?
If it isn't equal, the pressure isn't equal.
But at least you are making progress and admitting that it does still act in all directions.
That means the air inside the rocket is still pushing the rocket.Bombs workNo BS, just deal with what was said.
You claim that an opening magically means pressure doesn't get exerted in all directions and instead is just exerted in the direction of the opening.
If that was the case then the gas would just go out the opening as soon as there was a crack.
The only explanation for how the bomb works is that the gas is still exerting pressure on the shrapnel even after the explosion.
So yet again, you are massively contradicting reality and yourself.A balloon filled with air is now a compressed air container, if the end is tied.And I'm clearly not talking about when the end is tied.
I am talking about when it is open.
Again, according to you that magically means your sentient gas stops pushign on the balloon and instead just forces its way out the opening.
That means there is nothing to hold the balloon open and it will shrink almost instantly, regardless of how quickly the air is let out.I've shown massive problems with itReally? I'm yet to see any.
I have seen you repeatedly dismiss it, but you are yet to show any problem.
You dismissing it and asserting your own nonsense is not showing a problemClearly it is not easily dis-proven or you wouldn't be arguing the points.It is often the other way around, where things which are had to disprove (like real physics) is just dismissed (like you are doing), while things which are easily disproven (like your nonsense) are torn to shreds (as plenty of people here are doing).
The simple fact that you need to run from so much and simply dismiss so much shows just how easy it is to refute your nonsense.The only way water will be released from the rocket is if there's a compression behind that water.Again, who cares.
Why not remove the water and just have air?
Real physics has an explanation, but you don't.The gas expands all on its ownAgain, HOW?
This expansion requires movement.
According to you, movement requires leverage against resistance, and an object can't push itself (even though you have contradicted that).
This means the gas needs to be pushing against something other than itself.
SO WHAT IS IT?
See, this is why you have no explanation, because you repeatedly contradict yourself.
If you want to have an explanation you need to tell us what the gas is pushing against, which wont also work for the rocket and which isn't the rocket.
You are yet to identify this elusive thing (because it doesn't exist).
Does mass need leverage to push off in order to accelerate?Itself. It's expanding back from the compression it was placed under.
If so, what is your gas pushing against in a vacuum?
It's been explained.
The simple fact that you need to run from so much and simply dismiss so much shows just how easy it is to refute your nonsense.
If you want to have an explanation you need to tell us what the gas is pushing against, which wont also work for the rocket and which isn't the rocket.
You are yet to identify this elusive thing (because it doesn't exist).
AgainNope. The potential energy is held by the water actually being placed into the container by applied energy.
The container tube also has dense mass.
And incorrect the potential energy is held in the pressureized compressed air.
So what does the water do for the water rocket aside from being called a water rocket?The water is much more dense against below atmospheric stack.
By your theory, you can fit more air sponges into it and cause greater liftoff.
Yet that doesnt happen.
Why
Yes, you already said that, and I responded, and you have completely ignored that response.Does mass need leverage to push off in order to accelerate?Itself
If so, what is your gas pushing against in a vacuum?
Nope. The potential energy is held by the water actually being placed into the container by applied energy.Nope.
The water is much more dense against below atmospheric stack.Which only helps if you accept that it is the reaction from the water being thrown out that causes it to move, meaning rockets work in a vacuum.
AgainNope. The potential energy is held by the water actually being placed into the container by applied energy.
The container tube also has dense mass.
And incorrect the potential energy is held in the pressureized compressed air.
If you half fill it then you have normal atmospheric pressure trapped inside. That's not potential energy, because it's already there.
Unless you actually compress that air to become more compressed than the external pressure, then you can add it in as potential energy along with the water.Quote from: ThemightykaboolSo what does the water do for the water rocket aside from being called a water rocket?The water is much more dense against below atmospheric stack.
By your theory, you can fit more air sponges into it and cause greater liftoff.
Yet that doesnt happen.
Why
So if I have an air tank that has a valve on each end and I place a pressure gauge on the one end and open the valve on the other side, the pressure should read 0 at the closed end?Nope. I've already explained all directions when contained and one direction when breached container allows expansion.Which I've already explained.
Expansion begins only AFTER one end is open.
You just tried to avoid the fact that the said expansion goes in all direction, including the push on the sealed end.
There's always a push, right? And in the closed container, the pressurized or combusted gas is pushing in all directions within the closed container, right?Right.Quote from: StashThe container is breached in some manner, let's say at one end where a nozzle is, and logic would dictate that the pressurized or combusted gas that was just a second ago pushing on all sides of the inside of the container, keeps pushing, expanding, but now it has somewhere to go, out the breach/nozzle.Correct.Quote from: StashWhen the pressurized or combusted gas is pushing in all directions within the closed container, why does it stop doing so when the container is breached? What's causing that existing pressure to completely evaporate? Why does it no longer push? Where did it go?It expands away from the containment and straight into awaiting resistance. In this case it would be atmospheric pressure for resistance to that.
I believe it is because it knows there is an opening on one end. So no need to sweat trying to get out from every side, just head for the exit.
I believe it is because it knows there is an opening on one end. So no need to sweat trying to get out from every side, just head for the exit.
ARE YOU SAYING OBJECTS CAN PUSH AGAINST THEMSELVES TO MOVE?I'm saying they expand. As each one expands the one behind can expand and the one behind that and so on and so on all the way to the back.
Oh wow look at that.Both of you.
JackB and i both independently understood what you incorrectly said and provided very similar corrections.
Who s wrong?
Oh wow look at that.Both of you.
JackB and i both independently understood what you incorrectly said and provided very similar corrections.
Who s wrong?
If you have a gauge at one end and a valve at the other, the gauge would read a pressure because the gauge is under the same pressure as the opposite valve, only you can read the gauge but youc an't ready the valve side.
So if I have an air tank that has a valve on each end and I place a pressure gauge on the one end and open the valve on the other side, the pressure should read 0 at the closed end?
If the expansion is only in one direction when the tank is open, the other side shouldn't have any pressure as the force is moving in one direction, the direction of the open valve.Yep and that's what you see on the gauge. You see the pressure drop because everything is flowing away from the gauge.
If it's expanding away from containment then it's pushing off of all sides of the inside of the container as it was doing just before the container was breached. If not, why does it all of a sudden stop pushing against all sides of the inside of the container when breached? Why does it no longer push?Think carefully about what I'm going to say.
If you have a gauge at one end and a valve at the other, the gauge would read a pressure because the gauge is under the same pressure as the opposite valve, only you can read the gauge but youc an't ready the valve side.
So if I have an air tank that has a valve on each end and I place a pressure gauge on the one end and open the valve on the other side, the pressure should read 0 at the closed end?
However, if you open the valve you will clearly see the pressure gauge start to read a lower pressure consistently as long as that valve remains open at the opposite end.
This proves the molecules are headed in one direction, which is to the breached valve..
See what I mean?Quote from: NotSoSkepticalIf the expansion is only in one direction when the tank is open, the other side shouldn't have any pressure as the force is moving in one direction, the direction of the open valve.Yep and that's what you see on the gauge. You see the pressure drop because everything is flowing away from the gauge.
Too much dissipation of pressure by the pressure not being dense enough to cut through the atmospheric resistance in the stack directly below the expansion of rocket gas.Oh wow look at that.Both of you.
JackB and i both independently understood what you incorrectly said and provided very similar corrections.
Who s wrong?
Aah
Then if we re wrong means you have an answer better than "it is because it is".
Why doesnt the rocket go higher if we put more sponges into it?
No it shouldn't instantly be zero.
If you see the pressure dropping, it's still pressing against the gauge side as it's dropping. According to you, when the valve is opened the gauge side should instantly be zero, not dropping.
No it shouldn't instantly be zero.
If you see the pressure dropping, it's still pressing against the gauge side as it's dropping. According to you, when the valve is opened the gauge side should instantly be zero, not dropping.
You need to pay attention.
Take a look at the diagram and see the arrows expanding in stages from front to back.
No, you literally said that it is pushing against itself.Quote from: JackBlackARE YOU SAYING OBJECTS CAN PUSH AGAINST THEMSELVES TO MOVE?I'm saying they expand.
Then why are you completley unable to explain any problem with what we have said?Oh wow look at that.Both of you.
JackB and i both independently understood what you incorrectly said and provided very similar corrections.
Who s wrong?
If you have a gauge at one end and a valve at the other, the gauge would read a pressure because the gauge is under the same pressure as the opposite valve, only you can read the gauge but youc an't ready the valve side.So you admit that the gas doesn't just magically push at the way out. Instead it also pushes on the gauge?
However, if you open the valve you will clearly see the pressure gauge start to read a lower pressure consistently as long as that valve remains open at the opposite end.No, it doesn't.
This proves the molecules are headed in one direction, which is to the breached valve..
See what I mean?
Yep and that's what you see on the gauge.No, it's not what you see and you have already admitted that.
If you have a plastic bottle under pressure and you try to squeeze the sides of it, you find it's pretty solid, right?No, it is because it is no longer under pressure, and it equalises against any pressure change.
This means your molecules are pushing against the sides, like you mention. And also the back and also the top.
Now open the top and tell me how easy it is to squeeze.
It's because the flow is now expanding to the breach (bottle top).
It's not exerting any push, only a friction slide down the inside of the bottle.
Too much dissipation of pressure by the pressure not being dense enough to cut through the atmospheric resistanceThat "resistance" is what you have repeatedly appealed to to try and explain how rockets work.
No it shouldn't instantly be zero.No, you need to pay attention and start trying to be consistent.
You need to pay attention.
It's not pushing off all sides.
I did pay attention to your diagram. And your diagram still doesn't address the fact that the pressure inside the container is still pushing off all sides even when the valve is opened. So it's pushing. Even from the gauge side.
Pay attention to what's being said. You're mixing it up.
When you open the gauge you see the pressure continue to drop as air leaves the tank.
If you close the valve the pressure doesn't magically jump.
The time that typically happens is if you have a pressure gauge at the valve end.
It's not pushing off all sides.
I did pay attention to your diagram. And your diagram still doesn't address the fact that the pressure inside the container is still pushing off all sides even when the valve is opened. So it's pushing. Even from the gauge side.
Once there is a breach the pushing is all expansion to the breach, in turn.
Think of it like a funnel.
To do that you'll have to start looking at how a spring works.It's not pushing off all sides.
I did pay attention to your diagram. And your diagram still doesn't address the fact that the pressure inside the container is still pushing off all sides even when the valve is opened. So it's pushing. Even from the gauge side.
Once there is a breach the pushing is all expansion to the breach, in turn.
Think of it like a funnel.
Then the gauge at the top would immediately show zero pressure. It wouldn't drop. If it immediately when to zero, a balloon would immediately completely collapse when the end is opened. Please explain how there can still be pressure yet it has decided not to be pushing in all directions?
Too much dissipation of pressure by the pressure not being dense enough to cut through the atmospheric resistance in the stack directly below the expansion of rocket gas.Oh wow look at that.Both of you.
JackB and i both independently understood what you incorrectly said and provided very similar corrections.
Who s wrong?
Aah
Then if we re wrong means you have an answer better than "it is because it is".
Why doesnt the rocket go higher if we put more sponges into it?
To do that you'll have to start looking at how a spring works.It's not pushing off all sides.
I did pay attention to your diagram. And your diagram still doesn't address the fact that the pressure inside the container is still pushing off all sides even when the valve is opened. So it's pushing. Even from the gauge side.
Once there is a breach the pushing is all expansion to the breach, in turn.
Think of it like a funnel.
Then the gauge at the top would immediately show zero pressure. It wouldn't drop. If it immediately when to zero, a balloon would immediately completely collapse when the end is opened. Please explain how there can still be pressure yet it has decided not to be pushing in all directions?
Take a look at this spring being allowed to expand out of the front and also take a look at the untethered back end of the spring.
It is not compressing against the back of the magazine. It follows an expansion out of the magazine.
This is what gas does on expansion.
Think about it carefully.
Try not to concentrate on whether you think I'm trying to sound smart and concentrate on what my theory says.
Seriously.
Stringing along a bunch of sciency words doesnt make you sound smart.
And we know you like to change meanings.
You'll have to say it again in laymans terms.
What you can't explain is why with a gas it is still applying pressure on all sides when the container is breached at one end. And if it's applying pressure on all sides it is pushing. Hence the balloon does not immediately collapse when an end is opened.The spring does cover it, only this time it's about the gas or atmospheric air pressure.
Your spring does not cover this scenario. So what does? Think about it carefully.
If you opened both ends on a gas container, the gas would expand both ways from each breach.
The spring doesn't explain it. It is still applying pressure to the closed end. If you opened both ends at the same time, the spring would shoot out both ends.
What you can't explain is why with a gas it is still applying pressure on all sides when the container is breached at one end. And if it's applying pressure on all sides it is pushing. Hence the balloon does not immediately collapse when an end is opened.The spring does cover it, only this time it's about the gas or atmospheric air pressure.
Your spring does not cover this scenario. So what does? Think about it carefully.
As we are too thick to get it, you should, again, present your theory to people who know better. I would be happy to follow that thread in whatever ”sciency” forum you choose as your platform.It's not about being too thick to get it.
It's not pushing off all sides.Repeatedly asserting the same falsehoods wont help you.
Pay attention to what's being said. You're mixing it up.I am paying attention and I'm not mixing anything up.
I've wiped the rest of your stuff because it's clear to see what your game is.Yes, it is clear to see that my game is to show the truth and expose the problems with your model. But you can't have that. You don't want to admit your model is wrong, so you will just ignore everything that does.
From this point on deal with one thing at a time.Already tried that with you. You started ignoring me. So no, I will continue to expose everything wrong with your claims.
To do that you'll have to start looking at how a spring works.Yes, where we notice that if you do not keep a force applied to the spring, it will move back to its "natural" length.
concentrate on what my theory says.You have no theory to concentrate on. You have a bunch of contradictory claims, plenty of which contradict reality.
It's most likely that people find it hard to deviate from their general thoughts on how they've been toldNo, it's most likely that people find it hard to deviate from reality and move towards self-contrdictory nonsense.
Basically what I'm saying is, too many people look for the intricate routes when the simplicity of the shortcut is staring you in the face.Yes, you do like looking for the intricate routes when the simplicity of reality is staring you in the face.
You not understanding this means we need to concentrate on this instead of you getting way beyond yourself.
No it's not showing what you are saying is correct because you're not addressing the issue with it. The issue is the gas it is still applying pressure on all sides when the container is breached at one end. You have admitted to this by the gauge at the top end dropping, not immediately going to zero.
So why are you arguing with me?
No need for any complicated garbage.
Rockets work in space.
Nope. I've already explained all directions when contained and one direction when breached container allows expansion.Which I've already explained.
Expansion begins only AFTER one end is open.
You just tried to avoid the fact that the said expansion goes in all direction, including the push on the sealed end.
You not understanding this means we need to concentrate on this instead of you getting way beyond yourself.
No it's not showing what you are saying is correct because you're not addressing the issue with it. The issue is the gas it is still applying pressure on all sides when the container is breached at one end. You have admitted to this by the gauge at the top end dropping, not immediately going to zero.
You argue there's a push at each end when there's is a breach at one end.
You placed the gauge scenario at the closed end to try and back up your theory.
I shot it down by telling you the gauge pressure lowers.
Now you've changed up to a balloon and are arguing that against this container.
They're two entirely different things.
So let's deal with one thing at a time.
Let's deal with the gauge and container and why the gauge pointer shows a lesser pressure as the opposite end valve is opened.
I explained what happens, now tell me why you think I'm wrong.
You not understandingPeople realising you are wrong doesn't mean they don't understand.
I shot it down by telling you the gauge pressure lowers.No, you shot nothing down. You just avoided it.
Now you've changed up to a balloon and are arguing that against this container.While they are not the same, they show the same problem.
They're two entirely different things.
I explained what happens, now tell me why you think I'm wrong.We have told you why you are wrong, repeatedly. You just repeatedly ignore it.
So why are you arguing with me?Because unlike you I care about the truth and will object when I see people spouting nonsense.
Do you actually know what you're saying?
You are trying to hide the fact that the expansion continues in all direction all the time.
Fair enough, I explained what I was asking for, but I probably muddied it with the balloon. So back to the container with the valve on one end, the gauge on the other.I'm happy with this explanation so we can put this one to bed.
The gauge at the top registers the internal pressure, the valve at the bottom is closed. Pressure inside is pushing in all directions within the container.
The valve is opened. The pressure gauge on top starts to drop as gas is exiting the valve. If the gauge is still registering a drop and doesn't instantaneously go right to zero:And nor should it.
Pressure is still pushing off the top of the container where the gauge is which means the pressure is pushing against the container.Not when it's breached.
If it's pushing against the container, the container can move. If the container can move, it can move side to side, up, down, depending upon which way it's oriented. If the container can move by being pushed from the pressure on the inside it doesn't need to push off the atmosphere to move.It's not pushed from the pressure on the inside.
You need to explain how there can be pressure pressing on all sides of the inside of the container and NOT getting a push as a result. What negates the push? Where does that pressure go?The pressure is a chain reaction against a resistance of external pressure.
I know they don't understand (including you) by the questions being asked.You not understandingPeople realising you are wrong doesn't mean they don't understand.
I know they don't understand (including you) by the questions being asked.You not understandingPeople realising you are wrong doesn't mean they don't understand.
Try not to concentrate on whether you think I'm trying to sound smart and concentrate on what my theory says.
Seriously.
Stringing along a bunch of sciency words doesnt make you sound smart.
And we know you like to change meanings.
You'll have to say it again in laymans terms.
You obviously are under no obligation to accept it in any way shape or form but you'll do yourself no favours by simply putting up your own barriers once you've asked a question or made a query.
Don't bother arguing this bit, I'm merely saying.
There are no contradictions.I know they don't understand (including you) by the questions being asked.You not understandingPeople realising you are wrong doesn't mean they don't understand.
Either because its wrong, you purpisefully misuse common definitions for words and dont priperly redefine what youre saying, or you overly complicate it with bad analogies thst contradict themselves and reality.
Or possibly all the above.
If it were so simple you could draw a picture, all industrialized world would be using your system, easily describe and communicate.
Correct.Try not to concentrate on whether you think I'm trying to sound smart and concentrate on what my theory says.
Seriously.
Stringing along a bunch of sciency words doesnt make you sound smart.
And we know you like to change meanings.
You'll have to say it again in laymans terms.
You obviously are under no obligation to accept it in any way shape or form but you'll do yourself no favours by simply putting up your own barriers once you've asked a question or made a query.
Don't bother arguing this bit, I'm merely saying.
Funny thing to cut out your gobbly gook.
Lets put it back in:
Scepti quote
"Too much dissipation of pressure by the pressure not being dense enough to cut through the atmospheric resistance in the stack directly below the expansion of rocket gas."
Breakdown:
Rocket gas in this case of a water rocket is just regular air, squeszed and crushed so more sponges are in the container.
Disspation means expansion of sponges?In terms of the sponges it means equalisation. Basically becoming irrelevant to work done.
Pressure is compression level of the sponges.Correct.
Density (denP) means the sponges have displaced a certain amount of air giving it "weight".Correct.
What does the exiting sponge air denP weight have to do with the denP wieght of air below it in the external sponge stack?Nothing.
Why does it have to "cut through" when your spring on spring or two guys standing on each other in a rocket analogies describe liftoff as sponges on sponges expanding up.To give you a simple analogy (and take it as that and do not use it as an argument) we'll imagine a bus that is sealed off and inside it are people all crammed in to such an extent they have to fight to stop themselves being crushed.
To give you a simple analogy (and take it as that and do not use it as an argument) we'll imagine a bus that is sealed off and inside it are people all crammed in to such an extent they have to fight to stop themselves being crushed.
Imagine if they could survive being crushed smaller.
Ok so now you can imagine that...if the bus was sealed at each end, the crush would be even from back to front. Even pressure hitting both sealed off exits and also everyone squashed against the side walls and ceiling of that bus, plus floor.
Ok we both know this as being a sealed container of pressure, right, so let's see what happens.
Outside of that bus are a crowd of people who are body to body and slightly compressing into each other all around That bus and also stood on top of each other and also on top of the bus with people stood on top of them...and so on.
Under the bus there would be a few laid under it but not being squashed more than the rest because the bus wheels hold back the dense mass on it by using a solid ground.
Ok, so what we know is, the people inside the bus are itching to decompress. They're trying to break open the bus at its weakest point (assume windowless...let's not add in issues).
Suddenly the back door is breached and the compressed people in that bus start to decompress against the looser compression of the external crowd and manage to push some out of the way which compresses them into the people behind them.
However, inside the bus, the people behind the first out can also decompress as they push and are pushed into the first.
The one behind does the same.
By this time it will be noted that the bus is moving in the opposite direction and all the work done at the first decompression is filled by the falling people from above who fill the void that the first decompressed person created by compressing the crowd back...which as you know were less compressed at first.
Now this keeps happening because there's so many people crammed into the bus and it becomes each person expanding out and expanded into the back of.
As a little time goes on, the expansion inside the bus will become less and less as more people are pushed out.
Now here's the key.
The people at the other end of the bus have had to wait their turn to fully expand because all the way down that bus became a slight expansion of each person from large (front) to extremely small (back).
Everybody expands at the front and is followed by those behind in a natural decompression.
By the time most are out, there's still some people still left inside the bus, all of who are simply equalised to the people outside of it.
There becomes no more movement. of the bus.
Read this carefully, seriously.
Absorb what's been said because you're getting closer to understanding, whether you end up agreeing or not.
There's always generally one.QuoteTo give you a simple analogy (and take it as that and do not use it as an argument) we'll imagine a bus that is sealed off and inside it are people all crammed in to such an extent they have to fight to stop themselves being crushed.
Imagine if they could survive being crushed smaller.
Ok so now you can imagine that...if the bus was sealed at each end, the crush would be even from back to front. Even pressure hitting both sealed off exits and also everyone squashed against the side walls and ceiling of that bus, plus floor.
Ok we both know this as being a sealed container of pressure, right, so let's see what happens.
Outside of that bus are a crowd of people who are body to body and slightly compressing into each other all around That bus and also stood on top of each other and also on top of the bus with people stood on top of them...and so on.
Under the bus there would be a few laid under it but not being squashed more than the rest because the bus wheels hold back the dense mass on it by using a solid ground.
Ok, so what we know is, the people inside the bus are itching to decompress. They're trying to break open the bus at its weakest point (assume windowless...let's not add in issues).
Suddenly the back door is breached and the compressed people in that bus start to decompress against the looser compression of the external crowd and manage to push some out of the way which compresses them into the people behind them.
However, inside the bus, the people behind the first out can also decompress as they push and are pushed into the first.
The one behind does the same.
By this time it will be noted that the bus is moving in the opposite direction and all the work done at the first decompression is filled by the falling people from above who fill the void that the first decompressed person created by compressing the crowd back...which as you know were less compressed at first.
Now this keeps happening because there's so many people crammed into the bus and it becomes each person expanding out and expanded into the back of.
As a little time goes on, the expansion inside the bus will become less and less as more people are pushed out.
Now here's the key.
The people at the other end of the bus have had to wait their turn to fully expand because all the way down that bus became a slight expansion of each person from large (front) to extremely small (back).
Everybody expands at the front and is followed by those behind in a natural decompression.
By the time most are out, there's still some people still left inside the bus, all of who are simply equalised to the people outside of it.
There becomes no more movement. of the bus.
Read this carefully, seriously.
Absorb what's been said because you're getting closer to understanding, whether you end up agreeing or not.
What dribble!
Suqashy people are on a totally different scale to air (and gas, or combustion) particles...
Duh!...
Right...so when does water come into play for the water rocket?When it's pushed out of the rocket opening under massive pressure against the atmospheric stack directly under it.
Right...so when does water come into play for the water rocket?When it's pushed out of the rocket opening under massive pressure against the atmospheric stack directly under it.
In reality, yes, as the pressure is still pushing on the gauge, because it doesn't just magically go straight out towards the opening and stopping every other direction.Quote from: StashThe valve is opened. The pressure gauge on top starts to drop as gas is exiting the valve. If the gauge is still registering a drop and doesn't instantaneously go right to zero:And nor should it.
It's pushed by the release of that pressure against the external resistant atmosphere, creating a gas on gas fight.HOW?
I know they don't understand (including you) by the questions being asked.You mean you know they show you are wrong, so you feel a need to insult them and dismiss you.
There are no contradictions.There are so many it isn't funny.
To give you a simple analogy (and take it as that and do not use it as an argument)If you don't want an analogy you provide to be used against your model do not provide it.
imagine a bus that is sealed off and inside it are people all crammed in to such an extent they have to fight to stop themselves being crushed.This would be a liquid, not a gas.
When it's pushed out of the rocket opening under massive pressure against the atmospheric stack directly under it.The air would be able to do that as well.
Quote from: StashThe valve is opened. The pressure gauge on top starts to drop as gas is exiting the valve. If the gauge is still registering a drop and doesn't instantaneously go right to zero:And nor should it.
Quote from: StashPressure is still pushing off the top of the container where the gauge is which means the pressure is pushing against the container.
Not when it's breached.
Air can do it but the air alone is dissipated very quickly against the stack which gives very little gas on gas push to lift the rocket.Right...so when does water come into play for the water rocket?When it's pushed out of the rocket opening under massive pressure against the atmospheric stack directly under it.
So why cant the air do that?
If all ejected material sits on top of the stack of spongy air, why is it that the water rocket works best when using water, and not more air.
Your most detailed response so far is the "dissipation".I'm not dodging anything. I've explained the water but you're dodging that issue.
Which then contradicts lift off in general because the rocket is supposedly sitting on a stack of sponges.
You seem to keep dodging this.
I don't need to make up my mind. It's made up and is consistent.In reality, yes, as the pressure is still pushing on the gauge, because it doesn't just magically go straight out towards the opening and stopping every other direction.Quote from: StashThe valve is opened. The pressure gauge on top starts to drop as gas is exiting the valve. If the gauge is still registering a drop and doesn't instantaneously go right to zero:And nor should it.
For your model, it should go to 0, because you claim that the pressure is no longer pushing against it and thus the pressure it is measuring is 0.
You seriously need to make up your mind.
Is the pressure still pushing upwards on the gauge allowing it to read a pressure, or is it only pushing towards the opening, meaning no pressure on the gauge, meaning the gauge will read 0?
I don't need to make up my mind. It's made up and is consistent.In reality, yes, as the pressure is still pushing on the gauge, because it doesn't just magically go straight out towards the opening and stopping every other direction.Quote from: StashThe valve is opened. The pressure gauge on top starts to drop as gas is exiting the valve. If the gauge is still registering a drop and doesn't instantaneously go right to zero:And nor should it.
For your model, it should go to 0, because you claim that the pressure is no longer pushing against it and thus the pressure it is measuring is 0.
You seriously need to make up your mind.
Is the pressure still pushing upwards on the gauge allowing it to read a pressure, or is it only pushing towards the opening, meaning no pressure on the gauge, meaning the gauge will read 0?
You simply refuse to grasp it.
Once the valve is opened the gauge now starts to reads a continuous lowering of pressure on the gauge. It means the gauge is not under pressure, it's losing that pressure because everything is expanding out.
How?
Massive expansion at the valve opening and gradually less expansion of molecules all the way to close to the gauge side, all pushing one way, which is why the gauge pointer continues to read lower and lower pressure.
Only if the gauge reading shows gain or still pressure.
If the gauge is still registering pressure after the breach then pressure must still be exerting on the gauge for it to have a reading.
So how can you say on the the one hand, the gauge is still reading pressure after the breach yet on the other hand no pressure is being applied to the gauge after the breach?I didn't say it was still reading pressure. I said the pointer shows a lowering of the pressure by the pointer in a continuous motion, meaning it flows/expands away from the gauge, not at it.
Sceptis sponges have to be sentient in order to know which way is down.Nope, only able to expand after contraction.
Only if the gauge reading shows gain or still pressure.
If the gauge is still registering pressure after the breach then pressure must still be exerting on the gauge for it to have a reading.
In case of the breach it does neither. It shows continuous loss.Quote from: StashSo how can you say on the the one hand, the gauge is still reading pressure after the breach yet on the other hand no pressure is being applied to the gauge after the breach?I didn't say it was still reading pressure. I said the pointer shows a lowering of the pressure by the pointer in a continuous motion, meaning it flows/expands away from the gauge, not at it.
The gauge can only read zero when it's allowed to get to that point.I don't need to make up my mind. It's made up and is consistent.In reality, yes, as the pressure is still pushing on the gauge, because it doesn't just magically go straight out towards the opening and stopping every other direction.Quote from: StashThe valve is opened. The pressure gauge on top starts to drop as gas is exiting the valve. If the gauge is still registering a drop and doesn't instantaneously go right to zero:And nor should it.
For your model, it should go to 0, because you claim that the pressure is no longer pushing against it and thus the pressure it is measuring is 0.
You seriously need to make up your mind.
Is the pressure still pushing upwards on the gauge allowing it to read a pressure, or is it only pushing towards the opening, meaning no pressure on the gauge, meaning the gauge will read 0?
You simply refuse to grasp it.
Once the valve is opened the gauge now starts to reads a continuous lowering of pressure on the gauge. It means the gauge is not under pressure, it's losing that pressure because everything is expanding out.
How?
Massive expansion at the valve opening and gradually less expansion of molecules all the way to close to the gauge side, all pushing one way, which is why the gauge pointer continues to read lower and lower pressure.
That literally makes no logical sense. The gauge wouldn't read any pressure if it wasn't under some pressure. Hence the name, "pressure gauge".
If the gauge is not under pressure, it would immediately read 0.
It isn't pushing against the gauge at this point, unless the valve is closed and expansion is stopped and so would the needle, which means the pressure becomes equalised inside the container and shows as a still needle reading..Only if the gauge reading shows gain or still pressure.
If the gauge is still registering pressure after the breach then pressure must still be exerting on the gauge for it to have a reading.
In case of the breach it does neither. It shows continuous loss.Quote from: StashSo how can you say on the the one hand, the gauge is still reading pressure after the breach yet on the other hand no pressure is being applied to the gauge after the breach?I didn't say it was still reading pressure. I said the pointer shows a lowering of the pressure by the pointer in a continuous motion, meaning it flows/expands away from the gauge, not at it.
If the gauge is showing pressure, whether it's going down, up, or remaining the same, it is still showing pressure, pressure that is still pushing against the gauge no matter how strong or weak, it's still registering pressure.
It isn't pushing against the gauge at this point, unless the valve is closed and expansion is stopped and so would the needle, which means the pressure becomes equalised inside the container and shows as a still needle reading..Only if the gauge reading shows gain or still pressure.
If the gauge is still registering pressure after the breach then pressure must still be exerting on the gauge for it to have a reading.
In case of the breach it does neither. It shows continuous loss.Quote from: StashSo how can you say on the the one hand, the gauge is still reading pressure after the breach yet on the other hand no pressure is being applied to the gauge after the breach?I didn't say it was still reading pressure. I said the pointer shows a lowering of the pressure by the pointer in a continuous motion, meaning it flows/expands away from the gauge, not at it.
If the gauge is showing pressure, whether it's going down, up, or remaining the same, it is still showing pressure, pressure that is still pushing against the gauge no matter how strong or weak, it's still registering pressure.
It doesn't make sense to you because you're refusing to allow it to.
Again, logically, this makes no sense. If the gauge is reading anything, there is pressure causing the reading. That's the sole purpose of a gauge. If there is no pressure, the gauge reads 0.
Stash is trying to point out a flaw you wont directly admit to...There is no flaw, which is why I have no reason to admit to one.
It doesn't make sense to you because you're refusing to allow it to.
Again, logically, this makes no sense. If the gauge is reading anything, there is pressure causing the reading. That's the sole purpose of a gauge. If there is no pressure, the gauge reads 0.
You refuse to understand that the expansion of molecules out of the opening means there is a chain reaction of expansion all the way to the back in different stages of expansion from larger at the front to smaller at the back.
All molecules using each other.
As each bunch of molecules expand, the gauge simple expands with them and starts to slowly move towards the zero, until expansion ceases.
There is nothing pushing back at the gauge. The gauge itself is decompressing along with the decompressing gas molecules.
Air can do it but the air alone is dissipated very quickly against the stack which gives very little gas on gas push to lift the rocket.Right...so when does water come into play for the water rocket?When it's pushed out of the rocket opening under massive pressure against the atmospheric stack directly under it.
So why cant the air do that?
If all ejected material sits on top of the stack of spongy air, why is it that the water rocket works best when using water, and not more air.Quote from: ThemightykaboolYour most detailed response so far is the "dissipation".I'm not dodging anything. I've explained the water but you're dodging that issue.
Which then contradicts lift off in general because the rocket is supposedly sitting on a stack of sponges.
You seem to keep dodging this.
Water is much more dense and is not easily dissipated into the atmospheric stack. It manages to be pushed harder into it to compress that stack much more than just air alone would.
I have a feeling you're going to slip right back to square one soon enough.
It doesn't make sense to you because you're refusing to allow it to.
Again, logically, this makes no sense. If the gauge is reading anything, there is pressure causing the reading. That's the sole purpose of a gauge. If there is no pressure, the gauge reads 0.
You refuse to understand that the expansion of molecules out of the opening means there is a chain reaction of expansion all the way to the back in different stages of expansion from larger at the front to smaller at the back.
All molecules using each other.
As each bunch of molecules expand, the gauge simple expands with them and starts to slowly move towards the zero, until expansion ceases.
There is nothing pushing back at the gauge. The gauge itself is decompressing along with the decompressing gas molecules.
If there is no pressure against the pressure gauge the pressure gauge reads 0. That's what pressure gauges do, they read pressure. Anything above 0 is pressure.
When you yank the hose of your bicycle tire pump off the tire, the gauge doesn't go down in a progressive manner, it immediately jams down to 0. If it read anything above 0 there is still pressure, hence a pressure reading above 0.
Nope.
Why would it matter water push a stack of sponges better and more than compressed sponges in the tube?
Your claim is the rocket rises, sitting on the exiting and expanding sponges.
A regular outside sponge has a hypothetical diameter of 1 unit, and a compressed sppnge, upon exiting, will balloon out to 1unit and lift the rocket 1 unit off the ground.Yes, if the sponge expansion is more rapid it means more external compression of atmosphere, which means more resistance to it and bigger crush back against that thrusting/super expanding gas.
If you can squish more sponges into the tube, the rocket should lift higher.
All sponges are sitting stacked up.
If thedissipation/sponge expansion is too fast, well that just means the rocjet will fly up even faster.
ThatClearly they don't work in the fantasy vacuum. It really should be obvious.
Or your theory is wrong and the very calculatable mass flow rate of water leaving the rocket is correct, rockets dont rely on sitting on air, and rockets do work in a vacuum.
It doesn't make sense to you because you're refusing to allow it to.
Again, logically, this makes no sense. If the gauge is reading anything, there is pressure causing the reading. That's the sole purpose of a gauge. If there is no pressure, the gauge reads 0.
You refuse to understand that the expansion of molecules out of the opening means there is a chain reaction of expansion all the way to the back in different stages of expansion from larger at the front to smaller at the back.
All molecules using each other.
As each bunch of molecules expand, the gauge simple expands with them and starts to slowly move towards the zero, until expansion ceases.
There is nothing pushing back at the gauge. The gauge itself is decompressing along with the decompressing gas molecules.
If there is no pressure against the pressure gauge the pressure gauge reads 0. That's what pressure gauges do, they read pressure. Anything above 0 is pressure.
When you yank the hose of your bicycle tire pump off the tire, the gauge doesn't go down in a progressive manner, it immediately jams down to 0. If it read anything above 0 there is still pressure, hence a pressure reading above 0.
If you were able to plug the tube end up mid flight, the pressure reading would show a pressure because there are still compressed spongss in the tube and these sponges are pushing out in alk directions.
All directions.
Is why the gauge shows a reading.
Because something is pushing on it.
Because you're getting mixed up with a sealed pressurised container and an open end container.
Right, but you just said this: "There is nothing pushing back at the gauge."
Now you're saying this: "Is why the gauge shows a reading. Because something is pushing on it."
How is that not a contradiction? Which is it?
Because you're getting mixed up with a sealed pressurised container and an open end container.
Right, but you just said this: "There is nothing pushing back at the gauge."
Now you're saying this: "Is why the gauge shows a reading. Because something is pushing on it."
How is that not a contradiction? Which is it?
The sealed pressurised container with the gauge will naturally read a set pressure because it literally is gas pushing gas pushing container and gauge, in equal terms.
I'm talking about the decompression of it by opening the exit valve.
Deal with the exit valve opening and forget about the sealed pressure for now.
Wouldn't a list of simple yes-no questions be useful here?
Let's get familiar with the gauge reading pressure and not reading pressure.Because you're getting mixed up with a sealed pressurised container and an open end container.
Right, but you just said this: "There is nothing pushing back at the gauge."
Now you're saying this: "Is why the gauge shows a reading. Because something is pushing on it."
How is that not a contradiction? Which is it?
The sealed pressurised container with the gauge will naturally read a set pressure because it literally is gas pushing gas pushing container and gauge, in equal terms.
I'm talking about the decompression of it by opening the exit valve.
Deal with the exit valve opening and forget about the sealed pressure for now.
We've dealt with what you think happens at the exit valve end. What you haven't dealt with is what happens at the gauge end. In one breath you're saying there is no pressure on the gauge end, yet the gauge reads pressure, and in another breath you're saying there is pressure at the gauge end, hence it's properly reading a pressure. A contradiction.
Wouldn't a list of simple yes-no questions be useful here?In some cases, yes.
No.Wouldn't a list of simple yes-no questions be useful here?
We've kind of gone there already, but it doesn't seem to work, hence the contradictions. Feel free to start things off though. I'm at a loss.
I guess my first would be:
The container is breached, valve opened, on the bottom end. The pressure gauge still has a reading as it ticks down to 0
- Is there still pressure being applied to the pressure gauge at the top as the needle is moving down toward 0? Y/N
- If the pressure gauge is still showing a pressure above zero is there not pressure pressing on the gauge to do so? Y/NNo.
The way you're likely looking at it is in thinking that once the exit is opened the gases are still pushing in opposite direction against each end of the tank.
They aren't.
They are using the energy applied to them in terms of being compressed and are now decompressing naturally but are still all attached.
The pressure when set was potential energy reading.The way you're likely looking at it is in thinking that once the exit is opened the gases are still pushing in opposite direction against each end of the tank.
They aren't.
They are using the energy applied to them in terms of being compressed and are now decompressing naturally but are still all attached.
Ok, Y/N didn't work.
If the gauge at the top still registers pressure, pressure is being applied the the gauge. That's what a pressure gauge does, it registers pressure. If it's 0, there is no pressure. If it's more than 0 there is. And if it's more than 0 pressure its pushing against the gauge. I don't know how to make that more clear.
Air can do it but the air alone is dissipated very quickly against the stack which gives very little gas on gas push to lift the rocket.Why?
I'm not dodging anything.You are dodging so much it isn't funny.
Water is much more dense and is not easily dissipated into the atmospheric stack. It manages to be pushed harder into itThis should mean it works worse than just air.
I don't need to make up my mind. It's made up and is consistent.No, it isn't consistent. You repeatedly contradict yourself.
It means the gauge is not under pressureWRONG!
The gauge can only read zero when it's allowed to get to that point.Yes, by things no longer exerting pressure on it.
The sealed pressurised container with the gauge will naturally read a set pressureIt will read a set pressure because the pressure can't change as it is closed.
Let's get familiar with the gauge reading pressure and not reading pressure.Try to do it accurately.
There is no energy being exerted towards the gaugeAll that means is that the reading wont increase.
Another simple analogy.Considering how many of your "simple analogies" have already been corrected to show you are wrong, why don't you stop with them and actually deal with the issue at hand?
It's decompressing naturally.No, its not.
The pressure when set was potential energy reading.That is one way to think about it.
Nope.
Why would it matter water push a stack of sponges better and more than compressed sponges in the tube?
Your claim is the rocket rises, sitting on the exiting and expanding sponges.
The rocket rises by sitting atop the super compressed sponges by that thrust expansion of sponges creating a massive recompression from decompression. Action and reaction of gases.Quote from: ThemightykaboolA regular outside sponge has a hypothetical diameter of 1 unit, and a compressed sppnge, upon exiting, will balloon out to 1unit and lift the rocket 1 unit off the ground.Yes, if the sponge expansion is more rapid it means more external compression of atmosphere, which means more resistance to it and bigger crush back against that thrusting/super expanding gas.
If you can squish more sponges into the tube, the rocket should lift higher.
All sponges are sitting stacked up.
If thedissipation/sponge expansion is too fast, well that just means the rocjet will fly up even faster.Quote from: ThemightykaboolThatClearly they don't work in the fantasy vacuum. It really should be obvious.
Or your theory is wrong and the very calculatable mass flow rate of water leaving the rocket is correct, rockets dont rely on sitting on air, and rockets do work in a vacuum.
None of you even explain how it actually works in this vacuum, you simply say it ejects gas into nothing and in doing so it pushes the other way but never a reason for why.
However this bit isn't what we'r dealing with as of yet.
It's showing why rockets cannot work by my explanation. I think I've more than explained but it doesn't seem to be enough.
So carry on gaining an understanding and get as basic as you can to get to the crux for yourselves.
I know exactly what i'm talking about and there's absolutely no contradictions from my part.
The pressure when set was potential energy reading.The way you're likely looking at it is in thinking that once the exit is opened the gases are still pushing in opposite direction against each end of the tank.
They aren't.
They are using the energy applied to them in terms of being compressed and are now decompressing naturally but are still all attached.
Ok, Y/N didn't work.
If the gauge at the top still registers pressure, pressure is being applied the the gauge. That's what a pressure gauge does, it registers pressure. If it's 0, there is no pressure. If it's more than 0 there is. And if it's more than 0 pressure its pushing against the gauge. I don't know how to make that more clear.
Once the valve is opened the potential energy is now flowing energy in a decompression chain reaction.
In other words all the arrows are pointing towards the exit in their many many different expansion rates from exit hole to gauge.
The gauge starts to show a consistent drop in pressure because there's no pressure applied to that gauge from the gas molecules (arrows).
The pressure when set was potential energy reading.The way you're likely looking at it is in thinking that once the exit is opened the gases are still pushing in opposite direction against each end of the tank.
They aren't.
They are using the energy applied to them in terms of being compressed and are now decompressing naturally but are still all attached.
Ok, Y/N didn't work.
If the gauge at the top still registers pressure, pressure is being applied the the gauge. That's what a pressure gauge does, it registers pressure. If it's 0, there is no pressure. If it's more than 0 there is. And if it's more than 0 pressure its pushing against the gauge. I don't know how to make that more clear.
Once the valve is opened the potential energy is now flowing energy in a decompression chain reaction.
In other words all the arrows are pointing towards the exit in their many many different expansion rates from exit hole to gauge.
The gauge starts to show a consistent drop in pressure because there's no pressure applied to that gauge from the gas molecules (arrows).
The pressure when set was potential energy reading.The way you're likely looking at it is in thinking that once the exit is opened the gases are still pushing in opposite direction against each end of the tank.
They aren't.
They are using the energy applied to them in terms of being compressed and are now decompressing naturally but are still all attached.
Ok, Y/N didn't work.
If the gauge at the top still registers pressure, pressure is being applied the the gauge. That's what a pressure gauge does, it registers pressure. If it's 0, there is no pressure. If it's more than 0 there is. And if it's more than 0 pressure its pushing against the gauge. I don't know how to make that more clear.
Once the valve is opened the potential energy is now flowing energy in a decompression chain reaction.
In other words all the arrows are pointing towards the exit in their many many different expansion rates from exit hole to gauge.
The gauge starts to show a consistent drop in pressure because there's no pressure applied to that gauge from the gas molecules (arrows).
To stash s point
A ballloon slowly deflating shows the air inside is still pushing on the edges.
If it werent, the balloon would instantly collapse.
Scepti keeps flip flopping wjen addrsssing tjis point.
And that's the problem.Air can do it but the air alone is dissipated very quickly against the stack which gives very little gas on gas push to lift the rocket.Why?
Why is the air dissipated so much more quickly than the water?
Water density aided by internal compressed air push into it to thrust it against the stack below the direct breach.
And here we have another nonsensical explanation.
If the super crush is there, then by yoyr very "model" water is not needed and the water rpcket in theory would go much higher if more sppnges were squished into it.
There is no set reading. The gauge is showing counter consistent movement.
All the arrows are not pointing to the exit otherwise:
- There would be no reading on the top gauge.
Remember, a gauge measures pressure. If the pressure is above 0, there is still pressure.Only if it's contained.
- A balloon would instantaneously collapse and lose it's shape when the valve opened. It does notOnly in extreme low pressure.
Again, you can't have the contradiction:There are no contradictions.
When the valve is opened, there is no pressure on the gauge yet it shows pressure on the gauge.It shows a needle counter movement to the negative, not pressure.
Totally different argument.No, the same argument.
And that's the problem.Yes, that's the problem FOR YOU.
Water density aided by internal compressed air push into it to thrust it against the stack below the direct breach.And air would do that as well.
To stash s point
A ballloon slowly deflating shows the air inside is still pushing on the edges.
If it werent, the balloon would instantly collapse.
Scepti keeps flip flopping wjen addrsssing tjis point.
Totally different argument.
Perhaps you could draw a simple diagram that shows the tube, the compressed air, the water, the outside normal air.How about you draw one showing what you think and I'll alter it to show what I'm saying.
Then draw arrows showing what the water does.
And then compare that with a diagram without the air.
Here is another simple diagram for you to get completely wrong:It depends what you are talking about in terms of what is actually behind the membrane.
(https://i.imgur.com/yDbXPgb.png)
This is a membrane being pushed to the right by a spring.
If there is nothing pushing it to the left, what would happen?
Will it very quickly go to the right until the spring has relaxed?
Or will it go very slowly?
Or will it magically depend upon something else?
Here is another simple diagram for you to get completely wrong:It depends what you are talking about in terms of what is actually behind the membrane.
(https://i.imgur.com/yDbXPgb.png)
This is a membrane being pushed to the right by a spring.
If there is nothing pushing it to the left, what would happen?
Will it very quickly go to the right until the spring has relaxed?
Or will it go very slowly?
Or will it magically depend upon something else?
If it's air behind it then it will be compressed by the decompression of the spring. In which case the spring will start of fairly rapid in decompression and then gradually slow as the air is compressed by it.
If there is extreme low pressure of air behind that membrane then the spring will rapidly expand into it because there's extremely tiny resistance.
Perhaps you could draw a simple diagram that shows the tube, the compressed air, the water, the outside normal air.How about you draw one showing what you think and I'll alter it to show what I'm saying.
Then draw arrows showing what the water does.
And then compare that with a diagram without the air.
When air ceases to press on the gauge it shows zero.Only if it showed zero to start with.
If some presses on the gauge it shows a reading.Yep, which would happen if pressure is held against it, as in pushing air into it or pushing air into it and containing that air.
If your spring fully compressed showed a reading of 16 units.Yep, because you have allowed decompression of the spring and then stopped it and sealed it, meaning that spring now shows the reading right after that decompression of the moving needle that has now stopped counter moving, leaving a set reading much smaller.
And you opened the one end and allowed the spring to decompress half way, cut the spring, closed the cap, the gauge would read 4.(because conventional physics uses the sq law).
It's not being pushed against the balloon from the inside. It's being crushed from the outside as it decompresses against the atmosphere via the nozzle.
This is what happens to a balloon when it can relax naturally:
You already have a video of it deflating.
Notice how the deflation is much slower and takes a lot longer for the balloon to relax.
This shows that while there is still pressurised air inside it, it is still pushing against the balloon, keeping it inflated.
When air ceases to press on the gauge it shows zero.Only if it showed zero to start with.
If not then the gauge would simply show a consistent counter action of the needle as the molecules decompress away from pushing it.Quote from: ThemightykaboolIf some presses on the gauge it shows a reading.Yep, which would happen if pressure is held against it, as in pushing air into it or pushing air into it and containing that air.
Not when air is allowed to decompress.Quote from: ThemightykaboolIf your spring fully compressed showed a reading of 16 units.Yep, because you have allowed decompression of the spring and then stopped it and sealed it, meaning that spring now shows the reading right after that decompression of the moving needle that has now stopped counter moving, leaving a set reading much smaller.
And you opened the one end and allowed the spring to decompress half way, cut the spring, closed the cap, the gauge would read 4.(because conventional physics uses the sq law).
I have no issue with this.
Not the same argument. There are differences and they need to be dealt with individually so as not to skew.
It's literally the same argument. Yet another contradiction.
- Air in a balloon pushing on all sides
- Compressed gas in a container pushing on all sides
You said that, not me.
- Open the valve on the balloon, according to scepti, it should instantaneously collapse. It doesn't.
- Open the valve on the container, according to scepti, it should still register pressure on the opposite end (where the gauge is) yet not be applying any pressure to the gauge. Magic.It's not registering pressure. The needle is on the counter movement consistently due to the vale being opened at the other end.
This is so logically inconsistent it's beyond compare. Pick a lane. And don't go down the "we don't get it thing..." That's tired and haggard. And inappropriate. We get it. It's literally that your explanations are inconsistent with reality and with themselves. They are contradictions.It's logically consistent. There's no contradictions except for the one's you and others believe there are.
It's not being pushed against the balloon from the inside. It's being crushed from the outside as it decompresses against the atmosphere via the nozzle.
This is what happens to a balloon when it can relax naturally:
You already have a video of it deflating.
Notice how the deflation is much slower and takes a lot longer for the balloon to relax.
This shows that while there is still pressurised air inside it, it is still pushing against the balloon, keeping it inflated.
The water rocket works because it doesnt rely on pushing against air.It absolutely relies on it, both ways. Top and bottom.
Your insistence that the rocket needs to push against air has been disproven by your own theory and your inability to explain beyond "its called a water rocket therefore it requires water" has failed on every level.Or your inability or refusal to understand it.
Unless you can show why rockets sit on stacked air sponges causes them to go up AND how water plays a part, your analogies are useless.Of course they are, to you and your like minded friends.
We dpnt need analogies, we need a straight up descriptiom.Clearly the rocket is not set on the ground at the breach.
Heres one -
Water rockets fly up because the air sponges exhausted expand to their decompressed and natural size, lifting the rocket into the air to the expectdd height of the amount of squish provided to the air sponges inside the tube.
The water acts as a go-between foudation between the exhausted air sponges and the regular air sponges.
The water sits on the outside stack air sponges while the compressed spong air uses the water as a springbaord and is given time to expand and shoot the rocket up.
BUT
by that theory, it doesnt make sense because the rocket is set on the ground which is already a foundation and replacing water with more sponges would make the rocket less dense (denP)/ lighter and so it should go higher with more compressed sponges inside and less displaced sponges above.
But it doesnt.
Because its wrong.
You haven't helped me one bit. You try to hinder more than anything.Perhaps you could draw a simple diagram that shows the tube, the compressed air, the water, the outside normal air.How about you draw one showing what you think and I'll alter it to show what I'm saying.
Then draw arrows showing what the water does.
And then compare that with a diagram without the air.
Pffff
Ive helped you out quite a bit.
You drawing it out yourself will allow you to work it out.
Ever hear of help a kid out 80%?
If you cant do your own simple and basic line drawing then you cant describe it simply and basically.
If you wwre to show a chinese, a hindi, a persian, a frenchie your drawing and they could in their own minds and own language says "oooOOOOoooh", then that means you have communicated it well and it is the best answer.
But you cant.
Keep failing.
Quote from: Stash- Open the valve on the container, according to scepti, it should still register pressure on the opposite end (where the gauge is) yet not be applying any pressure to the gauge. Magic.It's not registering pressure. The needle is on the counter movement consistently due to the vale being opened at the other end.
That's not a reading of pressure it's a needle decline in numbers only, by sight.
Quote from: StashThis is so logically inconsistent it's beyond compare. Pick a lane. And don't go down the "we don't get it thing..." That's tired and haggard. And inappropriate. We get it. It's literally that your explanations are inconsistent with reality and with themselves. They are contradictions.It's logically consistent. There's no contradictions except for the one's you and others believe there are.
If you were 100% sure I was wrong you would not be entertaining arguing my theory.
A pressure reading on a gauge shows the pressure on the gauge.Correct, no issues.
It's called a pressure gauge because it registers pressure on the gauge.
If there is no pressure, the pressure gauge registers 0.Correct, no issues.
Correct, as long as the pressure is applying as in pushed in continually and advancing the gauge reading.......or if the pressure reading higher than zero is contained.
If there is pressure on the gauge, the gauge registers the pressure on the gauge greater than 0.
It depends.
Are you seriously trying to state that if a pressure gauge shows greater than 0 there is no pressure applied to the gauge?
No problem. Carry on accepting what you follow. I'm fine with it.
No, that is a fallacy. We're good as things are and how the entire world works. If you were 100% right, even 10%, 1%, you would revolutionize the entire world. Not just a piece of it, but the entire shooting match. So far, I see no takers. We're good, you offer nothing better.
It depends what you are talking about in terms of what is actually behind the membrane.Try it in terms of the force on the membrane.
Only if it showed zero to start with.Nope. If it isn't applying a force to the gauge, the gauge shows 0.
It's not being pushed against the balloon from the inside.Again, if that was the case it would very rapidly shrink, just like the balloon that popped.
There are differences and they need to be dealt with individually so as not to skew.The differences are irrelavent to the argument.
The needle is on the counter movement consistently due to the vale being opened at the other end.It has no connection to the valve other than the air.
If you were 100% sure I was wrong you would not be entertaining arguing my theory.Again, we care about the truth.
So you accept that pressure gauges need pressure to have a reading.A pressure reading on a gauge shows the pressure on the gauge.Correct, no issues.
It's called a pressure gauge because it registers pressure on the gauge.Quote from: StashIf there is no pressure, the pressure gauge registers 0.Correct, no issues.
What kind of voodoo is, "a breach/open valve for decompression then the gauge is not being pushed against to make any higher reading or set reading. It's merely counter moving to follow that decompression."?A pressure reading on a gauge shows the pressure on the gauge.Correct, no issues.
It's called a pressure gauge because it registers pressure on the gauge.Quote from: StashIf there is no pressure, the pressure gauge registers 0.Correct, no issues.Quote from: StashCorrect, as long as the pressure is applying as in pushed in continually and advancing the gauge reading.......or if the pressure reading higher than zero is contained.
If there is pressure on the gauge, the gauge registers the pressure on the gauge greater than 0.
I'm fine with either.Quote from: StashIt depends.
Are you seriously trying to state that if a pressure gauge shows greater than 0 there is no pressure applied to the gauge?
As above, there would be pressure.
However, if their is a breach/open valve for decompression then the gauge is not being pushed against to make any higher reading or set reading. It's merely counter moving to follow that decompression.
No problem. Carry on accepting what you follow. I'm fine with it.
No, that is a fallacy. We're good as things are and how the entire world works. If you were 100% right, even 10%, 1%, you would revolutionize the entire world. Not just a piece of it, but the entire shooting match. So far, I see no takers. We're good, you offer nothing better.
Absolutely.
So you accept that pressure gauges need pressure to have a positive reading.
It means opening a valve to allow expansion of gas that follows a one way route out of that valve.
What kind of voodoo is, "a breach/open valve for decompression then the gauge is not being pushed against to make any higher reading or set reading. It's merely counter moving to follow that decompression."?
What in the world does "counter moving to follow that decompression," mean?Counter means opposite.
It's a gauge. It shows the pressure against it as it is buildingThat's fine in that term.
it show's the pressure against it at it lessens.Nope, it does not, unless it's open and shut valve to intermittently allow expansion then back to repressurising to show a lesser reading.
That's what a gauge does. If it shows a reading, it is showing pressure, up or down.Yep, but it won't have any pressure against it with an open valve. Unless pressure is forced back in or the valve is closed.
Hence the name, 'pressure gauge'.Yep and it's fine for reading pressure as long as the pressure is forced in or the valve is shut and the pressure is contained.
'Counter moving to follow that decompression', means literally nothing and not what a gauge does, whatever that means. "Counter moving"? You're literally making things up.Maybe to you but I know what it means.
A pressure reading on a pressure gauge shows the pressure on the gauge. There's no 'counter moving' bullshit.Yep, if expansion allowed by opening a valve to allow it.
Why wouldn't they?No problem. Carry on accepting what you follow. I'm fine with it.
No, that is a fallacy. We're good as things are and how the entire world works. If you were 100% right, even 10%, 1%, you would revolutionize the entire world. Not just a piece of it, but the entire shooting match. So far, I see no takers. We're good, you offer nothing better.
Apparently the entire globe is fine with it. Otherwise, a smart person would take you up on your notions and be like, "We could revolutionize everything!" But you don't have a consistent model and no way to engineer any of it into something workable so we're kind of left with meh. And everyone is still designing, engineering everything against your notions. Not just rockets, but pneumatics, hydraulics, anything that lifts or moves something. The whole world is still building all those tools the old fashioned way based upon, according to you, incorrect mechanics. Yet they work, and work very well. Somehow, haphazardly, the world's designers and engineers have figured out how to create devices that work in exactly the opposite way that they designed them to work. And they still work and how they do it is an absolute mystery to them. Makes total sense...
It means opening a valve to allow expansion of gas that follows a one way route out of that valve.
What kind of voodoo is, "a breach/open valve for decompression then the gauge is not being pushed against to make any higher reading or set reading. It's merely counter moving to follow that decompression."?
The gauge pointer merely drops due to following that one way street and has no return pressure as long as it's flowing down that one way street.Quote from: StashWhat in the world does "counter moving to follow that decompression," mean?Counter means opposite.
In terms of the gauge having positive pressure upon it, the decompression is counter to it.Quote from: StashIt's a gauge. It shows the pressure against it as it is buildingThat's fine in that term.Quote from: Stashit show's the pressure against it at it lessens.Nope, it does not, unless it's open and shut valve to intermittently allow expansion then back to repressurising to show a lesser reading.Quote from: StashThat's what a gauge does. If it shows a reading, it is showing pressure, up or down.Yep, but it won't have any pressure against it with an open valve. Unless pressure is forced back in or the valve is closed.Quote from: StashHence the name, 'pressure gauge'.Yep and it's fine for reading pressure as long as the pressure is forced in or the valve is shut and the pressure is contained.Quote from: Stash'Counter moving to follow that decompression', means literally nothing and not what a gauge does, whatever that means. "Counter moving"? You're literally making things up.Maybe to you but I know what it means.Quote from: StashA pressure reading on a pressure gauge shows the pressure on the gauge. There's no 'counter moving' bullshit.Yep, if expansion allowed by opening a valve to allow it.
A totally different set up.
So youre saying there is no pressure force because one side is open?
UghAnother totally different set up.
Fine
Do you actually know what you're saying?
You are trying to hide the fact that the expansion continues in all direction all the time.
Hide it as in how?
Absolutely.
So you accept that pressure gauges need pressure to have a reading.
Why wouldn't they?Because according to you it is pure fiction that has been indoctrinated into people.
A totally different set up.
Another totally different set up.But still the same fundamental issue.
It's already squeezed by being pressurised. All it can do not is decompress to do work. It doesn't just squeeze again into a non- pressurised area, it expands into it until it fills that area and only then does it create a compressive reaction to its expansion of which the rocket sits atop of.Do you actually know what you're saying?
You are trying to hide the fact that the expansion continues in all direction all the time.
Hide it as in how?
As in trying to dismiss the fact that the "head of your sretching man" will keep pressing the sealed end of the container and pushing it away from the center of the total mass of the system.
Out of the container there is no pressure.
Inside there is.
Gas simply gets squeezed from the pressurised area into the non-pressurized.
Force pushing the exiting mass of the gas is action.What force is pushing the exiting mass?
The exiting mass pressing back is reaction.Explain what's happening.
Reaction pushes the rocket in opposite direction.Explain what's happening.
As simpe as that.
Where do you need "resistance"?Life doesn't work without it in any way shape or form.
The only role that the missing resistance could have there is to prevent the rocket from bouncing off the mass of the exhaust.Tell me about this bouncing off the mass of the exhaust.
Car pushes itself off the road.Not without fuel and air.
Ship pushes itself off the water.Not without fuel and air.
Rocket pushes itself off the exhaust gasses.Explain how it does this.
In your "explanations" those things don't work that way, but in reality they do.Explain them all in detail.
Guess what, anything above 0 is positive.I agree as long as it's moving forward from that point or is set higher than that 0 point and isn't falling towards that point.
That means you have now accepted that in order for the gauge to show anything above 0, there needs to be pressure acting on it.
That means that inside the tank, even with the valve open, there is still pressure acting on the gauge.Nope.
The gas isn't sentient and doesn't just magically start pushing towards the opening.It's not magic it's quite simply decompression of molecules that were forcibly squeezed into the container.
The pressure at the back is immediately released and the gauge can decompress which shows the pointer heading towards the zero.
Explain what's happening.You have already had it explained to you repeatedly. You are the one who needs to do the explaining.
Not without fuel and air.Electric ones don't need fuel and air. They use a battery instead.
Pure nonsense.Quote from: JackBlackGuess what, anything above 0 is positive.I agree as long as it's moving forward from that point or is set higher than that 0 point and isn't falling towards that point.
That means you have now accepted that in order for the gauge to show anything above 0, there needs to be pressure acting on it.
Nope.Pathetic dismissal, with no justification at all, does not help your case.
It's not magic it's quite simply decompression of molecules that were forcibly squeezed into the container.It is magic. Even with your crazy model of sponge gas, it is still magic.
However. Once you open that valve, the molecules at the very opening will expand out of the opening followed by a chain reaction of expansion of each and every other molecule expanding.The only way for that to happen is magic.
The pressure at the back is immediately released and the gauge can decompress which shows the pointer heading towards the zero.
No, if the pressure at the back is immediately released the gauge would immediately jam to 0.It isn't immediately released. It follows a chain reaction of gas expansion from the front to the back in ever changing expansion sizes. Largest at the very front (valve opening).
If you closed the valve and the gauge had dropped from 100 psi to 50, where did the 50 all of a sudden come from when there was supposedly 0 when the valve was opened yet the gauge read a steady drop from 100 to 50.Half of the 50 have already expanded out.
If the gauge reads anything above zero it has pressure on it.Yep, as long as the gauge is under pressure by valve shut off or applied pressure from an external source.
It's so blatantly fixed in reality that if a gauge is reading a pressure above zero there is a pressure above 0. How only you cannot grasp that is beyond me.I can grasp it.
Currently, mainstream science can easily explain how rockets work, including in a vacuum.Clearly they can't.
The simple fact is that in a vacuum gas, that was initially travelling with the rocket, exits the rocket.The simple fact is the rocket stays put and the gas expands into extreme low pressure which creates next to zero resistance and there is zero return compressive energy spring back against the exiting expanded gas, meaning rockets do not work in extreme low pressure, including fantasy space.
This means it changes velocity.
As it has mass this means it has to have a force applied to do so.
This means it needs to push off something.
The only something available is the rocket.
This means it pushes the rocket.
This means the rocket will be accelerated.
This means rockets work in a vacuum.
100 is positive. This is because it is greater than 0.It matters a lot.
It doesn't matter if it is staying at 100, increasing to 200, or dropping to 0, it is still positive.
You have admitted that in order for the gauge to have a positive reading, it needs pressure pushing against it.As long as it's set pressure or added pressure to the container.
Now you are contradicting yourself yet again.Absolutely not.
No, if the pressure at the back is immediately released the gauge would immediately jam to 0.It isn't immediately released. It follows a chain reaction of gas expansion from the front to the back in ever changing expansion sizes. Largest at the very front (valve opening).
No, if the pressure at the back is immediately released the gauge would immediately jam to 0.It isn't immediately released. It follows a chain reaction of gas expansion from the front to the back in ever changing expansion sizes. Largest at the very front (valve opening).
If it isn't immediately released it is still applying pressure.
Answer the two questions:
If am travelling forward at 50mph and decelerate to 40mph, during that deceleration, I'm still moving forward. Y/N?
I have a pressurized tire that is leaking air (decompressing). It is at 32PSI and is leaking at a 1 PSI every 2 hours. Does the tire still have pressure? Y/N?
To give you a simple analogy (and take it as that and do not use it as an argument) we'll imagine a bus that is sealed off and inside it are people all crammed in to such an extent they have to fight to stop themselves being crushed.
Imagine if they could survive being crushed smaller.
Ok so now you can imagine that...if the bus was sealed at each end, the crush would be even from back to front. Even pressure hitting both sealed off exits and also everyone squashed against the side walls and ceiling of that bus, plus floor.
Ok we both know this as being a sealed container of pressure, right, so let's see what happens.
Outside of that bus are a crowd of people who are body to body and slightly compressing into each other all around That bus and also stood on top of each other and also on top of the bus with people stood on top of them...and so on.
Under the bus there would be a few laid under it but not being squashed more than the rest because the bus wheels hold back the dense mass on it by using a solid ground.
Ok, so what we know is, the people inside the bus are itching to decompress. They're trying to break open the bus at its weakest point (assume windowless...let's not add in issues).
Suddenly the back door is breached and the compressed people in that bus start to decompress against the looser compression of the external crowd and manage to push some out of the way which compresses them into the people behind them.
However, inside the bus, the people behind the first out can also decompress as they push and are pushed into the first.
The one behind does the same.
By this time it will be noted that the bus is moving in the opposite direction and all the work done at the first decompression is filled by the falling people from above who fill the void that the first decompressed person created by compressing the crowd back...which as you know were less compressed at first.
Now this keeps happening because there's so many people crammed into the bus and it becomes each person expanding out and expanded into the back of.
As a little time goes on, the expansion inside the bus will become less and less as more people are pushed out.
Now here's the key.
The people at the other end of the bus have had to wait their turn to fully expand because all the way down that bus became a slight expansion of each person from large (front) to extremely small (back).
Everybody expands at the front and is followed by those behind in a natural decompression.
By the time most are out, there's still some people still left inside the bus, all of who are simply equalised to the people outside of it.
There becomes no more movement. of the bus.
Read this carefully, seriously.
Absorb what's been said because you're getting closer to understanding, whether you end up agreeing or not.
I am liking these yes-no questions. Makes the game feel faster paced.
Yes.
If it isn't immediately released it is still applying pressure.
Answer the two questions:
If am travelling forward at 50mph and decelerate to 40mph, during that deceleration, I'm still moving forward. Y/N?
Yes.
I have a pressurized tire that is leaking air (decompressing). It is at 32PSI and is leaking at a 1 PSI every 2 hours. Does the tire still have pressure? Y/N?
I didnt notice this before.Nope, that's not my analogy at all and you are twisting words.
The sponge people on a bus all want to get out.
The first half are plenty easy to get out because theyre super squished.
But once its comfortable, the other half dont care one way or another to get off.
The people constantly move about flipping chair spots, talking to each other.
The bus has a revolving door wih a doorman inside it.
As the door turns he reaches out and grabs the nearest person and pushes them out.
And blocks outside people from coming in.
This keeps happening.
Until theres one person left on the bus.
Hes got lots of space to roam around but eventually he wanders too close and the doorman manages to grab him and chuck him out.
Now there NO one on the bus.
Its empty.
Void of people.
The doorman stops the revolving door and seals it shuts the door.
What would we possibly call this action and state in "conventional" terms?
And remember
This is YOUR analogy.
Im not twisting your words, im completing the thought.
So its either sponges that dont moveRead back, it's all been explained.
Or its people that move.
Or its both?
Whicj is it?
So its either sponges that dont moveRead back, it's all been explained.
Or its people that move.
Or its both?
Whicj is it?
Yes.
If it isn't immediately released it is still applying pressure.
Answer the two questions:
If am travelling forward at 50mph and decelerate to 40mph, during that deceleration, I'm still moving forward. Y/N?Quote from: NotSoSkepticalYes.
I have a pressurized tire that is leaking air (decompressing). It is at 32PSI and is leaking at a 1 PSI every 2 hours. Does the tire still have pressure? Y/N?
No, clearly they can, as you have been completely unable to find a single problem with it.Currently, mainstream science can easily explain how rockets work, including in a vacuum.Clearly they can't.
It's so blatantly nondescript.No, it is quite descriptive. You ignoring that doesn't magically mean it isn't.
The simple fact is the rocket stays put and the gas expandsAgain, if that was the case you would have easily been able to answer my questions. You are yet to even try. Instead you just repeatedly avoid the issue, always giving non-answers.
It matters a lot.No, it doesn't.
If it starts to drop to zero then it means the pressure is droppingYes, DROPPING!
It isn't immediately released.And there you go contradicting yourself again.
By closing the valve you stop the other 50 from leavingI.e. not need for your expansion nonsense at all.
Open the valve and the pressure on that gauge ceases. A continuous needle drop will confirm this.No, it doesn't.
What you can't grasp is the expansion of it through an open valve/breach.No, that would still be you. We understand how it works quite well and don't need to resort to pure magic and numerous contradictions.
Read back, it's all been explained.Read back, I explained what was wrong with it, and like normal, you ignored it, because it showed you were wrong and you had no response that could get you out of it.
No I didn't.So its either sponges that dont moveRead back, it's all been explained.
Or its people that move.
Or its both?
Whicj is it?
I did
You said sponge people are moving off a bus.
Externally.Yes.
If it isn't immediately released it is still applying pressure.
Answer the two questions:
If am travelling forward at 50mph and decelerate to 40mph, during that deceleration, I'm still moving forward. Y/N?Quote from: NotSoSkepticalYes.
I have a pressurized tire that is leaking air (decompressing). It is at 32PSI and is leaking at a 1 PSI every 2 hours. Does the tire still have pressure? Y/N?
How can the tire have pressure if it's all heading toward the opening.
It's not.
How is it maintaining it's rigidity and not going flat as a result of the air all heading toward the opening to decompress.
Exactly.
To hold rigidity, the pressure must be pushing equally in all directions.
Rejecting reality, especially something so easily verifiable doesn't help your case.Quote from: NotSoSkepticalIt's not.
How is it maintaining it's rigidity and not going flat as a result of the air all heading toward the opening to decompress.
As you like analogies, here is one for you:That's not how mine works. This is why you're getting yourself mixed up.
You are in a swimming pool, near the wall (so it is within reach), and you want to get away from the wall.
Do you A - Push away from the wall, i.e. stretching your arms/feet out away from the wall and applying a force in the direction away from the wall, or
B - Push towards the wall, i.e. stretching your arms/feet out towards the wall, possibly even pushing into the wall.
But of course, you wont be able to admit that as that would mean accepting that rockets do work in a vacuum as the gas pushes against the rocket to push the rocket away from the gas, meaning rockets work in a vacuum.I'm showing that rockets do not work as we are told and certainly do not work in a so called space vacuum.
What is the gas pushing against to allow it to move?Gas.
How does the gas magically know to stop pushing outwards in all directions and instead only push towards the opening?Decompression.
How does the gas move towards the opening if it is pushing towards it, meaning it would be pushed away?It's expanding against a weaker compressive force in the opposite direction (atmosphere).
Externally.Yes.
If it isn't immediately released it is still applying pressure.
Answer the two questions:
If am travelling forward at 50mph and decelerate to 40mph, during that deceleration, I'm still moving forward. Y/N?Quote from: NotSoSkepticalYes.
I have a pressurized tire that is leaking air (decompressing). It is at 32PSI and is leaking at a 1 PSI every 2 hours. Does the tire still have pressure? Y/N?
How can the tire have pressure if it's all heading toward the opening.Quote from: NotSoSkepticalIt's not.
How is it maintaining it's rigidity and not going flat as a result of the air all heading toward the opening to decompress.Quote from: NotSoSkepticalExactly.
To hold rigidity, the pressure must be pushing equally in all directions.
What is the gas pushing against to allow it to move?Gas.Quote from: JackBlackHow does the gas magically know to stop pushing outwards in all directions and instead only push towards the opening?Decompression.Quote from: JackBlackHow does the gas move towards the opening if it is pushing towards it, meaning it would be pushed away?It's expanding against a weaker compressive force in the opposite direction (atmosphere).
No contradictions whatsoever.Externally.Yes.
If it isn't immediately released it is still applying pressure.
Answer the two questions:
If am travelling forward at 50mph and decelerate to 40mph, during that deceleration, I'm still moving forward. Y/N?Quote from: NotSoSkepticalYes.
I have a pressurized tire that is leaking air (decompressing). It is at 32PSI and is leaking at a 1 PSI every 2 hours. Does the tire still have pressure? Y/N?
How can the tire have pressure if it's all heading toward the opening.Quote from: NotSoSkepticalIt's not.
How is it maintaining it's rigidity and not going flat as a result of the air all heading toward the opening to decompress.Quote from: NotSoSkepticalExactly.
To hold rigidity, the pressure must be pushing equally in all directions.
1) How does the 32PSI tire leaking at a 1 PSI every 2 hours still have pressure (You answered Yes it does) yet...
2) It's not maintaining its rigidity (You said it does not maintain its rigidity) yet...
3) It actually is maintaining rigidity because it won't be flat for about 64 hours (See your answer to #1) yet...
4) To hold rigidity, the pressure must be pushing equally in all directions (You answered Yes)
So you said that Yes, the tire does have pressure as its leaking and that pressure is pressing on all sides yet it is not maintaining rigidity.
If that were true, the tire would lose its rigidity immediately, immediately go flat, not take 64 hours to completely lose its rigidity and go flat.
You don't see that as a contradiction?
Nope, not in what we're dealing with.What is the gas pushing against to allow it to move?Gas.Quote from: JackBlackHow does the gas magically know to stop pushing outwards in all directions and instead only push towards the opening?Decompression.Quote from: JackBlackHow does the gas move towards the opening if it is pushing towards it, meaning it would be pushed away?It's expanding against a weaker compressive force in the opposite direction (atmosphere).
Expansion means uniform, in all directions.
Nope, not in what we're dealing with.What is the gas pushing against to allow it to move?Gas.Quote from: JackBlackHow does the gas magically know to stop pushing outwards in all directions and instead only push towards the opening?Decompression.Quote from: JackBlackHow does the gas move towards the opening if it is pushing towards it, meaning it would be pushed away?It's expanding against a weaker compressive force in the opposite direction (atmosphere).
Expansion means uniform, in all directions.
No contradictions whatsoever.Externally.Yes.
If it isn't immediately released it is still applying pressure.
Answer the two questions:
If am travelling forward at 50mph and decelerate to 40mph, during that deceleration, I'm still moving forward. Y/N?Quote from: NotSoSkepticalYes.
I have a pressurized tire that is leaking air (decompressing). It is at 32PSI and is leaking at a 1 PSI every 2 hours. Does the tire still have pressure? Y/N?
How can the tire have pressure if it's all heading toward the opening.Quote from: NotSoSkepticalIt's not.
How is it maintaining it's rigidity and not going flat as a result of the air all heading toward the opening to decompress.Quote from: NotSoSkepticalExactly.
To hold rigidity, the pressure must be pushing equally in all directions.
1) How does the 32PSI tire leaking at a 1 PSI every 2 hours still have pressure (You answered Yes it does) yet...
2) It's not maintaining its rigidity (You said it does not maintain its rigidity) yet...
3) It actually is maintaining rigidity because it won't be flat for about 64 hours (See your answer to #1) yet...
4) To hold rigidity, the pressure must be pushing equally in all directions (You answered Yes)
So you said that Yes, the tire does have pressure as its leaking and that pressure is pressing on all sides yet it is not maintaining rigidity.
If that were true, the tire would lose its rigidity immediately, immediately go flat, not take 64 hours to completely lose its rigidity and go flat.
You don't see that as a contradiction?
What I do see is a failure of you and others to understand what I put forward.
You change from a container to a tyre and believe it's the same scenario but it's not. There is a difference and it should be obvious.
This is why you're getting what you think are contradictions.
The balloon skin does, yes.
Why isn't it. When I blow up a balloon, I'm pretty sure it expands in all directions.
Correct.
Ok:
I have a pressurized container with a gauge on one end and a valve on the other that is opened (decompressing).
The container is at 32PSI and is ejecting through the valve at 1 PSI every 2 hours. Does the container still have pressure? Y/N?Yes.
After 32 hours, the gauge reads 16 PSI, does the container still have pressure? Y/N?Yes.
It's already squeezed by being pressurised. All it can do not is decompress to do work. It doesn't just squeeze again into a non- pressurised area, it expands into it until it fills that area and only then does it create a compressive reaction to its expansion of which the rocket sits atop of.Do you actually know what you're saying?
You are trying to hide the fact that the expansion continues in all direction all the time.
Hide it as in how?
As in trying to dismiss the fact that the "head of your sretching man" will keep pressing the sealed end of the container and pushing it away from the center of the total mass of the system.
Out of the container there is no pressure.
Inside there is.
Gas simply gets squeezed from the pressurised area into the non-pressurized.
Exactly. By expanding it pushes itself not only towards the opening but in all directions. The other side carries the rocket with it.Quote from: MacariosForce pushing the exiting mass of the gas is action.What force is pushing the exiting mass?
Explain what's happening.
The force of the expansion of the all gas. One side pushes the outer layers in one direction, the other side pushes the rocket in the other direction.Quote from: MacariosThe exiting mass pressing back is reaction.Explain what's happening.
Just did in the previous red sentence.Quote from: MacariosReaction pushes the rocket in opposite direction.Explain what's happening.
As simpe as that.
All gas in the container expands in all directions, and the pressure pushes the rocket.Quote from: MacariosWhere do you need "resistance"?Life doesn't work without it in any way shape or form.
You're duped into thinking we don;t need it because you accept space rockets.
Wrong. It is the other way around.I accept space rockets because I understand how they work, whether I want it or not. The acceptance came AFTER the understanding.Quote from: MacariosThe only role that the missing resistance could have there is to prevent the rocket from bouncing off the mass of the exhaust.Tell me about this bouncing off the mass of the exhaust.
Whenever you in any way push any mass, the reaction force pushes you off that mass.
And yes, the exhaust gas do have mass.Quote from: MacariosCar pushes itself off the road.Not without fuel and air.
Air is there just to burn the fuel, not to push the car. You can pedal it without fuel.
(Rocket carries own oxidizer and doesn't need air.)
The only thing that pushes the car is the reaction from pushing the road back by the tires.
It is enough to push the road backwards.Quote from: MacariosShip pushes itself off the water.Not without fuel and air.
Scuba diver doesn't need either and he still moves.
It is enough to push the water backwards.Quote from: MacariosRocket pushes itself off the exhaust gasses.Explain how it does this.
Don't just say it just does. Explain what's happening inside the rocket, because outside apparently doesn't exist to a moving rocket, except to expel supposed waste.
So tell me what exactly is happening inside.
Explain it fully so I'm under no illusions.
Gas expands in all direction. In one direction is the appreture and it goes out. In the other direction is closed end and the gas pushes the rocket.Quote from: MacariosIn your "explanations" those things don't work that way, but in reality they do.Explain them all in detail.
Correct.
Ok:
I have a pressurized container with a gauge on one end and a valve on the other that is opened (decompressing).Quote from: StashThe container is at 32PSI and is ejecting through the valve at 1 PSI every 2 hours. Does the container still have pressure? Y/N?Yes.Quote from: StashAfter 32 hours, the gauge reads 16 PSI, does the container still have pressure? Y/N?Yes.
Now this is where you'll sit back and scratch your head and likely come back with " scepti you're contradicting yourself...can't you see."
Or something like that.
The container has pressure because it still has a gas fight on.
The container itself has its pressure releasing when the valve is open.
The gas is not directly pushing against the container with positive force. It's simply decompressing away from the container walls, even though the outer molecules are still touching.
And this is the key.
This is what you need to get around and understand why I explain what I explain.
Feel free to pick one specific thing and let's deal with that specific thing before we move on.
My comments are in red.
I tried to make them as simple as possible.
After 32 hours the gauge reads 16 PSI, I close the valve. The gauge reads 16 PSI. Is the gas now pushing against the walls with a positive force?Yes.
A positive force of 16 PSI? Y/N
After 32 hours the gauge reads 16 PSI, I close the valve. The gauge reads 16 PSI. Is the gas now pushing against the walls with a positive force?Yes.
A positive force of 16 PSI? Y/N
Correct.
Ok:
I have a pressurized container with a gauge on one end and a valve on the other that is opened (decompressing).Quote from: StashThe container is at 32PSI and is ejecting through the valve at 1 PSI every 2 hours. Does the container still have pressure? Y/N?Yes.Quote from: StashAfter 32 hours, the gauge reads 16 PSI, does the container still have pressure? Y/N?Yes.
Now this is where you'll sit back and scratch your head and likely come back with " scepti you're contradicting yourself...can't you see."
Or something like that.
The container has pressure because it still has a gas fight on.
The container itself has its pressure releasing when the valve is open.
The gas is not directly pushing against the container with positive force. It's simply decompressing away from the container walls, even though the outer molecules are still touching.
And this is the key.
This is what you need to get around and understand why I explain what I explain.
No.After 32 hours the gauge reads 16 PSI, I close the valve. The gauge reads 16 PSI. Is the gas now pushing against the walls with a positive force?Yes.
A positive force of 16 PSI? Y/N
When I reopen the valve, the gauge still reads 16 PSI, is the gas still pushing against the walls with a positive force? A positive force of 16 PSI? Y/N
No I didn't.So its either sponges that dont moveRead back, it's all been explained.
Or its people that move.
Or its both?
Whicj is it?
I did
You said sponge people are moving off a bus.
Go and read and absorb what I did say.
To give you a simple analogy (and take it as that and do not use it as an argument) we'll imagine a bus that is sealed off and inside it are people all crammed in to such an extent they have to fight to stop themselves being crushed.
Imagine if they could survive being crushed smaller.
Ok so now you can imagine that...if the bus was sealed at each end, the crush would be even from back to front. Even pressure hitting both sealed off exits and also everyone squashed against the side walls and ceiling of that bus, plus floor.
Ok we both know this as being a sealed container of pressure, right, so let's see what happens.
Outside of that bus are a crowd of people who are body to body and slightly compressing into each other all around That bus and also stood on top of each other and also on top of the bus with people stood on top of them...and so on.
Under the bus there would be a few laid under it but not being squashed more than the rest because the bus wheels hold back the dense mass on it by using a solid ground.
Ok, so what we know is, the people inside the bus are itching to decompress. They're trying to break open the bus at its weakest point (assume windowless...let's not add in issues).
Suddenly the back door is breached and the compressed people in that bus start to decompress against the looser compression of the external crowd and manage to push some out of the way which compresses them into the people behind them.
However, inside the bus, the people behind the first out can also decompress as they push and are pushed into the first.
The one behind does the same.
By this time it will be noted that the bus is moving in the opposite direction and all the work done at the first decompression is filled by the falling people from above who fill the void that the first decompressed person created by compressing the crowd back...which as you know were less compressed at first.
Now this keeps happening because there's so many people crammed into the bus and it becomes each person expanding out and expanded into the back of.
As a little time goes on, the expansion inside the bus will become less and less as more people are pushed out.
Now here's the key.
The people at the other end of the bus have had to wait their turn to fully expand because all the way down that bus became a slight expansion of each person from large (front) to extremely small (back).
Everybody expands at the front and is followed by those behind in a natural decompression.
By the time most are out, there's still some people still left inside the bus, all of who are simply equalised to the people outside of it.
There becomes no more movement. of the bus.
Read this carefully, seriously.
Absorb what's been said because you're getting closer to understanding, whether you end up agreeing or not.
The gas doesn't have to know what it's in.
scepti is clearly using definitions that differ from "conventional" and have yet to be determined.
because - HOW WOULD THE GAS KNOW IT"S IN A FLEXIBLE BALLOON VS A RIGID IMPERMEABLE CONTAINER?!
completely bonkers.
i like how you deleted what you said from my reply...What have I deleted?
are you trump?
you realize this is all text that can be easily verified?
i've not changed a single word - just added some bolding.
No.After 32 hours the gauge reads 16 PSI, I close the valve. The gauge reads 16 PSI. Is the gas now pushing against the walls with a positive force?Yes.
A positive force of 16 PSI? Y/N
When I reopen the valve, the gauge still reads 16 PSI, is the gas still pushing against the walls with a positive force? A positive force of 16 PSI? Y/N
The positive force is now expanding out into the opening and releasing the push against the walls,negatively.
Also the psi is no longer 16psi. It would be a continuous drop because it is not positively pushing against the gauge piston.
i like how you deleted what you said from my reply...What have I deleted?
are you trump?
you realize this is all text that can be easily verified?
i've not changed a single word - just added some bolding.
No.After 32 hours the gauge reads 16 PSI, I close the valve. The gauge reads 16 PSI. Is the gas now pushing against the walls with a positive force?Yes.
A positive force of 16 PSI? Y/N
When I reopen the valve, the gauge still reads 16 PSI, is the gas still pushing against the walls with a positive force? A positive force of 16 PSI? Y/N
The positive force is now expanding out into the opening and releasing the push against the walls, negatively.
Also the psi is no longer 16psi. It would be a continuous drop because it is not positively pushing against the gauge piston.
Really?As you like analogies, here is one for you:That's not how mine works. This is why you're getting yourself mixed up.
You are in a swimming pool, near the wall (so it is within reach), and you want to get away from the wall.
Do you A - Push away from the wall, i.e. stretching your arms/feet out away from the wall and applying a force in the direction away from the wall, or
B - Push towards the wall, i.e. stretching your arms/feet out towards the wall, possibly even pushing into the wall.
I'll put your analogy right from my side.You mean you will avoid yet another very simple question which shows your model to be a pile of nonsense.
At the front a massive hole opens up and out goes the first person who simply decompresses because that wall is not there anymore to keep the person compressed.Nope. You can't just simply move like that.
I'm showing that rockets do not work as we are told and certainly do not work in a so called space vacuum.You are only showing your complete inability to very simple questions which show you are completely wrong.
Again, that means the gas is capable of providing resistance to motion and thus the rocket can push off it as well.What is the gas pushing against to allow it to move?Gas.
That is a useless word, not an answer.Quote from: JackBlackHow does the gas magically know to stop pushing outwards in all directions and instead only push towards the opening?Decompression.
If it was just expanding, it would expand outwards in all directions, not magically move in one direction. So again, you have no answer.Quote from: JackBlackHow does the gas move towards the opening if it is pushing towards it, meaning it would be pushed away?It's expanding against a weaker compressive force in the opposite direction (atmosphere).
What I do see is a failure of you and others to understand what I put forward.Stop with the insults.
The positive force is now expanding out into the opening and releasing the push against the walls, negatively.i.e. it is still applying a pressure, it is just less than before.
The actual containers and external atmospheric pressure are the deciding factors.Only if there are interactions between the container and the air due to them pushing against each other.
No you're not but you are negatively draining your bank account, not positively adding to it or even holding a set $100.
if you had 100$ in your bank.
and every day you took out 10$.
you are not BROKE until the 10th day (9th if you want to play games).
Then don't deal with me if you have nothing else to say other than that.i like how you deleted what you said from my reply...What have I deleted?
are you trump?
you realize this is all text that can be easily verified?
i've not changed a single word - just added some bolding.
clearly jackB is correct that you are clearly purposefully trying to be dishonest.
The gauge isn't reading 15,999 psi, it's reading nothing definitively set whilst the valve is open.No.After 32 hours the gauge reads 16 PSI, I close the valve. The gauge reads 16 PSI. Is the gas now pushing against the walls with a positive force?Yes.
A positive force of 16 PSI? Y/N
When I reopen the valve, the gauge still reads 16 PSI, is the gas still pushing against the walls with a positive force? A positive force of 16 PSI? Y/N
The positive force is now expanding out into the opening and releasing the push against the walls, negatively.
Also the psi is no longer 16psi. It would be a continuous drop because it is not positively pushing against the gauge piston.
So the 15.999 PSI, or whatever, right after I open the valve, is no longer pressing on the gauge, yet the gauge is reading 15.999 PSI? Y/N
Nope. They're resisting your expansion in to their back.
How about this analogy:
Someone is pushing you against a wall, applying a significant force.
Then they slowly ease up on the force, gradually reducing the force they are applying to you.
Are they still pushing you?
The gauge isn't reading 15,999 psi, it's reading nothing definitively set whilst the valve is open.No.After 32 hours the gauge reads 16 PSI, I close the valve. The gauge reads 16 PSI. Is the gas now pushing against the walls with a positive force?Yes.
A positive force of 16 PSI? Y/N
When I reopen the valve, the gauge still reads 16 PSI, is the gas still pushing against the walls with a positive force? A positive force of 16 PSI? Y/N
The positive force is now expanding out into the opening and releasing the push against the walls, negatively.
Also the psi is no longer 16psi. It would be a continuous drop because it is not positively pushing against the gauge piston.
So the 15.999 PSI, or whatever, right after I open the valve, is no longer pressing on the gauge, yet the gauge is reading 15.999 PSI? Y/N
Then don't deal with me if you have nothing else to say other than that.i like how you deleted what you said from my reply...What have I deleted?
are you trump?
you realize this is all text that can be easily verified?
i've not changed a single word - just added some bolding.
clearly jackB is correct that you are clearly purposefully trying to be dishonest.
This doesn't enhance your argument, it diminishes it.
No you're not but you are negatively draining your bank account, not positively adding to it or even holding a set $100.
if you had 100$ in your bank.
and every day you took out 10$.
you are not BROKE until the 10th day (9th if you want to play games).
No I didn't.So its either sponges that dont moveRead back, it's all been explained.
Or its people that move.
Or its both?
Whicj is it?
I did
You said sponge people are moving off a bus.
Go and read and absorb what I did say.
i like how you deleted what you said from my reply...
are you trump?
you realize this is all text that can be easily verified?
i've not changed a single word - just added some bolding.
To give you a simple analogy (and take it as that and do not use it as an argument) we'll imagine a bus that is sealed off and inside it are people all crammed in to such an extent they have to fight to stop themselves being crushed.
Imagine if they could survive being crushed smaller.
Ok so now you can imagine that...if the bus was sealed at each end, the crush would be even from back to front. Even pressure hitting both sealed off exits and also everyone squashed against the side walls and ceiling of that bus, plus floor.
Ok we both know this as being a sealed container of pressure, right, so let's see what happens.
Outside of that bus are a crowd of people who are body to body and slightly compressing into each other all around That bus and also stood on top of each other and also on top of the bus with people stood on top of them...and so on.
Under the bus there would be a few laid under it but not being squashed more than the rest because the bus wheels hold back the dense mass on it by using a solid ground.
Ok, so what we know is, the people inside the bus are itching to decompress. They're trying to break open the bus at its weakest point (assume windowless...let's not add in issues).
Suddenly the back door is breached and the compressed people in that bus start to decompress against the looser compression of the external crowd and manage to push some out of the way which compresses them into the people behind them.
However, inside the bus, the people behind the first out can also decompress as they push and are pushed into the first.
The one behind does the same.
By this time it will be noted that the bus is moving in the opposite direction and all the work done at the first decompression is filled by the falling people from above who fill the void that the first decompressed person created by compressing the crowd back...which as you know were less compressed at first.
Now this keeps happening because there's so many people crammed into the bus and it becomes each person expanding out and expanded into the back of.
As a little time goes on, the expansion inside the bus will become less and less as more people are pushed out.
Now here's the key.
The people at the other end of the bus have had to wait their turn to fully expand because all the way down that bus became a slight expansion of each person from large (front) to extremely small (back).
Everybody expands at the front and is followed by those behind in a natural decompression.
By the time most are out, there's still some people still left inside the bus, all of who are simply equalised to the people outside of it.
There becomes no more movement. of the bus.
Read this carefully, seriously.
Absorb what's been said because you're getting closer to understanding, whether you end up agreeing or not.
i can requote it.
for alllll to see.
you clearly deleted it.
sponge people expand but also leave the bus.
these are YOUR words
No I didn't.So its either sponges that dont moveRead back, it's all been explained.
Or its people that move.
Or its both?
Whicj is it?
I did
You said sponge people are moving off a bus.
Go and read and absorb what I did say.
i like how you deleted what you said from my reply...
are you trump?
you realize this is all text that can be easily verified?
i've not changed a single word - just added some bolding.
To give you a simple analogy (and take it as that and do not use it as an argument) we'll imagine a bus that is sealed off and inside it are people all crammed in to such an extent they have to fight to stop themselves being crushed.
Imagine if they could survive being crushed smaller.
Ok so now you can imagine that...if the bus was sealed at each end, the crush would be even from back to front. Even pressure hitting both sealed off exits and also everyone squashed against the side walls and ceiling of that bus, plus floor.
Ok we both know this as being a sealed container of pressure, right, so let's see what happens.
Outside of that bus are a crowd of people who are body to body and slightly compressing into each other all around That bus and also stood on top of each other and also on top of the bus with people stood on top of them...and so on.
Under the bus there would be a few laid under it but not being squashed more than the rest because the bus wheels hold back the dense mass on it by using a solid ground.
Ok, so what we know is, the people inside the bus are itching to decompress. They're trying to break open the bus at its weakest point (assume windowless...let's not add in issues).
Suddenly the back door is breached and the compressed people in that bus start to decompress against the looser compression of the external crowd and manage to push some out of the way which compresses them into the people behind them.
However, inside the bus, the people behind the first out can also decompress as they push and are pushed into the first.
The one behind does the same.
By this time it will be noted that the bus is moving in the opposite direction and all the work done at the first decompression is filled by the falling people from above who fill the void that the first decompressed person created by compressing the crowd back...which as you know were less compressed at first.
Now this keeps happening because there's so many people crammed into the bus and it becomes each person expanding out and expanded into the back of.
As a little time goes on, the expansion inside the bus will become less and less as more people are pushed out.
Now here's the key.
The people at the other end of the bus have had to wait their turn to fully expand because all the way down that bus became a slight expansion of each person from large (front) to extremely small (back).
Everybody expands at the front and is followed by those behind in a natural decompression.
By the time most are out, there's still some people still left inside the bus, all of who are simply equalised to the people outside of it.
There becomes no more movement. of the bus.
Read this carefully, seriously.
Absorb what's been said because you're getting closer to understanding, whether you end up agreeing or not.
No you're not but you are negatively draining your bank account, not positively adding to it or even holding a set $100.
if you had 100$ in your bank.
and every day you took out 10$.
you are not BROKE until the 10th day (9th if you want to play games).
The gas doesn't have to know what it's in.
scepti is clearly using definitions that differ from "conventional" and have yet to be determined.
because - HOW WOULD THE GAS KNOW IT"S IN A FLEXIBLE BALLOON VS A RIGID IMPERMEABLE CONTAINER?!
completely bonkers.
The actual containers and external atmospheric pressure are the deciding factors.
Both different set ups and both have to be dealt with in exactly that way.
Rigid container holds compressed air and is stopped from expanding by that rigidity.
A balloon holds compressed air but it expands the skin against the external atmospheric pressure and compresses that by what's inside the balloon.
No contradictions whatsoever.Externally.Yes.
If it isn't immediately released it is still applying pressure.
Answer the two questions:
If am travelling forward at 50mph and decelerate to 40mph, during that deceleration, I'm still moving forward. Y/N?Quote from: NotSoSkepticalYes.
I have a pressurized tire that is leaking air (decompressing). It is at 32PSI and is leaking at a 1 PSI every 2 hours. Does the tire still have pressure? Y/N?
How can the tire have pressure if it's all heading toward the opening.Quote from: NotSoSkepticalIt's not.
How is it maintaining it's rigidity and not going flat as a result of the air all heading toward the opening to decompress.Quote from: NotSoSkepticalExactly.
To hold rigidity, the pressure must be pushing equally in all directions.
1) How does the 32PSI tire leaking at a 1 PSI every 2 hours still have pressure (You answered Yes it does) yet...
2) It's not maintaining its rigidity (You said it does not maintain its rigidity) yet...
3) It actually is maintaining rigidity because it won't be flat for about 64 hours (See your answer to #1) yet...
4) To hold rigidity, the pressure must be pushing equally in all directions (You answered Yes)
So you said that Yes, the tire does have pressure as its leaking and that pressure is pressing on all sides yet it is not maintaining rigidity.
If that were true, the tire would lose its rigidity immediately, immediately go flat, not take 64 hours to completely lose its rigidity and go flat.
You don't see that as a contradiction?
What I do see is a failure of you and others to understand what I put forward.
You change from a container to a tyre and believe it's the same scenario but it's not. There is a difference and it should be obvious.
This is why you're getting what you think are contradictions.
The balloon skin does, yes.
Why isn't it. When I blow up a balloon, I'm pretty sure it expands in all directions.
We aren't dealing with the skin, we're dealing with the gas inside of it, but more im portantly we are delaing with a solid container at this moment.
Too many people are changing the set up from a balloon to a tyre and what not.
That's fine if you want to but add in a gauge because this is also what we're arguing at this point.
I'm sure you can see how it's going to get confusing for you all.
I have no issues in answering any but you'll definitely get mixed up.
Correct.
Ok:
I have a pressurized container with a gauge on one end and a valve on the other that is opened (decompressing).Quote from: StashThe container is at 32PSI and is ejecting through the valve at 1 PSI every 2 hours. Does the container still have pressure? Y/N?Yes.Quote from: StashAfter 32 hours, the gauge reads 16 PSI, does the container still have pressure? Y/N?Yes.
Now this is where you'll sit back and scratch your head and likely come back with " scepti you're contradicting yourself...can't you see."
Or something like that.
The container has pressure because it still has a gas fight on.
The container itself has its pressure releasing when the valve is open.
The gas is not directly pushing against the container with positive force. It's simply decompressing away from the container walls, even though the outer molecules are still touching.
And this is the key.
This is what you need to get around and understand why I explain what I explain.
It is a different set up.The gas doesn't have to know what it's in.
scepti is clearly using definitions that differ from "conventional" and have yet to be determined.
because - HOW WOULD THE GAS KNOW IT"S IN A FLEXIBLE BALLOON VS A RIGID IMPERMEABLE CONTAINER?!
completely bonkers.
The actual containers and external atmospheric pressure are the deciding factors.
Both different set ups and both have to be dealt with in exactly that way.
Rigid container holds compressed air and is stopped from expanding by that rigidity.
A balloon holds compressed air but it expands the skin against the external atmospheric pressure and compresses that by what's inside the balloon.
Right
The container skin properties decide how the container will form and behave.
The air just wants to go out in all (in all) directions
Even if there is a breach, the air is still trying to go in all directions, its just those near the exit find it easy, and leave.
So it is NOT a different set up, as far as the air is concerned.
You have the same mental difficiency by thinking a traveling car horizontally vs vertical matters much when considering linear motion.I think you have one when you can't make up your mind what the hell you're trying to argue.
Or that thinking air in a balloon vs a pop can when considering air pressure.
It doesn't think anything.
Lets try this.
The ballloon is inside a popcan that is full sealed.
Blow up the balloon.
It fills to the size of the popcan.
Now what does the air think?
Its inside a balloon or its inside a popcan?
Oh dear... what to do.
Not against a gauge it's not.
any number of value greater than zero, is a POSTIVE.
the DIRECTION of RATE of DECREASE may be dropping (calculus), but it is still a POSTIVE value.
Not against a gauge it's not.
any number of value greater than zero, is a POSTIVE.
the DIRECTION of RATE of DECREASE may be dropping (calculus), but it is still a POSTIVE value.
It may be a positive value with gas on gas expansion but it has zero positive value against a gauge if the opposite end is open.
It doesn't think anything.
Lets try this.
The ballloon is inside a popcan that is full sealed.
Blow up the balloon.
It fills to the size of the popcan.
Now what does the air think?
Its inside a balloon or its inside a popcan?
Oh dear... what to do.
It's air pushed into a pop can with added rubber skin.
It's just a sealed pressurised container.
You have the same mental difficiency by thinking a traveling car horizontally vs vertical matters much when considering linear motion.I think you have one when you can't make up your mind what the hell you're trying to argue.
Or that thinking air in a balloon vs a pop can when considering air pressure.
No you're not but you are negatively draining your bank account, not positively adding to it or even holding a set $100.But you still have money it in.
How about this analogy:Nope. They're resisting your expansion in to their back.
Someone is pushing you against a wall, applying a significant force.
Then they slowly ease up on the force, gradually reducing the force they are applying to you.
Are they still pushing you?
It is a different set up.While there are differences, it is the same principle, and the setup is not really any more different than any other container.
Not against a gauge it's not.A gauge is irrelevant.
That analogy does not cover what I'm saying.Not against a gauge it's not.
any number of value greater than zero, is a POSTIVE.
the DIRECTION of RATE of DECREASE may be dropping (calculus), but it is still a POSTIVE value.
It may be a positive value with gas on gas expansion but it has zero positive value against a gauge if the opposite end is open.
So using your logic, if I'm driving at 50mph and decelerate to any speed greater than 0, I'm no longer moving forward.
Yep, it's flexible and that is the key to why it's a different scenario.It doesn't think anything.
Lets try this.
The ballloon is inside a popcan that is full sealed.
Blow up the balloon.
It fills to the size of the popcan.
Now what does the air think?
Its inside a balloon or its inside a popcan?
Oh dear... what to do.
It's air pushed into a pop can with added rubber skin.
It's just a sealed pressurised container.
So is a balloon.
Its a flexible sealed pressurized container
My theory is perfectly straight.You have the same mental difficiency by thinking a traveling car horizontally vs vertical matters much when considering linear motion.I think you have one when you can't make up your mind what the hell you're trying to argue.
Or that thinking air in a balloon vs a pop can when considering air pressure.
No
The others would agree you cant keep your theory straight.
Last year pumps didnt exist and sponges grew and shrank, gobstopper style, within the container.Pumps did exist. Not sure what you're getting at with this.
This time sponge people can exit off a bus which in theory means that vaccuums exist.I never mentioned sponge people. You did.
The cause of the bus movement is related to the exit of the people.Yep, the exit of people into direct resistance of external people pushing back by resistance.
Meaning vacuums exist and rockets propell using mass flow.Low pressure exists and mass flow exists.
But you deny you used such an anology.I'm not denying anything I've said. Your attempts to twist stuff to suit your needs because you're frustrated at not understanding, is entirely your issue.
So strange.
Heres another fluid-pressure example.You'll need to be clearer on what you're saying here. A football jug? A spout pouring into cup? Spout is open? Water is flow? No pressure at bottom of jug?
Water is a fluid.
Water inside a giant football jug with a spout pouring into a cup.
Are you saying because the spout is open, water is flow, that there would be no pressure on the bottom of the jug?
Remeber us duped people believe weight = pressure over an area.
Youre saying that magically there isbzero pressure resultong in zero weight of the jug?
That analogy does not cover what I'm saying.No, it still does.
This is why you lot are struggling to understand.We are not struggling to understand.
And 10pg later.I'm abandoning nothing.
You still havent answer what the relevance of water in a water rocket does.
You think you answered it.
But a "dissipative resistance to stack" is nonsensical.
We even went through a denP-definition exercise which you quickly abandoned when you realized what contradictions it was exposing.
A decreasing number which is greater than 0, is still a positive number.There is no definitive number on something decreasing, until it stops decreasing.
How do you know a positive value if there are no means to measure it?Not against a gauge it's not.A gauge is irrelevant.
A positive value is a positive value.
It doesn't matter how it got there.
Itself.
What is the gas pushing against to allow it to move?
It follows a funnel like exit against lower pressure.
How does the gas magically know to stop pushing outwards in all directions and instead only push towards the opening?
It expands to wards the opening because the resistance of gas external to it is much lower or more expanded than the expanded gas coming out of the valve, which is then compressed to that in resistance by the stack of atmosphere directly below.
How does the gas move towards the opening if it is pushing towards it, meaning it would be pushed away?
I'm not saying it's not positive. I'm saying there's no positive pressure against the gauge.That analogy does not cover what I'm saying.No, it still does.
You want to pretend that just because a value is dropping that it is magically not positive.
That is not how anything works.
A decreasing number which is greater than 0, is still a positive number.There is no definitive number on something decreasing, until it stops decreasing.
QuoteI'm not saying it's not positive. I'm saying there's no positive pressure against the gauge.
The positive pressure is still there but it's happening at the opposite end against resistant atmosphere.
And that is just more attempts at weaseling.A decreasing number which is greater than 0, is still a positive number.There is no definitive number on something decreasing, until it stops decreasing.
How do you know a positive value if there are no means to measure it?There are many ways, as already explained.
Again, if you want to go down that route, that means the rocket can push against itself and thus rockets work in a vacuum.Quote from: JackBlackItself.
What is the gas pushing against to allow it to move?
How?Quote from: JackBlackIt follows a funnel like exit against lower pressure.
How does the gas magically know to stop pushing outwards in all directions and instead only push towards the opening?
And again you avoid the actual problem this question raises.Quote from: JackBlackIt expands to wards the opening because the resistance of gas external to it is much lower or more expanded than the expanded gas coming out of the valve, which is then compressed to that in resistance by the stack of atmosphere directly below.
How does the gas move towards the opening if it is pushing towards it, meaning it would be pushed away?
I'm not saying it's not positive. I'm saying there's no positive pressure against the gauge.So you are contradicting yourself again, because before you said if it was positive there is pressure against the gauge.
The positive pressure is still thereWhich means it will still be pushing against the gauge as there is literally no reason for it to not do so and all the evidence shows it is.
Deal with one thing at a time and you won't get sidetracked by adding in stuff you clearly don't fully understand about my theory.I have made it quite clear that I do understand.
My theory is consistent. There's no holes.A decreasing number which is greater than 0, is still a positive number.There is no definitive number on something decreasing, until it stops decreasing.
Whoa, what? What in the world does that mean in your world? A gauge measures a reading whether it's going up or going down. And your explanation is that there is no definitive number on something decreasing, until it stops decreasing? And yes, that's like saying something I just made up, there is no increasing as the increases occur increasingly. You have got to be kidding me that is your gobblegook explanation for anything.
There's a gauge. The gauge reads pressure. Whether that pressure is going up, or going down, it reads pressure. That's the sole purpose of the life of a pressure gauge. This "no definitive number" thing completely blows up your theory as it is asinine at best.
I think the issue is that you got into a bind regarding pressurized containers vexed by a Newtonian 3rd law and can't really find your way out unless you make up new things.I can easily find my way out because I know what my theory is.
New things that contradict old things, but attempt to get you out of the current jam you're in. Hence things like, "no definitive number on something decreasing", sponges, buses and expansion.Nothing contradicts.
You can't get past the gauge argument without making up entirely new contradictory stuff. So I think it's kinda done.You can't understand it but my argument is consistent, not contradictory.
Once the valve is opened the gauge ceases to have positive pressure applied to it. All the pressure is doing from that point is resisting the piston.QuoteI'm not saying it's not positive. I'm saying there's no positive pressure against the gauge.
The positive pressure is still there but it's happening at the opposite end against resistant atmosphere.
Again, what? The positive pressure is still there, but it is only selectively happening at one end. If it were doing so there would be a 0 reading on the pressure gauge at the other end. What magic keeps occurring that presses on the pressure gauge and shows a pressure reading yet there is no pressure present to do so? How can that be?
There is no positive push back which is why the reading on the gaue shows a consistent drop of the needle which in turn shows no definitive consistent positive pressure reading, only negative.
All the systems still have pressure being applied.That's because it is just expanding, which is why the pressure inside the container shows a gauge decrease.
You just seem to want to pretend that while this pressure which is continuing to be applied is decreasing it is just expansion.
To give you a simple analogy take a look at a sink and plug hole.How?Quote from: JackBlackIt follows a funnel like exit against lower pressure.
How does the gas magically know to stop pushing outwards in all directions and instead only push towards the opening?
As you said, it is trying to expand. Why would it suddenly stop trying to do so in all bar one direction?
My theory is consistent. There's no holes.If it was consistent and without holes you wouldn't be repeatedly contradicting yourself and avoiding very simple questions.
Once the valve is opened the gauge ceases to have positive pressure applied to it. All the pressure is doing from that point is resisting the piston.i.e. it is applying a force to it (as if it wasn't it would offer no resistance and simply move out of the way).
That's because it is just expandingIf it was just expanding then the gauge would very rapidly go to 0 and the balloon would very rapidly return to its normal size.
The pressure from this point on is only applied against a lesser pressure resistance to recreate a reactionary compression, externally.i.e. a bunch of word salad to say the gas is still applying a pressure to the gauge?
The only question I avoid or delete from your quotes are those that you repeatedly ask after being given an answer to, time and time again.My theory is consistent. There's no holes.If it was consistent and without holes you wouldn't be repeatedly contradicting yourself and avoiding very simple questions.
It can't move out of the way. It's behind all the other gas molecules and the gauge piston is now applying the dense mass to that already expanding towards the front, molecules, which were at one time pushing that piston back or stopping it from pushing forward.Once the valve is opened the gauge ceases to have positive pressure applied to it. All the pressure is doing from that point is resisting the piston.i.e. it is applying a force to it (as if it wasn't it would offer no resistance and simply move out of the way).
This means it is applying a pressure to it.
you say that objects can't push against themselves to move, and if the gas can, then so can the rocket.All objects can push against themselves to move as long as there's a pressure applied to those objects.
For the third, you also need to address the fact that motion is the result of an interaction between 2 objects, where an object pushes in one direction and moves the other.I have no problem with an object pushing in one direction to move another. It's how and why it works which is the key.
It is a different set up.The gas doesn't have to know what it's in.
scepti is clearly using definitions that differ from "conventional" and have yet to be determined.
because - HOW WOULD THE GAS KNOW IT"S IN A FLEXIBLE BALLOON VS A RIGID IMPERMEABLE CONTAINER?!
completely bonkers.
The actual containers and external atmospheric pressure are the deciding factors.
Both different set ups and both have to be dealt with in exactly that way.
Rigid container holds compressed air and is stopped from expanding by that rigidity.
A balloon holds compressed air but it expands the skin against the external atmospheric pressure and compresses that by what's inside the balloon.
Right
The container skin properties decide how the container will form and behave.
The air just wants to go out in all (in all) directions
Even if there is a breach, the air is still trying to go in all directions, its just those near the exit find it easy, and leave.
So it is NOT a different set up, as far as the air is concerned.
It is a different set up.The gas doesn't have to know what it's in.
scepti is clearly using definitions that differ from "conventional" and have yet to be determined.
because - HOW WOULD THE GAS KNOW IT"S IN A FLEXIBLE BALLOON VS A RIGID IMPERMEABLE CONTAINER?!
completely bonkers.
The actual containers and external atmospheric pressure are the deciding factors.
Both different set ups and both have to be dealt with in exactly that way.
Rigid container holds compressed air and is stopped from expanding by that rigidity.
A balloon holds compressed air but it expands the skin against the external atmospheric pressure and compresses that by what's inside the balloon.
Right
The container skin properties decide how the container will form and behave.
The air just wants to go out in all (in all) directions
Even if there is a breach, the air is still trying to go in all directions, its just those near the exit find it easy, and leave.
So it is NOT a different set up, as far as the air is concerned.
It doesn't think anything.
Lets try this.
The ballloon is inside a popcan that is full sealed.
Blow up the balloon.
It fills to the size of the popcan.
Now what does the air think?
Its inside a balloon or its inside a popcan?
Oh dear... what to do.
It's air pushed into a pop can with added rubber skin.
It's just a sealed pressurised container.
That analogy does not cover what I'm saying.Not against a gauge it's not.
any number of value greater than zero, is a POSTIVE.
the DIRECTION of RATE of DECREASE may be dropping (calculus), but it is still a POSTIVE value.
It may be a positive value with gas on gas expansion but it has zero positive value against a gauge if the opposite end is open.
So using your logic, if I'm driving at 50mph and decelerate to any speed greater than 0, I'm no longer moving forward.
This is why you lot are struggling to understand.
My theory is perfectly straight.You have the same mental difficiency by thinking a traveling car horizontally vs vertical matters much when considering linear motion.I think you have one when you can't make up your mind what the hell you're trying to argue.
Or that thinking air in a balloon vs a pop can when considering air pressure.
No
The others would agree you cant keep your theory straight.
Your interpretation of it is skewed on a regular basis and it feels deliberate....but, that's your issue.Quote from: ThemightykaboolLast year pumps didnt exist and sponges grew and shrank, gobstopper style, within the container.Pumps did exist. Not sure what you're getting at with this.
Maybe explain it and quote my post on it.
As for sponges, they are a basic analogy for clarity which you and others struggle with.
Gobstoppers are for molecular density to show layers but that goes way above your head when you struggle to deal with a sponge analogy.
By all means keep typing this stuff and I'll pick out what's relevant and leave what's not.Quote from: ThemightykaboolThis time sponge people can exit off a bus which in theory means that vaccuums exist.I never mentioned sponge people. You did.Quote from: ThemightykaboolThe cause of the bus movement is related to the exit of the people.Yep, the exit of people into direct resistance of external people pushing back by resistance.Quote from: ThemightykaboolMeaning vacuums exist and rockets propell using mass flow.Low pressure exists and mass flow exists.Quote from: ThemightykaboolBut you deny you used such an anology.I'm not denying anything I've said. Your attempts to twist stuff to suit your needs because you're frustrated at not understanding, is entirely your issue.
So strange.
Scepti:Yep, as long as they hit a resistance, which your so called space vacuum does not provide
"I have no problem with an object pushing in one direction to move another. It's how and why it works which is the key."
Great
Then many little tiny sponges of air or water pushing out to the left propel the rocket right.
Rockers work in a vaccuum.
And if that gauge was ripped out.If the gauge was ripped out to leave an opening and let's assume the opening was equal to the opposite end valve opening then you have an expansion out of both ends, all the way back to the middle.
Would the air magically still qant to push out the original opening?
Would any air want to leak out the hole where the gauge used to be?
Ok lets focus popcan.You are altering scenarios once again.
Because in reality the popcan has a far greater strebgth and one woukd cobsider it inflexible or rigid container...but its not.
The bottom and top can actually be blown out if the can is heated or frozen.
So how does the flexible popcan now differ from the flexible balloon?
At some point the skin strength matches the air pressure strength and the air ceases the ability to expand any further.
But
As far as the air is concerned - it dossnt matter because air is not self aware or sentient!
You're certainly not helping yourself. If it's deliberate then fair enough.It doesn't think anything.
Lets try this.
The ballloon is inside a popcan that is full sealed.
Blow up the balloon.
It fills to the size of the popcan.
Now what does the air think?
Its inside a balloon or its inside a popcan?
Oh dear... what to do.
It's air pushed into a pop can with added rubber skin.
It's just a sealed pressurised container.
Good
Then conceed that the container type is NOT a different set up.
And if that gauge was ripped out.If the gauge was ripped out to leave an opening and let's assume the opening was equal to the opposite end valve opening then you have an expansion out of both ends, all the way back to the middle.
Would the air magically still qant to push out the original opening?
Would any air want to leak out the hole where the gauge used to be?
Nothing to do with failing at maths and everything to do with understanding what's happening.
It does
The speedometer shows a postive value (greater than zero).
The pressure gauge sjows a psotive value (grwater than zero).
Both a decreasing at a rate.
You failing at basic math is what we re struggling to understand
And if that gauge was ripped out.If the gauge was ripped out to leave an opening and let's assume the opening was equal to the opposite end valve opening then you have an expansion out of both ends, all the way back to the middle.
Would the air magically still qant to push out the original opening?
Would any air want to leak out the hole where the gauge used to be?
How would the air know that a new opening existed?
How would the air expand in a separate direction if it is only expanding and pushing in one direction?
The only way I could see it is if the air was pushing against the gauge trying to expand. Then when the opening appeared, the air found no resistance and expanded in the direction of the new hole as well. Like it should.
I'm not saying it's not positive. I'm saying there's no positive pressure against the gauge.That analogy does not cover what I'm saying.No, it still does.
You want to pretend that just because a value is dropping that it is magically not positive.
That is not how anything works.
The positive pressure is still there but it's happening at the opposite end against resistant atmosphere.
Deal with one thing at a time and you won't get sidetracked by adding in stuff you clearly don't fully understand about my theory.
Heres another fluid-pressure example.You'll need to be clearer on what you're saying here. A football jug? A spout pouring into cup? Spout is open? Water is flow? No pressure at bottom of jug?
Water is a fluid.
Water inside a giant football jug with a spout pouring into a cup.
Are you saying because the spout is open, water is flow, that there would be no pressure on the bottom of the jug?
Remeber us duped people believe weight = pressure over an area.
Youre saying that magically there isbzero pressure resultong in zero weight of the jug?
Can you actually put a proper scenario to me because I can't make head nor tail of what you're saying here.
The only question I avoid or delete from your quotes are those that you repeatedly ask after being given an answer to, time and time again.No, they are the questions that you have repeatedly avoided time and time again.
All it does it wastes your time and my time in order for me to delete the bits that I feel are worthless.Perhaps you should stop considering things which show you to be wrong as worthless and instead try and respond to them?
It can't move out of the way. It's behind all the other gas moleculesThe only way for those gas molecules to stop it is to provide a force back to it.
All objects can push against themselves to moveSo rockets can push against themselves and thus rockets work in a vacuum. End of thread.
You need to get on even ground hereNo, I don't.
I have no problem with an object pushing in one direction to move another. It's how and why it works which is the key.But that isn't what was asked of you.
Yep, as long as they hit a resistance, which your so called space vacuum does not provideSo you are back to the same problem.
If the gauge was ripped out to leave an opening and let's assume the opening was equal to the opposite end valve opening then you have an expansion out of both ends, all the way back to the middle.Why?
If we deal with one thing, do not attempt to marry it up with another because all you do is skew the entire explanation them whine on that I delete it or bypass it.No, we expose the contradictions.
How would the air know that a new opening existed?It doesn't. The air is compressed into the container. Forget about air knowing this and that.
How would the air expand in a separate direction if it is only expanding and pushing in one direction?Because a new opening exists which means the gas expands out of that new opening as the chain reaction now stems from each end and back to the centre.
The only way I could see it is if the air was pushing against the gauge trying to expand. Then when the opening appeared, the air found no resistance and expanded in the direction of the new hole as well. Like it should.I understand what you're trying to say but it's not what happens by my theory.
How would the air know that a new opening existed?It doesn't. The air is compressed into the container. Forget about air knowing this and that.
It's compression of air to be more compressed than what it was before, or to be a bit simpler, normal atmospheric sea level pressure in this instance.
So now it gets compressed by applied energy into a container.
Because it's compressed more molecules can be added because they become smaller by compression into each other and stay like that if the container valve is shut.Quote from: NotSoSkepticalHow would the air expand in a separate direction if it is only expanding and pushing in one direction?Because a new opening exists which means the gas expands out of that new opening as the chain reaction now stems from each end and back to the centre.Quote from: NotSoSkepticalThe only way I could see it is if the air was pushing against the gauge trying to expand. Then when the opening appeared, the air found no resistance and expanded in the direction of the new hole as well. Like it should.I understand what you're trying to say but it's not what happens by my theory.
You see it's only pushing against the gauge trying to expand when it's contained, meaning no openings, or when pressure is added.
When one end is opened up it's a case of, about turn and follow the leader out of the opening.
You have a complete line of expansion from the largest at the front opening to lesser and lesser expansion all the way to the back.
You know the expansion is flowing directly to the front and not to the back by the drop in the gauge needle.
If you smashed that gauge off and created an opening, you create an about turn once again, because you allow the lesser expanding molecules to immediately expand much more out of that opening.
This causes both expansions to end at the middle instead of one opening, because there are now two opposite openings.
Or you just don't get it, which is the reality I'm afraid.How would the air know that a new opening existed?It doesn't. The air is compressed into the container. Forget about air knowing this and that.
It's compression of air to be more compressed than what it was before, or to be a bit simpler, normal atmospheric sea level pressure in this instance.
So now it gets compressed by applied energy into a container.
Because it's compressed more molecules can be added because they become smaller by compression into each other and stay like that if the container valve is shut.Quote from: NotSoSkepticalHow would the air expand in a separate direction if it is only expanding and pushing in one direction?Because a new opening exists which means the gas expands out of that new opening as the chain reaction now stems from each end and back to the centre.Quote from: NotSoSkepticalThe only way I could see it is if the air was pushing against the gauge trying to expand. Then when the opening appeared, the air found no resistance and expanded in the direction of the new hole as well. Like it should.I understand what you're trying to say but it's not what happens by my theory.
You see it's only pushing against the gauge trying to expand when it's contained, meaning no openings, or when pressure is added.
When one end is opened up it's a case of, about turn and follow the leader out of the opening.
You have a complete line of expansion from the largest at the front opening to lesser and lesser expansion all the way to the back.
You know the expansion is flowing directly to the front and not to the back by the drop in the gauge needle.
If you smashed that gauge off and created an opening, you create an about turn once again, because you allow the lesser expanding molecules to immediately expand much more out of that opening.
This causes both expansions to end at the middle instead of one opening, because there are now two opposite openings.
then when comparing note 1 against note 3, your gas IS sentient or your theory IS wrong?
Sentient for sure.You're another one who doesn't get it.
Because you can't have a pressure gauge showing any sort of pressure above 0 unless there is pressure. So there must be some other magic going on.
Sentient for sure.You're another one who doesn't get it.
Because you can't have a pressure gauge showing any sort of pressure above 0 unless there is pressure. So there must be some other magic going on.
There's nothing sentient about it, but maybe this is your and others ways of playing the wind up game. If so then fair enough.
The only sentient thing about how the gas is compressed into the container is the person doing it. The gas molecules naturally decompress when allowed to by applying less pressure to them or by opening a valve or a breach at any point in any container holding a pressure, etc.
If the gauge shows a continuous lowering of pressure it means it has negative pressure upon it and it simply follows the flow/decompression out towards the open valve until its piston is fully extended or the needle reads zero, unless the valve is closed at any point before the gauge has the opportunity to reach zero.
What does all that mean?
If the gauge shows a continuous lowering of pressure it means it has negative pressure upon it and it simply follows the flow/decompression out towards the open valve until its piston is fully extended or the needle reads zero, unless the valve is closed at any point before the gauge has the opportunity to reach zero.
Their gauges aren't wrong. Their gauges show then exactly what they expect.
So I guess now we should inform all the folks who design, build, and/or use pressure gauges that their gauges are wrong; even though the gauge is going down at various rates seemingly based upon the throttling of gas exiting, that they are not really reading pressure because somehow no pressure is being applied to the gauge.
Sentient for sure.You're another one who doesn't get it.
Because you can't have a pressure gauge showing any sort of pressure above 0 unless there is pressure. So there must be some other magic going on.
There's nothing sentient about it, but maybe this is your and others ways of playing the wind up game. If so then fair enough.
The only sentient thing about how the gas is compressed into the container is the person doing it. The gas molecules naturally decompress when allowed to by applying less pressure to them or by opening a valve or a breach at any point in any container holding a pressure, etc.
If the gauge shows a continuous lowering of pressure it means it has negative pressure upon it and it simply follows the flow/decompression out towards the open valve until its piston is fully extended or the needle reads zero, unless the valve is closed at any point before the gauge has the opportunity to reach zero.
That's what's happening but it's happening because the gas is now resisting the piston rather than pushing the piston on that gauge.What does all that mean?
If the gauge shows a continuous lowering of pressure it means it has negative pressure upon it and it simply follows the flow/decompression out towards the open valve until its piston is fully extended or the needle reads zero, unless the valve is closed at any point before the gauge has the opportunity to reach zero.
It would be far simpler to say:
"If the gauge shows a continuous lowering of pressure it means" that the pressure is continuously lowering.
Simple.
How about you explain where I've got this wrong instead of just saying it.Sentient for sure.You're another one who doesn't get it.
Because you can't have a pressure gauge showing any sort of pressure above 0 unless there is pressure. So there must be some other magic going on.
There's nothing sentient about it, but maybe this is your and others ways of playing the wind up game. If so then fair enough.
The only sentient thing about how the gas is compressed into the container is the person doing it. The gas molecules naturally decompress when allowed to by applying less pressure to them or by opening a valve or a breach at any point in any container holding a pressure, etc.
If the gauge shows a continuous lowering of pressure it means it has negative pressure upon it and it simply follows the flow/decompression out towards the open valve until its piston is fully extended or the needle reads zero, unless the valve is closed at any point before the gauge has the opportunity to reach zero.
incorrect
what part of this do you fail to understand?
A negative RATE is NOT the same as a negative VALUE
How about you explain where I've got this wrong instead of just saying it.Sentient for sure.You're another one who doesn't get it.
Because you can't have a pressure gauge showing any sort of pressure above 0 unless there is pressure. So there must be some other magic going on.
There's nothing sentient about it, but maybe this is your and others ways of playing the wind up game. If so then fair enough.
The only sentient thing about how the gas is compressed into the container is the person doing it. The gas molecules naturally decompress when allowed to by applying less pressure to them or by opening a valve or a breach at any point in any container holding a pressure, etc.
If the gauge shows a continuous lowering of pressure it means it has negative pressure upon it and it simply follows the flow/decompression out towards the open valve until its piston is fully extended or the needle reads zero, unless the valve is closed at any point before the gauge has the opportunity to reach zero.
incorrect
what part of this do you fail to understand?
A negative RATE is NOT the same as a negative VALUE
Stop the bickering and explain it so I can deal with it, or is this part of your game?
i did.
i did explain it.
others have explained it.
i highlighted it.
what part of english do you not understand?
please define your understanding of RATE vs VALUEYou're trying to tell me I don't know so why don't you explain what you mean in terms of the container and gas.
then we can move on.
because i clearly stated, in a single sentence, against your incorrect statement, which i highlighted.
Their gauges aren't wrong. Their gauges show then exactly what they expect.
So I guess now we should inform all the folks who design, build, and/or use pressure gauges that their gauges are wrong; even though the gauge is going down at various rates seemingly based upon the throttling of gas exiting, that they are not really reading pressure because somehow no pressure is being applied to the gauge.
The only difference for them is in how it's happening by what they're told.
It does not change the way things work in reality, it just means the explanations for why it works are not wholly accurate.
No I'm not. You seem to be getting mixed up.Their gauges aren't wrong. Their gauges show then exactly what they expect.
So I guess now we should inform all the folks who design, build, and/or use pressure gauges that their gauges are wrong; even though the gauge is going down at various rates seemingly based upon the throttling of gas exiting, that they are not really reading pressure because somehow no pressure is being applied to the gauge.
The only difference for them is in how it's happening by what they're told.
It does not change the way things work in reality, it just means the explanations for why it works are not wholly accurate.
No, the gauges are designed by people with the notion in mind that for their gauge to have a reading, pressure must be placed on the gauge. You're claiming that they built something that has to have pressure applied to it for it to work correctly and yet no pressure is applied and it still works? Even though it's built to only work when pressure is applied?
please define your understanding of RATE vs VALUEYou're trying to tell me I don't know so why don't you explain what you mean in terms of the container and gas.
then we can move on.
because i clearly stated, in a single sentence, against your incorrect statement, which i highlighted.
Very simple, surely.
If you come back with the same nonsense then don't bother trying to tell me what's what.
If the gauge shows a continuous lowering of pressure it means it has negative pressure upon it and it simply follows the flow/decompression out towards the open valve until its piston is fully extended or the needle reads zero, unless the valve is closed at any point before the gauge has the opportunity to reach zero.
incorrect
what part of this do you fail to understand?
A negative RATE is NOT the same as a negative VALUE
It seems you can't explain. Leave it at that and don;t bother arguing it, unless you come back and explain.please define your understanding of RATE vs VALUEYou're trying to tell me I don't know so why don't you explain what you mean in terms of the container and gas.
then we can move on.
because i clearly stated, in a single sentence, against your incorrect statement, which i highlighted.
Very simple, surely.
If you come back with the same nonsense then don't bother trying to tell me what's what.
no
you're the one ignoring.
you are wrong because you can't decipher the difference between RATE vs VALUE
Use your own words to show me rate and value in terms of what I'm debating.
we can repost it becuase you conveniently chose to ignore.
No I'm not. You seem to be getting mixed up.Their gauges aren't wrong. Their gauges show then exactly what they expect.
So I guess now we should inform all the folks who design, build, and/or use pressure gauges that their gauges are wrong; even though the gauge is going down at various rates seemingly based upon the throttling of gas exiting, that they are not really reading pressure because somehow no pressure is being applied to the gauge.
The only difference for them is in how it's happening by what they're told.
It does not change the way things work in reality, it just means the explanations for why it works are not wholly accurate.
No, the gauges are designed by people with the notion in mind that for their gauge to have a reading, pressure must be placed on the gauge. You're claiming that they built something that has to have pressure applied to it for it to work correctly and yet no pressure is applied and it still works? Even though it's built to only work when pressure is applied?
I have no problem with a gauge working when pressure is applied.
I have no problem with a gauge working when there is no pressure positively applied.
It's understanding how and why it works from my side, which I've explained but you can't seem to grasp.
So let's make this a little bit easier and see if you can follow.
You add pressure to a container and the pressure added pushes a piston attached to a spring on a gauge, meaning that the pressure applied to the inside of the container is sufficient enough to push back that piston and compress the spring.
Do you agree with this so far?
at start, the pressure gauge shows a positive VALUE reading of 10psi.At what point did I ever say the gauge did show a negative value?
it has a negative RATE, decreasing 1psi every 1min.
after 10min
it finally shows zero.
at what point will the gauge show negative VALUE?
according to you, as long as there's a leak, it's negative pressure.
Ok, so we can call this a positive pressure.
So let's make this a little bit easier and see if you can follow.
You add pressure to a container and the pressure added pushes a piston attached to a spring on a gauge, meaning that the pressure applied to the inside of the container is sufficient enough to push back that piston and compress the spring.
Do you agree with this so far?
Yes.
Ok, so we can call this a positive pressure.
So let's make this a little bit easier and see if you can follow.
You add pressure to a container and the pressure added pushes a piston attached to a spring on a gauge, meaning that the pressure applied to the inside of the container is sufficient enough to push back that piston and compress the spring.
Do you agree with this so far?
Yes.
Now do you agree if a valve is opened the piston on that gauge will now follow behind the gas and the spring behind the piston will be pushing on that gas whilst the gas is resisting that push?
at start, the pressure gauge shows a positive VALUE reading of 10psi.At what point did I ever say the gauge did show a negative value?
it has a negative RATE, decreasing 1psi every 1min.
after 10min
it finally shows zero.
at what point will the gauge show negative VALUE?
according to you, as long as there's a leak, it's negative pressure.
How about you explain where I've got this wrong instead of just saying it.Sentient for sure.You're another one who doesn't get it.
Because you can't have a pressure gauge showing any sort of pressure above 0 unless there is pressure. So there must be some other magic going on.
There's nothing sentient about it, but maybe this is your and others ways of playing the wind up game. If so then fair enough.
The only sentient thing about how the gas is compressed into the container is the person doing it. The gas molecules naturally decompress when allowed to by applying less pressure to them or by opening a valve or a breach at any point in any container holding a pressure, etc.
If the gauge shows a continuous lowering of pressure it means it has negative pressure upon it and it simply follows the flow/decompression out towards the open valve until its piston is fully extended or the needle reads zero, unless the valve is closed at any point before the gauge has the opportunity to reach zero.
incorrect
what part of this do you fail to understand?
A negative RATE is NOT the same as a negative VALUE
i did.
i did explain it.
others have explained it.
i highlighted it.
what part of english do you not understand?
Notice how you completely avoid the question yet again?How would the air know that a new opening existed?It doesn't. The air is compressed into the container. Forget about air knowing this and that.
It's compression of air to be more compressed than what it was before, or to be a bit simpler, normal atmospheric sea level pressure in this instance.
So now it gets compressed by applied energy into a container.
Because it's compressed more molecules can be added because they become smaller by compression into each other and stay like that if the container valve is shut.
Because a new opening exists which means the gas expands out of that new openingThis only makes sense if the gas is trying to expand in all directions.
When one end is opened up it's a case of, about turn and follow the leader out of the opening.Which, ignoring the fact that that makes no sense at all and is clearly refuted by reality, that means they should follow the leader. Why turn back?
Or you just don't get it, which is the reality I'm afraid.No, the reality is that we get it quite well and just realise your model is pure nonsense.
You see, my theory still allows everything to work as they do. The only thing it kills off is stuff like rockets working in so called space vacuums or extreme low pressure environments.Yes, the reason is obvious.
The reason for that is obvious if you understand my theory.
the gas is now resisting the pistoni.e. it is exerting a force and pushing on the gauge. That is the only way to resist. Otherwise it has no effect on the motion of the piston.
You're playing with quotes.at start, the pressure gauge shows a positive VALUE reading of 10psi.At what point did I ever say the gauge did show a negative value?
it has a negative RATE, decreasing 1psi every 1min.
after 10min
it finally shows zero.
at what point will the gauge show negative VALUE?
according to you, as long as there's a leak, it's negative pressure.
Serioussly...
Ill copy paste it againHow about you explain where I've got this wrong instead of just saying it.Sentient for sure.You're another one who doesn't get it.
Because you can't have a pressure gauge showing any sort of pressure above 0 unless there is pressure. So there must be some other magic going on.
There's nothing sentient about it, but maybe this is your and others ways of playing the wind up game. If so then fair enough.
The only sentient thing about how the gas is compressed into the container is the person doing it. The gas molecules naturally decompress when allowed to by applying less pressure to them or by opening a valve or a breach at any point in any container holding a pressure, etc.
If the gauge shows a continuous lowering of pressure it means it has negative pressure upon it and it simply follows the flow/decompression out towards the open valve until its piston is fully extended or the needle reads zero, unless the valve is closed at any point before the gauge has the opportunity to reach zero.
incorrect
what part of this do you fail to understand?
A negative RATE is NOT the same as a negative VALUE
i did.
i did explain it.
others have explained it.
i highlighted it.
what part of english do you not understand?
You're playing with quotes.And you are avoiding the massive problems of your model.
Look at the word, continuous.
You were talking of rates and values so deal with it as that and stop cherry picking to suit you. It only confuses you.
If the gauge shows a continuous lowering of pressure it means it has negative pressure upon it and it simply follows the flow/decompression out towards the open valve until its piston is fully extended or the needle reads zero, unless the valve is closed at any point before the gauge has the opportunity to reach zero.I should have picked this up earlier but you claim "it means it has negative pressure upon it".
If the gauge shows a continuous lowering of pressure it means it has negative pressure upon it and it simply follows the flow/decompression out towards the open valve until its piston is fully extended or the needle reads zero, unless the valve is closed at any point before the gauge has the opportunity to reach zero.I should have picked this up earlier but you claim "it means it has negative pressure upon it".
But there can never be a negative pressure in a gas. The pressure can be less than atmospheric pressure and many pressure gauges read only the difference.
In a solid a negative pressure is quite possible and is called tension.
Under rather special conditions, even a liquid cab sustain a negative pressure but gas can never sustain a negative pressure.
But I thought that Sceppy was the expert on sll matters to do with gasses ::)?If the gauge shows a continuous lowering of pressure it means it has negative pressure upon it and it simply follows the flow/decompression out towards the open valve until its piston is fully extended or the needle reads zero, unless the valve is closed at any point before the gauge has the opportunity to reach zero.I should have picked this up earlier but you claim "it means it has negative pressure upon it".
But there can never be a negative pressure in a gas. The pressure can be less than atmospheric pressure and many pressure gauges read only the difference.
In a solid a negative pressure is quite possible and is called tension.
Under rather special conditions, even a liquid cab sustain a negative pressure but gas can never sustain a negative pressure.
Aaah too technical for poor scepti.
PsiG or psiA could be zero and anything less would be neg.
The zero is arbitrary.
So then we re in agreement air pushes out in all directions and there is postive pressure on the gauge and you want to issue a correction to your choice word "negative"There's nothing I need to change. I'm quite happy with what I've explained. How you interpret it all is down to you.
Nope.You're playing with quotes.And you are avoiding the massive problems of your model.
Look at the word, continuous.
You were talking of rates and values so deal with it as that and stop cherry picking to suit you. It only confuses you.
The word "continuous" won't help you.
The gauge reads a positive value while the rate of change is negative.
That means there is a positive pressure acting on it which is decreasing.
Maybe he cant graph.We're not talking about negative pressure overall. We're talking about negative pressure upon the gauge.
He likes analogies
Say youre climbing a mountain.
The mountain starts at sea level.
On the up side you are above the sea (positive pressure value) and positive rate (rate) of ascent.
On the down side you are still above sea level, but with a negative rate of ascent (meaning downward rate).
Its not until you reach sea level and enter the gully that you go below sea level (negative pressure).
Let's make this clear.If the gauge shows a continuous lowering of pressure it means it has negative pressure upon it and it simply follows the flow/decompression out towards the open valve until its piston is fully extended or the needle reads zero, unless the valve is closed at any point before the gauge has the opportunity to reach zero.I should have picked this up earlier but you claim "it means it has negative pressure upon it".
But there can never be a negative pressure in a gas. The pressure can be less than atmospheric pressure and many pressure gauges read only the difference.
In a solid a negative pressure is quite possible and is called tension.
Under rather special conditions, even a liquid cab sustain a negative pressure but gas can never sustain a negative pressure.
Clearly you aren't. You believe in space rockets.But I thought that Sceppy was the expert on sll matters to do with gasses ::)?If the gauge shows a continuous lowering of pressure it means it has negative pressure upon it and it simply follows the flow/decompression out towards the open valve until its piston is fully extended or the needle reads zero, unless the valve is closed at any point before the gauge has the opportunity to reach zero.I should have picked this up earlier but you claim "it means it has negative pressure upon it".
But there can never be a negative pressure in a gas. The pressure can be less than atmospheric pressure and many pressure gauges read only the difference.
In a solid a negative pressure is quite possible and is called tension.
Under rather special conditions, even a liquid cab sustain a negative pressure but gas can never sustain a negative pressure.
Aaah too technical for poor scepti.
PsiG or psiA could be zero and anything less would be neg.
The zero is arbitrary.
Let's make this clear.If the gauge shows a continuous lowering of pressure it means it has negative pressure upon it and it simply follows the flow/decompression out towards the open valve until its piston is fully extended or the needle reads zero, unless the valve is closed at any point before the gauge has the opportunity to reach zero.I should have picked this up earlier but you claim "it means it has negative pressure upon it".
But there can never be a negative pressure in a gas. The pressure can be less than atmospheric pressure and many pressure gauges read only the difference.
In a solid a negative pressure is quite possible and is called tension.
Under rather special conditions, even a liquid cab sustain a negative pressure but gas can never sustain a negative pressure.
If the gas is not applying a positive pressure to the gauge then the gauge will either show a needle fall or show zero.
If it applying positive pressure then the gauge needle will stay put over zero or advance forward of zero. It's as simple as that.
Let's make it crystal clear, you're claiming that the gauges that are designed by people with the notion in mind that for their gauge to have a reading, pressure must be placed on the gauge. You're claiming that they built something that has to have pressure applied to it for it to work correctly and yet no pressure is applied and it still works? Even though it's built to only work when pressure is applied?Nope, not at all and you know this because it's been told time and time and time again.
Let's make it crystal clear, you're claiming that the gauges that are designed by people with the notion in mind that for their gauge to have a reading, pressure must be placed on the gauge. You're claiming that they built something that has to have pressure applied to it for it to work correctly and yet no pressure is applied and it still works? Even though it's built to only work when pressure is applied?Nope, not at all and you know this because it's been told time and time and time again.
There is pressure applied to the gauge by two means to push against a piston and spring to give a positive reading of pressure either pushing into the container or sealed into the container.
Can't be any simpler than that and in no way am I saying gauges don't work. So let's make that crystal clear.
However, once the valve is opened the gas all follow in that direction by natural expansion/decompression away from the gauge and the gauge shows this by showing a negative pressure drop.
The reason for this is because the gas is no longer pushing against the piston with the same positive force. The piston is pushing against the gas and the gas is now resisting that push as it expands behind other gases.
Let's make it crystal clear, you're claiming that the gauges that are designed by people with the notion in mind that for their gauge to have a reading, pressure must be placed on the gauge. You're claiming that they built something that has to have pressure applied to it for it to work correctly and yet no pressure is applied and it still works? Even though it's built to only work when pressure is applied?Nope, not at all and you know this because it's been told time and time and time again.
There is pressure applied to the gauge by two means to push against a piston and spring to give a positive reading of pressure either pushing into the container or sealed into the container.
Can't be any simpler than that and in no way am I saying gauges don't work. So let's make that crystal clear.
However, once the valve is opened the gas all follow in that direction by natural expansion/decompression away from the gauge and the gauge shows this by showing a negative pressure drop.
The reason for this is because the gas is no longer pushing against the piston with the same positive force. The piston is pushing against the gas and the gas is now resisting that push as it expands behind other gases.
There's nothing I need to change.Sure, if you don't care about having a working model that can explain reality, you don't need to change anything.
Again you don't address what was said at all.Nope.You're playing with quotes.And you are avoiding the massive problems of your model.
Look at the word, continuous.
You were talking of rates and values so deal with it as that and stop cherry picking to suit you. It only confuses you.
The word "continuous" won't help you.
The gauge reads a positive value while the rate of change is negative.
That means there is a positive pressure acting on it which is decreasing.
The gauge does not read a definitive anything when the valve is open.
I've already explained what happensNo, you haven't.
If the gas is not applying a positive pressure to the gauge then the gauge will either show a needle fall or show zero.No. Lets get this clear.
the gas is now resisting that push as it expands behind other gases.Again, the only way for the gas to resist is for it to apply a force.
If the gas is resisting the piston in any way it is pushing, applying pressure and registering pressure in the gauge. You literally cannot win the gauge argument.It's resisting the push just like all the gas molecules are doing all the way through.
I could build a gauge and so could you. It doesn't mean you have to know the exact molecular workings. All you have to know is whether it can move a needle when force is applied. Hold the needle when applied force is sealed or show a negative movement when that force is channelled opposite to that gauge.
There is too much evidence against it. The gauge builders build gauges used everywhere being able to show pressure and pressure must be applied to the gauge whether it be moving up of down.
Sorry, your claim that gauges don't work as designed when they do everywhere is unaccepted and unacceptable.They work how I say they work by my theory which makes perfect sense.
Here, look at how different gauges work:
You just can't claim pressure gauges work differently than the people who design and make them, especially by just saying so with no evidence.
I win the rocket in space debate for a number of reasons and reasons that logical thinking people should clearly see.
Sorry, you lose and therefore lose the rocket in space debate because your notion of pressure inside a container, when applying Newton's 3rd can allow for a reactionary movement in the opposite direction based upon gas being mass.
There is a negative drop.If you drop from 10 psi to 1 psi and shut the valve then the gauge reads a positive.
Meaning the overall pressure decreases.
But once again - starting at 10psi and going to 1psi, 1psi is still a positive number even though there was a loss of 9psi.
As per scpetiIf the valve is opened there is no positive force on the gauge until the valve is shut before it reaches zero.
The air inside is not pushing with the same force because the pressure is being rekeased (sponges are allowed to decomp) through the hole.
But there still is a positive force!
So here we see scepti is blatantly using a different word definition than us.
Lets get this clear.Incorrect.
Without a positive pressure the gauge shows 0.
It doesn't matter whether it falls back very rapidly or whether it falls back over 2 weeks in a consistent depressurisation, it does not apply a positive force to the gauge.
The only way to stop the gauge falling back to 0 very rapidly is to apply a force to the gauge.
It's as simple as that.
Yes it applies a force of resistance to the gauge piston and spring if the valve is open but it is not a positive force towards the gauge. It is now a positive force towards the open valve.the gas is now resisting that push as it expands behind other gases.Again, the only way for the gas to resist is for it to apply a force.
No force, no resistance.
Gas.
And again, you avoid the very simple questions which show your model to be nothing more than childish fantasy:
What is the gas pushing against to allow it to move (which isn't the rocket and which the rocket can't push against)?
It doesn't magically know, it simply follows the natural decompression state from a compressed state, when allowed, by opening the valve to allow it to decompress/expand against a lesser resistance to it.
How does the gas magically know to stop pushing outwards in all directions and instead only push towards the opening?
I'm not quite sure what you mean on this. Maybe clarify it a bit more.
How does the gas move towards the opening if it is pushing towards it, meaning it would be pushed away?
The rocket is just the object atop the gas fight. It's the container that holds the compression, ready for super expansion against a lesser resistance at first which becomes a super compressed reactionary push.
And remember, any answer you provide for the first question also needs to address why it works for the gas but not the rocket.
What evidence does mainstream have for showing it to work differently?
And as a bonus question, just what evidence at all do you have that gas works the way you claim rather than the way mainstream science has shown it does?
Lets get this clear.Incorrect.
Without a positive pressure the gauge shows 0.
If the gauge showed 1...2...3...etc as a set 1 or 2 or 3 , etc, then the force on the gauge is a positive force of pressure, aided by the equal positive force against the closed valve and the container itself.Quote from: JackBlackIt doesn't matter whether it falls back very rapidly or whether it falls back over 2 weeks in a consistent depressurisation, it does not apply a positive force to the gauge.
The only way to stop the gauge falling back to 0 very rapidly is to apply a force to the gauge.
It's as simple as that.
It does however apply a positive force to the valve opening.
I may not win the argument with you but you certainly won't win it with me, because I believe I'm correct.
They work how I say they work by my theory which makes perfect sense.Belief might well be the strongest force in the world, but your theory does not really matter. Things need validation, and you sure as hell have none.
Nobody has proved me wrong.
Lets try another analogy.It doesn't equate to the container. You're going to have to use a better analogy.
A teeter totter.
You have 10x10lb, on left and a single 10lb weight on right.
The scale will show the roght side up in the air.
Yes no?
Assume yes.
Take off one weight off the left side.
90lbs left.
The right will still be up in the air.
90>10
Yes no?
Assume yes.
If the right is still up in the air, there is still a force pushing down on the left.
Regaddless of how fast you choose to remove the weights, this is a fact.
Final - yes no? - requires an answer
Are 1, 2, or 3 positive numbers?Only if counted upwards and not backwards.
A negative direction dossnt mean there is still no positive force applied.There is no negative direction for force. It's all positive.
You still seem not to understand the difference between RATE and VALUE.I perfectly understand rate and value.
look up the conventional definition before moving on.Maybe you can look it up.
Youre not speakig english
Validation for what?I may not win the argument with you but you certainly won't win it with me, because I believe I'm correct.They work how I say they work by my theory which makes perfect sense.Belief might well be the strongest force in the world, but your theory does not really matter. Things need validation, and you sure as hell have none.
Nobody has proved me wrong.
How come it does not? Lack of sponges?Bad analogy.
Validation for what?I may not win the argument with you but you certainly won't win it with me, because I believe I'm correct.They work how I say they work by my theory which makes perfect sense.Belief might well be the strongest force in the world, but your theory does not really matter. Things need validation, and you sure as hell have none.
Nobody has proved me wrong.
Show me the validation against what I'm saying.
Are 1, 2, or 3 positive numbers?Only if counted upwards and not backwards.
Holding 1 pressure on gauge is a positive. Raising the pressure to 2 and holding it is a positive. And so on.
Dropping from 3 to 2 and holding it is a positive pressure but is not whilst there is a moving drop in pressure.Quote from: ThemightykaboolA negative direction dossnt mean there is still no positive force applied.There is no negative direction for force. It's all positive.Quote from: ThemightykaboolYou still seem not to understand the difference between RATE and VALUE.I perfectly understand rate and value.
I've been explaining it with the gauge for long enough.
The flow is the rate and the set pressure would be the value.
If you want to play around with this then let's go but it won;t change anything to your advantage.Quote from: Themightykaboollook up the conventional definition before moving on.Maybe you can look it up.
Youre not speakig english
Lets try another analogy.It doesn't equate to the container. You're going to have to use a better analogy.
A teeter totter.
You have 10x10lb, on left and a single 10lb weight on right.
The scale will show the roght side up in the air.
Yes no?
Assume yes.
Take off one weight off the left side.
90lbs left.
The right will still be up in the air.
90>10
Yes no?
Assume yes.
If the right is still up in the air, there is still a force pushing down on the left.
Regaddless of how fast you choose to remove the weights, this is a fact.
Final - yes no? - requires an answer
At around 10:20 it fills with smoke. Do you know what that means?Validation for what?I may not win the argument with you but you certainly won't win it with me, because I believe I'm correct.They work how I say they work by my theory which makes perfect sense.Belief might well be the strongest force in the world, but your theory does not really matter. Things need validation, and you sure as hell have none.
Nobody has proved me wrong.
Show me the validation against what I'm saying.
I am sure there are others as well.
I certainly don't think you are.
regardless of container
it is regard to the definition of RATE and VALUE.
the pressure gauge shows a VALUE regardless of direction of RATE.
the teetertotter can move up and down however high, but as long as the right side is NOT touching the ground, it is POSITIVE.
as long as the pressure gauge shows a value it is POSITIVE.
that is the point.
the analogy stands.
you sir, are not speaking english.
Are 1, 2, or 3 positive numbers?Only if counted upwards and not backwards.
Holding 1 pressure on gauge is a positive. Raising the pressure to 2 and holding it is a positive. And so on.
Dropping from 3 to 2 and holding it is a positive pressure but is not whilst there is a moving drop in pressure.Quote from: ThemightykaboolA negative direction dossnt mean there is still no positive force applied.There is no negative direction for force. It's all positive.Quote from: ThemightykaboolYou still seem not to understand the difference between RATE and VALUE.I perfectly understand rate and value.
I've been explaining it with the gauge for long enough.
The flow is the rate and the set pressure would be the value.
If you want to play around with this then let's go but it won;t change anything to your advantage.Quote from: Themightykaboollook up the conventional definition before moving on.Maybe you can look it up.
Youre not speakig english
In this case it would be the flow of the needle or the flow of the exiting gas from the valve.Are 1, 2, or 3 positive numbers?Only if counted upwards and not backwards.
Holding 1 pressure on gauge is a positive. Raising the pressure to 2 and holding it is a positive. And so on.
Dropping from 3 to 2 and holding it is a positive pressure but is not whilst there is a moving drop in pressure.Quote from: ThemightykaboolA negative direction dossnt mean there is still no positive force applied.There is no negative direction for force. It's all positive.Quote from: ThemightykaboolYou still seem not to understand the difference between RATE and VALUE.I perfectly understand rate and value.
I've been explaining it with the gauge for long enough.
The flow is the rate and the set pressure would be the value.
If you want to play around with this then let's go but it won;t change anything to your advantage.Quote from: Themightykaboollook up the conventional definition before moving on.Maybe you can look it up.
Youre not speakig english
aaah
"Flow is the rate"
Flow of what?
What is flowing?
At around 10:20 it fills with smoke. Do you know what that means?Validation for what?I may not win the argument with you but you certainly won't win it with me, because I believe I'm correct.They work how I say they work by my theory which makes perfect sense.Belief might well be the strongest force in the world, but your theory does not really matter. Things need validation, and you sure as hell have none.
Nobody has proved me wrong.
Show me the validation against what I'm saying.
I am sure there are others as well.
Which means it's not anywhere near a vacuum like we're led to believe.At around 10:20 it fills with smoke. Do you know what that means?Validation for what?I may not win the argument with you but you certainly won't win it with me, because I believe I'm correct.They work how I say they work by my theory which makes perfect sense.Belief might well be the strongest force in the world, but your theory does not really matter. Things need validation, and you sure as hell have none.
Nobody has proved me wrong.
Show me the validation against what I'm saying.
I am sure there are others as well.
Yes
The same as when an empty theartre opens its doors for th 5oclock show, it filks up with people just before 5oclock
Which means it's not anywhere near a vacuum like we're led to believe.At around 10:20 it fills with smoke. Do you know what that means?Validation for what?I may not win the argument with you but you certainly won't win it with me, because I believe I'm correct.They work how I say they work by my theory which makes perfect sense.Belief might well be the strongest force in the world, but your theory does not really matter. Things need validation, and you sure as hell have none.
Nobody has proved me wrong.
Show me the validation against what I'm saying.
I am sure there are others as well.
Yes
The same as when an empty theartre opens its doors for th 5oclock show, it filks up with people just before 5oclock
Take your time when typing.Which means it's not anywhere near a vacuum like we're led to believe.At around 10:20 it fills with smoke. Do you know what that means?Validation for what?I may not win the argument with you but you certainly won't win it with me, because I believe I'm correct.They work how I say they work by my theory which makes perfect sense.Belief might well be the strongest force in the world, but your theory does not really matter. Things need validation, and you sure as hell have none.
Nobody has proved me wrong.
Show me the validation against what I'm saying.
I am sure there are others as well.
Yes
The same as when an empty theartre opens its doors for th 5oclock show, it filks up with people just before 5oclock
If the room was empty before the started piling in with peopl- was it no empty to begin with?
You want to play semantics?
By the very smeantict act of having somehting in space means space isnt empty, then no, space has stuff in it, the space between things is a s different story.
Therefore
Sceptus response is a nonanswer and a stupid rebuttl
In this case it would be the flow of the needle or the flow of the exiting gas from the valve.Are 1, 2, or 3 positive numbers?Only if counted upwards and not backwards.
Holding 1 pressure on gauge is a positive. Raising the pressure to 2 and holding it is a positive. And so on.
Dropping from 3 to 2 and holding it is a positive pressure but is not whilst there is a moving drop in pressure.Quote from: ThemightykaboolA negative direction dossnt mean there is still no positive force applied.There is no negative direction for force. It's all positive.Quote from: ThemightykaboolYou still seem not to understand the difference between RATE and VALUE.I perfectly understand rate and value.
I've been explaining it with the gauge for long enough.
The flow is the rate and the set pressure would be the value.
If you want to play around with this then let's go but it won;t change anything to your advantage.Quote from: Themightykaboollook up the conventional definition before moving on.Maybe you can look it up.
Youre not speakig english
aaah
"Flow is the rate"
Flow of what?
What is flowing?
Basically a movement in one direction towards one opening.
Any reading above zero is positive pressure, regardless whether it's increasing, or decreasing.Of course it's under pressure, why wouldn't it be?
Since scepti likes analogies so much, try this. Poke a tiny hole in your tricycle tire. Air pressure drops slowly, and air is escaping, right?
Now quickly poke another hole in the other side of the same tire. Is air escaping from that hole as well?
Yes, because it's still under pressure.
Mutually different?
Pick one.
Because the two, although related, are mutually different things.
At around 10:20 it fills with smoke. Do you know what that means?
Google "Debate impossible, pigeon ::), chess ::)"At around 10:20 it fills with smoke. Do you know what that means?
It means the same as existence of the exhaust behind the rocket engine in Moon orbit.
If rocket can push off air, it can also push off that exhaust.
In this case it would be the flow of the needle or the flow of the exiting gas from the valve.Are 1, 2, or 3 positive numbers?Only if counted upwards and not backwards.
Holding 1 pressure on gauge is a positive. Raising the pressure to 2 and holding it is a positive. And so on.
Dropping from 3 to 2 and holding it is a positive pressure but is not whilst there is a moving drop in pressure.Quote from: ThemightykaboolA negative direction dossnt mean there is still no positive force applied.There is no negative direction for force. It's all positive.Quote from: ThemightykaboolYou still seem not to understand the difference between RATE and VALUE.I perfectly understand rate and value.
I've been explaining it with the gauge for long enough.
The flow is the rate and the set pressure would be the value.
If you want to play around with this then let's go but it won;t change anything to your advantage.Quote from: Themightykaboollook up the conventional definition before moving on.Maybe you can look it up.
Youre not speakig english
aaah
"Flow is the rate"
Flow of what?
What is flowing?
Basically a movement in one direction towards one opening.
Pick one.
Because the two, although related, are mutually different things.
Repeatedly asserting the same nonsense will not help you.Lets get this clear.Incorrect.
Without a positive pressure the gauge shows 0.
Yes it applies a force of resistance to the gauge piston and spring if the valve is openSo you admit that it applies a force.
Which again means the rocket can push off the gas and the rocket works in a vacuum.Quote from: JackBlackGas.
And again, you avoid the very simple questions which show your model to be nothing more than childish fantasy:
What is the gas pushing against to allow it to move (which isn't the rocket and which the rocket can't push against)?
It doesn't magically know, it simply follows the natural decompression stateNo, it's "natural" state is to push outwards in all directions.
I have explained it repeatedly. It is quite clear you understand what is meant.Quote from: JackBlackI'm not quite sure what you mean on this. Maybe clarify it a bit more.
How does the gas move towards the opening if it is pushing towards it, meaning it would be pushed away?
The only difference is the rocket provides it's own towerNo, the difference is that the hovercraft relies upon the ground effect, where the escape speed of the air below it depends upon the gap. If the gap gets too large then more air escapes and the pressure drops.
What evidence does mainstream have for showing it to work differently?Mountains of evidence, which you have completely ignored. (Including the reality of rockets working in a vacuum)
It's resisting the push just like all the gas molecules are doing all the way through.Yes, by pushing outwards in all directions, and as a reactionary force due to its own mass.
They work how I say they work by my theory which makes perfect sense.Ignoring all the times you have been proven wrong doesn't mean you haven't been proven wrong. It just means you are rejecting reality.
Nobody has proved me wrong.
I win the rocket in space debate for a number of reasons and reasons that logical thinking people should clearly see.No, you have lost it repeatedly.
1. Nothing moves without external resistance to applied energy.i.e. the gas must remain inside the rocket, even when it is exposed to a vacuum.
2. 3000 tonne rockets are certainly not going to stand upright holding the fuel we are told and managing to lift off and do so at thousands and thousands of mph, even working against atmosphere, let alone supposedly kicking themselves up their own arses.Why not?
3. Space does not exist in how we're told, as a nothingness or with silly scattered particles or whatever.Another baseless assertion.
We aren't arguing this.So if we aren't arguing that, why bring it up?
Seriously?Are 1, 2, or 3 positive numbers?Only if counted upwards and not backwards.
So you are lying to us and you perfectly understand that what you are saying is wrong.Quote from: ThemightykaboolYou still seem not to understand the difference between RATE and VALUE.I perfectly understand rate and value.
Bad analogy.HOW?
In this case it would be the flow of the needleYou could say that. The motion of the needle is the flow or rate. Whatever pressure it is indicating is the value.
Of course it's under pressure, why wouldn't it be?And that means it has pressure pushing outwards in all directions.
No it can't.At around 10:20 it fills with smoke. Do you know what that means?
It means the same as existence of the exhaust behind the rocket engine in Moon orbit.
If rocket can push off air, it can also push off that exhaust.
So if thevposition of the needle is positive then there is possitive presure on the needle.Only if the pressure is being compressed more or compressed in a stable manner.
Gas pushes out in all directions.Only when the gas is compressed or in a stable manner.
You could say that. The motion of the needle is the flow or rate. Whatever pressure it is indicating is the value.Nope.
So if it shows 100 bar, it is a positive value, regardless of the rate (i.e. how the needle is moving).
Nope. Not unless you allow it to by breaching all directions of the container.Of course it's under pressure, why wouldn't it be?And that means it has pressure pushing outwards in all directions.
That is what under pressure means.
So that means even with an opening, the gas is still pushing out in all directions.
So if thevposition of the needle is positive then there is possitive presure on the needle.Only if the pressure is being compressed more or compressed in a stable manner.Quote from: ThemightykaboolGas pushes out in all directions.Only when the gas is compressed or in a stable manner.
Once the valve is opened it ceases to push in all directions.
So if thevposition of the needle is positive then there is possitive presure on the needle.Only if the pressure is being compressed more or compressed in a stable manner.Quote from: ThemightykaboolGas pushes out in all directions.Only when the gas is compressed or in a stable manner.
Once the valve is opened it [gas] ceases to push in all directions.
If the gas is resisting the piston in any way it is pushing, applying pressure and registering pressure in the gauge. You literally cannot win the gauge argument.It's resisting the push just like all the gas molecules are doing all the way through.
The issue is, it's not creating a positive push on the gauge and this is the key.....unless the pressure is sealed or pushed against the gauge by force.
I may not win the argument with you but you certainly won't win it with me, because I believe I'm correct.Quote from: StashI could build a gauge and so could you. It doesn't mean you have to know the exact molecular workings. All you have to know is whether it can move a needle when force is applied. Hold the needle when applied force is sealed or show a negative movement when that force is channelled opposite to that gauge.
There is too much evidence against it. The gauge builders build gauges used everywhere being able to show pressure and pressure must be applied to the gauge whether it be moving up of down.Quote from: StashSorry, your claim that gauges don't work as designed when they do everywhere is unaccepted and unacceptable.
Here, look at how different gauges work:
You just can't claim pressure gauges work differently than the people who design and make them, especially by just saying so with no evidence.
They work how I say they work by my theory which makes perfect sense.
Nobody has proved me wrong.
No it can't.You say that, but provide no justification for why.
Again, that is going to the path of pure insanity of declaring positive numbers negative or intentionally mixing up rate and value.You could say that. The motion of the needle is the flow or rate. Whatever pressure it is indicating is the value.Nope.
So if it shows 100 bar, it is a positive value, regardless of the rate (i.e. how the needle is moving).
That is only required for it to move outwards in all directions. To push outwards in all directions it doesn't need any breaches and doesn't care where breaches are.Quote from: JackBlackNope. Not unless you allow it to by breaching all directions of the container.Of course it's under pressure, why wouldn't it be?And that means it has pressure pushing outwards in all directions.
That is what under pressure means.
So that means even with an opening, the gas is still pushing out in all directions.
No it wouldn't (red bold).So if thevposition of the needle is positive then there is possitive presure on the needle.Only if the pressure is being compressed more or compressed in a stable manner.Quote from: ThemightykaboolGas pushes out in all directions.Only when the gas is compressed or in a stable manner.
Once the valve is opened it ceases to push in all directions.
Then air would only escape from one hole in a tire with two holes!
Until pressure is zero, air pushes in all directions.
No it wouldn't (red bold).The problem is that according to your nonsense, it should.
Please explain why air can push on outside air, but is incapable of pushing against the walls of the container?Because in an open valve the air molecules are expanding out of that valve into lesser pressure against that direct gas push on push out of the valve.
(And think, like your arms, you could push all day against a brick wall.If you want to use the wall idea then you need to know how it's used.
It doesnt mean it will go anywhere but it also doesnt mean you arent pushing).
Why does pressure cease to exist when the gauge needle is in.motion?It doesn't cease to exist. It ceases to be a positive pressure on the piston and spring that operates that needle.
Lets take this as a rule.The rocket is being lifted by the thrust of its own gases against the stack below which creates a direct super compression in that stack.
If the stack on stack of sponges expands, rising like a loaf of bread, and the rocket sits on this stack, is the rocket not being lifted by said stack?
If yes, then guess what?
No I'm not claiming there's no pressure. I'm claiming there's no positive pressure on a gauge that is part of an open system.
But that's the thing, they don't work how you say they work. Humans design and manufacture such devices to work specifically by showing the level of pressure whether it's going up or going down or standing still. That is the point of a pressure gauge and why people have them.
For instance, from Marshall, a company that manufactures gauges:
"How Does a Mechanical Gauge Work?
Mechanical gauges utilize an internal bourdon tube. One end of the bourdon tube is connected to a gear and shaft assembly that moves a pointer. When the pressure inside the bourdon tube increases, the bourdon tube uncoils slightly. The amount of uncoiling that occurs is proportional to the pressure inside the bourdon tube. As the tube uncoils, its motion activates the gear and shaft system that turns the pointer on the gauge. While all that you see when you look at the gauge is the pointer moving, you should understand that there is a small, bent tube (the bourdon tube) that's coiling and uncoiling with each change in the pressure inside that tube."
http://www.marshallinstruments.com/faqs/detail.cfm?id=22
You see, the makers of such devices do so to register pressure going up and down. Which means pressure on the pressure gauge either way because that's how it is designed to work. And here you are claiming that no, there's no pressure as it's going down yet there is still a pressure reading? The way these gauges are designed, if there is no pressure the gauge reads 0. That's the fact jack. Unless you have something other than you just saying so, like evidence, your notion is directly contradicted by the makers of the devices.
Again, that is going to the path of pure insanity of declaring positive numbers negative or intentionally mixing up rate and value.No it's not going into any path of insanity.
100 bar is a positive value.Absolutely as long as it is 100 bar as a set number.
As such, it if a gauge reads 100 bar, it is reading a positive value.Absolutely. As long as the gauge reads 100 bar consistently.
100 can never be negative.Correct, 100 cannot be negative as long as it stays as 100 and obviously assuming a gauge is not faulty...but we won't bother with that.
This is not a difficult concept to understand.
No.No it wouldn't (red bold).The problem is that according to your nonsense, it should.
Once there is a single hole, you have your air just start moving towards that.
Once that happens the only reason for it to stop is if the hole is plugged.
It only makes sense to turn around if it is trying to push outwards in all directions.
But that's the thing, they don't work how you say they work. Humans design and manufacture such devices to work specifically by showing the level of pressure whether it's going up or going down or standing still. That is the point of a pressure gauge and why people have them.
For instance, from Marshall, a company that manufactures gauges:
"How Does a Mechanical Gauge Work?
Mechanical gauges utilize an internal bourdon tube. One end of the bourdon tube is connected to a gear and shaft assembly that moves a pointer. When the pressure inside the bourdon tube increases, the bourdon tube uncoils slightly. The amount of uncoiling that occurs is proportional to the pressure inside the bourdon tube. As the tube uncoils, its motion activates the gear and shaft system that turns the pointer on the gauge. While all that you see when you look at the gauge is the pointer moving, you should understand that there is a small, bent tube (the bourdon tube) that's coiling and uncoiling with each change in the pressure inside that tube."
http://www.marshallinstruments.com/faqs/detail.cfm?id=22
You see, the makers of such devices do so to register pressure going up and down. Which means pressure on the pressure gauge either way because that's how it is designed to work. And here you are claiming that no, there's no pressure as it's going down yet there is still a pressure reading? The way these gauges are designed, if there is no pressure the gauge reads 0. That's the fact jack. Unless you have something other than you just saying so, like evidence, your notion is directly contradicted by the makers of the devices.
No I'm not claiming there's no pressure. I'm claiming there's no positive pressure on a gauge that is part of an open system.
This is what you need to understand and don't mix it all up.
Too many people are placing obstacles in their own way them calling foul on me.
Stick to one specific thing and deal with that before going into others. It's be much less frustrating.
I've been sticking to one specific thing for pages; the pressure gauge and how it works.Well let's clarify positive and negative pressure from my side in terms of the gauge.
You are claiming there is no "positive" pressure. There's no such thing. The folks that manufacture pressure gauges do so with the intent that pressure is pushing on their gauge to register a reading.
Whether the gauge is moving up or down. That is critical to how the gauges work, how they are read by the observer for millions of systems around the world. Critical.
And you come along and say, without evidence, that those millions of gauges are not registering a pressure on the gauge but some made up "negative" pressure. That's not how the device is designed nor used.
Bottomline, the device, as designed, if it has a reading, it has pressure on it. There's no such thing as positive and negative pressure when the reading is above 0. That is a simple fact.
So unless you have evidence to the contrary and not just, "well that doesn't fit my theory," I'm afraid the standard of simple pressure gauges blows up your theory. As all evidence points to you being wrong.
I've been sticking to one specific thing for pages; the pressure gauge and how it works.Well let's clarify positive and negative pressure from my side in terms of the gauge.
You are claiming there is no "positive" pressure. There's no such thing. The folks that manufacture pressure gauges do so with the intent that pressure is pushing on their gauge to register a reading.
Whether the gauge is moving up or down. That is critical to how the gauges work, how they are read by the observer for millions of systems around the world. Critical.
And you come along and say, without evidence, that those millions of gauges are not registering a pressure on the gauge but some made up "negative" pressure. That's not how the device is designed nor used.
Let's assume a gauge with a piston on a spring just for the sake of argument.
You know you have to apply/positively push something (gas in this in stance) against that piston in order for it to move the spring to allow the pointer to move forward or to read a positive measurement on that gauge.
I'm assuming you'll accept this.
Ok, that's all positive pressure in a sealed container or a container with pressure added.
Open a valve and all that positive pressure is now pushing against the atmospheric resistance due to the gas on gas expansion of molecules inside the container all trying to expand but having to wait their turn to fully do it to equalise outside atmosphere but are all channelled towards the exit.
Behind them is the gauge and this gauge is no longer showing positive pressure on the needle, the piston or the spring. It's all negative because now it's simply a resistance to the spring compression.
Please explain why air can push on outside air, but is incapable of pushing against the walls of the container?Because in an open valve the air molecules are expanding out of that valve into lesser pressure against that direct gas push on push out of the valve.
This happens because all the molecules are now decompressing towards that valve at different rates but nevertheless still decompressing which creates the super resistive overall push by that staggered decompression, against the external air resistance.
While this is happening you can look at it like the air is funnelling towards the exit or sliding down the walls with less and less force against those walls, which is all negative unless the valve is closed on that pressure or pressure forced back in.Quote from: Themightykabool(And think, like your arms, you could push all day against a brick wall.If you want to use the wall idea then you need to know how it's used.
It doesnt mean it will go anywhere but it also doesnt mean you arent pushing).
It's like you pushing against the wall which does not move.
This would be like a closed container.
You now have the wall moving towards you and pushing you back.
This would be pressure added to you.
Or.....You are pushing against the wall as it starts to move away from your push.
All that will happen is your arms decompress to follow the wall and soon enough the wall will end up at the end of your outstretched arms where you can no longer push...and it holds there, just like gas follows gas out of a valve.Quote from: ThemightykaboolWhy does pressure cease to exist when the gauge needle is in.motion?It doesn't cease to exist. It ceases to be a positive pressure on the piston and spring that operates that needle.
Don't get them mixed up or you'll end up back at square on.
with less and less force against those wallsSo again you admit it is still applying a force to the wall?
which is all negativeThat would mean it would be sucking the wall in, meaning the gauge should reach 0 faster than just removing the pressure and the balloon should shrink faster.
You now have the wall moving towards you and pushing you back.No, the wall isn't moving.
This would be pressure added to you.
Or.....You are pushing against the wall as it starts to move away from your push.Again, you are still pushing.
which creates a direct super compression in that stack.How?
Oh...and by the way....this is the basics for everything but we don;t need to go into that.No, it is the basis for nothing, as it results in so many contradictions and can't actually explain things.
No I'm not claiming there's no pressure. I'm claiming there's no positive pressure on a gauge that is part of an open system.Perhaps you should stop using made up terms and instead stick to the terms everyone has already agreed upon.
This is what you need to understand and don't mix it all up.
Stick to one specific thing and deal with that before going into others. It's be much less frustrating.It will also be completely uninformative.
No it's not going into any path of insanity.No, it is pure insanity.
I'm not mixing up rate or value.If that was the case you would admit 100 is positive, regardless of how it is changing.
The conundrum (in terms of us arguing) starts when they don't do either.There is no actual conundrum. It is just you insanely rejecting reality.
If you riddle the container with holes you divert the expansion directly near those holes as an instant expansion against the resistance of what is external to it.Again, this only makes sense if the gas continues to try and expand outwards in all directions, i.e. it pushes outwards in all directions.
Quite simple if thought about.Yes, it is quite simple if you actually think about it. But it seems you don't want to.
You know you have to apply/positively push something (gas in this in stance) against that piston in order for it to move the spring to allow the pointer to move forward or to read a positive measurement on that gauge.The problem is that you don't accept this.
I'm assuming you'll accept this.
No it wouldn't (red bold).So if thevposition of the needle is positive then there is possitive presure on the needle.Only if the pressure is being compressed more or compressed in a stable manner.Quote from: ThemightykaboolGas pushes out in all directions.Only when the gas is compressed or in a stable manner.
Once the valve is opened it ceases to push in all directions.
Then air would only escape from one hole in a tire with two holes!
Until pressure is zero, air pushes in all directions.
The air will decompress towards any breach, however many holes.
All that means is, it decompresses quicker with each breach, until equalised with external pressure.
Lets take this as a rule.The rocket is being lifted by the thrust of its own gases against the stack below which creates a direct super compression in that stack.
If the stack on stack of sponges expands, rising like a loaf of bread, and the rocket sits on this stack, is the rocket not being lifted by said stack?
If yes, then guess what?
That super compression has to decompress again but as it does it's hit by the super expansion of rocket gases, time and time and time again for as long as those gases expand into it and compress.
However, whilst this is being done a barrier has been created and a consistent decompression is already taking place at every point during this.
The rocket sits atop it all for as long as it can keep doing what it's doing.
It's gas on gas expansion to compression fight that allows the rocket to be moved, not the actual rocket itself.
Oh...and by the way....this is the basics for everything but we don;t need to go into that.
I've been sticking to one specific thing for pages; the pressure gauge and how it works.Well let's clarify positive and negative pressure from my side in terms of the gauge.
You are claiming there is no "positive" pressure. There's no such thing. The folks that manufacture pressure gauges do so with the intent that pressure is pushing on their gauge to register a reading.
Whether the gauge is moving up or down. That is critical to how the gauges work, how they are read by the observer for millions of systems around the world. Critical.
And you come along and say, without evidence, that those millions of gauges are not registering a pressure on the gauge but some made up "negative" pressure. That's not how the device is designed nor used.
Let's assume a gauge with a piston on a spring just for the sake of argument.
You know you have to apply/positively push something (gas in this in stance) against that piston in order for it to move the spring to allow the pointer to move forward or to read a positive measurement on that gauge.
I'm assuming you'll accept this.
Ok, that's all positive pressure in a sealed container or a container with pressure added.
Open a valve and all that positive pressure is now pushing against the atmospheric resistance due to the gas on gas expansion of molecules inside the container all trying to expand but having to wait their turn to fully do it to equalise outside atmosphere but are all channelled towards the exit.
Behind them is the gauge and this gauge is no longer showing positive pressure on the needle, the piston or the spring. It's all negative because now it's simply a resistance to the spring compression.Quote from: StashBottomline, the device, as designed, if it has a reading, it has pressure on it. There's no such thing as positive and negative pressure when the reading is above 0. That is a simple fact.Quote from: StashSo unless you have evidence to the contrary and not just, "well that doesn't fit my theory," I'm afraid the standard of simple pressure gauges blows up your theory. As all evidence points to you being wrong.
Again, that is going to the path of pure insanity of declaring positive numbers negative or intentionally mixing up rate and value.No it's not going into any path of insanity.
It's going into a path of people like yourself refusing to understand my point.
I'm not mixing up rate or value. In fact I'm explaining why one and the other work in this situation.
You see, I'm not declaring set positive numbers as negative and you need to understand the word, set.Quote from: JackBlack100 bar is a positive value.Absolutely as long as it is 100 bar as a set number.Quote from: JackBlackAs such, it if a gauge reads 100 bar, it is reading a positive value.Absolutely. As long as the gauge reads 100 bar consistently.Quote from: JackBlack100 can never be negative.Correct, 100 cannot be negative as long as it stays as 100 and obviously assuming a gauge is not faulty...but we won't bother with that.
This is not a difficult concept to understand.
You see1, 2, 3, 4, 50, 100, 1000...etrc...cannot be negative as long as they read a definitive set number or advance in numbers.
The conundrum (in terms of us arguing) starts when they don't do either.
This is the crux of the argument.
You see, 100 on a gauge will show 100 when positive pressure allows that gauge to set that pointer at 100.
If the pressure is added then immediately that 100 ceases to become 100. It may advance to say 100.00000001 or whatever. Or to make it simpler, 101.
This is an increasing pressure so everything is still positive and every number from 1 to 101 is still positive because every number from 1 to 101 is holding all that pressure.
However, if you open a valve to release that pressure you negate the positive pressure on the gauge. It no longer has any definitive set reading to the positive until you cease to allow the pressure towards the exit, to stop.
And only then can you read a gauge and see a positive pressure once again, whether it's down to 55,23,10 or 1 or 0.1.
Failure to shut down a valve renders the gauge as a negative, pressure wise. No gas is pushing positively into that gauge.
You misunderstood in comment 2.Yep, as long as the pressure is positive, meaning contained or added to. Not when a valve is opened. Make this clear or you are arguing the same thing and you'll get the same answer.
In a solid container, where the wall doesnt move, you pushing on it also doesnt move it.
The wall is solid enough to resist.
But youre still pushing.
If the wall were to suddenly crumble, you would bust outwards.Yep, because the expansion would be immediate for that full area, pushed by the gradual but quick expansion of the gas behind and around it.
If you werent pushing, and the wall were to suddenly crumble, youd be standing there not moving.If you weren't pushing even when the wall wasn't crumbling you're still not pushing when it does, which means you would be in an empty tank or an equalised tank with external atmosphere.
Yes no?
In the case of the airfilled crazy arm thing.It actually proves me right.
The fan provides a continuous supply if new air and maintains pressurization.
This pressure is seen by the fact the flexible tube is expanded.
When tge fan momentarily turns off, rhe tube rapidly loses the pressure as it equalizes with the outside air.
This proves you wrong and proves what stash is saying - gasses exerrt pressure in all directions, always.
You misunderstood in comment 2.Yep, as long as the pressure is positive, meaning contained or added to. Not when a valve is opened. Make this clear or you are arguing the same thing and you'll get the same answer.
In a solid container, where the wall doesnt move, you pushing on it also doesnt move it.
The wall is solid enough to resist.
But youre still pushing.Quote from: ThemightykaboolIf the wall were to suddenly crumble, you would bust outwards.Yep, because the expansion would be immediate for that full area, pushed by the gradual but quick expansion of the gas behind and around it.Quote from: ThemightykaboolIf you werent pushing, and the wall were to suddenly crumble, youd be standing there not moving.If you weren't pushing even when the wall wasn't crumbling you're still not pushing when it does, which means you would be in an empty tank or an equalised tank with external atmosphere.
Yes no?
You need to clarify whatever it is you're trying to get across.
In the case of the airfilled crazy arm thing.It actually proves me right.
The fan provides a continuous supply if new air and maintains pressurization.
This pressure is seen by the fact the flexible tube is expanded.
When tge fan momentarily turns off, rhe tube rapidly loses the pressure as it equalizes with the outside air.
This proves you wrong and proves what stash is saying - gasses exerrt pressure in all directions, always.
Where is the air loss?
Ok thenNope.
So you failed to make the logical connection.
Lets finish the thought.
The stack pushes the rocket up.
There is a force on the bottom side of the rpcket created by the gas.A force emanating from the nozzle by expansion (burn).
That means the gas is oushing on the rocket even though the bottom is open.No. The gas is pushing on and into the external stack resistance by expanding into it to super compress it.
That means the gas IS PUSHING on the rocket even though...It means it's a gas on gas fight with consistent action and reaction of compression to expansion from the rocket, to super compression and expansion of the atmosphere.
That means the GAS IS PUSHIN UP, the oppoiste direction of the hole.
That menas theres pressure on the opposite side of the hole.
That means...????
You keep mentioning sentient. Try and leave it out so you don;t waste your time.
The presure gauge is not sentient either.
It doesnt know its moving in a specific direction.
Unless you claim otherwise?
"Failure to shut down a valve renders the gauge as a negative, pressure wise. No gas is pushing positively into that gauge."It's now resisting the gauge piston and spring. It is not applying positive pressure.
So althoug in reality a gauge shows positive vlaues in a set (aka negative rate 100, 99, 98...) in your statement above there is no gas pushing on the gauge.
You keep mentioning sentient. Try and leave it out so you don;t waste your time.
The presure gauge is not sentient either.
It doesnt know its moving in a specific direction.
Unless you claim otherwise?Quote from: Themightykabool"Failure to shut down a valve renders the gauge as a negative, pressure wise. No gas is pushing positively into that gauge."It's now resisting the gauge piston and spring. It is not applying positive pressure.
So althoug in reality a gauge shows positive vlaues in a set (aka negative rate 100, 99, 98...) in your statement above there is no gas pushing on the gauge.
I am interested to hear from sceptimatic how this is possible.In the case of the airfilled crazy arm thing.It actually proves me right.
The fan provides a continuous supply if new air and maintains pressurization.
This pressure is seen by the fact the flexible tube is expanded.
When tge fan momentarily turns off, rhe tube rapidly loses the pressure as it equalizes with the outside air.
This proves you wrong and proves what stash is saying - gasses exerrt pressure in all directions, always.
Where is the air loss?
The airbis flying iut the top of his head and ends of his arm.
Ut proves you wrong because its an open end yet the sides are pressurized.
You lose.
HahThat was pretty dyslexic, yes :)
I will have to go back and fix my typos.
No it can't.At around 10:20 it fills with smoke. Do you know what that means?
It means the same as existence of the exhaust behind the rocket engine in Moon orbit.
If rocket can push off air, it can also push off that exhaust.
Yep, as long as the pressure is positive, meaning contained or added to.No, meaning note negative.
You need to clarify whatever it is you're trying to get across.No clarification is needed, it is really quite simple.
Where is the air loss?Out the multitude of openings.
The expanded gas from the rocket (the burn in this case) compresses the stack down by that burning thrust and the resulting super compression now expanding back against what was expanded into it to compress it, crates the gas fight that the rocket sits atop of.Again, this is pure nonsense.
The rocket merely sits on this gas fight.If the rocket merely sat on top, it would sit there going no where.
You keep mentioning sentient. Try and leave it out so you don;t waste your time.The only waste of time here is you.
It's now resisting the gauge piston and springHOW?
You keep mentioning sentient. Try and leave it out so you don;t waste your time.
The presure gauge is not sentient either.
It doesnt know its moving in a specific direction.
Unless you claim otherwise?Quote from: Themightykabool"Failure to shut down a valve renders the gauge as a negative, pressure wise. No gas is pushing positively into that gauge."It's now resisting the gauge piston and spring. It is not applying positive pressure.
So althoug in reality a gauge shows positive vlaues in a set (aka negative rate 100, 99, 98...) in your statement above there is no gas pushing on the gauge.
Nothing wrong with my theory. Fix your own answers because it's only you that's creating your own issues in arguing for sentient.You keep mentioning sentient. Try and leave it out so you don;t waste your time.
The presure gauge is not sentient either.
It doesnt know its moving in a specific direction.
Unless you claim otherwise?Quote from: Themightykabool"Failure to shut down a valve renders the gauge as a negative, pressure wise. No gas is pushing positively into that gauge."It's now resisting the gauge piston and spring. It is not applying positive pressure.
So althoug in reality a gauge shows positive vlaues in a set (aka negative rate 100, 99, 98...) in your statement above there is no gas pushing on the gauge.
You keep telling us that the gas chooses between going out the back and only pushing when a door becomes available.
But - pushing does not equal moving.
In this case
You say the gauge knows when the rate is increasing or decreasing.
Positive rate vs negative rate.
So it is your theory that keeps promoting sentient gas/ pressure gauges.
Sorry.
If you want us to stop saying it, fix your theory.
The question was answered in the question.I am interested to hear from sceptimatic how this is possible.In the case of the airfilled crazy arm thing.It actually proves me right.
The fan provides a continuous supply if new air and maintains pressurization.
This pressure is seen by the fact the flexible tube is expanded.
When tge fan momentarily turns off, rhe tube rapidly loses the pressure as it equalizes with the outside air.
This proves you wrong and proves what stash is saying - gasses exerrt pressure in all directions, always.
Where is the air loss?
The airbis flying iut the top of his head and ends of his arm.
Ut proves you wrong because its an open end yet the sides are pressurized.
You lose.
Compression by applied energy and decompression by allowing that energy to be released again to allow expansion.
How exiting gas makes the decision to push against one gas and not against another gas?
And it would go nowhere if it didn't lose mass, which is does in abundance, allowing it to sit higher and higher until it has no more mass to lose.
If the rocket merely sat on top, it would sit there going no where.
In order for the rocket to go upwards there must be a force acting on it pushing it up.There are two forces.
My theory is pretty sound, as far as I'm concerned.You keep mentioning sentient. Try and leave it out so you don;t waste your time.
The presure gauge is not sentient either.
It doesnt know its moving in a specific direction.
Unless you claim otherwise?Quote from: Themightykabool"Failure to shut down a valve renders the gauge as a negative, pressure wise. No gas is pushing positively into that gauge."It's now resisting the gauge piston and spring. It is not applying positive pressure.
So althoug in reality a gauge shows positive vlaues in a set (aka negative rate 100, 99, 98...) in your statement above there is no gas pushing on the gauge.
Unfortunately for your theory that is not how pressure gauges are designed, manufactured and used. Pressure reading on a gauge is there because pressure is being applied. If there is no pressure, the gauge reads 0. In other words, pressure gauges the world over would have to be redesigned to work with your theory. They would have to be redesigned to show a pressure reading when no pressure is applied. So, sorry, the world's gauges do not currently support your theory.
My theory is pretty sound, as far as I'm concerned.You keep mentioning sentient. Try and leave it out so you don;t waste your time.
The presure gauge is not sentient either.
It doesnt know its moving in a specific direction.
Unless you claim otherwise?Quote from: Themightykabool"Failure to shut down a valve renders the gauge as a negative, pressure wise. No gas is pushing positively into that gauge."It's now resisting the gauge piston and spring. It is not applying positive pressure.
So althoug in reality a gauge shows positive vlaues in a set (aka negative rate 100, 99, 98...) in your statement above there is no gas pushing on the gauge.
Unfortunately for your theory that is not how pressure gauges are designed, manufactured and used. Pressure reading on a gauge is there because pressure is being applied. If there is no pressure, the gauge reads 0. In other words, pressure gauges the world over would have to be redesigned to work with your theory. They would have to be redesigned to show a pressure reading when no pressure is applied. So, sorry, the world's gauges do not currently support your theory.
All you've just done is state the obvious of applied pressure and zero pressure. I'm not arguing applied or zero pressure.
Look back as to what I am arguing.
Was it about the air loss? The air comes out of his arms and head. If that is what you wanted to know.The question was answered in the question.I am interested to hear from sceptimatic how this is possible.In the case of the airfilled crazy arm thing.It actually proves me right.
The fan provides a continuous supply if new air and maintains pressurization.
This pressure is seen by the fact the flexible tube is expanded.
When tge fan momentarily turns off, rhe tube rapidly loses the pressure as it equalizes with the outside air.
This proves you wrong and proves what stash is saying - gasses exerrt pressure in all directions, always.
Where is the air loss?
The airbis flying iut the top of his head and ends of his arm.
Ut proves you wrong because its an open end yet the sides are pressurized.
You lose.
The gauges work exactly as you say, with pressure applied or pressure applied and held and contained.
Again, the world's gauges aren't designed to work the way you want them to. They NEED to have pressure applied to the gauge to register a reading no matter whether the pressure is going up, going down, or stable. If there is no pressure applied, the reading is 0. The gauges won't work under your theory.
The gauges work exactly as you say, with pressure applied or pressure applied and held and contained.
Again, the world's gauges aren't designed to work the way you want them to. They NEED to have pressure applied to the gauge to register a reading no matter whether the pressure is going up, going down, or stable. If there is no pressure applied, the reading is 0. The gauges won't work under your theory.
So clearly I have zero issue with this.
The issue is in the gauge having negative pressure applied to it once there is a breach to the container or a valve opened, to me specific.
From that point on the gauge becomes the pusher against a resistant gas to that push, not the gas applying positive pressure to the actual gauge piston and spring.
This results in the piston and spring simply causing the needle to continually show a negative reading because it reads no definitive set number and not a number run to the positive.
Nothing wrong with my theory.It is quite clear from your behaviour in this thread that there are massive problems with your theory.
You're told time and time again that the gas is compressed and just like a spring or a sponge or a ball or anything else that's compressed....it will decompress if allowed to. Not because it's sentient.If it was like them it would be pushing outwards in all directions.
The question was answered in the question.Only if you admit you are wrong, as it goes directly against your explanation.
And it would go nowhere if it didn't lose massThat is only an argument if you accept reality where it throwing mass backwards means it needs to move forwards, but that applies in a vacuum to.
The force created by the exiting gas which is burned to create the massive expansionWhich would also work in a vacuum.
My theory is pretty sound, as far as I'm concerned.Your fantasy having your fantasy be sound means nothing.
"Resistant gas" is simply a euphemism for pressure. So when you close the valve, how does your "resistant gas" magically turn back into pressure? What's the difference?Think of a sink and plug hole. The plug is in and the sink is full of water.
A "negative reading" would be less than zero. Like a thermometer, "It's negative 10 degrees out, better bundle up..."A negative reading in a sealed pressure vessel would not exist, as long as there was a pressure inside of it.
The world over relies on pressure gauges to tell them how much pressure there is in a given system, often times critical systems, whether it's going up or going down.Yep and it works.
So gauge watchers around the world should really be saying when a needle is going down, "We've got a resistant gas negative reading of 50 PSI..."?Nope. If it's going down there is no definitive reading until it ceases.
And when they slam the valve shut, "Okay, we have a positive pressure reading of 50..."?Yep. That's when the pressure shows gauge positive.
Think of a sink and plug hole.You mean where the water is still exerting pressure, even while draining?
Instead of the water pushing against the sidesNo, it is still pushing against the sides.
Yep and it works.Yes, based upon real physics, not your fantasy.
That's when the pressure shows gauge positive.Again, it doesn't matter what the rate is, if the value is positive, it is positive. The rate has no effect on that.
The question was answered in the question.I am interested to hear from sceptimatic how this is possible.In the case of the airfilled crazy arm thing.It actually proves me right.
The fan provides a continuous supply if new air and maintains pressurization.
This pressure is seen by the fact the flexible tube is expanded.
When tge fan momentarily turns off, rhe tube rapidly loses the pressure as it equalizes with the outside air.
This proves you wrong and proves what stash is saying - gasses exerrt pressure in all directions, always.
Where is the air loss?
The airbis flying iut the top of his head and ends of his arm.
It proves you wrong because its an open end yet the sides are pressurized.
You lose.
"Resistant gas" is simply a euphemism for pressure. So when you close the valve, how does your "resistant gas" magically turn back into pressure? What's the difference?Think of a sink and plug hole. The plug is in and the sink is full of water.
At the top of that sink is a pressure gauge and it shows full.
You know the water is pushing against the sides of the sink and also against the bottom of the sink and also the mass of it is causing the pressure gauge to read full, for that sink.
There is positive pressure all around that sink.
Ok, now you take out the plug and you are now allowing that water to overcome the resistance to it below that plug hole and equally you know that all the water is flowing in the direction towards that plug hole.
Instead of the water pushing against the sides, it is now simply moving towards the hole as is the water from the gauge, which now sees the gauge simply following the water down by the diaphragm decompressing to lower the needle because there is now no pressure pushing against it enough to effect positive pressure.
All the positive pressure is going out of the plug hole leaving the pressure in the opposite direction, only a resistant pressure to the gauge drop.Quote from: StashA "negative reading" would be less than zero. Like a thermometer, "It's negative 10 degrees out, better bundle up..."A negative reading in a sealed pressure vessel would not exist, as long as there was a pressure inside of it.Quote from: StashThe world over relies on pressure gauges to tell them how much pressure there is in a given system, often times critical systems, whether it's going up or going down.Yep and it works.Quote from: StashSo gauge watchers around the world should really be saying when a needle is going down, "We've got a resistant gas negative reading of 50 PSI..."?Nope. If it's going down there is no definitive reading until it ceases.Quote from: StashAnd when they slam the valve shut, "Okay, we have a positive pressure reading of 50..."?Yep. That's when the pressure shows gauge positive.
I never said it did. You're saying it all.
And still shows you wrong.
The water doesnt cease to have weight just because theres a hole opened.
If you built a tower of slonges and sat a book on top.Nope.
The book would stay up in the air.
If the sponges expanded the book would rise up.
That means the sponges are pushing on the underside of the book.
PointAThe water rocket doesn't have air leaving its bottom, until all the water is expelled.
If the water rocket has air leaving its bottom.
And the rocket is shown to fly up.
The rocket is - sitting on expanding air sponges?
PointBNope. If air is leaving then there cannot be an opposite push on a closed end inside a bottle/rocket.
If so, then yoy have to admit that as air is leaving the butt end, there is presaure exeeted on the inside end of the rocket to be pushing it up.
And if we put a gauge on there it would show positive values even if there was a negative rate/ declining set.
So how do you reconcile poont a with b and claim no contradiction?Just as I explain.
I never said it did. You're saying it all.
And still shows you wrong.
The water doesnt cease to have weight just because theres a hole opened.
If you built a tower of sponges and sat a book on top.Nope.
The book would stay up in the air.
If the sponges expanded the book would rise up.
That means the sponges are pushing on the underside of the book.
If the sponges expanded the book would fall.
If they were compressed more the book would then rise.Quote from: ThemightykaboolPointAThe water rocket doesn't have air leaving its bottom, until all the water is expelled.
If the water rocket has air leaving its bottom.
And the rocket is shown to fly up.
The rocket is - sitting on expanding air sponges?Quote from: ThemightykaboolPointBNope. If air is leaving then there cannot be an opposite push on a closed end inside a bottle/rocket.
If so, then yoy have to admit that as air is leaving the butt end, there is presaure exeeted on the inside end of the rocket to be pushing it up.
And if we put a gauge on there it would show positive values even if there was a negative rate/ declining set.Quote from: ThemightykaboolSo how do you reconcile poont a with b and claim no contradiction?Just as I explain.
If the sponges expanded the book would fall.This makes no sense at all.
If they were compressed more the book would then rise.
Nope. If air is leaving then there cannot be an opposite push on a closed end inside a bottle/rocket.Again, all the evidence shows otherwise.
If youre speaking english and you say once flow starts, the pressure on the gauge is negative, then the rest of the english speaking people will take that as there is no pressure on the gauge and thus there is no weight.I never said there was no pressure. I said the pressure was negative, meaning it's not positive, meaning it's now simply resisting the gauge and not positively pushing the gauge.
This is what you are saying.
This is the result of what you are saying.
Wtf you think stash has been on about all these pg?
I never said there was no pressure. I said the pressure was negative, meaning it's not positive, meaning it's now simply resisting the gauge and not positively pushing the gauge.Yes, simple to understand and simple to realise it is pure nonsense.
It's only negative when there is a breach/open valve to the container. It's positive when it's contained or added to in a container.
Quite simple to understand.
If you built a tower of sponges and sat a book on top.Nope.
The book would stay up in the air.
If the sponges expanded the book would rise up.
That means the sponges are pushing on the underside of the book.
If the sponges expanded the book would fall.
If they were compressed more the book would then rise.Quote from: ThemightykaboolPointAThe water rocket doesn't have air leaving its bottom, until all the water is expelled.
If the water rocket has air leaving its bottom.
And the rocket is shown to fly up.
The rocket is - sitting on expanding air sponges?Quote from: ThemightykaboolPointBNope. If air is leaving then there cannot be an opposite push on a closed end inside a bottle/rocket.
If so, then yoy have to admit that as air is leaving the butt end, there is presaure exeeted on the inside end of the rocket to be pushing it up.
And if we put a gauge on there it would show positive values even if there was a negative rate/ declining set.Quote from: ThemightykaboolSo how do you reconcile poont a with b and claim no contradiction?Just as I explain.
1.
How would a stack of compressing sponge (gets smaller) lift up a rocket?
If you had a stack of sponges, pushed down on them with you hand to compress them, are you gaining height or losing height?
2.
Ok
Lets stack this up:
Outside air-water-compresssd pressurizsd air in tube-tube.
Please highlight and tell us what the tube is in contact with?
Plus, as the rocket is ejecting water the rocket immediately starts to move.
Its not the water first ejected fully, then rocket starts to move.
3.
If there is no pressure on the rocket, whats pushing it up?!!
And dont give bs "press on gas on gas."
Because there is no direct contact between that useless description and the contact with the bottom of rhe rocket.
Tell us or show us what exactly is pushing the bottom, what is in direct contact with the bottom of the rocket, to cause it to go up.
4.
And see we have 3 contradicting points.
Nothing is reconciled.
The same way compressing into the below stack by helicopter blades creates a higher pressure below than above for the helicopter to sit on.
1. How would a stack of compressing sponge (gets smaller) lift up a rocket?
If you had a stack of sponges, pushed down on them with you hand to compress them, are you gaining height or losing height?That's just the key issue.
Plus, as the rocket is ejecting water the rocket immediately starts to move.It is. It's the sheer expansion of the air behind that water that pushes the already dense water into the direct stack below it, which creates an immediate super compression of that stack, which reacts by decompressing against the water to push it back up, which is why you see the water start to spread out.
Its not the water first ejected fully, then rocket starts to move.
3.It is gas on gas. It's a gas fight.
If there is no pressure on the rocket, whats pushing it up?!!
And dont give bs "press on gas on gas."
Because there is no direct contact between that useless description and the contact with the bottom of rhe rocket.
Tell us or show us what exactly is pushing the bottom, what is in direct contact with the bottom of the rocket, to cause it to go up.It's like you jumping from a height onto a trampoline. Your dense mass will compress that trampoline down in that centre until your dense mass cannot thrust against it with any more force. the trampoline now reacts to that and pushes back to regain equilibrium.
4.There are no contradicting points. It's because you can't or refuse to grasp what I'm telling you and make up your own stuff to then make out I said it.
And see we have 3 contradicting points.
Nothing is reconciled.
If the sponges compress it means something is compressing them into a larger resistance due to pushing into them, which is exactly what you say....down. However, this is just the initial start of why it all works, as I explained above to your mate.If the sponges expanded the book would fall.This makes no sense at all.
If they were compressed more the book would then rise.
If the sponges compress, that means their volume is reduced.
How does that magically make the book get higher?
That should make it get lower.
How does a shrinking support make something go higher?
And as a bonus question, just what evidence at all do you have that gas works the way you claim rather than the way mainstream science has shown it does?Simple experiments that show how a stack works and why expansion/contraction/vibrations work to create what we see happening.
We know you like to intentionally misuse words whcih is at the heart of what im trying to flush out.Absolutely. I can work with that as long as you understand what I'm saying and don't try and twist it.
Lets remove "negative" and "postive" because you clearly refuse to speak english.
"Pushing" and "pushing a little less than before", is all still "pushing".
Yes no?
You not understanding it does not mean any contradiction exists...except to you because you do not understand it.
And regardless of your redefinition of pos vs neg, these points still stand that you have a contradiction in theory.
Quote from: StashSo gauge watchers around the world should really be saying when a needle is going down, "We've got a resistant gas negative reading of 50 PSI..."?Nope. If it's going down there is no definitive reading until it ceases.
You can say anything you want as your gauge drops but the fact is the gauge pointer is decreasing, meaning there is no positive pressure on it.Quote from: StashSo gauge watchers around the world should really be saying when a needle is going down, "We've got a resistant gas negative reading of 50 PSI..."?Nope. If it's going down there is no definitive reading until it ceases.
What in the world does this mean?
So as the gauge is going down on my container, the gauge reads 50, 49, 48... I can't say that my pressure is at 45 when the gauge hits 45? And when I slam the valve shut at the moment it hits 45 the previous no definitive reading just so happens to match exactly to the now definitive one..of 45? What kind of stuff are you now making up on the fly?
You can say anything you want as your gauge drops but the fact is the gauge pointer is decreasing, meaning there is no positive pressure on it.Quote from: StashSo gauge watchers around the world should really be saying when a needle is going down, "We've got a resistant gas negative reading of 50 PSI..."?Nope. If it's going down there is no definitive reading until it ceases.
What in the world does this mean?
So as the gauge is going down on my container, the gauge reads 50, 49, 48... I can't say that my pressure is at 45 when the gauge hits 45? And when I slam the valve shut at the moment it hits 45 the previous no definitive reading just so happens to match exactly to the now definitive one..of 45? What kind of stuff are you now making up on the fly?
I'll make this simple.
If you push on someone against a spring and they move back as you keep pushing you can be said to be applying positive continuous building of pressure.
If you push on someone who directly pushes back until you both can't push into each other anymore you can say both pushes are equally under that pressure which is a positive pressure.
However, if the person pushing against the person on the spring, decides to lessen his push, then the person on the spring starts to push back against that person, whos is no longer applying positive pressure, only a resistance to person now being pushed into him by the spring.
It does answer but you simply don't see it as an answer.
That's not answering the question of "When I slam the valve shut at the moment it hits 45 the previous no definitive reading just so happens to match exactly to the now definitive one..of 45?"
How does the no definitive reading always match exactly the definitive reading when the valve is closed?
It does answer but you simply don't see it as an answer.
That's not answering the question of "When I slam the valve shut at the moment it hits 45 the previous no definitive reading just so happens to match exactly to the now definitive one..of 45?"
How does the no definitive reading always match exactly the definitive reading when the valve is closed?
If you see someone rising up a vertical tube you can say there's positive pressure under that person.
If, at the top of that tube there was a spring loaded piston that pushed a gauge needle with readings that say a pressure push of 100 and it's held, then you call that a positive pressure of 100.
If you open the valve at the bottom and allow pressure out, the persons simple falls with the pressure and the piston simply rests upon the person and falls with him. This reading will have no positive push on it. It will read a negative drop....until you shut that valve....and then you can say it's now a positive pressure reading because it's set and now the person is back to pushing against the piston due to the pressure on him staying stable.
Because the open valve changes the set up of the gas molecular push on push in equal terms, meaning a shut valve creates the same compression at the valve as it does at the gauge end.
Yet again, that doesn't answer the specific question using your nomenclature: How does the no definitive reading(your term) always match exactly the definitive reading when the valve is closed? How is the pressure reading going down 'not definitive'? And how does it become definitive and match exactly the not definitive reading when the valve is closed?
SceptiYour fingers applying equal pressure and resistance to it.
Take a small spring, for instance for a pen.
Compress the spring between your fingers.
What is keeping the spring from expanding?
Decompress the spring, but not fully.Your fingers stopping the decompression.
What is keeping the spring from decompressing fully?
Key being "between two fingers".You feel it on both fingers.
Move only one finger.
Do you feel the spring on both fingers even though youre only moving one finger?
Key being "between two fingers".You feel it on both fingers.
Move only one finger.
Do you feel the spring on both fingers even though youre only moving one finger?
However, if you keep one finger still whilst releasing the spring with the other you feel less pressure on the other finger with every movement of the other finger.
The finger in this case still has to be a barrier for the spring but there is no positive push into that barrier. It's now simply following the other finger that has allowed it to release.
This is the same with the gauge.
And because the gauge needle drops so does the pressure on it, which; if you think about that in terms of your rocket, it means the rocket gas is doing absolutely nothing inside to push that rocket up.
This all nails it.
Not only do rockets not work in extreme low pressures but they do not work as we are told, even in atmosphere.
However we are duped into it for obvious reasons, because for the truth to be known would be to understand the truth about the space they tell and sell us, which is, it isn't what we're led to believe they say it is and space rockets are merely gimmicks passed off as working reality aided by mass media hyping up of it.
.
What happened to the vacuum chamber you were going to build with your 1 million dollar a day pay?I think you have me mixed up with someone else.
Is scepti that rich?! :oNo. Sokarul likes to make up stuff to suit his needs.
Yep but a continuous lessening on the finger that is stationary. A negative pressure in terms of gauge measurement.
Incorrect.
You still feel the pressure of the spring on both fingers.
Yep but a continuous lessening on the finger that is stationary. A negative pressure in terms of gauge measurement.
Incorrect.
You still feel the pressure of the spring on both fingers.
The same way compressing into the below stack by helicopter bladesSo it can't.
Move the air out the way and push it behind you and use that as your leverage...and so on.So the rocket, moving the air inside it and pushing it behind it to use as leverage means it can move, including through a vacuum.
It's a compressed gas expanding into a compressed gas to compress it further and that gas decompressing to resist that and push back.Why doesn't the initial decompression push the rocket up?
It's like you jumping from a height onto a trampoline.No, it is nothing like it.
If the sponges compress it means something is compressing them into a larger resistance due to pushing into themLike a book sitting on top compressing it as it falls?
And this is just more pathetic deflection.Quote from: JackBlackAnd as a bonus question, just what evidence at all do you have that gas works the way you claim rather than the way mainstream science has shown it does?Simple experiments that show how a stack works and why expansion/contraction/vibrations work to create what we see happening.
There is no evidenceYou ignoring the evidence doesn't just magically make it go away.
If you push on someone against a spring and they move back as you keep pushing you can be said to be applying positive continuous building of pressure.And there you go conflating rate and value yet again.
What point are you trying to make?It is quite clear, in order for the pressure gauge to not have its spring expand fully and return to the 0 point (and thus read 0), it needs to have a force acting upon it.
This is the same with the gauge.You are right that this nails it, but not in the way you think.
And because the gauge needle drops so does the pressure on it
This all nails it.
If you built a tower of slonges and sat a book on top.Nope.
The book would stay up in the air.
If the sponges expanded the book would rise up.
That means the sponges are pushing on the underside of the book.
If the sponges expanded the book would fall.
If they were compressed more the book would then rise.Quote from: ThemightykaboolPointAThe water rocket doesn't have air leaving its bottom, until all the water is expelled.
If the water rocket has air leaving its bottom.
And the rocket is shown to fly up.
The rocket is - sitting on expanding air sponges?Quote from: ThemightykaboolPointBNope. If air is leaving then there cannot be an opposite push on a closed end inside a bottle/rocket.
If so, then yoy have to admit that as air is leaving the butt end, there is presaure exeeted on the inside end of the rocket to be pushing it up.
And if we put a gauge on there it would show positive values even if there was a negative rate/ declining set.Quote from: ThemightykaboolSo how do you reconcile poont a with b and claim no contradiction?Just as I explain.
You get confused because you're working with a barrier up to explanations and will not connect the dots.
It was a rather simple question.
You have a book sitting on a pile of air. You then claim that compressing the air makes the book go higher.
But now you are appealing to a completely different situation where you are putting more air in, which would make the air compressed, which then allows the air to decompress and push the book upwards.
But that is still decompression pushing the book up, and it is still the gas pushing the book up.
You get confused because you're working with a barrier up to explanations and will not connect the dots.Again, stop with the pathetic insults.
First of all you are confused because you simply just don't get it. You scream that you do but I can clearly see you don't.You get confused because you're working with a barrier up to explanations and will not connect the dots.Again, stop with the pathetic insults.
I'm not confused in the slightest.
I am just pointing out how nonsensical your claims are.
Even if your example, the air decompressing is what pushed the book upwards.
But according to your fantasy, that is impossible.
All you can do is repeatedly contradict yourself and ignore the massive problems with your fantasy.
Until you can actually address the issues raised, you have nothing.
Yet again, that doesn't answer the specific question using your nomenclature: How does the no definitive reading(your term) always match exactly the definitive reading when the valve is closed? How is the pressure reading going down 'not definitive'? And how does it become definitive and match exactly the not definitive reading when the valve is closed?
Because the open valve changes the set up of the gas molecular push on push in equal terms, meaning a shut valve creates the same compression at the valve as it does at the gauge end.
Once you open the valve you change the set up to a chain reaction expansion set up, in a flow to and out of that valve opening.
In doing so you omit the positive pressure upon the gauge side, because it's all following that chain reaction towards the opening.
All that the gauge reads in a fall by simply following that same pattern out by its own spring decompression.
There is no positive reading, only a falling negative needle reading nothing definitive.in terms of a set pressure and certainly not a positive pressure to that gauge.
Not even sure what you're getting at.
Again, still not answering the question. How is the falling pressure reading that you call "negative needle reading nothing definitive" always match the definitive pressure reading when the valve is closed? How coincidental is a non-definitive reading exactly the same as the definitive reading every time, without fail? How can that be?
It seems your non-definitive reading is quite definitive as it always matches, 1-to-1. Always.
Not even sure what you're getting at.
Again, still not answering the question. How is the falling pressure reading that you call "negative needle reading nothing definitive" always match the definitive pressure reading when the valve is closed? How coincidental is a non-definitive reading exactly the same as the definitive reading every time, without fail? How can that be?
It seems your non-definitive reading is quite definitive as it always matches, 1-to-1. Always.
Because it's not set.Not even sure what you're getting at.
Again, still not answering the question. How is the falling pressure reading that you call "negative needle reading nothing definitive" always match the definitive pressure reading when the valve is closed? How coincidental is a non-definitive reading exactly the same as the definitive reading every time, without fail? How can that be?
It seems your non-definitive reading is quite definitive as it always matches, 1-to-1. Always.
How is the gauge going down a non-definitive reading?
Because it's not set.Not even sure what you're getting at.
Again, still not answering the question. How is the falling pressure reading that you call "negative needle reading nothing definitive" always match the definitive pressure reading when the valve is closed? How coincidental is a non-definitive reading exactly the same as the definitive reading every time, without fail? How can that be?
It seems your non-definitive reading is quite definitive as it always matches, 1-to-1. Always.
How is the gauge going down a non-definitive reading?
Positive pressure build.Because it's not set.Not even sure what you're getting at.
Again, still not answering the question. How is the falling pressure reading that you call "negative needle reading nothing definitive" always match the definitive pressure reading when the valve is closed? How coincidental is a non-definitive reading exactly the same as the definitive reading every time, without fail? How can that be?
It seems your non-definitive reading is quite definitive as it always matches, 1-to-1. Always.
How is the gauge going down a non-definitive reading?
Yet a gauge going up is?
Positive pressure build.Because it's not set.Not even sure what you're getting at.
Again, still not answering the question. How is the falling pressure reading that you call "negative needle reading nothing definitive" always match the definitive pressure reading when the valve is closed? How coincidental is a non-definitive reading exactly the same as the definitive reading every time, without fail? How can that be?
It seems your non-definitive reading is quite definitive as it always matches, 1-to-1. Always.
How is the gauge going down a non-definitive reading?
Yet a gauge going up is?
So it has nothing to do with being "set", right - Even though you said so. Going up isn't "set", right? "Set" would be stationary, unmoving, neither up nor down. So already your own terminology presents a problem.Nope. The massive issue you have is not paying attention to what is being said and simply just cherry picking what suits you, which gets you nowhere.
So herein lies the problem you have yet to address:None of them are set and I've never said they were. Feel free to find where I did but make sure you quote it exactly.
- How is a declining pressure gauge reading not 'set' when an increasing reading is 'set'?
- Set means neither up nor down so why are you applying it to up and not down?I'm applying to neither. Set is what you said. It's set, meaning not moving.
- You define "non-definitive reading" as not 'set' or decreasing yet a not 'set' increasing reading is 'definitive'?Nope.
First of all you are confused because you simply just don't get it.Again, stop with the pathetic insults.
Just deal with one thing at a timeAgain, firstly, I have tried this, and as soon as it gets to a contradiction you just run away or claim it is no longer dealing with 1 thing.
None of them are set and I've never said they were.So is this another contradiction of yours?
How is the gauge going down a non-definitive reading?Because it's not set.
So it has nothing to do with being "set", right - Even though you said so. Going up isn't "set", right? "Set" would be stationary, unmoving, neither up nor down. So already your own terminology presents a problem.Nope. The massive issue you have is not paying attention to what is being said and simply just cherry picking what suits you, which gets you nowhere.
Pay attention to what is said and absorb it all...not just certain parts.
Don't argue this because you have no argument.Quote from: StashSo herein lies the problem you have yet to address:None of them are set and I've never said they were. Feel free to find where I did but make sure you quote it exactly.
- How is a declining pressure gauge reading not 'set' when an increasing reading is 'set'?Quote from: Stash- Set means neither up nor down so why are you applying it to up and not down?I'm applying to neither. Set is what you said. It's set, meaning not moving.
Pay more attention.Quote from: Stash- You define "non-definitive reading" as not 'set' or decreasing yet a not 'set' increasing reading is 'definitive'?Nope.
First of all you are confused because you simply just don't get it.Again, stop with the pathetic insults.
I have clearly demonstrated that I am not confused and that I do get it.
Realising that your claims repeatedly contradicts themselves doesn't mean I am confused or don't get it.
Realising you are wrong doesn't mean I am confused or don't get it.
It is quite clear why you overlook most of what I write, because I clearly show you are completely wrong and you have no escape from it other than insults and ignoring it.
The fact that you need to repeatedly resort to these pathetic insults and avoid all the issues that are being raised shows that I almost certainly do get it and that I can easily show that your model is nonsense.Just deal with one thing at a timeAgain, firstly, I have tried this, and as soon as it gets to a contradiction you just run away or claim it is no longer dealing with 1 thing.
If you need to focus entirely upon 1 thing in order to be able to provide a separate, contradictory explanation for each thing, then your model is garbage.
You also completely ignore this and try to appeal to analogy after analogy.
If you really want to discuss one thing at time, then stop all the nonsense and deal with rockets in space. Don't discuss anything else at all until it is done.
Don't appeal to analogies, don't appeal to anything else, just discuss rockets in space.
Either admit rockets work in space, or that gas will magically be held inside an open container exposed to the vacuum, or explain what there is for the gas to push off to leave the rocket which doesn't have an equivalent for the rocket itself.
Remember, if you say it is pushing off the rocket, that means it is pushing the rocket and rockets work in space; if you say it is pushing of the gas, that means the rocket can as well and thus rockets work in space; and if you say itself, that means the rocket can push off itself and thus rockets work in space.
You really only have 2 options here, either rockets work in space, or you have gas magically trapped inside a tube exposed to a vacuum.
Once again, you have completely ignored all the problems raised regarding your model and just dedicated a post to insulting me.
If you really had a working model you would have answered my questions by now.
And I will continue to repeat until you answer them or admit you are wrong.
Again, until you can answer them, YOU HAVE NOTHING!
What is the gas pushing against to allow it to move (which isn't the rocket and which the rocket can't push against)?
How does the gas magically know to stop pushing outwards in all directions and instead only push towards the opening?
How does the gas move towards the opening if it is pushing towards it, meaning it would be pushed away?
And as a bonus question, just what evidence at all do you have that gas works the way you claim rather than the way mainstream science has shown it does?None of them are set and I've never said they were.So is this another contradiction of yours?
Why did you remove the quote tower from this, while leaving it for so much before?
Here is the key part to remind you:How is the gauge going down a non-definitive reading?Because it's not set.
The only way for this to make sense is if you have the "definitive reading" you repeatedly appeal to be "set".
One of the main objections you have for the pressure gauge reading going down is because you claim it isn't definitive, but you are perfectly fine with it when it is going up.
So why did you repeatedly appeal to the lowering pressure not being definitive when that doesn't matter?
In order for you to be consistent you would need to reject the pressure whenever it is changing, not just lowering.
But it is much harder to come up with some nonsense excuse while the pressure is rising.
The only way for this to make sense is if you have the "definitive reading" you repeatedly appeal to be "set".Stop confusing yourself or deliberately trying to confuse the issue. All you'll do is frustrate yourself, not me.
One of the main objections you have for the pressure gauge reading going down is because you claim it isn't definitive, but you are perfectly fine with it when it is going up.It's not definitive going up or down until it stops going up or down. It's like trying to say you have a definitive clock time but you never do, unless the clock stops.
So why did you repeatedly appeal to the lowering pressure not being definitive when that doesn't matter?It does matter in terms of it not being definitive or set. It matters because it shows the gauge is losing positive pressure against the piston and spring and is now acting as a resistance to that piston and spring decompressing with the gas.
In order for you to be consistent you would need to reject the pressure whenever it is changing, not just lowering.It's not about rejecting it, it's simply about showing what the gauge is doing and why.
But it is much harder to come up with some nonsense excuse while the pressure is rising.Not at all. It's pretty simple.
It's not definitive going up or down until it stops going up or down. It's like trying to say you have a definitive clock time but you never do, unless the clock stops.
So explain your terminology, because you seem to make it up on the fly and no one knows what you are talking about.Because you keep putting up barriers against yourselves and refuse to see it from my side.
What do these mean and under what circumstances are they applicable:In terms of everything. It means stable or still. No discernable movement.
- Set
- Non-definitive readingA reading that consistently changes. One you cannot call out as a set number because that number changes before you could even write the number you think you see, on paper or plug into a calculator, etc.
- Definitive readingThis simply goes back to set reading. A definitive reading means you can read whatever the gauge says and mark it down as a definitive reading.
- Negative pressureNegative pressure is simple a pressure that cannot achieve what it was once doing.
- Positive pressureThis works both ways.
I would say we are confused at the contradictions and misuse of english.One person's wording is another person's learning.
But in terms of undersrand basic logic, we are NOT confused in the fact that you, scepti, have preety brutal grasp of logic and communication skills.That depends on who I'm communicating with and what those people understand of the notions used with that communication.
How can something be lifted if there is no direct contact of force below it?It can't.
- Is it magically being sucked up?No such thing as suck. It's all push on push or push on resistance to that push.
How can a gas choose to go left or right?It doesn't. Energy/force dictates that.
- is it sentient?Forget this sentient stuff, it only confuses you more.
What actual function does the water in a water rocket play because you gobblygook nonsense does describe anytjingA massive function. It is the needed force to act with compressed gas trapped behind it that allows that dense mass to be super thrusted back down to the ground, via the super compressive push through the atmospheric stack below its ejection from the nozzle.
Maybe you could provude a diagram?I could provide a diagram but I have this feeling it will be rejected and the usual stories of " but scepti we can't see how that works." And all the rest of it, because naturally you people have the notion that your space rocket does not need atmosphere, so you're obviously dead set against bothering to understand why it can't work in so called space and cannot work how we are told, today.
Maybe someone could come to your aid and teanslate for the rest of us?
I simply gave you a thought process.It's not definitive going up or down until it stops going up or down. It's like trying to say you have a definitive clock time but you never do, unless the clock stops.
Sweet Jesus, you've invented yet another term to defend this stuff; "definitive clock time"? Please, just for shits and giggles, can you give us five random examples of "definitive clock time"? I'll start you off...
"The pub doesn't close until definitive clock time when Mickey, the tender, takes a hammer from behind the bar and smashes everyones watches (and their wrists) - All stopped, definitive clock time"
Stop confusing yourselfStop insulting me and start trying to actually deal with the issues raised.
I mention set pressure when the pressure is contained = valve shut to trap it. This pressure shows as a set reading on the gauge. A definitive readingNotice how this doesn't address what I said at all?
It's not definitive going up or down until it stops going up or down. It's like trying to say you have a definitive clock time but you never do, unless the clock stops.Definitive doesn't mean constant.
It does matter in terms of it not being definitive or setIf that was the case then the same would apply for it going up.
It matters because it shows the gauge is losing positive pressure against the piston and spring and is now acting as a resistance to that piston and spring decompressing with the gas.Again, "losing positive pressure" doesn't mean it is no longer applying pressure. All it means is that that pressure is decreasing.
Shut down the valve at any point and you get a set reading of pressure inside the container because the gauge piston and spring cannot follow a decompression because the resistant gasThe same applies all the time while there is any pressure in it.
Basically if you were in a plane heading towards the ground and your tower was asking you what specific altitude you're at, you would reply with " I'm not at any specific altitude, because the reading keeps changing."No, you would reply with your current altitude and probably also state that you are descending unless that was already conveyed to them.
Negative pressure is simple a pressure that cannot achieve what it was once doing.i.e. a pressure that is still very real and still pushing outwards in all directions, but less than what it was before.
Yes, it is the key to all of your nonsense regarding rockets.Quote from: ThemightykaboolHow can something be lifted if there is no direct contact of force below it?It can't.
It's knowing why, which is the key to all of this space rocket nonsense.
That's right.Quote from: ThemightykaboolHow can a gas choose to go left or right?It doesn't. Energy/force dictates that.
No, it exposes the insanity of your claims.Quote from: Themightykabool- is it sentient?Forget this sentient stuff, it only confuses you more.
This stack then becomes delved like a trampoline due to the massive compression the water and above compressed air has placed upon that.If all of this nonsense was true, then the water would be thrown upwards by the magic stack below and movement would be basically impossible.
It now reacts with that same force, except the rocket is now less dense due to water ejection which enables that atmosphere to push back or expand back by that decompression becoming less decompressed to take it's place back in that stack at that point.
I could provide a diagram but I have this feeling it will be rejected and the usual stories of " but scepti we can't see how that works."You mean it will be refuted with the usual pointing out of just what is wrong with it?
I simply gave you a thought process.It's not definitive going up or down until it stops going up or down. It's like trying to say you have a definitive clock time but you never do, unless the clock stops.
Sweet Jesus, you've invented yet another term to defend this stuff; "definitive clock time"? Please, just for shits and giggles, can you give us five random examples of "definitive clock time"? I'll start you off...
"The pub doesn't close until definitive clock time when Mickey, the tender, takes a hammer from behind the bar and smashes everyones watches (and their wrists) - All stopped, definitive clock time"
We can play with our clocks all day long ;D but it's just a simple thought process.
A moving clock hand shows no definitive number.
A stopped clock would.
The gas coming out of the rocket would do absolutely nothing unless it hits a barrier.Yes, it is the key to all of your nonsense regarding rockets.Quote from: ThemightykaboolHow can something be lifted if there is no direct contact of force below it?It can't.
It's knowing why, which is the key to all of this space rocket nonsense.
The fact that the rocket can't be lifted by something removed from it (i.e. not touching) shows that the gas touching is pushing it up, directly contradicting your claims.
If this is the case, then there is no reason for the same to not happen in space.
And indeed, it is.This stack then becomes delved like a trampoline due to the massive compression the water and above compressed air has placed upon that.If all of this nonsense was true, then the water would be thrown upwards by the magic stack below and movement would be basically impossible.
It now reacts with that same force, except the rocket is now less dense due to water ejection which enables that atmosphere to push back or expand back by that decompression becoming less decompressed to take it's place back in that stack at that point.
Incorrect. A stopped clock would only be definitive two times a day.A stopped clock would be definitive in the numbers stopped at until it was changed.
As time doesn't stand still.The time reading on that clock stands still.
So a stopped clock would actually be less definitive than a moving clock.A stopped clock is definitive pointer reading on numbers..
So, your statement is wrong. As such, a moving clock hand shows a definitive, accurate number far more than a stopped clock.Accurate to what?
Now, why doesn't a pressure gauge show a definitive number when it's moving up or down?Because it never sets at any number to be definitive.
Why only when it's stopped?Because it sets on a number or specific point.
Even though when it's stopped it shows the same exact number reading it was showing when it was moving up or down?Clearly it wouldn't.
How is that possible? If the definitive number is exactly the same as the up or down number, then they both must be definitive. No?The definitive number cannot be the same as the up and down number if the gauge is moving either up or down.
Quote from: Stash link=topic=82434.msg2218755#msg2218755 date=1574593012
[quote author=StashEven though when it's stopped it shows the same exact number reading it was showing when it was moving up or down?Clearly it wouldn't.
Quote from: StashHow is that possible? If the definitive number is exactly the same as the up or down number, then they both must be definitive. No?The definitive number cannot be the same as the up and down number if the gauge is moving either up or down.
It's not definitive going up or down until it stops going up or down. It's like trying to say you have a definitive clock time but you never do, unless the clock stops.
Sweet Jesus, you've invented yet another term to defend this stuff; "definitive clock time"? Please, just for shits and giggles, can you give us five random examples of "definitive clock time"? I'll start you off...
"The pub doesn't close until definitive clock time when Mickey, the tender, takes a hammer from behind the bar and smashes everyones watches (and their wrists) - All stopped, definitive clock time"
Yep, as soon as you contain the pressure by closing the valve your reading (in this case of what you say, is 47 as your set definitive and positive pressure number.Quote from: Stash link=topic=82434.msg2218755#msg2218755 date=1574593012
[quote author=StashEven though when it's stopped it shows the same exact number reading it was showing when it was moving up or down?Clearly it wouldn't.
Clearly it would. If the gauge was dropping, 50, 49, 48, 47 and I suddenly jammed the valve closed, the definitive reading would be right where I jammed the valve shut, 47.
It wouldn't be anything but. It wouldn't be 34 or 56 it would be right where it was when it was going down in this example, 47.As long as it is closed off like as you said above.
You're getting yourself mixed up.The definitive number will be any number that is set or any number you choose to shut the valve at.Quote from: StashHow is that possible? If the definitive number is exactly the same as the up or down number, then they both must be definitive. No?The definitive number cannot be the same as the up and down number if the gauge is moving either up or down.
See above. Of course it would be the same number. Why wouldn't it be?
Quote from: JackBlackThe gas coming out of the rocket would do absolutely nothing unless it hits a barrier.Yes, it is the key to all of your nonsense regarding rockets.Quote from: ThemightykaboolHow can something be lifted if there is no direct contact of force below it?It can't.
It's knowing why, which is the key to all of this space rocket nonsense.
The fact that the rocket can't be lifted by something removed from it (i.e. not touching) shows that the gas touching is pushing it up, directly contradicting your claims.
If this is the case, then there is no reason for the same to not happen in space.
The atmospheric stack or even water will provide the resistive force of reaction to that action by being super compressed from it's original compression but the super expansion of the compressed gas being allowed to escape from the rocket and burned or pushed in one direction, which is to the exit only.Quote from: JackBlackAnd indeed, it is.This stack then becomes delved like a trampoline due to the massive compression the water and above compressed air has placed upon that.If all of this nonsense was true, then the water would be thrown upwards by the magic stack below and movement would be basically impossible.
It now reacts with that same force, except the rocket is now less dense due to water ejection which enables that atmosphere to push back or expand back by that decompression becoming less decompressed to take it's place back in that stack at that point.
It's this decompression from that super compression of the stack directly under that thrust that creates the equal reaction, which means the delve in the stack equalises, which pushes that water back.
However, all this does it pushes the water so far and then the water collapses and is sprayed outwards by that return pressure because the thrust of it by this time is much less as the rocket is continually pushed back on by the stack above and above that as the rocket keeps ejecting the water.
Think of the rocket as an upside down fountain.
I could say it's approximately whatever time it shows, which doesn't give any definitive number.It's not definitive going up or down until it stops going up or down. It's like trying to say you have a definitive clock time but you never do, unless the clock stops.
Sweet Jesus, you've invented yet another term to defend this stuff; "definitive clock time"? Please, just for shits and giggles, can you give us five random examples of "definitive clock time"? I'll start you off...
"The pub doesn't close until definitive clock time when Mickey, the tender, takes a hammer from behind the bar and smashes everyones watches (and their wrists) - All stopped, definitive clock time"
Unfortunate Person Off the Street: sir can you tell me what time it is?
Scepti: no
UPOS: why not?
Scepti: because its not definitive.
I would say we are confused at the contradictions and misuse of english.One person's wording is another person's learning.Quote from: ThemightykaboolBut in terms of undersrand basic logic, we are NOT confused in the fact that you, scepti, have preety brutal grasp of logic and communication skills.That depends on who I'm communicating with and what those people understand of the notions used with that communication.
Logic is not specific to one simple deduction or outcome.Quote from: ThemightykaboolHow can something be lifted if there is no direct contact of force below it?
[/quote]It can't.
It's knowing why, which is the key to all of this space rocket nonsense.Quote from: Themightykabool- Is it magically being sucked up?No such thing as suck. It's all push on push or push on resistance to that push.Quote from: ThemightykaboolHow can a gas choose to go left or right?It doesn't. Energy/force dictates that.Quote from: Themightykabool- is it sentient?Forget this sentient stuff, it only confuses you more.
Quote from: ThemightykaboolWhat actual function does the water in a water rocket play because you gobblygook nonsense does describe anytjingA massive function. It is the needed force to act with compressed gas trapped behind it that allows that dense mass to be super thrusted back down to the ground, via the super compressive push through the atmospheric stack below its ejection from the nozzle.
This stack then becomes delved like a trampoline due to the massive compression the water and above compressed air has placed upon that.
It now reacts with that same force, except the rocket is now less dense due to water ejection which enables that atmosphere to push back or expand back by that decompression becoming less decompressed to take it's place back in that stack at that point.
But by this time the rocket has expelled more water which is now being taken care of in the stack above and so on and so on until the water is expelled and only compressed air left inside, which still compresses against the stack but with much much less force, because it is part of the same make up and not dense like the water.....which has had to be forced into the bottle to start with, which means it is already a potential energy without the added compressed air.Quote from: ThemightykaboolMaybe you could provude a diagram?I could provide a diagram but I have this feeling it will be rejected and the usual stories of " but scepti we can't see how that works." And all the rest of it, because naturally you people have the notion that your space rocket does not need atmosphere, so you're obviously dead set against bothering to understand why it can't work in so called space and cannot work how we are told, today.
Maybe someone could come to your aid and teanslate for the rest of us?
Incorrect. A stopped clock would only be definitive two times a day.A stopped clock would be definitive in the numbers stopped at until it was changed.Quote from: StashAs time doesn't stand still.The time reading on that clock stands still.Quote from: StashSo a stopped clock would actually be less definitive than a moving clock.A stopped clock is definitive pointer reading on numbers..
Moving clock pointers are never definitive in a reading of a specific number or numbers.Quote from: StashSo, your statement is wrong. As such, a moving clock hand shows a definitive, accurate number far more than a stopped clock.Accurate to what?
We are dealing with the specific clock, nothing outside of it.Quote from: StashNow, why doesn't a pressure gauge show a definitive number when it's moving up or down?Because it never sets at any number to be definitive.Quote from: StashWhy only when it's stopped?Because it sets on a number or specific point.Quote from: StashEven though when it's stopped it shows the same exact number reading it was showing when it was moving up or down?Clearly it wouldn't.Quote from: StashHow is that possible? If the definitive number is exactly the same as the up or down number, then they both must be definitive. No?The definitive number cannot be the same as the up and down number if the gauge is moving either up or down.
It's not definitive going up or down until it stops going up or down. It's like trying to say you have a definitive clock time but you never do, unless the clock stops.
Sweet Jesus, you've invented yet another term to defend this stuff; "definitive clock time"? Please, just for shits and giggles, can you give us five random examples of "definitive clock time"? I'll start you off...
"The pub doesn't close until definitive clock time when Mickey, the tender, takes a hammer from behind the bar and smashes everyones watches (and their wrists) - All stopped, definitive clock time"
Unfortunate Person Off the Street: sir can you tell me what time it is?
Scepti: no
UPOS: why not?
Scepti: because its not definitive.
Then if that is the theory "requires barrier" well the ground is a barrier.It wouldn't be needed if the ground was used as the barrier.
So why is water needed in a water rocket?
The ground is more dense and solid than water.
I could say it's approximately whatever time it shows, which doesn't give any definitive number.It's not definitive going up or down until it stops going up or down. It's like trying to say you have a definitive clock time but you never do, unless the clock stops.
Sweet Jesus, you've invented yet another term to defend this stuff; "definitive clock time"? Please, just for shits and giggles, can you give us five random examples of "definitive clock time"? I'll start you off...
"The pub doesn't close until definitive clock time when Mickey, the tender, takes a hammer from behind the bar and smashes everyones watches (and their wrists) - All stopped, definitive clock time"
Unfortunate Person Off the Street: sir can you tell me what time it is?
Scepti: no
UPOS: why not?
Scepti: because its not definitive.
Try phoning the speaking clock to get the time. The speaking clock can only ever give you an approximate time.
At the first stroke it will be 9.51 and 30 seconds.
The very nano second it's said it is no longer that time.
Unless the speaking clock sticks on a set saying of a number it will never be definitive.
Then if that is the theory "requires barrier" well the ground is a barrier.It wouldn't be needed if the ground was used as the barrier.
So why is water needed in a water rocket?
The ground is more dense and solid than water.
The compressed air would use the ground as the springboard because it's immediately a denser barrier, like you said.
This way the compressed air hits the ground and decompresses back against the more compressed air coming from the rocket. A gas on gas fight happens just the same.
The only difference is in the immediate denser resistance but the rocket will still springboard into the air, only it will quickly lose all of it's energy because once it's away from the ground it is compressed air against compressed air which is dissipated much easier.
So nothing can be lifted unless something were pushing it up.The gas is pushing from the exit hole into resistant stacked gas but cannot be pushed back on until that stacked gas is compressed to react with the same pressure pushed into it.
Got it.
But yet you are insistent that if gas is exitig an opening, it is not pushing on the other side.
So please explain how If the rocket is pushed up by the exiting gas, the same exiting gas magically dossnt also push on the underside to pressurize the tube (even if said pressure is reducing at a regular rate)?It's not pushed up by exiting gas until that exiting gas hits another gas, which would be the atmosphere in this case.
I've never said pressure doesn't exist so you'd be much better off making sure you don't make stuff up to suit yourself.
And in your pressure doesnt exist debate, then there is a pressure, it is positive, it is pushing on the gaige, but it is also moving in a lessening dirsction.
Or else by your stupidass clock example, if you claim pressure is not there, then time is not there and no one would ever know the time.
Whcih is it?
Because by this logic we call it a contradiction.
The head wasn't using the ground as its foundation, it was using low pressure to fight the fire.Then if that is the theory "requires barrier" well the ground is a barrier.It wouldn't be needed if the ground was used as the barrier.
So why is water needed in a water rocket?
The ground is more dense and solid than water.
The compressed air would use the ground as the springboard because it's immediately a denser barrier, like you said.
This way the compressed air hits the ground and decompresses back against the more compressed air coming from the rocket. A gas on gas fight happens just the same.
The only difference is in the immediate denser resistance but the rocket will still springboard into the air, only it will quickly lose all of it's energy because once it's away from the ground it is compressed air against compressed air which is dissipated much easier.
Great
Then lets go back to the japanese fire truck.
When the hose head goes through the window frame, why didnt the head jump?
The head was using the ground as its foundation - but when moved through the window, which has obvious higher foundqtion, the hose head didnt jump.
I've never said pressure doesn't exist so you'd be much better off making sure you don't make stuff up to suit yourself.
And in your pressure doesnt exist debate, then there is a pressure, it is positive, it is pushing on the gaige, but it is also moving in a lessening dirsction.
Or else by your stupidass clock example, if you claim pressure is not there, then time is not there and no one would ever know the time.
Whcih is it?
Because by this logic we call it a contradiction.
So nothing can be lifted unless something were pushing it up.The gas is pushing from the exit hole into resistant stacked gas but cannot be pushed back on until that stacked gas is compressed to react with the same pressure pushed into it.
Got it.
But yet you are insistent that if gas is exitig an opening, it is not pushing on the other side.
Only at this point does the rocket rest upon it but it consistently rests upon the stack as the gas in each stack decompresses from the super compression the thrust placed it under.
The rocket merely sits on that as we see it rise for however long it can keep thrusting into the ever filling stack.Quote from: ThemightykaboolSo please explain how If the rocket is pushed up by the exiting gas, the same exiting gas magically dossnt also push on the underside to pressurize the tube (even if said pressure is reducing at a regular rate)?It's not pushed up by exiting gas until that exiting gas hits another gas, which would be the atmosphere in this case.
Only then can a equal and opposite reaction to that exiting action can take place.
If there's nothing to resist the existing gas then the exiting gas simply expands out into no resistance, meaning your rocket stays put.
The gas coming out of the rocket would do absolutely nothing unless it hits a barrier.By the time it hits any barrier is disconnected from the rocket and thus unable to do anything.
No, it isn't true, at all.Quote from: JackBlackIf all of this nonsense was true, then the water would be thrown upwards by the magic stack below and movement would be basically impossible.And indeed, it is.
Yep, as soon as you contain the pressure by closing the valve your reading (in this case of what you say, is 47 as your set definitive and positive pressure number.No, by your own definitions that would be a negative pressure.
If there's nothing to resist the existing gas then the exiting gas simply expands out into no resistance, meaning your rocket stays put.Please answer:
The gas coming out of the rocket would do absolutely nothing unless it hits a barrier.
The atmospheric stack or even water will provide the resistive force of reaction to that action by being super compressed from it's original compression but the super expansion of the compressed gas being allowed to escape from the rocket and burned or pushed in one direction, which is to the exit only.
Quote from: Stash- Non-definitive reading
A reading that consistently changes. One you cannot call out as a set number because that number changes before you could even write the number you think you see, on paper or plug into a calculator, etc.
Basically if you were in a plane heading towards the ground and your tower was asking you what specific altitude you're at, you would reply with " I'm not at any specific altitude, because the reading keeps changing."
Nothing complicated about what I'm saying.
Not positively, no.I've never said pressure doesn't exist so you'd be much better off making sure you don't make stuff up to suit yourself.
And in your pressure doesnt exist debate, then there is a pressure, it is positive, it is pushing on the gaige, but it is also moving in a lessening dirsction.
Or else by your stupidass clock example, if you claim pressure is not there, then time is not there and no one would ever know the time.
Whcih is it?
Because by this logic we call it a contradiction.
Undefinitive
Negative
Not pushing
Falling away
Some of the descriptions youve used.
So is it pushing at the top when the back end is open?
The stack is always at the end of the tube until something from that tube causes the stack to compress at that specific point.So nothing can be lifted unless something were pushing it up.The gas is pushing from the exit hole into resistant stacked gas but cannot be pushed back on until that stacked gas is compressed to react with the same pressure pushed into it.
Got it.
But yet you are insistent that if gas is exitig an opening, it is not pushing on the other side.
Only at this point does the rocket rest upon it but it consistently rests upon the stack as the gas in each stack decompresses from the super compression the thrust placed it under.
The rocket merely sits on that as we see it rise for however long it can keep thrusting into the ever filling stack.Quote from: ThemightykaboolSo please explain how If the rocket is pushed up by the exiting gas, the same exiting gas magically dossnt also push on the underside to pressurize the tube (even if said pressure is reducing at a regular rate)?It's not pushed up by exiting gas until that exiting gas hits another gas, which would be the atmosphere in this case.
Only then can a equal and opposite reaction to that exiting action can take place.
If there's nothing to resist the existing gas then the exiting gas simply expands out into no resistance, meaning your rocket stays put.
And at some point
The stack on the stack on the exhaust on the air coming out, the train of stacked sponges eventually should end at the inside of the tube.
Scepti quote:The higher pressure is being used to keep the hose up and stable. The lower pressure allowed from that point to put out the fire is not doing anything of value to keep that hose up. It's not powerful enough to do anything other than extinguish the fire.
The head wasn't using the ground as its foundation, it was using low pressure to fight the fire.
The main work was done by the other jets to lift and steer the hose. It's quite easy to see what's going on if you put your mind to it.
Dafuq?
Low pressure of what?
Its quite wasy to see your "theory" doesnt add up.
It'd be really easy if we would just get it!As sarcy as that was meant to be; it's the truth.
Not positively, no.I've never said pressure doesn't exist so you'd be much better off making sure you don't make stuff up to suit yourself.
And in your pressure doesnt exist debate, then there is a pressure, it is positive, it is pushing on the gaige, but it is also moving in a lessening dirsction.
Or else by your stupidass clock example, if you claim pressure is not there, then time is not there and no one would ever know the time.
Whcih is it?
Because by this logic we call it a contradiction.
Undefinitive
Negative
Not pushing
Falling away
Some of the descriptions youve used.
So is it pushing at the top when the back end is open?
Do you know what that means?
It means your rocket does not get pushed up like you think it does from inside and all the work is done at the other end when it hits external atmosphere.
Pay closer attention to what I'm saying.
Scepti quote:The higher pressure is being used to keep the hose up and stable. The lower pressure allowed from that point to put out the fire is not doing anything of value to keep that hose up. It's not powerful enough to do anything other than extinguish the fire.
The head wasn't using the ground as its foundation, it was using low pressure to fight the fire.
The main work was done by the other jets to lift and steer the hose. It's quite easy to see what's going on if you put your mind to it.
Dafuq?
Low pressure of what?
Its quite wasy to see your "theory" doesnt add up.
Before a rocket lifts off its nozzle sits inside the stack of atmosphere and that part of the stack is inside the nozzle at the closed valve.The gas coming out of the rocket would do absolutely nothing unless it hits a barrier.By the time it hits any barrier is disconnected from the rocket and thus unable to do anything.
What matters is what happens BEFORE it leaves the rocket.
At this time it is still exerting pressure outwards in all directions, pushing the rocket away.
The decompressing stack will continually push back on the water pushing into it.No, it isn't true, at all.Quote from: JackBlackIf all of this nonsense was true, then the water would be thrown upwards by the magic stack below and movement would be basically impossible.And indeed, it is.
The water only goes back up when it hits the ground.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Launchbottle.jpg)
And movement is quite possible.
So your explanation is clearly pure nonsense.
I'm not avoiding any questions.
Every time you avoid these questions you are just showing you have no case and that your model is completely incapable of describing reality.
i am paying attention.If you paid attention to the gauge argument and the valve argument and then the external argument, you should easily marry up what is happening.
that's why i'm saying that you have a disjoint in your forces.
1. the external air-water-exhaust air are all pushing against each other.
2. air inside the tube-tube there is no force interaction between them.
where does 1 and 2 interact?
and by your "theory" 2 doesn't even interact with itself.
where does 2 interact?
1. the external air-water-exhaust air are all pushing against each other.No.
2. air inside the tube-tube there is no force interaction between them.Inside the rocket it's another compression and expansion to create burn to create expansion further, to create compression and finally expansion back from that compression.
i am paying attention.If you paid attention to the gauge argument and the valve argument and then the external argument, you should easily marry up what is happening.
that's why i'm saying that you have a disjoint in your forces.
1. the external air-water-exhaust air are all pushing against each other.
2. air inside the tube-tube there is no force interaction between them.
where does 1 and 2 interact?
and by your "theory" 2 doesn't even interact with itself.
where does 2 interact?Quote from: Themightykabool1. the external air-water-exhaust air are all pushing against each other.No.
Exhaust is exhaust, it's done its job so no need to use it.
The issue with exhaust is, you people think the rockets burning gases immediately from that nozzle is exhaust.
It isn't and this is the big con.
This thrusting burn is the workhorse for the rocket against the atmospheric stack. This is what expands into that stack to super compress it to create that massive atmospheric barrier by massive decompressive push back to regain stack equilibrium....at every portion of thrust.
This is what the rocket sits on.
Gas on gas.Quote from: Themightykabool2. air inside the tube-tube there is no force interaction between them.Inside the rocket it's another compression and expansion to create burn to create expansion further, to create compression and finally expansion back from that compression.
That's from inside to outside.
Inside the tube all you have is compressed gas.
There's nothing waiting to push it out except for it's own molecular self.
i am paying attention.If you paid attention to the gauge argument and the valve argument and then the external argument, you should easily marry up what is happening.
that's why i'm saying that you have a disjoint in your forces.
1. the external air-water-exhaust air are all pushing against each other.
2. air inside the tube-tube there is no force interaction between them.
where does 1 and 2 interact?
and by your "theory" 2 doesn't even interact with itself.
where does 2 interact?Quote from: Themightykabool1. the external air-water-exhaust air are all pushing against each other.No.
Exhaust is exhaust, it's done its job so no need to use it.
The issue with exhaust is, you people think the rockets burning gases immediately from that nozzle is exhaust.
It isn't and this is the big con.
This thrusting burn is the workhorse for the rocket against the atmospheric stack. This is what expands into that stack to super compress it to create that massive atmospheric barrier by massive decompressive push back to regain stack equilibrium....at every portion of thrust.
This is what the rocket sits on.
Gas on gas.Quote from: Themightykabool2. air inside the tube-tube there is no force interaction between them.Inside the rocket it's another compression and expansion to create burn to create expansion further, to create compression and finally expansion back from that compression.
That's from inside to outside.
Inside the tube all you have is compressed gas.
There's nothing waiting to push it out except for it's own molecular self.
sorry
to clarify
my example is purely the water rocket as you have yet to account for all the pieces - water, tube air, tube.
thought that would've been clear when "water" was a component in my post.
Not positively, no.It means you are avoiding the normal definitions of words to try and escape reality.
Do you know what that means?
It means your rocket does not get pushed up like you think it does from inside and all the work is done at the other end when it hits external atmosphere.Again, when it does that, it is no longer touching the rocket and thus can't push it.
Pay closer attention to what I'm saying.
Work is only done when the compression is so great as to create a massive decompression push back against that rockets massive gas expansion that caused it.Again, what there is in contact with the rocket to push it up?
The decompressing stack will continually push back on the water pushing into it.Notice how that doesn't address what was said at all?
I'm not avoiding any questions.So what do you call repeatedly ignoring them and pretending they don't exist; refusing to provide any actual answer to them and at best providing a non-answer and then running from the logical consequences of that answer only to bring it up again later?
What you do is ask the same question time and time again because you don't like the answer.No, I ask it time and time again because you DON'T ANSWER.
This is what expands into that stack to super compress it to create that massive atmospheric barrier by massive decompressive push backAgain, this makes no sense.
Inside the tube all you have is compressed gas.Yes, compressed gas, pushing on the tube.
I have accounted for them all but you've chose to overlook them.
sorry
to clarify
my example is purely the water rocket as you have yet to account for all the pieces - water, tube air, tube.
thought that would've been clear when "water" was a component in my post.
What is touching physically to a helicopter to keep it hovering?
and you still have nothing lifting the rocket.
what is touching/ physically in contact with the rocket, causing it to lift?
It's the actual decompression of the gas on gas not on the structure.
There's nothing inside that rocket pushing upwards to push the inside of it like we are duped into.Incorrect.
As this is happening the water is being pushed out much much faster than it would be under normal atmospheric conditions inside that bottle.
This allows the water to be pushed harder into the stack below to super compress that stack, quickly, creating a massive resistance to the water and a push back into it, which is why you see the water start to fan out as it's pushed into.
There's nothing inside that rocket pushing upwards to push the inside of it like we are duped into.You mean as can actually explain it?
What is touching physically to a helicopter to keep it hovering?Helicopters operate on vastly different principles.
Resting on the compressed stack below it which is more dense than the stack above it because of that downward compression into it.Which would make it impossible for it to move up.
Your rocket does not work as you've been told.And why should we believe that as you have been completely unable to provide a viable alternative or show any problem with how they actually work as mainstream science explains.
The rocket doesn't squeeze anything out.It's the actual decompression of the gas on gas not on the structure.
You mean rocket squeezes some gas out and then the next portion of gas pushes off the first portion.
That gas has no mass and you can't get pushed back in resistance while pushing it?
What about force that squeezes both of these portions out of the combustion chamber and the nozzle?The gas inside the rocket is allowed to decompress once the valve is opened. That decompression is then further expanded very quickly by combusting it.
That force doesn't get any reaction?
Or there's no such force and the gas decides on its own to get out? :)
The rocket doesn't squeeze anything out.Is there force that pushes portion of gas out, or the portion of gas exits on its own?
I have accounted for them all but you've chose to overlook them.
sorry
to clarify
my example is purely the water rocket as you have yet to account for all the pieces - water, tube air, tube.
thought that would've been clear when "water" was a component in my post.
Water is denser than air.
You out some water in the bottle and then compress air into it wich gets trapped behind the water and is now pushing on that water and also on the sides and upturned bottom.
The air at this point is pushing on all sides, including on top of the water.
Once the lid is popped off or the cork or whatever to create an opening at the bottom. the air above the water in the bottle can expand on top of the water and the following air molecules also start to expand behind and behind them and behind them and so on like a fast to slower to slower expansion in a chain reaction sort of way.
As this is happening the water is being pushed out much much faster than it would be under normal atmospheric conditions inside that bottle.
This allows the water to be pushed harder into the stack below to super compress that stack, quickly, creating a massive resistance to the water and a push back into it, which is why you see the water start to fan out as it's pushed into.
This creates a gas on water resistance and the bottle simply sits on this as it builds because the stack under is continually decompressing as much as it's being compressed by that water.
Just remember that a stack is exactly what it means. A continuity for air stacked on air all the way up and a stack comes into play at every point something is pushed into it to compress into that specific portion to create a delve (if you like) which is merely a massive compression on air that becomes so compressed as to create an equal resistance to the mass pushed into it.
There's nothing inside that rocket pushing upwards to push the inside of it like we are duped into.
It's the actual decompression of the gas on gas not on the structure.
All the structure is doing at the point of opening is to simple be a container for flow, not for pressure against the actual bottle for internal push.
Everything has mass.There's nothing inside that rocket pushing upwards to push the inside of it like we are duped into.Incorrect.
Gas has mass.
While that gas is still the rocket it is accelerated from zero velocity to thousands of metres per second.Still?
A force is required to accelerate any mass and that force is the rocket's thrust and the outside pressure has very little effect on it.The outside pressure has everything to do with the reaction to the thrust. It's why everything works, not just a rocket.
Let's equate this to water.As this is happening the water is being pushed out much much faster than it would be under normal atmospheric conditions inside that bottle.
This allows the water to be pushed harder into the stack below to super compress that stack, quickly, creating a massive resistance to the water and a push back into it, which is why you see the water start to fan out as it's pushed into.
I've always been confused about this bit. The water rocket pushes really hard. How does an air stack below it "know" to compress? A hard press of water, denser than air, all of a sudden makes the less dense air rally a group to coalesce and provide a platform for the water to push off of?
How would the air know how to do that? And how could it do that?
Pick something and I'll happily deal with it.There's nothing inside that rocket pushing upwards to push the inside of it like we are duped into.You mean as can actually explain it?
Again, if it is just sitting on it, how does the force get transferred?
And again, what is the purpose of the water?
Why wouldn't air work as well?
If you are appealing to the density of it to be more penetrating, then the less dense the air is the better it should be, i.e. a rocket should work best in a vacuum.What is touching physically to a helicopter to keep it hovering?Helicopters operate on vastly different principles.
They have a rotary wing, not a rocket engine.
And it is the air directly below the wing, which according to you shouldn't be pushing up on it at all and instead should just decompress.Resting on the compressed stack below it which is more dense than the stack above it because of that downward compression into it.Which would make it impossible for it to move up.
You can't force yourself up by pushing down on air. Try it yourself.Your rocket does not work as you've been told.And why should we believe that as you have been completely unable to provide a viable alternative or show any problem with how they actually work as mainstream science explains.
Again, until you can answer the very simple questions you have been repeatedly avoiding then you have nothing! You have absolutely no justification for your claims that rockets cannot work in a vacuum. The only way to even come close to backing that up is if you first claim that gas will magically remain trapped inside a tube which is open to vacuum.
Again:
What is the gas pushing against to allow it to move (which isn't the rocket and which the rocket can't push against)?
How does the gas magically know to stop pushing outwards in all directions and instead only push towards the opening?
How does the gas move towards the opening if it is pushing towards it, meaning it would be pushed away?
And as a bonus question, just what evidence at all do you have that gas works the way you claim rather than the way mainstream science has shown it does?
Again the first one is the real killer.
You have previously provided the non-answers of "the gas" and "itself".
Well if the gas can push against itself that means that objects can push against themselves to move, so the rocket can push against itself and there is no problem with rockets working in a vacuum. But you have previously stated that objects CANNOT push themselves and used that as a key argument for why rockets can't work in a vacuum, so that non-answer directly contradicts your claims and, if taken as true, refutes your own argument.
If it can push against the gas, then the gas is something that can be used as leverage, which means the rocket can use it as leverage and push off it to move so once again rockets work in a vacuum.
And that really is the killer.
In general you have 3 options to explain the motion of the gas.
1 - Itself, which is already dealt with above.
2 - The rocket, which means the gas is pushing on the rocket and thus the rocket will be pushed away by it and thus rockets work in a vacuum.
3 - Something else, which is covered by the gas, where this something else is being used as leverage and thus the rocket can use it as well.
Any option you pick will mean the rocket works in a vacuum.
The only way out, for you to say rockets don't work in a vacuum is to claim that the gas will remain trapped inside an open container exposed to a vacuum.
The gas exits on its own.The rocket doesn't squeeze anything out.Is there force that pushes portion of gas out, or the portion of gas exits on its own?
See highlighted statement below.I have to be careful how I answer this because this could set you right back.
From what i can decufer:
There is decompressing sponges inside the rocket.
The rocket sits on the external air that is being compressed and loaded up like a trampoline.
When the trampoline of sponges reaches max compression, the rocket is shot upwards.
The gas exits on its own.The rocket doesn't squeeze anything out.Is there force that pushes portion of gas out, or the portion of gas exits on its own?
Each molecule or gas decompresses against each molecule in a chain reaction.
As long as there's compression in one container that is more compressed than the environment it can decompress directly into, each molecule will decompress into that.
As this happens the less decompressed gas is now compressed much more due to this chain reaction of decompression from the container.
It creates a massive resistance and push back.
See highlighted statement below.I have to be careful how I answer this because this could set you right back.
From what i can decufer:
There is decompressing sponges inside the rocket.
The rocket sits on the external air that is being compressed and loaded up like a trampoline.
When the trampoline of sponges reaches max compression, the rocket is shot upwards.
You're on the right lines in one area but you must not forget the gas is always thrusting from the rocket as this compression happens.
Now once this compression happens it happens consistently whilst the rocket gas is thrusting.
It's almost like you having a rocket full of water that immediately turns to ice as it exits the rocket and that ice starts to make a splat on the ground but my hands start to scoop it up to make a mound of stop the ice from collapsing.
Now imagine the rocket continually doing this and me continually packing the mound further up.
The rocket sits above this all the time it keeps losing this water to ice to mound build.
It simply sits atop of it.
Now just picture this all happening super fast.
You'll never get it if you cannot marry up the analogy and you can certainly set yourself right back if you refuse to attempt to see it.
No I'm not contradicting myself. I'm being perfectly straight in what I say. The problem is people like yourself honestly not grasping the full set up. You always seem to take one step forward and one step back. You end up getting nowhere.
You are contradicting yourself.
First you say it exits on its own, and then you say it decompresses against the next molecule in chain.
When 1000 liters under the pressure of 1000 PSI pushes 1 liter out, the remaining 999 liters didn't push it out, the liter on the outside went out on it's own "by decompressing against the quantity that's still inside for now".Yes it did.
It's not positively pushing. I've explained this time and time again, same with the gauge.See highlighted statement below.I have to be careful how I answer this because this could set you right back.
From what i can decufer:
There is decompressing sponges inside the rocket.
The rocket sits on the external air that is being compressed and loaded up like a trampoline.
When the trampoline of sponges reaches max compression, the rocket is shot upwards.
You're on the right lines in one area but you must not forget the gas is always thrusting from the rocket as this compression happens.
Now once this compression happens it happens consistently whilst the rocket gas is thrusting.
It's almost like you having a rocket full of water that immediately turns to ice as it exits the rocket and that ice starts to make a splat on the ground but my hands start to scoop it up to make a mound of stop the ice from collapsing.
Now imagine the rocket continually doing this and me continually packing the mound further up.
The rocket sits above this all the time it keeps losing this water to ice to mound build.
It simply sits atop of it.
Now just picture this all happening super fast.
You'll never get it if you cannot marry up the analogy and you can certainly set yourself right back if you refuse to attempt to see it.
Great
So the air in the tube that is expanding/ decompressing and pushing the water out is the same spongs air you claim is not pushing the inside of the rocket tube - so what is in contact between the rocket tube and this foundation of water?
When 1000 liters under the pressure of 1000 PSI pushes 1 liter out, the remaining 999 liters didn't push it out, the liter on the outside went out on it's own "by decompressing against the quantity that's still inside for now".Yes it did.
Pick something and I'll happily deal with it.I have, and you refused. Instead you just repeatedly ignored it.
The rocket doesn't squeeze anything out.But without the rocket forcing the gas out, there is nothing to do so.
The gas inside the rocket is allowed to decompress once the valve is opened.You keep saying that but avoid the key part of what the gas is pushing against to get out.
The rocket merely sits atop this.Then how does it get pushed up?
The outside pressure has everything to do with the reaction to the thrust. It's why everything works, not just a rocket.No, it is a fairly minor factor limiting the amount of thrust you can get out of it.
Ok, if a rocket thrusts it's fuel into that stack it parts the stack. It opens it up....or to give you a visual, it parts the water.So it doesn't push it down, it just splits it apart. That means it compresses sideways and would try to expand back sideways, not upwards.
I'm sure you understand this which is easily verified using ant thrust.
This bulge of this stack pushes back and as it does so it starts to push the water back up from the point of the bottom of the delve, upwards.Again, this clearly isn't the case.
The gas exits on its own.How?
Each molecule or gas decompresses against each molecule in a chain reaction.So not by itself, it is the gas behind it pushing it out, which eventually goes down to the rocket, i.e. the rocket pushes the gas out.
No I'm not contradicting myself.Really?
Now to answer your question.Notice the direct contradiction?Quote from: MacariosWhen 1000 liters under the pressure of 1000 PSI pushes 1 liter out, the remaining 999 liters didn't push it out, the liter on the outside went out on it's own "by decompressing against the quantity that's still inside for now".Yes it did.
The remaining 999 litres did push it out
\Stop using your fake definitions and bringing in positive or negative. Start using the real definitions which other people here are using.
It's not positively pushing.
Learn to speak english and basic communication skills.Learn to understand what's being said.
Youve defined negative as "less than before".I've provided two because there is two in the scenario I gave.
And youve provided two (TWO) definitions for positive - "pressure on gauge when air is not moving" and/ or "pressure being added to a closed system so that it increases the previous definition for positive"
And now youve provided a thrid (THIRD) state of positive - "not positive".I haven't provided a third.
If "negative" is not the opposite of "positive" as per above, then "not positive" must be the opposite of "positive".I suggest you stop putting barriers in your own way.
And in such, by using this term, means nothing is pressing on the gauge when theres an opening.
Which
Then still requires an answer of what - in between the water and the rocket- isis pushing up the rocket?
Scepti quote:
It's not positively pushing.
Scepti quote:
Quote from: Stash
- Negative pressure
Negative pressure is simple a pressure that cannot achieve what it was once doing.
For instance, if the container is sealed and the pressure inside the container shows a set reading by pushing on the piston with a set compressive force to hold that piston but is then allowed to decompress away from it (valve opening) then the pressure it once exerted is now unable to do so with that same force and so it becomes a negative pressure.
Quote from: Stash
- Positive pressure
This works both ways.
Either contained pressure that exerts a set gauge reading or added pressure to advance that gauge reading. That's both positive pressure readings.
Anything else you need to understand?
It's pretty simple, right?
One simple question for Sceptimatic.Assuming you could balance it and for the scale to measure the dense mass of the atmosphere the rocket has displaced with the rocket as a dead stick, right?
What happens if you place a rocket upside down on a weighing scale?
The thrust is then pointed toward 'space', with nothing to push against. Will the scale reading still increase when the rocket fires?Then the rocket simply thrusts into the above atmospheric stack and compresses that which pushes back by decompressing to create the equal and opposite reactionary push back which adds more mass measurement to the scale.
One simple question for Sceptimatic.Assuming you could balance it and for the scale to measure the dense mass of the atmosphere the rocket has displaced with the rocket as a dead stick, right?
What happens if you place a rocket upside down on a weighing scale?
You have confused me with somebody else.My apologies. I simply thought you were on about gas and water as in the water bottle rocket. This is what happens when there's a few people to deal with all with different queries.
I was not talking about water.
I was talking about gas in chamber.
Yes the force would be weaker inside the container if you shut it off after losing 0.1% because the overall expansion would equalise to become a now overall compression but 0.1% less compressed.
1000 liters of gas with 1000 PSI pressure push one of those liters out (by force),
the liter that is exiting is pushing back with reaction force.
I know that you know what is "reaction force".
Remaining 999 liters expand into 1000 liters of a bit less dense gas, with the pressure of 999 PSI.
One of those liters gets pushed out with the 0.1% weaker force.
Is that weaker force still there?
Is the reaction force of the next liter just 0.1% weaker, or doesn't exist at all any more?
The first liter has mass, the second liter also has mass, and as they exit they make stack. :)
I'm making sure people are clear on what my stance is. If you can't handle that then take a back seat.One simple question for Sceptimatic.Assuming you could balance it and for the scale to measure the dense mass of the atmosphere the rocket has displaced with the rocket as a dead stick, right?
What happens if you place a rocket upside down on a weighing scale?
Stop answering questions with semantic questions.
I'm making sure people are clear on what my stance is. If you can't handle that then take a back seat.One simple question for Sceptimatic.Assuming you could balance it and for the scale to measure the dense mass of the atmosphere the rocket has displaced with the rocket as a dead stick, right?
What happens if you place a rocket upside down on a weighing scale?
Stop answering questions with semantic questions.
I am very clear on everything. What's not clear to you is the fact you can't grasp what I'm putting forward and that's clear to me.
You aren't clear on anything. You are deflecting from actually providing an answer that doesn't contradict yourself.
I am very clear on everything. What's not clear to you is the fact you can't grasp what I'm putting forward and that's clear to me.
You aren't clear on anything. You are deflecting from actually providing an answer that doesn't contradict yourself.
I have no need to deflect anything worthy of reply. I also do not contradict myself pertaining to this.
I'm certainly not infallible and can make mistakes in explanations but then again when you type to a lot of different people who are hitting you with all kinds of scenarios, I'm bound to appear like I'm all the things you and other say. But whose fault is that?
The problem a lot of you have is in refusing to see my way of thinking because you place your own barriers up due to adherence to your mainstream model...which is fine but it doesn't help you get the gist of how mine works, yet many will argue they know, when clearly I can see they only get part of it before setting themselves back.
It becomes frustrating for some who then resort to using the arguments that I'm contradicting and using my own words or not being clear or not even using English by someone who can't even take the time to type it.
And so on.
Yes, we're "sure people are clear on what your stance is" and we're simply trying to tell you that it does not fit reality.Stop answering questions with semantic questions.I'm making sure people are clear on what my stance is. If you can't handle that then take a back seat.
Learn to speak english and basic communication skills.Learn to understand what's being said.Quote from: ThemightykaboolYouve defined negative as "less than before".I've provided two because there is two in the scenario I gave.
And youve provided two (TWO) definitions for positive - "pressure on gauge when air is not moving" and/ or "pressure being added to a closed system so that it increases the previous definition for positive"
You create your own problems by refusing to pay attention.Quote from: ThemightykaboolAnd now youve provided a thrid (THIRD) state of positive - "not positive".I haven't provided a third.Quote from: ThemightykaboolIf "negative" is not the opposite of "positive" as per above, then "not positive" must be the opposite of "positive".I suggest you stop putting barriers in your own way.
And in such, by using this term, means nothing is pressing on the gauge when theres an opening.
Which
Then still requires an answer of what - in between the water and the rocket- isis pushing up the rocket?
Scepti quote:
It's not positively pushing.
Scepti quote:
Quote from: Stash
- Negative pressure
Negative pressure is simple a pressure that cannot achieve what it was once doing.
For instance, if the container is sealed and the pressure inside the container shows a set reading by pushing on the piston with a set compressive force to hold that piston but is then allowed to decompress away from it (valve opening) then the pressure it once exerted is now unable to do so with that same force and so it becomes a negative pressure.
Quote from: Stash
- Positive pressure
This works both ways.
Either contained pressure that exerts a set gauge reading or added pressure to advance that gauge reading. That's both positive pressure readings.
Anything else you need to understand?
It's pretty simple, right?
What you post is very clear. It isn't hard to understand what you are saying.If that's the case then stop using it as an argument.
There's nothing contradictory and I do not avoid answers, except the one's I've already answered time and time again.
What is problematic is when you explain something that is contradictory to what is observed in reality and when questioned further, your further examples and details are contradictory to your previous statements. You bounce around avoiding answers. Complain that people don't understand. Provide little or half-assed details.
My theory may not be solid and correct to anyone except me. I believe it's closer to what I'm saying because it fits with what I see in reality and not what we're told happens.
If your theory is so solid and correct, you shouldn't be avoiding any questions. Your claim that people don't understand wouldn't need to be said. You would present your ideas with clear information and not deflect from questions.
I do present it without deflection.
If you want to be taken seriously, present your idea without deflection. Your theory would be better received if you didn't deflect from answering. Bad examples and explanations are better than deflecting. Your failure to admit to it, just adds to the acceptance that your theory is absolute junk.
No, you're not. What you are trying to tell me is, it doesn't fit what you've been trained into thinking is your reality.
Yes, we're "sure people are clear on what your stance is" and we're simply trying to tell you that it does not fit reality.
Rockets do work and continuing to have a huge thrust in air of such low density that any claims that they push off the air are completely unbelievable.They are completely unbelievable because you underestimate the power of atmospheric pressure because you simply walk about in it and think it's neither nothing nor something in the grand scheme of things.
All questions were answered and you're simply wasting your own time coming back with the same questions.Learn to speak english and basic communication skills.Learn to understand what's being said.Quote from: ThemightykaboolYouve defined negative as "less than before".I've provided two because there is two in the scenario I gave.
And youve provided two (TWO) definitions for positive - "pressure on gauge when air is not moving" and/ or "pressure being added to a closed system so that it increases the previous definition for positive"
You create your own problems by refusing to pay attention.Quote from: ThemightykaboolAnd now youve provided a thrid (THIRD) state of positive - "not positive".I haven't provided a third.Quote from: ThemightykaboolIf "negative" is not the opposite of "positive" as per above, then "not positive" must be the opposite of "positive".I suggest you stop putting barriers in your own way.
And in such, by using this term, means nothing is pressing on the gauge when theres an opening.
Which
Then still requires an answer of what - in between the water and the rocket- isis pushing up the rocket?
Scepti quote:
It's not positively pushing.
Scepti quote:
Quote from: Stash
- Negative pressure
Negative pressure is simple a pressure that cannot achieve what it was once doing.
For instance, if the container is sealed and the pressure inside the container shows a set reading by pushing on the piston with a set compressive force to hold that piston but is then allowed to decompress away from it (valve opening) then the pressure it once exerted is now unable to do so with that same force and so it becomes a negative pressure.
Quote from: Stash
- Positive pressure
This works both ways.
Either contained pressure that exerts a set gauge reading or added pressure to advance that gauge reading. That's both positive pressure readings.
Anything else you need to understand?
It's pretty simple, right?
The barriers are the ones you use to confuse and avoid.
Like this.
You refuse to answer the question.
Your quoted statements are laid bare.What are you talking about?
You cant answer a simple question.
It took 20pg to fianlly figure out youve changed the definition of negative.
You were playing games and trolling us.
You said "not positive".
So how else are we to understand this phrasing?
And such, it contradicts what your theory basis is.
So therefore, your theory is sht.
The proof rockets do not work in your space of even extreme low pressure is easy to test even without a burning effigy.
You simply sit a water bottle rocket on a reasonable sized evacuation chamber using the upside down nozzle end of the bottle as yourchamber seal.
Then simply pop open the nozzle and see if your bottle rocket takes off.
I'll let you work that one out.
I'm making sure people are clear on what my stance is. If you can't handle that then take a back seat.If you actually cared about being clear you would stop using made up definitions.
But whose fault is that?Your's, for having a model which doesn't work to describe reality yet continuing to pretend it does, and using intentionally misleading language which is not English to try and pretend you have a working model; all while refusing to answer very simple questions.
There's nothing contradictory and I do not avoid answers, except the one's I've already answered time and time again.You mean the ones you have been unable to answer and ran away from time and time again?
If you don;t want to be confused then stick to one thing at a time and get familiar with it before you try to put obstacles in your own way.And we have done that before, and then brought up a new thing and you directly contradicted your prior explanation, because the new thing we brought up doesn't work with your prior explanation.
you underestimate the power of atmospheric pressureNo, that would be you.
The proof rockets do not work in your space of even extreme low pressure is easy to test even without a burning effigy.Then run along and test it.
You simply sit a water bottle rocket on a reasonable sized evacuation chamberNo sane person would put large amounts of water into a reasonably sized evacuation chamber unless they didn't care about the quality of the vacuum.
You need a substantially bigger sized chamber than that.The proof rockets do not work in your space of even extreme low pressure is easy to test even without a burning effigy.
You simply sit a water bottle rocket on a reasonable sized evacuation chamber using the upside down nozzle end of the bottle as yourchamber seal.
Then simply pop open the nozzle and see if your bottle rocket takes off.
I'll let you work that one out.
Here's how it works out.
Here we have a soda can in a vacuum showing that the gas expelled from the back of the can pushes the can forward before it can make contact with the wall:
(https://i.imgur.com/Gt7HN20.gif)
As shown and explained here at the 7:00 mark:
Deal with one specific thing only and I'll play along with you.I'm making sure people are clear on what my stance is. If you can't handle that then take a back seat.If you actually cared about being clear you would stop using made up definitions.
You would pretend that something being less than before makes it negative. Instead you would admit it is still positive.
You are intentionally being opaque to try and hide the fact that your model doesn't work.But whose fault is that?Your's, for having a model which doesn't work to describe reality yet continuing to pretend it does, and using intentionally misleading language which is not English to try and pretend you have a working model; all while refusing to answer very simple questions.
We are not the problem here.There's nothing contradictory and I do not avoid answers, except the one's I've already answered time and time again.You mean the ones you have been unable to answer and ran away from time and time again?
The ones where at best you offer non-answers and then run from the refutation of those non-answers?If you don;t want to be confused then stick to one thing at a time and get familiar with it before you try to put obstacles in your own way.And we have done that before, and then brought up a new thing and you directly contradicted your prior explanation, because the new thing we brought up doesn't work with your prior explanation.you underestimate the power of atmospheric pressureNo, that would be you.
We accept the pressure of gases, and how they push outwards.
But you want to pretend they all just happily decide to pushing outwards in all directions and instead just walk on out.
If you actually accepted the power of air pressure you would accept that rockets work in a vacuum due to pressure inside the rocket engine.The proof rockets do not work in your space of even extreme low pressure is easy to test even without a burning effigy.Then run along and test it.
Because all the evidence indicates they work.
The proof they MUST work is provided in a very simple question you have been repeatedly avoiding.You simply sit a water bottle rocket on a reasonable sized evacuation chamberNo sane person would put large amounts of water into a reasonably sized evacuation chamber unless they didn't care about the quality of the vacuum.
It is quite a pain to get it all out.
It is also entirely pointless as people like you will still dismiss it saying the rocket was pushing off the floor of the chamber, or that it wasn't actually a vacuum.
If you want to say you aren't avoiding questions, then why I have been unable to get you to answer a very simple one with anything more than a few words which completely ignores the point of the question and which immediately raises more?
Is it because you actually are avoiding these questions because you know you cannot answer them without destroying your model or sounding completely ridiculous?
If you aren't avoiding the questions then ANSWER THEM!
I will even be nice and just make it the 1 question.
If you don't answer this question in a meaningful way which actually addresses the issues raised, guess what that means? YOU ARE AVOIDING IT!
Again:
For my rocket in a vacuum example, what is the gas pushing off in order to exist the rocket which can allow the gas to move, but not the rocket?
You have previously provided the non-answers of "the gas" and "itself".
Well if the gas can push against itself that means that objects can push against themselves to move, so the rocket can push against itself and there is no problem with rockets working in a vacuum. But you have previously stated that objects CANNOT push themselves and used that as a key argument for why rockets can't work in a vacuum, so that non-answer directly contradicts your claims and, if taken as true, refutes your own argument.
If it can push against the gas, then the gas is something that can be used as leverage, which means the rocket can use it as leverage and push off it to move so once again rockets work in a vacuum.
And that really is the killer.
In general you have 3 options to explain the motion of the gas.
1 - Itself, which is already dealt with above.
2 - The rocket, which means the gas is pushing on the rocket and thus the rocket will be pushed away by it and thus rockets work in a vacuum.
3 - Something else, which is covered by the gas, where this something else is being used as leverage and thus the rocket can use it as well.
Any option you pick will mean the rocket works in a vacuum.
You need a substantially bigger sized chamber than that.The proof rockets do not work in your space of even extreme low pressure is easy to test even without a burning effigy.
You simply sit a water bottle rocket on a reasonable sized evacuation chamber using the upside down nozzle end of the bottle as yourchamber seal.
Then simply pop open the nozzle and see if your bottle rocket takes off.
I'll let you work that one out.
Here's how it works out.
Here we have a soda can in a vacuum showing that the gas expelled from the back of the can pushes the can forward before it can make contact with the wall:
(https://i.imgur.com/Gt7HN20.gif)
As shown and explained here at the 7:00 mark:
First of all the chamber isn't a vacuum. It's low pressure and the can is super high pressure and the very second it breaches the super high pressure is immediately super expanded into the chamber and filling the space in super quick time, directly in front of the breach which builds that external compression back to expansion reaction.
Make that chamber much much bigger and you'll see a massive difference with that can and any other supposed rocket.
Yep and a suitably sized evacuation chamber.
First of all, you referenced an "Extreme low pressure" environment *see your above comment). This experiment here is extreme low pressure. A near vacuum as specified.
In an extreme low pressure inside a large chamber it would move very little compared to what it would move in normal atmospheric environment.
Second of all, in a near vacuum, the can shouldn't move at all, according to your theory. Yet it does.
I don't need maths to explain anything.
Thirdly, for one with a theory, you never produce any math or experiments to back up your theory. Yet you ask others to do so. Why is that?
No it doesn't. It actually doesn't do a lot to be fair.
This little web video alone blows up (no pun intended) denpressure.
Deal with one specific thing only and I'll play along with you.I gave you one specific thing to deal with, and you ignored it.
First of all the chamber isn't a vacuum.And surprise surprise, you dismiss it.
It's low pressurei.e. a vacuum.
the can is super high pressureJust like the rocket exhaust.
the very second it breaches the super high pressure is immediately super expanded into the chamber and filling the space in super quick timeNope. Clearly contradicted by the video where the gauge doesn't show any increase in pressure.
See highlighted statement below.I have to be careful how I answer this because this could set you right back.
From what i can decufer:
There is decompressing sponges inside the rocket.
The rocket sits on the external air that is being compressed and loaded up like a trampoline.
When the trampoline of sponges reaches max compression, the rocket is shot upwards.
You're on the right lines in one area but you must not forget the gas is always thrusting from the rocket as this compression happens.
Now once this compression happens it happens consistently whilst the rocket gas is thrusting.
It's almost like you having a rocket full of water that immediately turns to ice as it exits the rocket and that ice starts to make a splat on the ground but my hands start to scoop it up to make a mound of stop the ice from collapsing.
Now imagine the rocket continually doing this and me continually packing the mound further up.
The rocket sits above this all the time it keeps losing this water to ice to mound build.
It simply sits atop of it.
Now just picture this all happening super fast.
You'll never get it if you cannot marry up the analogy and you can certainly set yourself right back if you refuse to attempt to see it.
Great
So the air in the tube that is expanding/ decompressing and pushing the water out is the same spongs air you claim is not pushing the inside of the rocket tube - so what is in contact between the rocket tube and this foundation of water?
It's not positively pushing. I've explained this time and time again, same with the gauge.
The only times the air will positively push is when it is either applied energy to add more pressure to compress or the compression already in the container is sealed and contained.
Open it up and you lose the positive pressure on the container and transfer it all to the open end and everything hit by it or resisting it, it being feeling that positive exiting pressure.
Yep and a suitably sized evacuation chamber.
First of all, you referenced an "Extreme low pressure" environment *see your above comment). This experiment here is extreme low pressure. A near vacuum as specified.
In something as small as the one in the video, it negates that suitability for obvious reasons of which I'm sure you will understand.
Quote from: StashIn an extreme low pressure inside a large chamber it would move very little compared to what it would move in normal atmospheric environment.
Second of all, in a near vacuum, the can shouldn't move at all, according to your theory. Yet it does.
Do you agree?
If not then go and do the experiment with the same set up of hanging the same can and apply heat under it until it bursts and see what happens.
This alone proves your low pressure creates much less reaction to can breach of expanded gases and liquid.
Quote from: StashI don't need maths to explain anything.
Thirdly, for one with a theory, you never produce any math or experiments to back up your theory. Yet you ask others to do so. Why is that?
Experiments are for you people to do to prove to yourselves, not to me. I don't care what you believe without experiment. You are welcome to stick rigid to mainstream ideals but you can do your own experiments to prove stuff to yourself only, without any need to follow mass peer pressure to simply believe on theory without genuine proof by physical reality.
Quote from: StashNo it doesn't. It actually doesn't do a lot to be fair.
This little web video alone blows up (no pun intended) denpressure.
Like I said, if you just want 1 thing to deal with, deal with the question I have asked you repeatedly, which you have repeatedly avoided.First of all, in your fictional vacuum scenario you have zero external resistance outside of your fictional space rocket.
Here it is again:
For my rocket in a vacuum example, what is the gas pushing off in order to exist the rocket which can allow the gas to move, but not the rocket?
You have previously provided the non-answers of "the gas" and "itself".The rocket is a solid object. All it can do is expand and contract within it's structure. That's not going to move it anywhere except an inch in either direction.
Well if the gas can push against itself that means that objects can push against themselves to move, so the rocket can push against itself and there is no problem with rockets working in a vacuum.
But you have previously stated that objects CANNOT push themselves and used that as a key argument for why rockets can't work in a vacuum, so that non-answer directly contradicts your claims and, if taken as true, refutes your own argument.You can't fill a rocket up with gas then open a valve to exit that gas to propel the rocket forward if you do not have something external as a resistance, like another gas or fluid.
If it can push against the gas, then the gas is something that can be used as leverage, which means the rocket can use it as leverage and push off it to move so once again rockets work in a vacuum.The gas does use gas as leverage. I've repeatedly mentioned the gas on gas fight of thrust against resistance....externally....not internally to move the rocket.
And that really is the killer.
In general you have 3 options to explain the motion of the gas.Simply massive expansion on exit against massive compression of external atmospheric gas/fluid.
1 - Itself, which is already dealt with above.
2 - The rocket, which means the gas is pushing on the rocket and thus the rocket will be pushed away by it and thus rockets work in a vacuum.Nope. The gas does not push on the rocket internally. It's all done externally.
3 - Something else, which is covered by the gas, where this something else is being used as leverage and thus the rocket can use it as well.The rocket uses it all but it's used in the ways I've explained.
Any option you pick will mean the rocket works in a vacuum.Clearly not.
If you aren't going to deal with that, then you have no excuse.If you can't accept the answers then don;t but do not start whining about not being given answers.
So are you going to "play along"?
You are the one wasting time here, by repeatedly avoiding such simple questions and asking for experiments which you have no intention of ever accepting the results for.
These are YOUR words.I'm pretty sure you can understand what the words underneath mean.
And as per belpw, highlighted and underlined., youve defined to us what positive is and what positive isnt.
And since "not positive" is incorrect,
It's not positively pushing.This is what I said.
The pressure is not all transferred to the open end.I have no clue what you're saying here.
then we can throw your shit out and end this insanity.
Youve also yet to answer the sponge people on a bus - if they can leave the bus, they can also forcibly be removed from the bus - vaccuums and space can exist.They remove themselves from the bus which causes the bus to do nothing until those who remove themselves smash into the waiting external sponges which compresses them.
First of all, in your fictional vacuum scenario you have zero external resistance outside of your fictional space rocket.HOW?
The gas inside that rocket, once allowed to be decompressed, will decompress
All it can do is expand and contract within it's structure. That's not going to move it anywhere except an inch in either direction.Expansion and contraction alone can't move anything.
Anyone should be able to understand this if they dare to put their mind to it.No, if people actually bother to put their mind to it and think about even just this simple question they would realise that rockets MUST work in a vacuum, as the only alternative is for the gas to remain magically trapped inside the tube.
The gas does use gas as leverage.So the gas inside the rocket?
Clearly not.Clearly so, as the option you picked out of those 3 was the gas using gas as leverage, which means the rocket can as well.
It's best for you to acknowledge that I've answered all your questions fair and squareOnly when you actually address the issues raised.
In an extreme low pressure inside a large chamber it would move very little compared to what it would move in normal atmospheric environment.No, I don't agree, and I'm pretty sure no one would.
Do you agree?
If not then go and do the experiment with the same set up of hanging the same can and apply heat under it until it bursts and see what happens.
This alone proves your low pressure creates much less reaction to can breach of expanded gases and liquid.
I don't need maths to explain anything.If you want anything quantitative you do.
Experiments are for you people to do to prove to yourselvesWe already have abundant proof that rockets work in a vacuum and that your model is pure nonsense.
I'm pretty sure you can understand what the words underneath mean.If you were speaking English it would be simple, it means it is not pushing. (as "negative pushing" would really be pulling).Quote from: sceptiIt's not positively pushing.This is what I said.
I'm sure you can decipher it if you try. Don't spend too much time on it. It says what it says and cherry picking snippets to make out they mean nothing only confuses yourself...not me.
They remove themselves from the busSo they are sentient?
The gas cannot remain in the tube unless there are not enough of them to expand out of it and this can only ever happen after the mass of compressed molecules have expanded out to leave what's left to expand but stay dormant inside the tube but this would be against equally dormant molecules on the outside or basically would be in a low pressure environment.First of all, in your fictional vacuum scenario you have zero external resistance outside of your fictional space rocket.HOW?
The gas inside that rocket, once allowed to be decompressed, will decompress
This requires the gas to move.
What is the gas pushing against to move?
Decompressing on their own means expanding outwards in ALL directions.Quote from: JackBlackBut you aren't even having them just expand. Instead you have the gas molecules at the edge magically move outwards and expand. This makes no sense.Of course it makes no sense to you, because you refuse to understand it.Quote from: JackBlackYet again you are ignoring the question.I explained. If you can;t understand it then it's your problem.
What are they pushing off to move?Quote from: JackBlackIf they don't need something to push off to move, then there is no basis to claim the rocket does.They do need something to push off. Your problem is you won;t accept what's told because you want your rocket to be the one doing the pushing from inside.Quote from: JackBlackThat's all that's happening.All it can do is expand and contract within it's structure. That's not going to move it anywhere except an inch in either direction.Expansion and contraction alone can't move anything.
All it can do is change its size.
It's the changing of size that creates the movement.Anyone should be able to understand this if they dare to put their mind to it.No, if people actually bother to put their mind to it and think about even just this simple question they would realise that rockets MUST work in a vacuum, as the only alternative is for the gas to remain magically trapped inside the tube.
Of course it's irrelevant. It's irrelevant because the rocket becomes irrelevant. It simply does not work how you think.The gas does use gas as leverage.So the gas inside the rocket?
If so, WHY CAN'T THE ROCKET?
If you mean the gas outside the rocket, that isn't there in this case and thus is irrelevant.
Youve also yet to answer the sponge people on a bus - if they can leave the bus, they can also forcibly be removed from the bus - vaccuums and space can exist.They remove themselves from the bus which causes the bus to do nothing until those who remove themselves smash into the waiting external sponges which compresses them.
This is a perfect example.
We already have abundant proof that rockets work in a vacuum and that your model is pure nonsense.So why are you arguing with me?
If they aren't sentient, then why do they stop pushing outwards in all directions?They don't stop pushing outwards in all directions. Everything is attached so everything is resistant to the next in some capacity.
And no, the slinky is not a perfect example.The slinky is a perfect example of the waves because that's what's happening with everything.
All you have there is a travelling wave.
You see that spring with the wave and the compression and decompression, right?Youve also yet to answer the sponge people on a bus - if they can leave the bus, they can also forcibly be removed from the bus - vaccuums and space can exist.They remove themselves from the bus which causes the bus to do nothing until those who remove themselves smash into the waiting external sponges which compresses them.
This is a perfect example.
no sorry
i'm not talking about reactionary forces.
i meant that vaccuums and empty space can exist if all the spnoge people are removed from the bus.
You see that spring with the wave and the compression and decompression, right?Youve also yet to answer the sponge people on a bus - if they can leave the bus, they can also forcibly be removed from the bus - vaccuums and space can exist.They remove themselves from the bus which causes the bus to do nothing until those who remove themselves smash into the waiting external sponges which compresses them.
This is a perfect example.
no sorry
i'm not talking about reactionary forces.
i meant that vaccuums and empty space can exist if all the spnoge people are removed from the bus.
Now picture one half as atmosphere and the other as exiting thrust of expanded gases from the rocket.
This would move the rocket if it was married up to gas on gas instead of spring on spring clash analogy.
Now take away the foundation of the spring, or the man's hand and you lose that return energy because there's nothing to clash and compress.
This would be your vacuum which makes your space rocket pointless, because it absolutely could not use its gases to do any reactionary work to it's action of expansion.
The gas cannot remain in the tubeThat still isn't answering the question.
Of course it's irrelevant.If it is irrelevant then why bring it up?
So why are you arguing with me?Because unlike you I actually care about the truth.
They don't stop pushing outwards in all directions.Thanks for the admission that gas always pushes outwards in all directions.
The slinky is a perfect example of the wavesWaves yes, but not what we are talking about.
Notice where the spring collides to create push on push due to expansion to compression to expansion to compression...and so on.And notice how it doesn't stay in the one location?
They don't exist and I've told you exactly why.
no
i'm NOT talking about reactionary work.
i'm TALKING about the existence of vaccuums which you said don't exist.
Don't cherry pick quotes and then make them look like something they're not.The gas cannot remain in the tubeThat still isn't answering the question.
I know the gas won't remain in the tube, because it is pushing outwards in all directions, including on the rocket. This will cause the gas to go one way and the rocket to go the other (as the rocket pushes back).
But you reject that.
Let's just leave it there.So why are you arguing with me?Because unlike you I actually care about the truth.
They don't exist and I've told you exactly why.
no
i'm NOT talking about reactionary work.
i'm TALKING about the existence of vaccuums which you said don't exist.
Remember no free space?
Remember all molecules are attached?
No vacuums can exist and it shouldn't really be hard to understand why.
So that rules out your space rockets and the space you believed you knew.
Correct, you are confused because I've never said rockets work in space. Are you part of a tag team or are you actually just one person who changes names?They don't exist and I've told you exactly why.
no
i'm NOT talking about reactionary work.
i'm TALKING about the existence of vaccuums which you said don't exist.
Remember no free space?
Remember all molecules are attached?
No vacuums can exist and it shouldn't really be hard to understand why.
So that rules out your space rockets and the space you believed you knew.
Wait, im confused by your logic now. Maybe because I have not read this whole thread, there is a lot.
But if vacuums cant exist. And rockets dont work in vacuums.
Your saying rockets work in space!
I think we are making progress
They don't exist and I've told you exactly why.
no
i'm NOT talking about reactionary work.
i'm TALKING about the existence of vaccuums which you said don't exist.
Remember no free space?
Remember all molecules are attached?
No vacuums can exist and it shouldn't really be hard to understand why.
So that rules out your space rockets and the space you believed you knew.
Correct, you are confused because I've never said rockets work in space. Are you part of a tag team or are you actually just one person who changes names?Sorry, I was not clear.
If none of these then show me where I said what you think I said?
You don't have a clue.They don't exist and I've told you exactly why.
no
i'm NOT talking about reactionary work.
i'm TALKING about the existence of vaccuums which you said don't exist.
Remember no free space?
Remember all molecules are attached?
No vacuums can exist and it shouldn't really be hard to understand why.
So that rules out your space rockets and the space you believed you knew.
Right
You told us.
And then you gave the analogy of people getting off a bus.
If they canget off the bus, the bus is then empty.
Your analogy.
That contradicts the sponge analogy.
Maybe you need to re-evaluate your reasoning about my reasoning because you're totally wrong but feel free to bring up where I said what you reasoned I implied.Correct, you are confused because I've never said rockets work in space. Are you part of a tag team or are you actually just one person who changes names?Sorry, I was not clear.
If none of these then show me where I said what you think I said?
By your reasoning, you implied rockets work in the region that we describe as space.
You don't have a clue.They don't exist and I've told you exactly why.
no
i'm NOT talking about reactionary work.
i'm TALKING about the existence of vaccuums which you said don't exist.
Remember no free space?
Remember all molecules are attached?
No vacuums can exist and it shouldn't really be hard to understand why.
So that rules out your space rockets and the space you believed you knew.
Right
You told us.
And then you gave the analogy of people getting off a bus.
If they canget off the bus, the bus is then empty.
Your analogy.
That contradicts the sponge analogy.
No; I've not avoided anything. I've explained but you either have no clue or you're deliberately trying to twist it to suit yourself.
And ive asked for clarification.
But you avoided.
Don't cherry pick quotes and then make them look like something they're not.I'm not cherry picking anything.
NoNo; I've not avoided anything. I've explained but you either have no clue or you're deliberately trying to twist it to suit yourself.
And ive asked for clarification.
But you avoided.
By all means do this but it gains you nothing.
In other words, you do not "care about the truth". I figured that out years ago!Let's just leave it there.So why are you arguing with me?Because unlike you I actually care about the truth.
How can all molecules be attached when molecules do not change in size yet their volume is far less than the volume of space that they occupy.i'm TALKING about the existence of vaccuums which you said don't exist.They don't exist and I've told you exactly why.
Remember no free space?
Remember all molecules are attached?
No vacuums can exist and it shouldn't really be hard to understand why.Incorrect!
So that rules out your space rockets and the space you believed you knew.
Refer back to the answers I gave and stop pretending you didn't get answers.Don't cherry pick quotes and then make them look like something they're not.I'm not cherry picking anything.
I am providing enough to show that it doesn't answer my question.
How about instead of just providing the full useless quote again you highlight just where in it my question is answered?
You seem to just be doing whatever you can to avoid an extremely simple question, all because you know this extremely simple question destroys your claims.
Again, care to answer it?
What is the gas PUSHING off to allow it to move? What is it using as LEVERAGE? And why doesn't the equivalent work for the rocket to allow it to move.
Can you even attempt to answer it?
Telling me it can't stay in the tube because there is a vacuum is not answering the question as that does not identify what the gas is using as leverage to move.
Telling me it is expanding is not answering the question as that does not identify what the gas is using as leverage to move.
Saying what happens in the atmosphere is not answering the question as that is talking about a completely different issue.
Providing a one or two word response is not answering the question as that does not explain why the equivalent doesn't work for the rocket.
Until you actually tell me what the gas is pushing off in this situation to allow it to move out of the rocket and into the vacuum, and also address why this doesn't work for the rocket or also result in the rocket moving you have failed to answer the question.
So again, what is the gas pushing off and why doesn't that mean the rocket will move as well?
At no time did I ever use sponge people so stop trying to twist it all and cast it out in the way you're doing.NoNo; I've not avoided anything. I've explained but you either have no clue or you're deliberately trying to twist it to suit yourself.
And ive asked for clarification.
But you avoided.
By all means do this but it gains you nothing.
You never explained.
Are air molecules fixed size people in a bus that can come and go?
Or
Are the sponge people expandable in size but cant leave the bus?
Or
Are the sponge people able to lwave the bus and expand ( both)?
This tactic is used by the likes of you all of the time. I understand the underhand ways you try to shut down alternate theories to your mainstream narratives.In other words, you do not "care about the truth". I figured that out years ago!Let's just leave it there.So why are you arguing with me?Because unlike you I actually care about the truth.
They do change in size. Think gobstopper and the peel. If you paid attention you'd understand.... if you're honest.How can all molecules be attached when molecules do not change in size yet their volume is far less than the volume of space that they occupy.i'm TALKING about the existence of vaccuums which you said don't exist.They don't exist and I've told you exactly why.
Remember no free space?
Remember all molecules are attached?
Stop pretending that you can dream up your own "Theory of everything" and expect it to describe reality.It's not just about dreaming, it's about seeing things in life visually/physically and understanding why things work and realising what you were told is not entirely the truth and is only a theory itself.
Research and experimental evidence are absolutely necessary to get even a basic understanding of "how things work".Yep and in many cases experimental evidence shows reality and sometimes it doesn't, so a theory as to what's happening comes to the fore to explain it, such as gravity and all kinds of other descriptions in order to make fantasies appear to work...such as space rockets and all stuff pertaining to that fantasy as one full instance.
Learn something from those that know far more than you: 11.1: A Molecular Comparison of Gases, Liquids, and Solids (http://11.1: A Molecular Comparison of Gases, Liquids, and Solids).I have no doubt many many people know far more than me on many many subjects.
Essentially the world has to be flat in the walk upon it sense and water sense and for that to be the case it must have a covering.Quote from: sceptimaticNo vacuums can exist and it shouldn't really be hard to understand why.Incorrect!
So that rules out your space rockets and the space you believed you knew.
You only dreamt up you weird ideas because you believe the Earth to be flat and then simply have to invent hypotheses to explain away evidence against your belief.
They do change in size. Think gobstopper and the peel. If you paid attention you'd understand.... if you're honest.How can all molecules be attached when molecules do not change in size yet their volume is far less than the volume of space that they occupy.i'm TALKING about the existence of vaccuums which you said don't exist.They don't exist and I've told you exactly why.
Remember no free space?
Remember all molecules are attached?
By first making it smaller.They do change in size. Think gobstopper and the peel. If you paid attention you'd understand.... if you're honest.How can all molecules be attached when molecules do not change in size yet their volume is far less than the volume of space that they occupy.i'm TALKING about the existence of vaccuums which you said don't exist.They don't exist and I've told you exactly why.
Remember no free space?
Remember all molecules are attached?
How do you make a molecule get bigger?
By first making it smaller.They do change in size. Think gobstopper and the peel. If you paid attention you'd understand.... if you're honest.How can all molecules be attached when molecules do not change in size yet their volume is far less than the volume of space that they occupy.i'm TALKING about the existence of vaccuums which you said don't exist.They don't exist and I've told you exactly why.
Remember no free space?
Remember all molecules are attached?
How do you make a molecule get bigger?
How do you make a sponge ball in a clenched fist get bigger?
At no time did I ever use sponge people so stop trying to twist it all and cast it out in the way you're doing.NoNo; I've not avoided anything. I've explained but you either have no clue or you're deliberately trying to twist it to suit yourself.
And ive asked for clarification.
But you avoided.
By all means do this but it gains you nothing.
You never explained.
Are air molecules fixed size people in a bus that can come and go?
Or
Are the sponge people expandable in size but cant leave the bus?
Or
Are the sponge people able to lwave the bus and expand ( both)?
If you can't marry up an analogy for one thing then don;t even try to add two together.
By first making it smaller.They do change in size. Think gobstopper and the peel. If you paid attention you'd understand.... if you're honest.How can all molecules be attached when molecules do not change in size yet their volume is far less than the volume of space that they occupy.i'm TALKING about the existence of vaccuums which you said don't exist.They don't exist and I've told you exactly why.
Remember no free space?
Remember all molecules are attached?
How do you make a molecule get bigger?
How do you make a sponge ball in a clenched fist get bigger?
I told you. Think of the gobstopper.
I mean, how is that actually achieved on the molecular-chemical level?
I gave you simple analogies and yet you act like you can;t grasp them and yet you use people in banks as your analogies.At no time did I ever use sponge people so stop trying to twist it all and cast it out in the way you're doing.NoNo; I've not avoided anything. I've explained but you either have no clue or you're deliberately trying to twist it to suit yourself.
And ive asked for clarification.
But you avoided.
By all means do this but it gains you nothing.
You never explained.
Are air molecules fixed size people in a bus that can come and go?
Or
Are the sponge people expandable in size but cant leave the bus?
Or
Are the sponge people able to lwave the bus and expand ( both)?
If you can't marry up an analogy for one thing then don;t even try to add two together.
You said air is like a sponge.
Then you said air is like pelple in a bus.
So clarify how air behaves.
That is the question.
Other trapped elements/gases.By first making it smaller.They do change in size. Think gobstopper and the peel. If you paid attention you'd understand.... if you're honest.How can all molecules be attached when molecules do not change in size yet their volume is far less than the volume of space that they occupy.i'm TALKING about the existence of vaccuums which you said don't exist.They don't exist and I've told you exactly why.
Remember no free space?
Remember all molecules are attached?
How do you make a molecule get bigger?
How do you make a sponge ball in a clenched fist get bigger?
You un clench your fist and air fills in the pockets if the sponge.
So what fills in the pockets of an air molecuke?
I gave you simple analogies and yet you act like you can;t grasp them and yet you use people in banks as your analogies.At no time did I ever use sponge people so stop trying to twist it all and cast it out in the way you're doing.No
And ive asked for clarification.
But you avoided.
No; I've not avoided anything. I've explained but you either have no clue or you're deliberately trying to twist it to suit yourself.
By all means do this but it gains you nothing.
You never explained.
Are air molecules fixed size people in a bus that can come and go?
Or
Are the sponge people expandable in size but cant leave the bus?
Or
Are the sponge people able to lwave the bus and expand ( both)?
If you can't marry up an analogy for one thing then don;t even try to add two together.
You said air is like a sponge.
Then you said air is like pelple in a bus.
So clarify how air behaves.
That is the question.
don't waste my time, or your time with this clap trap.
Other trapped elements/gases.By first making it smaller.They do change in size. Think gobstopper and the peel. If you paid attention you'd understand.... if you're honest.How can all molecules be attached when molecules do not change in size yet their volume is far less than the volume of space that they occupy.i'm TALKING about the existence of vaccuums which you said don't exist.They don't exist and I've told you exactly why.
Remember no free space?
Remember all molecules are attached?
How do you make a molecule get bigger?
How do you make a sponge ball in a clenched fist get bigger?
You un clench your fist and air fills in the pockets if the sponge.
So what fills in the pockets of an air molecuke?
It's all about what can be released against whatever it's released against.
I told you. Think of the gobstopper.
I mean, how is that actually achieved on the molecular-chemical level?
This below.
(https://i.postimg.cc/0QvYBgR0/gobstopper.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
See the layers?
Imagine this to be a super dense molecular set of layers in a super dense material. Note the amount of layers but also note how the layers are super small in the centre and super expanded, compared, on the outer layers.
Think of this bunch of layered molecules as part of a material/element of something that's been squashed/compressed to mammoth proportions.
If we want to look at gas molecules we'd simply look at the same gobstopper mindset and picture it with a hell of a lot of less layers.
It takes some getting your head around and can;t simply be explained like this in one fell swoop but you need to get the gist of what I'm saying if you want to understand further and I'll know this by what you type, whether it's worth answering so put some effort in if you're serious.
Nobody's asking you to accept it, just to understand it from my side.
I'm also not interested in you or anyone telling me it's wrong so don't bother with that stuff.
I told you. Think of the gobstopper.
I mean, how is that actually achieved on the molecular-chemical level?
This below.
(https://i.postimg.cc/0QvYBgR0/gobstopper.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
See the layers?
Imagine this to be a super dense molecular set of layers in a super dense material. Note the amount of layers but also note how the layers are super small in the centre and super expanded, compared, on the outer layers.
Think of this bunch of layered molecules as part of a material/element of something that's been squashed/compressed to mammoth proportions.
If we want to look at gas molecules we'd simply look at the same gobstopper mindset and picture it with a hell of a lot of less layers.
It takes some getting your head around and can;t simply be explained like this in one fell swoop but you need to get the gist of what I'm saying if you want to understand further and I'll know this by what you type, whether it's worth answering so put some effort in if you're serious.
Nobody's asking you to accept it, just to understand it from my side.
I'm also not interested in you or anyone telling me it's wrong so don't bother with that stuff.
The gas cannot remain in the tube unless there are not enough of them to expand out of it and this can only ever happen after the mass of compressed molecules have expanded out to leave what's left to expand but stay dormant inside the tube but this would be against equally dormant molecules on the outside or basically would be in a low pressure environment.
Next time you do this you will be overlooked completely.
How does your gobbstopper theory explain suction cups?Those cups work because air is pushed out of them by compression to push away the external air, which means the air pushed out is now added to the external air and that overcomes the much weaker molecules of air left inside the cup.
There's no such thing as suction cups in the sense of the word, suck.
It loses layers.I told you. Think of the gobstopper.
I mean, how is that actually achieved on the molecular-chemical level?
This below.
(https://i.postimg.cc/0QvYBgR0/gobstopper.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
See the layers?
Imagine this to be a super dense molecular set of layers in a super dense material. Note the amount of layers but also note how the layers are super small in the centre and super expanded, compared, on the outer layers.
Think of this bunch of layered molecules as part of a material/element of something that's been squashed/compressed to mammoth proportions.
If we want to look at gas molecules we'd simply look at the same gobstopper mindset and picture it with a hell of a lot of less layers.
It takes some getting your head around and can;t simply be explained like this in one fell swoop but you need to get the gist of what I'm saying if you want to understand further and I'll know this by what you type, whether it's worth answering so put some effort in if you're serious.
Nobody's asking you to accept it, just to understand it from my side.
I'm also not interested in you or anyone telling me it's wrong so don't bother with that stuff.
So using your gobstopper theory.
When the molecule expands, does it gain more layers or does it's existing layers get larger? How?
How does your gobbstopper theory explain suction cups?Those cups work because air is pushed out of them by compression to push away the external air, which means the air pushed out is now added to the external air and that overcomes the much weaker molecules of air left inside the cup.
There's no such thing as suction cups in the sense of the word, suck.
Less push back which leaves the cup clamped to whatever it is clamped against.
How does it expand by losing layers?It loses layers.I told you. Think of the gobstopper.
I mean, how is that actually achieved on the molecular-chemical level?
This below.
(https://i.postimg.cc/0QvYBgR0/gobstopper.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
See the layers?
Imagine this to be a super dense molecular set of layers in a super dense material. Note the amount of layers but also note how the layers are super small in the centre and super expanded, compared, on the outer layers.
Think of this bunch of layered molecules as part of a material/element of something that's been squashed/compressed to mammoth proportions.
If we want to look at gas molecules we'd simply look at the same gobstopper mindset and picture it with a hell of a lot of less layers.
It takes some getting your head around and can;t simply be explained like this in one fell swoop but you need to get the gist of what I'm saying if you want to understand further and I'll know this by what you type, whether it's worth answering so put some effort in if you're serious.
Nobody's asking you to accept it, just to understand it from my side.
I'm also not interested in you or anyone telling me it's wrong so don't bother with that stuff.
So using your gobstopper theory.
When the molecule expands, does it gain more layers or does it's existing layers get larger? How?
I have explained why the "answers" you gave are not actually answers.Refer back to the answers I gave and stop pretending you didn't get answers.Don't cherry pick quotes and then make them look like something they're not.I'm not cherry picking anything.
I am providing enough to show that it doesn't answer my question.
How about instead of just providing the full useless quote again you highlight just where in it my question is answered?
You seem to just be doing whatever you can to avoid an extremely simple question, all because you know this extremely simple question destroys your claims.
Again, care to answer it?
What is the gas PUSHING off to allow it to move? What is it using as LEVERAGE? And why doesn't the equivalent work for the rocket to allow it to move.
Can you even attempt to answer it?
Telling me it can't stay in the tube because there is a vacuum is not answering the question as that does not identify what the gas is using as leverage to move.
Telling me it is expanding is not answering the question as that does not identify what the gas is using as leverage to move.
Saying what happens in the atmosphere is not answering the question as that is talking about a completely different issue.
Providing a one or two word response is not answering the question as that does not explain why the equivalent doesn't work for the rocket.
Until you actually tell me what the gas is pushing off in this situation to allow it to move out of the rocket and into the vacuum, and also address why this doesn't work for the rocket or also result in the rocket moving you have failed to answer the question.
So again, what is the gas pushing off and why doesn't that mean the rocket will move as well?
At no time did I ever use sponge peopleReally?
They do change in size.You have no evidence that gas molecules change size.
Think gobstopper and the peel.Which don't change size either.
It's not just about dreaming, it's about seeing things in life visually/physically and understanding why things work and realising what you were told is not entirely the truth and is only a theory itself.We don't need to deny it when it is so blatantly false.
That's the difference and you can't deny that.
Essentially the world has to be flatAnd that is the entire basis of your model, the delusional belief that Earth must be flat, which causes you to reject so much of science, because it shows Earth isn't flat.
How do you make a sponge ball in a clenched fist get bigger?The physical size of the sponge doesn't get bigger.
It loses layers.When a gobstopper loses layers it gets smaller.
No, not completely.How does your gobbstopper theory explain suction cups?Those cups work because air is pushed out of them by compression to push away the external air, which means the air pushed out is now added to the external air and that overcomes the much weaker molecules of air left inside the cup.
There's no such thing as suction cups in the sense of the word, suck.
Less push back which leaves the cup clamped to whatever it is clamped against.
Great.
Air molecules can be pushed out.
So people on a bus was your analogy.
Sponges was also your analogy.
So is it possible that spong epoeple on a bus can be completely removed from a bus?
Because you release the pressure of a layer.How does it expand by losing layers?It loses layers.I told you. Think of the gobstopper.
I mean, how is that actually achieved on the molecular-chemical level?
This below.
(https://i.postimg.cc/0QvYBgR0/gobstopper.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
See the layers?
Imagine this to be a super dense molecular set of layers in a super dense material. Note the amount of layers but also note how the layers are super small in the centre and super expanded, compared, on the outer layers.
Think of this bunch of layered molecules as part of a material/element of something that's been squashed/compressed to mammoth proportions.
If we want to look at gas molecules we'd simply look at the same gobstopper mindset and picture it with a hell of a lot of less layers.
It takes some getting your head around and can;t simply be explained like this in one fell swoop but you need to get the gist of what I'm saying if you want to understand further and I'll know this by what you type, whether it's worth answering so put some effort in if you're serious.
Nobody's asking you to accept it, just to understand it from my side.
I'm also not interested in you or anyone telling me it's wrong so don't bother with that stuff.
So using your gobstopper theory.
When the molecule expands, does it gain more layers or does it's existing layers get larger? How?
You can't say I didn't warn you.I have explained why the "answers" you gave are not actually answers.Refer back to the answers I gave and stop pretending you didn't get answers.Don't cherry pick quotes and then make them look like something they're not.I'm not cherry picking anything.
I am providing enough to show that it doesn't answer my question.
How about instead of just providing the full useless quote again you highlight just where in it my question is answered?
You seem to just be doing whatever you can to avoid an extremely simple question, all because you know this extremely simple question destroys your claims.
Again, care to answer it?
What is the gas PUSHING off to allow it to move? What is it using as LEVERAGE? And why doesn't the equivalent work for the rocket to allow it to move.
Can you even attempt to answer it?
Telling me it can't stay in the tube because there is a vacuum is not answering the question as that does not identify what the gas is using as leverage to move.
Telling me it is expanding is not answering the question as that does not identify what the gas is using as leverage to move.
Saying what happens in the atmosphere is not answering the question as that is talking about a completely different issue.
Providing a one or two word response is not answering the question as that does not explain why the equivalent doesn't work for the rocket.
Until you actually tell me what the gas is pushing off in this situation to allow it to move out of the rocket and into the vacuum, and also address why this doesn't work for the rocket or also result in the rocket moving you have failed to answer the question.
So again, what is the gas pushing off and why doesn't that mean the rocket will move as well?
I am not the one pretending here.
The closest you have come to an answer is saying the gas, but that would mean that rockets work in a vacuum because the rocket can use the gas as well.
If you want that to be taken as the answer, then admit that rockets work in a vacuum.
If not, then you have failed to provide an answer.
I will continue to ask for an answer until you actually provide one.
So again, what is the gas pushing off to move?
But thanks for yet again showing that your claims of being happy to deal with one topic are nothing more than blatant lies.
You are only happy to deal with things that don't show you to be completely wrong.At no time did I ever use sponge peopleReally?
Do you not remember this post here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2215814#msg2215814
Where you gave an analogy of people on a bus, magical people just like your magical sponge molecules, trying to expand?They do change in size.You have no evidence that gas molecules change size.
All the evidence indicates they remain the same size.Think gobstopper and the peel.Which don't change size either.It's not just about dreaming, it's about seeing things in life visually/physically and understanding why things work and realising what you were told is not entirely the truth and is only a theory itself.We don't need to deny it when it is so blatantly false.
That's the difference and you can't deny that.
You are not able to a single problem with mainstream science's explanation of gasses.
You just invent a pile of delusional nonsense to escape the reality of a round Earth.
Meanwhile, plenty of problems in your model have been shown and you just ignore them.
So no, I would say for you it is just about dreaming.
It has no connection to reality at all and you aren't even attempting to make one.
Your pile of nonsense isn't even a theory. it is a collection of contradictory, refuted hypotheses.Essentially the world has to be flatAnd that is the entire basis of your model, the delusional belief that Earth must be flat, which causes you to reject so much of science, because it shows Earth isn't flat.
You have no justification for any of it.
So yes, you are the one with the dreamt up nonsense with no concern for the truth. All of your denspressure nonsense stems from your dream of a flat Earth.
It is so disconnected from reality that you need to avoid extremely simple questions which expose the fact that it doesn't work.
It is so full of contradictions that you only ever want to discuss a single issue in extreme isolation because you know the "explanation" you give for it will contradict another very simple observation.How do you make a sponge ball in a clenched fist get bigger?The physical size of the sponge doesn't get bigger.
It just changes its orientation/arrangement such that it has larger openings.It loses layers.When a gobstopper loses layers it gets smaller.
How does fewer layers equate to a larger size?
And where are these layers going?
Because you release the pressure of a layer.How does it expand by losing layers?It loses layers.I told you. Think of the gobstopper.
I mean, how is that actually achieved on the molecular-chemical level?
This below.
(https://i.postimg.cc/0QvYBgR0/gobstopper.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
See the layers?
Imagine this to be a super dense molecular set of layers in a super dense material. Note the amount of layers but also note how the layers are super small in the centre and super expanded, compared, on the outer layers.
Think of this bunch of layered molecules as part of a material/element of something that's been squashed/compressed to mammoth proportions.
If we want to look at gas molecules we'd simply look at the same gobstopper mindset and picture it with a hell of a lot of less layers.
It takes some getting your head around and can;t simply be explained like this in one fell swoop but you need to get the gist of what I'm saying if you want to understand further and I'll know this by what you type, whether it's worth answering so put some effort in if you're serious.
Nobody's asking you to accept it, just to understand it from my side.
I'm also not interested in you or anyone telling me it's wrong so don't bother with that stuff.
So using your gobstopper theory.
When the molecule expands, does it gain more layers or does it's existing layers get larger? How?
No, not completely.
To remove everything would be to create the free space you people say exist which means a nonexistence of anything and logically we can forget about that....or I can, for obvious reasons.
I told you why there would be molecules left in the container or rocket or using the people in the bus analogy or the sponge ball analogy.
You just refused to understand it.
How does your gobbstopper theory explain suction cups?Those cups work because air is pushed out of them by compression to push away the external air, which means the air pushed out is now added to the external air and that overcomes the much weaker molecules of air left inside the cup.
There's no such thing as suction cups in the sense of the word, suck.
Less push back which leaves the cup clamped to whatever it is clamped against.
How does it grow layers back that it lost? What's the mechanism for this?Applied energy to put it back into the compressed state it was originally in.
Not sure, I have no physical way to tell.
How many layers in a sea level air molecule?
A variation of compressed elements.
What is each layer comprised of?
No.
As far as shape, would a molecule be more like a cube? If they were spherical, there would be gaps in between, right?
There is no mechanism to remove all molecules of air unless you flatten the container which then ceases to be a container.
No, not completely.
To remove everything would be to create the free space you people say exist which means a nonexistence of anything and logically we can forget about that....or I can, for obvious reasons.
I told you why there would be molecules left in the container or rocket or using the people in the bus analogy or the sponge ball analogy.
You just refused to understand it.
And i gave you a mechanism to remove all the people on the bus
Your so called "suction" cup has very little force once you push out many air molecules. All the force is now added back into the atmosphere which is then added back to the cup and it's this added extra that causes your cup to be pushed against whatever surface it's against...as long as the seal is capable of not being breached by the added eternal pressure.How does your gobbstopper theory explain suction cups?Those cups work because air is pushed out of them by compression to push away the external air, which means the air pushed out is now added to the external air and that overcomes the much weaker molecules of air left inside the cup.
There's no such thing as suction cups in the sense of the word, suck.
Less push back which leaves the cup clamped to whatever it is clamped against.
The force of suction cup can be much much greater than the denP of the air pushed out, and even the denP displacment of the suction cup itself.
Your so called "suction" cup has very little force once you push out many air molecules. All the force is now added back into the atmosphere which is then added back to the cup and it's this added extra that causes your cup to be pushed against whatever surface it's against...as long as the seal is capable of not being breached by the added eternal pressure.How does your gobbstopper theory explain suction cups?Those cups work because air is pushed out of them by compression to push away the external air, which means the air pushed out is now added to the external air and that overcomes the much weaker molecules of air left inside the cup.
There's no such thing as suction cups in the sense of the word, suck.
Less push back which leaves the cup clamped to whatever it is clamped against.
The force of suction cup can be much much greater than the denP of the air pushed out, and even the denP displacment of the suction cup itself.
That is complete nonsense.No it's not. Pay more attention.
Your denp theory is that the molecules of matter displace sponge air and compress the stack upwards.
By removing air below a suction cup the denP density of the suctoon cup itself didnt change.It's not about removing air below the cup. It's about pushing the air from the cup back into the atmosphere so it immediately adds to the pressure already on it whilst not allowing it to get back inside to equalise the molecules robbed from it.
The only change isbthe minute amount of air added to the sponge stack above.There's nothing minute about it and it's added to the entire atmosphere.
That minute amount is what you claim is giving the cup the force.The cup doesn't have the force, the atmosphere on the cup is the force.
Which is nonsense because the difference in amount is easily demonstrable.Tell me about it and we'll go from there.
Are you sauing this mission impossible guy is fake?Yes...and more.
Cgi?
Are you saying that the amount of air pushed outbyof these suction cups is the same amount of air to equal the mans denP displacement (~175lbs)?
You can't say I didn't warn you.You haven't warned me about anything.
To remove everything would be to create the free space you people say exist which means a nonexistence of anything and logically we can forget about that....or I can, for obvious reasons.No, it means the non-existence of matter there, not anything.
Because you release the pressure of a layer.And why would that cause it to expand? You have reduced the size.
No point going down this route to be honest.Yes there is as it shows you have no idea.
Basically just avoid this type of questioning as it just goes nowhere.I can heed it, I'm just not going to give you the satisfaction of kissing your ass as you spout mountains of BS.
I have told you, so heed what Jackblack cannot heed.
Go and look in your sink full of bubbles and notice the massive difference in bubble size and then think what's inside that bubble and what happens when the big bubble pops.Air is inside the bubble. When it pops, that air is free to intermingle with the air outside the bubble.
It might seem over simplified by what I'm saying but it's only because we cannot physically see what's happening , even with microscopes to get right down to the nitty gritty, but we can observe what happens with what we can see.With electron microscopes we can get atomic resolution. So try again.
Let me know when you have something to add.You can't say I didn't warn you.You haven't warned me about anything.
You have just repeatedly avoided simple questions, lied and insulted me and others.
I gave you a chance to just deal with the one issue and you just threw it back at me, still refusing to answer simple questions. Instead you just provided the same non-answers which were already refuted and then just repeated the same lie that you had already answered.
This shows that even those statements where you claimed that you would be happy to just deal with the 1 issue were a blatant lie. You are not happy to deal with anything that shows you are wrong. Instead you will use whatever dishonesty you can to get out of it.
Your continued avoidance of this very simple question shows you have no case.
Until you answer it you have no justification for your claim that rockets can't work in a vacuum.
Again:
What is the gas PUSHING off to allow it to move? What is it using as LEVERAGE? And why doesn't the equivalent work for the rocket to allow it to move.
Can you even attempt to answer it?
Telling me it can't stay in the tube because there is a vacuum is not answering the question as that does not identify what the gas is using as leverage to move.
Telling me it is expanding is not answering the question as that does not identify what the gas is using as leverage to move.
Saying what happens in the atmosphere is not answering the question as that is talking about a completely different issue.
Providing a one or two word response is not answering the question as that does not explain why the equivalent doesn't work for the rocket.
Until you actually tell me what the gas is pushing off in this situation to allow it to move out of the rocket and into the vacuum, and also address why this doesn't work for the rocket or also result in the rocket moving you have failed to answer the question.To remove everything would be to create the free space you people say exist which means a nonexistence of anything and logically we can forget about that....or I can, for obvious reasons.No, it means the non-existence of matter there, not anything.
Logically we can't just ignore that.
But yes, you can ignore it, for obvious reasons as it shows you are wrong, nothing to do with logic.Because you release the pressure of a layer.And why would that cause it to expand? You have reduced the size.
At best the layer inside which move out very slightly to produce a size smaller than the original.
And again, is this meant to be a single molecule made up of layers, or are these layers of molecules?
And again, where does this layer go? Where does it come from when it is compressed.No point going down this route to be honest.Yes there is as it shows you have no idea.
It shows you rely upon pure nonsense and wild speculation/ignorance.Basically just avoid this type of questioning as it just goes nowhere.I can heed it, I'm just not going to give you the satisfaction of kissing your ass as you spout mountains of BS.
I have told you, so heed what Jackblack cannot heed.
The only reason this type of question goes nowhere is because you have no idea what you are talking about and are relying upon wild speculation to try and prop up the complete failure you call a model.Go and look in your sink full of bubbles and notice the massive difference in bubble size and then think what's inside that bubble and what happens when the big bubble pops.Air is inside the bubble. When it pops, that air is free to intermingle with the air outside the bubble.
The thin film that made it up will go a few places. A small portion will be aerosilised, some may splatter outwards and some will fall back onto the other bubbles.
No layer BS required.It might seem over simplified by what I'm saying but it's only because we cannot physically see what's happening , even with microscopes to get right down to the nitty gritty, but we can observe what happens with what we can see.With electron microscopes we can get atomic resolution. So try again.
How does it grow layers back that it lost? What's the mechanism for this?Applied energy to put it back into the compressed state it was originally in.Quote from: Stash
How many layers in a sea level air molecule?
Not sure, I have no physical way to tell.Quote from: StashA variation of compressed elements.
What is each layer comprised of?
What that is is anyone's guess.
How long is a piece of string.
No point going down this route to be honest.
It's like me asking you what's in the space between your space. You'll say nothing and I'll say there has to be something, then you'll say " no there doesn't" and I'll say " of course there must be something."
How long is a piece of string?
Basically just avoid this type of questioning as it just goes nowhere.
I have told you, so heed what Jackblack cannot heed.
No need to argue this particular point.Quote from: StashNo.
As far as shape, would a molecule be more like a cube? If they were spherical, there would be gaps in between, right?
Think of washing up bubbles and how they attach.
This is what would be happening.
Go and look in your sink full of bubbles and notice the massive difference in bubble size and then think what's inside that bubble and what happens when the big bubble pops. Does it disappear or does it lose it's layer and get smaller and attach to other bubbles to fill gaps and even compress into other bubbles?
Can you push a bubble inside another bubble?
It might seem over simplified by what I'm saying but it's only because we cannot physically see what's happening , even with microscopes to get right down to the nitty gritty, but we can observe what happens with what we can see.
How does it grow layers back that it lost? What's the mechanism for this?
Applied energy to put it back into the compressed state it was originally in.
Quote from: StashNot sure, I have no physical way to tell.
How many layers in a sea level air molecule?
Quote from: StashA variation of compressed elements.
What is each layer comprised of?
What that is is anyone's guess. How long is a piece of string.
No point going down this route to be honest.
It's like me asking you what's in the space between your space. You'll say nothing and I'll say there has to be something, then you'll say " no there doesn't" and I'll say " of course there must be something."
How long is a piece of string?
Quote from: StashNo.
As far as shape, would a molecule be more like a cube? If they were spherical, there would be gaps in between, right?
Think of washing up bubbles and how they attach.
This is what would be happening.
Go and look in your sink full of bubbles and notice the massive difference in bubble size and then think what's inside that bubble and what happens when the big bubble pops. Does it disappear or does it lose it's layer and get smaller and attach to other bubbles to fill gaps and even compress into other bubbles?
Can you push a bubble inside another bubble?
Let me know when you have something to add.Let me know when you can answer very simple questions which are key to this topic and show you are spouting pure nonsense, and when you can stop avoiding reality just because it doesn't fit your delusion.
Are you sauing this mission impossible guy is fake?Yes...and more.
Cgi?
Are you saying that the amount of air pushed outbyof these suction cups is the same amount of air to equal the mans denP displacement (~175lbs)?
Scepti quote:You really need to stop this, it doesn't help you.
Mine is easily demonstrable but you refuse to see it. Maybe because you know it's correct
however....How does it grow layers back that it lost? What's the mechanism for this?Applied energy to put it back into the compressed state it was originally in.Quote from: Stash
How many layers in a sea level air molecule?
Not sure, I have no physical way to tell.Quote from: StashA variation of compressed elements.
What is each layer comprised of?
What that is is anyone's guess.
How long is a piece of string.
No point going down this route to be honest.
It's like me asking you what's in the space between your space. You'll say nothing and I'll say there has to be something, then you'll say " no there doesn't" and I'll say " of course there must be something."
How long is a piece of string?
Basically just avoid this type of questioning as it just goes nowhere.
I have told you, so heed what Jackblack cannot heed.
No need to argue this particular point.Quote from: StashNo.
As far as shape, would a molecule be more like a cube? If they were spherical, there would be gaps in between, right?
Think of washing up bubbles and how they attach.
This is what would be happening.
Go and look in your sink full of bubbles and notice the massive difference in bubble size and then think what's inside that bubble and what happens when the big bubble pops. Does it disappear or does it lose it's layer and get smaller and attach to other bubbles to fill gaps and even compress into other bubbles?
Can you push a bubble inside another bubble?
It might seem over simplified by what I'm saying but it's only because we cannot physically see what's happening , even with microscopes to get right down to the nitty gritty, but we can observe what happens with what we can see.
Well there you go.Define how "Applied Energy" works and how it grows new layers from where there were none before.
Can you push a bubble inside another bubble?
Sure:
(https://i.imgur.com/Grykc9q.gif)
Scepti quote:You really need to stop this, it doesn't help you.
Mine is easily demonstrable but you refuse to see it. Maybe because you know it's correct
however....How does it grow layers back that it lost? What's the mechanism for this?Applied energy to put it back into the compressed state it was originally in.Quote from: Stash
How many layers in a sea level air molecule?
Not sure, I have no physical way to tell.Quote from: StashA variation of compressed elements.
What is each layer comprised of?
What that is is anyone's guess.
How long is a piece of string.
No point going down this route to be honest.
It's like me asking you what's in the space between your space. You'll say nothing and I'll say there has to be something, then you'll say " no there doesn't" and I'll say " of course there must be something."
How long is a piece of string?
Basically just avoid this type of questioning as it just goes nowhere.
I have told you, so heed what Jackblack cannot heed.
No need to argue this particular point.Quote from: StashNo.
As far as shape, would a molecule be more like a cube? If they were spherical, there would be gaps in between, right?
Think of washing up bubbles and how they attach.
This is what would be happening.
Go and look in your sink full of bubbles and notice the massive difference in bubble size and then think what's inside that bubble and what happens when the big bubble pops. Does it disappear or does it lose it's layer and get smaller and attach to other bubbles to fill gaps and even compress into other bubbles?
Can you push a bubble inside another bubble?
It might seem over simplified by what I'm saying but it's only because we cannot physically see what's happening , even with microscopes to get right down to the nitty gritty, but we can observe what happens with what we can see.
Don't argue this any further because you will get no reply...unless you feel the need to do this as if you're clued up and you think you're doing your internet friends a favour.
Quote from: sceptiWell there you go.Define how "Applied Energy" works and how it grows new layers from where there were none before.
Can you push a bubble inside another bubble?
Sure:
(https://i.imgur.com/Grykc9q.gif)
Now imagine that on a smaller scale and them imagine it on a dense scale with solid materials and how they're merged to become what they are.
Layers.
You really need to stop this, it doesn't help you.You are the one who needs help here.
Now imagine that on a smaller scale and them imagine it on a dense scale with solid materials and how they're merged to become what they are.That is all you will be doing, imagining, because there is no way to make it work.
Layers.
It's what is pushed back onto the cups by the strength of what is pushed out of those cups to add to the pressure already on them.Are you sauing this mission impossible guy is fake?Yes...and more.
Cgi?
Are you saying that the amount of air pushed outbyof these suction cups is the same amount of air to equal the mans denP displacement (~175lbs)?
The amount of air pushed out of a suction cup can equal the weight of this guy?
Really?
An easily verifiable thing is what youre saying is happening.No.
That means if i flatten a styrofoam cup it will magically have the strength of a 175lbs?
And dont give bs about maintaining suction seal because that is a real physics solution.I'm not on about crating a suction seal. I've told you many time there is no suction.
Your solution relies on denP.
Run away for another dayI'm not running. If you want to play silly games then open up a topic in angry ranting.
Quote from: ThemightykaboolAnd dont give bs about maintaining suction seal because that is a real physics solution.I'm not on about crating a suction seal. I've told you many time there is no suction.
Your solution relies on denP.
It's a seal created by atmospheric push onto the cup after the cup has had applied energy to it to push out the air molecules to make them too few to push back, meaning they get clamped to the surface of whatever can hold the atmosphere from equalising the cup interior with the exterior so that it creates the same push inside as outside onto the actual material itself.
It's really quite simple; fundamental to how you think rockets can't fly in a vacuum has to do with your idea as to how molecules exist and behave. And you seem pretty clear on what you think a molecule is and how one relates to another and what they do: Molecules, comprised of layers of something, due to something you call "Applied Energy" makes layers vanish or appear. In doing so, molecules squeeze themselves out the container opening and because they have fattened up by shedding layers they push off of the more svelte molecules of air below that have formed a stack of resistance.Don't make things difficult for yourself. Applied energy is simply just that. It's energy to create a force.
Things to explore:
- What is Applied Energy?
- How do molecules grow layers?By compression to create matter/material/elements.
- How do they make layers disappear? Where do they go?They can simply peel away and decompress to form a smaller molecule from the outer layers or expand to form a larger molecule if enough applied energy is upon it to allow that release by expansion.
- We can see molecules - humanity has never seen what you describe - What gives?It depends what you think can be seen.
But when pressed on the fundamentals of the fundamental nature of your ideas you shut down. Why is this?I don't shut down, I just refuse to go down a rabbit hole and into the abyss.
My gobstopper analogy is for matter and gases.
- We're talking about non-solid materials
- Those are bubbles inside a bubble
- There's space between those bubbles
- How do bubbles appear?
So your gobstopper with layers analogy to a molecule is incorrect. It's more like bubbles inside of a bubble?
here's one that could nip this.Seeing as there is always external forces acting on any system, however small, it kills that law stone dead, meaning inertia is just a word that basically means nothing and a constant is something that cannot ever be achieved.
Lackless and scepti insist atmoplane is required for the exhaust gas to push off of.
They believe the medball guy is using the ball to push the air to propell him in the opposite direction.
so.
they contend that inertia is not a thing?
Conservation of momentum is a fundamental law of physics which states that the momentum of a system is constant if there are no external forces acting on the system. It is embodied in Newton's first law (the law of inertia).
so if we had two toy cars with the same sized electric motor.Yep, it's because it has to displace much more air than the less dense car, meaning more air is being pushed away by it, creating a larger clamping effect by the external atmosphere it is pushing against.
one weighs 100lbs, the other 10lbs.
it obviously takes the 100lbs car more time to get up to speed because it's weight.
is it because it's pushing against air?
or is it because it's heavier and the "conventional" physics is correct?It's obviously heavier by scale measurement but it is due to the atmospheric clamping, so conventional physics isn't correct on this.
People like you are struggling with my musing as it is so why go further into something you're struggling to grasp from my side.
Gas.
Why don't you try and help yourself and answer the question:
What is the gas PUSHING off to allow it to move? What is it using as LEVERAGE?
Put your mind into gear here. Start picturing what I'm about to tell you.Quote from: ThemightykaboolAnd dont give bs about maintaining suction seal because that is a real physics solution.I'm not on about crating a suction seal. I've told you many time there is no suction.
Your solution relies on denP.
It's a seal created by atmospheric push onto the cup after the cup has had applied energy to it to push out the air molecules to make them too few to push back, meaning they get clamped to the surface of whatever can hold the atmosphere from equalising the cup interior with the exterior so that it creates the same push inside as outside onto the actual material itself.
The 'too few to push back' molecules that are left after applying applied energy must be enormous because you don't believe there is space between them, right?
If so, they must have grown to fill the void where the others were that left? What's the different between one big molecule and a bunch of little ones?
Additionally, how do they make layers disappear in order to grow?
It's not the musings that's the issue, it's the potential outcome from them.People like you are struggling with my musing as it is so why go further into something you're struggling to grasp from my side.
That's the problem, they are 'musings', nothing more.
Put your mind into gear here. Start picturing what I'm about to tell you.Quote from: ThemightykaboolAnd dont give bs about maintaining suction seal because that is a real physics solution.I'm not on about crating a suction seal. I've told you many time there is no suction.
Your solution relies on denP.
It's a seal created by atmospheric push onto the cup after the cup has had applied energy to it to push out the air molecules to make them too few to push back, meaning they get clamped to the surface of whatever can hold the atmosphere from equalising the cup interior with the exterior so that it creates the same push inside as outside onto the actual material itself.
The 'too few to push back' molecules that are left after applying applied energy must be enormous because you don't believe there is space between them, right?
If so, they must have grown to fill the void where the others were that left? What's the different between one big molecule and a bunch of little ones?
Additionally, how do they make layers disappear in order to grow?
If you had half a tennis ball and filled it full of sand then turned it over onto a solid surface, then poured tons of sand over it, would you crush the half ball?
I think you can say, no....right?
Ok this would be your so called suction cup that has resistance to the air (sand) above because it's cavity is filled to stop it being crushed.
Fair enough?
You can understand from this point that the sand above is clamping the half ball down but only by the skin of the ball all the way to the ground where the thin skin is basically clamped, yet inside is sand that stops that skin from being crushed.
Marry all this up to how air stacks onto anything on the ground...but seeing as we're dealing with a so called suction cup we can understand this part to give you all a leg up.
Now bear in mind that us humans are built to withstand this atmosphere, meaning anything we pick up that is clamped down under this type of circumstance, we can deal with, mainly.
However, add pressure to any object, such as this half ball/cup and things become much different, because, if you push down on the ball with your energy you can push out the sand inside the ball, out to the sides and adding that sand to the sand already around the ball but now you notice the sand has filled the big delve you made in the ball adding more clamping pressure to that ball against the ground.
Now it becomes much harder to try and pick up.
All you have to do is marry it up with atmospheric pressure and understand the stack above everything that pushed into that particular part and how much is pushed back.
Pretty simply if you really put your mind to it.
How can it work without a seal?
you description is of conventional physics and how pressure works.
but is complete nonsense when you consider the "seal" effect.
by your nonsense theory it shold work regardless of a seal or not.
but reality shows a seal is necessary.
I see you ignored this part:Why don't you try and help yourself and answer the question:Gas.
What is the gas PUSHING off to allow it to move? What is it using as LEVERAGE?
It's what is pushed back onto the cups by the strength of what is pushed out of those cups to add to the pressure already on them.No, if we understand what is happening we realise you are wrong.
You only need to understand what's happening to realise I'm right.
Try looking into how the magdeburg hemispheres work and you'll easily understand why the cup works.Yes, it is based upon air pressure, pushing outwards in all directions.
I'm not running.If you aren't running, why are you avoiding so many simple questions?
So you are claiming that compressing things literally creates matter from nothing?Quote from: Stash- How do molecules grow layers?By compression to create matter/material/elements.
You can break that material down by stripping layers and making a less dense material. You do this by expanding the material and losing whatever layers depending on manner of expansion.The material of the layers are still there. It doesn't just magically disappear, and the inner material doesn't expand.
The opposite happens if you super compress the material to make even more dense material by adding molecular layers by force or applied energy to lock on layers.Where you need those materials to begin with, and it gets larger.
We can see a dust mite. Can we see the mites on the dust mite?No, because they don't exist.
People like you are struggling with my musing as it is so why go further into something you're struggling to grasp from my side.We aren't struggling. If you truly thought we were, you would go to the basics/fundamentals of it to make it clear.
Seeing as there is always external forces acting on any system, however small, it kills that law stone dead, meaning inertia is just a word that basically means nothing and a constant is something that cannot ever be achieved.No, it doesn't, as we can still consider what would happen if there was no net external force, and it still describes a key property of motion.
Nope. It has nothing to do with the air.Quote from: Themightykaboolso if we had two toy cars with the same sized electric motor.Yep, it's because it has to displace much more air than the less dense car, meaning more air is being pushed away by it, creating a larger clamping effect by the external atmosphere it is pushing against.
one weighs 100lbs, the other 10lbs.
it obviously takes the 100lbs car more time to get up to speed because it's weight.
is it because it's pushing against air?
If you had half a tennis ball and filled it full of sand then turned it over onto a solid surface, then poured tons of sand over it, would you crush the half ball?Now consider if you just never filled the inside with sand in the first place.
I think you can say, no....right?
The world is full of people musing, only some of it is cast out as truth and some of it is cast out as a peer reviewed theory or basically a best guess scenario by those who planted themselves into the authority seats.You mean some is backed up by mountains of evidence and can actually explain what is observed in reality, while some is based upon rejection of reality, being nothing more than wild speculation full of contradictions incapable of explaining anything.
How can it work without a seal?By the stack above pushing down.
No
It exactly shows conventional physics is correct and that gases apply pressure in ALL DIRECTIONS.
The seal prevents air from pushing up and euqalling or cancelling out the pressure from the other side.
Thats why a suction cup can be applied down onto a piece of glass, that glass can be picked up and changed from horizontal to vertical.
Your denP theory of air pushing down has no way to magically changed to pushing sideways.
NoI know they apply pressure in all directions. Have you actually bothered to take any notice of what's been said?
It exactly shows conventional physics is correct and that gases apply pressure in ALL DIRECTIONS.
The seal prevents air from pushing up and euqalling or cancelling out the pressure from the other side.No. The seal prevents air from pushing back into the cup, not up.
Thats why a suction cup can be applied down onto a piece of glass, that glass can be picked up and changed from horizontal to vertical.There's no such thing as suction. Nothing sucks.
Your denP theory of air pushing down has no way to magically changed to pushing sideways.It doesn't just push down. You need to pay more attention.
Of course gas is used as leverage but it's against gas. It's a gas on gas fight .I see you ignored this part:Why don't you try and help yourself and answer the question:Gas.
What is the gas PUSHING off to allow it to move? What is it using as LEVERAGE?
Providing a one or two word response is not answering the question as that does not explain why the equivalent doesn't work for the rocket.
So yet again you are avoiding the question.
As I have said before, if it is pushing off the gas that means the gas can be used as leverage and thus the rocket can use the gas as leverage and thus rockets work in a vacuum.
So if gas is the answer, then the answer is also that rockets work in a vacuum.
Ignoring this and continuing to provide one word answers doesn't help you at all.
Of course the atmosphere is but only because you allowed it to by creating extra atmosphere external to the cup by pushing it out of the cup and back into the atmosphere to add to that pressure.It's what is pushed back onto the cups by the strength of what is pushed out of those cups to add to the pressure already on them.No, if we understand what is happening we realise you are wrong.
You only need to understand what's happening to realise I'm right.
The air getting pushed out isn't what gives the force to push the cups to the glass.
Instead the atmosphere is.
No it's not based on air pressure pushing outwards in all directions.Try looking into how the magdeburg hemispheres work and you'll easily understand why the cup works.Yes, it is based upon air pressure, pushing outwards in all directions.
The same principles is what results in rockets working in a vacuum.
Of course gas is used as leverage but it's against gas. It's a gas on gas fight .It isn't a case of me not understanding.
I honestly don't know if you are deliberately not understanding or you genuinely don't understand.
If there is no waiting gas/fluid external to that gas expansion from inside to outside then you have zero work down.Which would then mean the gas can't leave.
Instead of running at this like a bull in a China shop, sit back and think about what I've actually saidAgain, stop with the insults.
Of course the atmosphere is but only because you allowed it to by creating extra atmosphere external to the cup by pushing it out of the cup and back into the atmosphere to add to that pressure.That extra atmosphere is basically nothing.
Go back to the sand analogy and pay attention to what was said.Good advice. Go back to it and make the modification I suggested.
No it's not based on air pressure pushing outwards in all directions.I should clarify, the air outside the hemispheres is pushing outwards in all directions, which forces the hemispheres together.
It's air pressure pushing back onto the hemispheres after having the a lot of the pressure inside those closed hemispheres to be allowed outside, leaving no equalised pressure inside to counteract, so we see a clamped pair of sealed hemispheres.
Whatever is pushed in all directions inside it so minimal as to be pointless in terms of being able to overcome the external push/crush, directly caused by that added internal pressure being allowed back onto the external skin of those hemispheres.
I've love some logical person to enter into this to see if they understand what I'm saying.
Don't give me the old "one or two word response" garbage.
Telling me it can't stay in the tube because there is a vacuum is not answering the question as that does not identify what the gas is using as leverage to move.
Telling me it is expanding is not answering the question as that does not identify what the gas is using as leverage to move.
Saying what happens in the atmosphere is not answering the question as that is talking about a completely different issue.
Providing a one or two word response is not answering the question as that does not explain why the equivalent doesn't work for the rocket.
The gas inside the rocket expands out naturally due to the energy applied to compress it into the rocket in the first place. That natural expansion can only happen if it comes up against an external gas/fluid that is less compressed than it of which that exiting gas can compress further as a direct reaction to that expanding action.Of course gas is used as leverage but it's against gas. It's a gas on gas fight .It isn't a case of me not understanding.
I honestly don't know if you are deliberately not understanding or you genuinely don't understand.
Your primary objection to rockets working in a vacuum is that they have nothing to use as leverage.
But the exact same argument would apply equally well to the gas in the rocket.
Either there is nothing to use as leverage and neither can move, meaning gas will remain trapped inside an open tube exposed to a vacuum; or there is something that can be used as leverage and thus the rocket can work in a vacuum.
The gas wouldn't leave if it was equalised. But seeing as the gas if forced into the container/rocket, it will leave by its own natural expansion.If there is no waiting gas/fluid external to that gas expansion from inside to outside then you have zero work down.Which would then mean the gas can't leave.
It clearly has everything to do with it.Of course the atmosphere is but only because you allowed it to by creating extra atmosphere external to the cup by pushing it out of the cup and back into the atmosphere to add to that pressure.That extra atmosphere is basically nothing.
And more importantly, the force doesn't depend upon how much atmosphere is available.
It clearly has nothing to do with the atmosphere outside being increased.
If you don't have the sand under the ball then the sand under that ball has to be with the sand on top of it and around it, right?Go back to the sand analogy and pay attention to what was said.Good advice. Go back to it and make the modification I suggested.
What happens when you don't initially have the sand under the ball?
Does it still just happily sit there, holding back the rest of the sand and not getting crushed?
The hemisphere itself is resisting the air pressure pushing back onto it.No it's not based on air pressure pushing outwards in all directions.I should clarify, the air outside the hemispheres is pushing outwards in all directions, which forces the hemispheres together.
It's air pressure pushing back onto the hemispheres after having the a lot of the pressure inside those closed hemispheres to be allowed outside, leaving no equalised pressure inside to counteract, so we see a clamped pair of sealed hemispheres.
Whatever is pushed in all directions inside it so minimal as to be pointless in terms of being able to overcome the external push/crush, directly caused by that added internal pressure being allowed back onto the external skin of those hemispheres.
I've love some logical person to enter into this to see if they understand what I'm saying.
They remove themselves from the bus which causes the bus to do nothing until those who remove themselves smash into the waiting external sponges which compresses them.Man, got a lot of catching up to do with this thread. Still, the quote above is my kind of science!
Your denP theory of air pushing down has no way to magically changed to pushing sideways.It doesn't just push down. You need to pay more attention.
Start learning because I'm not backtracking.
Basically equal resistance overall.Your denP theory of air pushing down has no way to magically changed to pushing sideways.It doesn't just push down. You need to pay more attention.
Start learning because I'm not backtracking.
How is it pushing equally in all directions?
Basically equal resistance overall.Your denP theory of air pushing down has no way to magically changed to pushing sideways.It doesn't just push down. You need to pay more attention.
Start learning because I'm not backtracking.
How is it pushing equally in all directions?
Don't give me the old "one or two word response" garbage.I have paid attention to the explanations you provide. You repeatedly refuse to address the actual issue at hand.
Pay more attention to the massive explanations I've given.
I'm actually taking time to answer you. Time for you to pout some real effort in to understand because you clearly aren't, whether that's deliberate or not, I'm not too sure.
The gas inside the rocket expands out naturally ...This does not answer the question at all.
The gas inside the rocket expands out, it does not equally kick back into the rocket to push the other way.
A gauge will clearly explain why this is the case, which I've tried to explain in as much detail as I can.No, as clearly discussed previously, the gauge still shows a pressure while the gas would leave a container, indicating the gas is still pushing on the container.
The gas molecules follow the molecules at the front as they expand out and all the molecules behind all the way to the back of the container are all expanding slowly and all being a resistance to the molecules in frontAgain, if this is the case and these gas molecules can provide the resistance necessary for motion, why can't they do so for the rocket?
atmosphereThis is not a discussion of the atmosphere. This is a discussion of rockets in a vacuum.
No wonder you are confused and no wonder you can't grasp anything I'm saying.You are yet to demonstrate in any way that I am confused or not grasping what you say.
I'm being serious here, put your mind to it and you might just start to realise what's what.
If you don't have the sand under the ball then the sand under that ball has to be with the sand on top of it and around it, right?Nope, it is in the other container you were pouring the sand in from.
The air pressure is being more compressed by that pair of clamped hemispheres by what was allowed out to be added to the pressure back on them.If that was the case you would see that change in everything, not just these hemispheres. The atmospheric pressure would increase, and all spheres would work or not work at once.
If I was to pour sand over you as you were stood up, first it would build up around you, right? Each build up layer around you would be s stack.Basically equal resistance overall.Your denP theory of air pushing down has no way to magically changed to pushing sideways.It doesn't just push down. You need to pay more attention.
Start learning because I'm not backtracking.
How is it pushing equally in all directions?
But in your example, you're saying the sand is pushing down on the cup. How is the sand pushing sideways or up?
I'd like to ask ordinary logical people if I'm explaining this as to what you ask. I don't mean globalists, I mean logical people, because I need to know if you either can't grasp what I'm saying or are refusing to grasp it because you can clearly see what I'm saying.Don't give me the old "one or two word response" garbage.I have paid attention to the explanations you provide. You repeatedly refuse to address the actual issue at hand.
Pay more attention to the massive explanations I've given.
I'm actually taking time to answer you. Time for you to pout some real effort in to understand because you clearly aren't, whether that's deliberate or not, I'm not too sure.
I have repeatedly explained why, but you just ignore it. Time for you to put some real effort in to understand because you clearly aren't, whether that's deliberate or not, I'm not too sure.The gas inside the rocket expands out naturally ...This does not answer the question at all.
The gas inside the rocket expands out, it does not equally kick back into the rocket to push the other way.
I have asked what the gas is pushing against to move.
Telling me the gas is expanding is no better than just saying the gas leaves the rocket.
it does not tell me what the gas is pushing against to allow it to move.A gauge will clearly explain why this is the case, which I've tried to explain in as much detail as I can.No, as clearly discussed previously, the gauge still shows a pressure while the gas would leave a container, indicating the gas is still pushing on the container.The gas molecules follow the molecules at the front as they expand out and all the molecules behind all the way to the back of the container are all expanding slowly and all being a resistance to the molecules in frontAgain, if this is the case and these gas molecules can provide the resistance necessary for motion, why can't they do so for the rocket?atmosphereThis is not a discussion of the atmosphere. This is a discussion of rockets in a vacuum.
Are you trying to answer my question regarding gas in a tube in a vacuum? If so, what does the atmosphere have to do with it?No wonder you are confused and no wonder you can't grasp anything I'm saying.You are yet to demonstrate in any way that I am confused or not grasping what you say.
I'm being serious here, put your mind to it and you might just start to realise what's what.
Instead I have clearly explained why it is wrong.
If it really was that extra push into the atmosphere then all suction cups should start working together. Instead, one working or not has no bearing on the others.
This shows you are not changing the external atmosphere in any significant way.If you don't have the sand under the ball then the sand under that ball has to be with the sand on top of it and around it, right?Nope, it is in the other container you were pouring the sand in from.
It was never put into the system.The air pressure is being more compressed by that pair of clamped hemispheres by what was allowed out to be added to the pressure back on them.If that was the case you would see that change in everything, not just these hemispheres. The atmospheric pressure would increase, and all spheres would work or not work at once.
The fact that this doesn't happen shows that it has nothing to do with the air that was originally inside.
Instead it is just the absence of the air inside, and more importantly, the presence of the air outside.
If I was to pour sand over you as you were stood up, first it would build up around you, right? Each build up layer around you would be s stack.Basically equal resistance overall.Your denP theory of air pushing down has no way to magically changed to pushing sideways.It doesn't just push down. You need to pay more attention.
Start learning because I'm not backtracking.
How is it pushing equally in all directions?
But in your example, you're saying the sand is pushing down on the cup. How is the sand pushing sideways or up?
As that stack builds, you will feel it pushing against you as your body resists that push all around you whilst it builds by stacking.
Eventually it goes above your head and still stacks all around. Up and up and up it goes and you are now a fair distance under that stacked up sand as well as encased in a mass of it around you.
I think it's becoming pretty clear that all you're doing is playing games.
It would be more of a mound on top of me, like a pyramid, so to speak. With less sand circling my shoulders than the widest amount circling my feet. As well, there's nothing pushing the sand in from the sides, just from the top.
I think it's becoming pretty clear that all you're doing is playing games.
It would be more of a mound on top of me, like a pyramid, so to speak. With less sand circling my shoulders than the widest amount circling my feet. As well, there's nothing pushing the sand in from the sides, just from the top.
Don't bother replying anymore. You're ignored from this point on.
I'd like to ask ordinary logical people if I'm explaining this as to what you ask.I wouldn't call myself extraordinary, but I certainly call myself logical.
because I need to know if you either can't grasp what I'm saying or are refusing to grasp it because you can clearly see what I'm saying.Again, I grasp what you are saying quite clearly.
So there you go. Rockets do not and cannot and will not ever work in a space vacuum because one cannot exist for starters.You wanting a vacuum to be a perfect vacuum doesn't negate the existence of real vacuums.
Rockets cannot work in extreme low pressure environments because they absolutely do require an external resistive force to act against the gas expansion coming from the rocket in how I explained.Which would also mean that the gas needs an external resistive force to act against.
What does this mean?What does this mean?
It also means the Earth cannot be a spinning ball.There is no logical connection here at all.
However, the crux of this topic is rockets not being able to fly in a vacuum.Yes, that is the crux of this topic.
The reasons for it are simple if people care to put their logical minds to it.
So there you go. Rockets do not and cannot and will not ever work in a space vacuum because one cannot exist for starters.
Rockets cannot work in extreme low pressure environments because they absolutely do require an external resistive force to act against the gas expansion coming from the rocket in how I explained.
What does this mean?
It means one hell of a lot.
It means we've been duped since fantasy space rocketry was dreamed up and put out as a supposed physical reality for us all to watch on our TV's and radio listening, plus launched missiles to cater for the supposed space rocket launches, as well as gimmicks...most likely models and what not, or helium filled effigies passed off as real space rockets.
It also means the Earth cannot be a spinning ball.
It also means gravity is a lie.
It also means we are encased inside our own little prison of a flattish Earth with a dome covering.
We are basically in a cell.
Everything we see and touch is all part of this very same cell.
All that we can see and can't touch are all part of the holographic show the centre of this cell produces.
However, the crux of this topic is rockets not being able to fly in a vacuum.
The reasons for it are simple if people care to put their logical minds to it.
NoI know they apply pressure in all directions. Have you actually bothered to take any notice of what's been said?
It exactly shows conventional physics is correct and that gases apply pressure in ALL DIRECTIONS.Quote from: ThemightykaboolThe seal prevents air from pushing up and euqalling or cancelling out the pressure from the other side.No. The seal prevents air from pushing back into the cup, not up.Quote from: ThemightykaboolThats why a suction cup can be applied down onto a piece of glass, that glass can be picked up and changed from horizontal to vertical.There's no such thing as suction. Nothing sucks.
Pressure is applied in all directions depending on where the cup is placed at any point in the stack and onto a solid surface and then having air pushed out of that cup.Quote from: ThemightykaboolYour denP theory of air pushing down has no way to magically changed to pushing sideways.It doesn't just push down. You need to pay more attention.
Start learning because I'm not backtracking.
Again, a key part of your objection to the reality of rockets working in space is that you claim that the rocket needs something to push against.Correct, externally.... in direct opposition to the gases coming from the rocket.
But if this was the case and that acceleration requires something to push against and it isn't there for the rocket, it also isn't there for the gas and thus there is nothing for the gas to push against to leave the rocket.It wouldn't if the pressure outside of the rocket was equal to the pressure inside of it.
This means the gas would be trapped in the rocket without any way to leave.
This is why I asked what the gas is pushing against, because you claim that objects needs something to push against/use as leverage to move.And now you know (which you should have earlier by being explained to)...but somehow I doubt you'll bother to grasp it and simply come back with " yes but what's happenings to the gas."
Pay more attention.
It seems you have lost whatever logical bearing you may have had left. Case in point, the earth as a spinning ball and gravity bits were figured out long before the whole rocketry in a vacuum thing. Considering there's no evidence of a dome and all evidence to the contrary regarding some sort of holographic-ness, what you think it means is just that, what you think. Just your musings. No evidence.
What you've asked is for people to put their logical minds to your musings and all logic and evidence has been shown to defy your musings. I mean seriously, something as simple as a pressure gauge you ask of people the world over to abandon how they are designed, manufactured, and used to satisfy your musings? That's not logic, that's narcissism. Not to mention, as shown over and over again, to be wildly incorrect.
As for rockets in a vacuum, as Jack has laid out 100 times, "In order to be consistent you either have rockets work in a vacuum or gas remain magically trapped in an open container."
You have yet to address this.
I'd like to ask ordinary logical people if I'm explaining this as to what you ask. I don't mean globalists, I mean logical people, because I need to know if you either can't grasp what I'm saying or are refusing to grasp it because you can clearly see what I'm saying.Don't give me the old "one or two word response" garbage.I have paid attention to the explanations you provide. You repeatedly refuse to address the actual issue at hand.
Pay more attention to the massive explanations I've given.
I'm actually taking time to answer you. Time for you to pout some real effort in to understand because you clearly aren't, whether that's deliberate or not, I'm not too sure.
I have repeatedly explained why, but you just ignore it. Time for you to put some real effort in to understand because you clearly aren't, whether that's deliberate or not, I'm not too sure.The gas inside the rocket expands out naturally ...This does not answer the question at all.
The gas inside the rocket expands out, it does not equally kick back into the rocket to push the other way.
I have asked what the gas is pushing against to move.
Telling me the gas is expanding is no better than just saying the gas leaves the rocket.
it does not tell me what the gas is pushing against to allow it to move.A gauge will clearly explain why this is the case, which I've tried to explain in as much detail as I can.No, as clearly discussed previously, the gauge still shows a pressure while the gas would leave a container, indicating the gas is still pushing on the container.The gas molecules follow the molecules at the front as they expand out and all the molecules behind all the way to the back of the container are all expanding slowly and all being a resistance to the molecules in frontAgain, if this is the case and these gas molecules can provide the resistance necessary for motion, why can't they do so for the rocket?atmosphereThis is not a discussion of the atmosphere. This is a discussion of rockets in a vacuum.
Are you trying to answer my question regarding gas in a tube in a vacuum? If so, what does the atmosphere have to do with it?No wonder you are confused and no wonder you can't grasp anything I'm saying.You are yet to demonstrate in any way that I am confused or not grasping what you say.
I'm being serious here, put your mind to it and you might just start to realise what's what.
Instead I have clearly explained why it is wrong.
If it really was that extra push into the atmosphere then all suction cups should start working together. Instead, one working or not has no bearing on the others.
This shows you are not changing the external atmosphere in any significant way.If you don't have the sand under the ball then the sand under that ball has to be with the sand on top of it and around it, right?Nope, it is in the other container you were pouring the sand in from.
It was never put into the system.The air pressure is being more compressed by that pair of clamped hemispheres by what was allowed out to be added to the pressure back on them.If that was the case you would see that change in everything, not just these hemispheres. The atmospheric pressure would increase, and all spheres would work or not work at once.
The fact that this doesn't happen shows that it has nothing to do with the air that was originally inside.
Instead it is just the absence of the air inside, and more importantly, the presence of the air outside.
Anyone willing to help me out here?
I'm looking for flat/alternate thinkers to tell me if you grasp what's been said and whether you think I've explained properly to JackBlack.
And thars the point we re trying to make.No contradictions on my part but plenty of inability to understand on your part.
You contradict yourself.
In all directions - contradicts yoyr theory that an opening in a tube says the gases cease to push on the inside of the tube.No it doesn't. It's your inability to understand what's being said and your will to keep on putting things forward that you think is happening but clearly isn't what's been explained.
Suction - exisrs as a negative pressure, using the proper and conventional definition of the word, as in the opposite of positive.No such thing as suction in arguing my theory, so you need to change it and understand what my theory is, because your use of suction will keep you blind.
Your theory is bonkers when you tried to redefine a well understood term and decided you werent going to tell any one else for 10pg.My theory is pretty sound. Your grasp of it is bonkers.
Not just down - what do you mean not just down!? Your whole denP is that air pushes people down. If denP air is suddenly able to push left right up down then how are we able to walk around?I can't believe you still haven't grasped all this. It's been explained and better explained. Try harder.
Only uphill or in a strong wind.
Eveeytime i move forward I should be pushed backwards.
Aah but then one might say maybe that my leftward denP displacement csncels my rightward?In normal circumstances it's correct. You just need to understand how and why, properly, which you refuse to do.
No sorry, then suction cups cease to work and so does your down.Suction cups are impossible. Learn what they do and how. I explained it all and it should be fairly simple.
Backtracking - its not backtracking, as jackB continuds to point out, you havent answered any questions except to continue parrot "gas on gas".Because gas on gas is exactly what's happening.
Pay more attention.
It seems you have lost whatever logical bearing you may have had left. Case in point, the earth as a spinning ball and gravity bits were figured out long before the whole rocketry in a vacuum thing. Considering there's no evidence of a dome and all evidence to the contrary regarding some sort of holographic-ness, what you think it means is just that, what you think. Just your musings. No evidence.
What you've asked is for people to put their logical minds to your musings and all logic and evidence has been shown to defy your musings. I mean seriously, something as simple as a pressure gauge you ask of people the world over to abandon how they are designed, manufactured, and used to satisfy your musings? That's not logic, that's narcissism. Not to mention, as shown over and over again, to be wildly incorrect.
As for rockets in a vacuum, as Jack has laid out 100 times, "In order to be consistent you either have rockets work in a vacuum or gas remain magically trapped in an open container."
You have yet to address this.
However (pay attention to this) if gas is super compressed into the rocket,as in what we know of compressed air/gas containers, then....just like compressing a spring....if you release that spring it will decompress on it's ownStop focusing on compression/decompression, it is just avoiding the issue.
they decompress by using each other as the resistance to keep pushing out of the containerThat means the gas can be used as resistance.
atmosphericAgain, stop talking about the atmosphere.
The only thing your rocket walls are doing, inside, is holding the molecules as they expand out. The molecules are not pushing the rocket from insideAgain, if that was the case, the gas can't leave.
Pretty simple but you're struggling to grasp it....clearly.While it is extremely simple, you are the one clearly struggling to grasp it or knowingly misrepresenting it.
No, you are still no closer to an explanation.Quote from: JackBlackThis is why I asked what the gas is pushing against, because you claim that objects needs something to push against/use as leverage to move.And now you know
Youre 25pg since lackless left you.Feel free to give up when you want to.
I even called him out in another thread and he called me a loser and ran off again.
Time to give up.
I needed to test you out to see if you'd come up with this stuff when I said I'd ignore you.
At some point you have to ask yourself if you're the only one who gets your own joke, maybe that's because it's just not funny.
It's not avoiding the issue, it is the issue.However (pay attention to this) if gas is super compressed into the rocket,as in what we know of compressed air/gas containers, then....just like compressing a spring....if you release that spring it will decompress on it's ownStop focusing on compression/decompression, it is just avoiding the issue.
A spring will decompress due to the force acting upon it.The compressed spring will decompress from the very place it is allowed to and continue to decompress all the way to the other end. It will not push into the other end. It will follow the decompression from the other end and back to that end, meaning the force is one way only.....unless it hits a barrier.
Each section of the spring pushes against the connecting parts.
This leads to one of 2 options:
Either the spring has nothing around it and just expands, while the centre remains in the same location; or there is something against it and the spring pushes it. The spring moves one way while the other object moves the other way.
It's not avoiding the issue, it is the issue.No, I have made it quite clear what the issue is.
It will not push into the other end.Repeating the same nonsense wont help you.
Hey skeppy, you are doing a good job explaining how a rocket works.
These people pretending they don't understand are paid to do so, or perhaps brainwashed beyond being able to think on their own.
You are doing a good job explaining.
Hey skeppy, you are doing a good job explaining how a rocket works.Cheers, hoppy.
These people pretending they don't understand are paid to do so, or perhaps brainwashed beyond being able to think on their own.
You are doing a good job explaining.
We "listen to outside views" and discard those that are obvious crap.Hey skeppy, you are doing a good job explaining how a rocket works.Cheers, hoppy.
These people pretending they don't understand are paid to do so, or perhaps brainwashed beyond being able to think on their own.
You are doing a good job explaining.
I know they stick rigidly to their mainstream ideals. I get that and I get they don't want to listen to outside views.
However, if they don't they should just ignore what I'm saying instead of trying to understand it then simply failing to understand it, whether deliberately or not.I understand that it requires a force to accelerate a mass and that force can be the thrust of a rocket.
Understand why this does what it does and you'll start to understand why your space rocket doesn't work.It's not avoiding the issue, it is the issue.No, I have made it quite clear what the issue is.
According to you, the rocket cannot work in a vacuum as there is nothing for it to push off.
But that applies to the gas as well.
Thus the key issue here is what the gas is pushing off to allow it to move and why this doesn't mean the rocket can work as well.
Talking about compression/decompression is avoiding the issue as it is not telling us what the gas is pushing off.
In order to address the issue you need to tell us what the gas is pushing off to allow it to exit the rocket.
If what you are saying is true, and there is nothing to push off (so the rocket can't move) then the gas can't move and it remains trapped in the tube, exposed to a vacuum.It will not push into the other end.Repeating the same nonsense wont help you.
This is the exact same issue.
If the spring is not pushing against the other end, THEN IT CAN'T MOVE! That means it remains trapped in the tube.
As you have stated before, in order for an object to move it needs to push against something, using it as leverage.
That means it is going to pushing against the tube.
It is the same issue as before.
Either it pushes against the tube and thus rockets work in a vacuum or it remains trapped.
To say it exists the tube without pushing on it is saying it can move without needing something to push against, directly rejecting your claim for why rockets can't work in a vacuum.
Your own argument against rockets working in a vacuum demands (for consistency) that the gas can't leave the tube nor could a spring, because neither have something to use as leverage.
The only ways to be consistent and have the gas/spring leave are to either reject that claim and say things can move with nothing to push against, which would mean the rocket can work in a vacuum; admit the gas/spring would push against the tube, meaning rockets work in a vacuum; or claim there is something to push against and allow motion and thus rockets work in a vacuum.
i.e. the only options are to accept rockets work in a vacuum or to have the gas and spring remain magically trapped.
This is the same issue you have been avoiding ever since it was brought up.
Again, if you want to actually address the issue then stop with all this expansion/decompression nonsense and tell us what the gas is pushing against and why this doesn't mean the rocket can work as well.
You still don't get it.Hey skeppy, you are doing a good job explaining how a rocket works.
These people pretending they don't understand are paid to do so, or perhaps brainwashed beyond being able to think on their own.
You are doing a good job explaining.
You mean "how a rocket doesn't work" (whatever it implies)? :)
His explanation actually shows how molecules expand,
push each other out of the chamber,
and in the process push themselves and the chamber off the pushed molecules.
Withou that push no molecues would exit, and that push unavoidably causes the reaction push.
Maybe that's your problem.We "listen to outside views" and discard those that are obvious crap.Hey skeppy, you are doing a good job explaining how a rocket works.Cheers, hoppy.
These people pretending they don't understand are paid to do so, or perhaps brainwashed beyond being able to think on their own.
You are doing a good job explaining.
I know they stick rigidly to their mainstream ideals. I get that and I get they don't want to listen to outside views.Quote from: sceptimaticHowever, if they don't they should just ignore what I'm saying instead of trying to understand it then simply failing to understand it, whether deliberately or not.I understand that it requires a force to accelerate a mass and that force can be the thrust of a rocket.
The huge mass of the propellant is accelerated before it leaves the rocket so no outside barrier or "resistance" is required. [b]It's so simple a child could understand it![/b]
Understand why this does what it does and you'll start to understand why your space rocket doesn't work.It's not avoiding the issue, it is the issue.No, I have made it quite clear what the issue is.
According to you, the rocket cannot work in a vacuum as there is nothing for it to push off.
But that applies to the gas as well.
Thus the key issue here is what the gas is pushing off to allow it to move and why this doesn't mean the rocket can work as well.
Talking about compression/decompression is avoiding the issue as it is not telling us what the gas is pushing off.
In order to address the issue you need to tell us what the gas is pushing off to allow it to exit the rocket.
If what you are saying is true, and there is nothing to push off (so the rocket can't move) then the gas can't move and it remains trapped in the tube, exposed to a vacuum.It will not push into the other end.Repeating the same nonsense wont help you.
This is the exact same issue.
If the spring is not pushing against the other end, THEN IT CAN'T MOVE! That means it remains trapped in the tube.
As you have stated before, in order for an object to move it needs to push against something, using it as leverage.
That means it is going to pushing against the tube.
It is the same issue as before.
Either it pushes against the tube and thus rockets work in a vacuum or it remains trapped.
To say it exists the tube without pushing on it is saying it can move without needing something to push against, directly rejecting your claim for why rockets can't work in a vacuum.
Your own argument against rockets working in a vacuum demands (for consistency) that the gas can't leave the tube nor could a spring, because neither have something to use as leverage.
The only ways to be consistent and have the gas/spring leave are to either reject that claim and say things can move with nothing to push against, which would mean the rocket can work in a vacuum; admit the gas/spring would push against the tube, meaning rockets work in a vacuum; or claim there is something to push against and allow motion and thus rockets work in a vacuum.
i.e. the only options are to accept rockets work in a vacuum or to have the gas and spring remain magically trapped.
This is the same issue you have been avoiding ever since it was brought up.
Again, if you want to actually address the issue then stop with all this expansion/decompression nonsense and tell us what the gas is pushing against and why this doesn't mean the rocket can work as well.
Hey skeppy, you are doing a good job explaining how a rocket works.Cheers, hoppy.
These people pretending they don't understand are paid to do so, or perhaps brainwashed beyond being able to think on their own.
You are doing a good job explaining.
I know they stick rigidly to their mainstream ideals. I get that and I get they don't want to listen to outside views.
However, if they don't they should just ignore what I'm saying instead of trying to understand it then simply failing to understand it, whether deliberately or not.
I know they stick rigidly to their mainstream ideals. I get that and I get they don't want to listen to outside views.You mean how we stick to reality and verifiable models rather than accept your self-contradictory, unsubstantiated nonsense?
Understand why this does what it does and you'll start to understand why your space rocket doesn't work.Try again, with an actual understanding of how it works you will understand how a space rocket works.
You still don't get it.Hey skeppy, you are doing a good job explaining how a rocket works.
These people pretending they don't understand are paid to do so, or perhaps brainwashed beyond being able to think on their own.
You are doing a good job explaining.
You mean "how a rocket doesn't work" (whatever it implies)? :)
His explanation actually shows how molecules expand,
push each other out of the chamber,
and in the process push themselves and the chamber off the pushed molecules.
Withou that push no molecues would exit, and that push unavoidably causes the reaction push.
You still don't get it.Hey skeppy, you are doing a good job explaining how a rocket works.
These people pretending they don't understand are paid to do so, or perhaps brainwashed beyond being able to think on their own.
You are doing a good job explaining.
You mean "how a rocket doesn't work" (whatever it implies)? :)
His explanation actually shows how molecules expand,
push each other out of the chamber,
and in the process push themselves and the chamber off the pushed molecules.
Withou that push no molecues would exit, and that push unavoidably causes the reaction push.
Oh, I do get it.
Better than you would like.
And I'm pointing out the difference between your wishes and the reality.
In your wishes the exiting molecules get out without force.
In reality thet get pushed out by force (there is no push without force).
In your wishes they accelerate outwards without resisting the force that pushes them.
In reality EVERY force gets reaction, including the force that pushes those molecules out.
at 0.04 the spring is fully compressed storing its potential energy.It doesn't. It translates into why they do not work and what really happens.
at 0.05 the finger is removed releasing the energy stored in the spring,
at 0.06 the spring cannot push down the board, so it pushes the head up, flying off the board.
at 0.12 GRAVITY has brought down the Spring head to create all kinds of mayhem.
Is my interpretation correct?
I do not see how this can be translated to how Rockets work.
You forgot the suction cup is not a perfect seal and slowly lets air under it so that when the suction is less than the spring it popsThat cup is not clamped as tight because it is a weak structure, meaning the air inside it is already small in terms of psi.
It doesn't. It translates into why they do not work and what really happens.It doesn't. It in no way indicates that rockets can't work.
Clearly you don't get it. And pretending you do only sets you back further.
Oh, I do get it.
Better than you would like.
And I'm pointing out the difference between your wishes and the reality.
In your wishes the exiting molecules get out without force.
In reality thet get pushed out by force (there is no push without force).
In your wishes they accelerate outwards without resisting the force that pushes them.
In reality EVERY force gets reaction, including the force that pushes those molecules out.
What you're all saying is not what my theory is so you're all wrong.You still don't get it.Hey skeppy, you are doing a good job explaining how a rocket works.
These people pretending they don't understand are paid to do so, or perhaps brainwashed beyond being able to think on their own.
You are doing a good job explaining.
You mean "how a rocket doesn't work" (whatever it implies)? :)
His explanation actually shows how molecules expand,
push each other out of the chamber,
and in the process push themselves and the chamber off the pushed molecules.
Withou that push no molecues would exit, and that push unavoidably causes the reaction push.
Oh, I do get it.
Better than you would like.
And I'm pointing out the difference between your wishes and the reality.
In your wishes the exiting molecules get out without force.
In reality thet get pushed out by force (there is no push without force).
In your wishes they accelerate outwards without resisting the force that pushes them.
In reality EVERY force gets reaction, including the force that pushes those molecules out.
Pretty much the crux of the biscuit and what JackB has been saying/asking about all along.
You said rockets work on a recoil type of action. Basically kicking themselves up from inside with zero help externally.It doesn't. It translates into why they do not work and what really happens.It doesn't. It in no way indicates that rockets can't work.
Again, the crux of the issue, which you have been avoiding for countless pages, shows that rockets do work.
If you wish to disagree then actually address the issue and actually answer the question.
Tell us what the gas is pushing off which allows it to move but doesn't allow the rocket to move.
How so?For all the reasons I've been explaining. The same reasons that you lot think you get but clearly don't.
How so?For all the reasons I've been explaining. The same reasons that you lot think you get but clearly don't.
You get a small portion of it then totally lose it.
Clearly you don't get it. And pretending you do only sets you back further.No, clearly we DO get it, and realise your model is nonsense.
What you're all saying is not what my theory is so you're all wrong.You don't have a theory. You have wild speculation supported by nothing.
You said rockets work on a recoil type of action. Basically kicking themselves up from inside with zero help externally.No, I have never said that. That has repeatedly been your strawman as you can't actually attack how rockets really work.
In fact you people go on about external atmosphere being a massive hindrance to the rocket.No, I have never said it is a hindrance. And for everyone who actually understands how rockets actually work it doesn't beggar belief at all.
A simple pop up spring easily shows your space rockets to be nonsense.No, it shows nothing of the sort.
It also clearly shows why my gauge argument is correct.
Clearly you don't get it. And pretending you do only sets you back further.
Oh, I do get it.
Better than you would like.
And I'm pointing out the difference between your wishes and the reality.
In your wishes the exiting molecules get out without force.
In reality thet get pushed out by force (there is no push without force).
In your wishes they accelerate outwards without resisting the force that pushes them.
In reality EVERY force gets reaction, including the force that pushes those molecules out.
But do you agree, what is happening with the spring Head?at 0.04 the spring is fully compressed storing its potential energy.It doesn't. It translates into why they do not work and what really happens.
at 0.05 the finger is removed releasing the energy stored in the spring,
at 0.06 the spring cannot push down the board, so it pushes the head up, flying off the board.
at 0.12 GRAVITY has brought down the Spring head to create all kinds of mayhem.
Is my interpretation correct?
I do not see how this can be translated to how Rockets work.
You said rockets work on a recoil type of action. Basically kicking themselves up from inside with zero help externally.It doesn't. It translates into why they do not work and what really happens.It doesn't. It in no way indicates that rockets can't work.
Again, the crux of the issue, which you have been avoiding for countless pages, shows that rockets do work.
If you wish to disagree then actually address the issue and actually answer the question.
Tell us what the gas is pushing off which allows it to move but doesn't allow the rocket to move.
In fact you people go on about external atmosphere being a massive hindrance to the rocket. It actually beggars belief but there you go.
A simple pop up spring easily shows your space rockets to be nonsense.
It also clearly shows why my gauge argument is correct.
No it's not. It's the inability of people like yourself to grasp it or decide to twist it all to suit yourselves.How so?For all the reasons I've been explaining. The same reasons that you lot think you get but clearly don't.
You get a small portion of it then totally lose it.
You had a whole thing about "push on push" and now it's an "expand on no push". What are we to think?
Gas/fluid.
Again, what is the gas pushing off?
Of course it has back push but on the gas. On the gas. On the gas....not the rocket interior.Clearly you don't get it. And pretending you do only sets you back further.
Oh, I do get it.
Better than you would like.
And I'm pointing out the difference between your wishes and the reality.
In your wishes the exiting molecules get out without force.
In reality thet get pushed out by force (there is no push without force).
In your wishes they accelerate outwards without resisting the force that pushes them.
In reality EVERY force gets reaction, including the force that pushes those molecules out.
Sets me back from where?
We already established that the portion that exits wouldn't go anywhere without force.
We also established that every force has opposite reaction force of the same intensity.
Now you are trying to tell us that pushing portion of gas out won't produce the back push of the rocket off that portion?
Of course it has back push but on the gas. On the gas. On the gas....not the rocket interior.Clearly you don't get it. And pretending you do only sets you back further.
Oh, I do get it.
Better than you would like.
And I'm pointing out the difference between your wishes and the reality.
In your wishes the exiting molecules get out without force.
In reality thet get pushed out by force (there is no push without force).
In your wishes they accelerate outwards without resisting the force that pushes them.
In reality EVERY force gets reaction, including the force that pushes those molecules out.
Sets me back from where?
We already established that the portion that exits wouldn't go anywhere without force.
We also established that every force has opposite reaction force of the same intensity.
Now you are trying to tell us that pushing portion of gas out won't produce the back push of the rocket off that portion?
Can you grasp this?
at 0.04 the spring is fully compressed storing its potential energy.The part above, yes.
at 0.05 the finger is removed releasing the energy stored in the spring,
at 0.06 the spring cannot push down the board, so it pushes the head up, flying off the board.
But do you agree, what is happening with the spring Head?
Of course it has back push but on the gas. On the gas. On the gas....not the rocket interior.Clearly you don't get it. And pretending you do only sets you back further.
Oh, I do get it.
Better than you would like.
And I'm pointing out the difference between your wishes and the reality.
In your wishes the exiting molecules get out without force.
In reality thet get pushed out by force (there is no push without force).
In your wishes they accelerate outwards without resisting the force that pushes them.
In reality EVERY force gets reaction, including the force that pushes those molecules out.
Sets me back from where?
We already established that the portion that exits wouldn't go anywhere without force.
We also established that every force has opposite reaction force of the same intensity.
Now you are trying to tell us that pushing portion of gas out won't produce the back push of the rocket off that portion?
Can you grasp this?
at 0.04 the spring is fully compressed storing its potential energy.The part above, yes.
at 0.05 the finger is removed releasing the energy stored in the spring,
at 0.06 the spring cannot push down the board, so it pushes the head up, flying off the board.
But do you agree, what is happening with the spring Head?
In order for it to push the head up it has to have leverage. Something to push off, which it does, it has the plate under it, attached to it.
However, in order for that plate to make the spring jump into the air, it has to also have leverage for that plate.
The table provides this. That's the external leverage anything needs, whether it's a physical start by the end result of potential energy against a solid base for leverage or compressing a gas/fluid to achieve the same result.
It's all about the ability to compress to create the biggest decompression for every object ready for motion.
It's the inability of people like yourself to grasp it or decide to twist it all to suit yourselves.You mean is is the ability of smart, logical people like us to grasp it and realise it contradicts itself.
Carry on doing it but smart logical people will get it.
Which means you have the gas/fluid there for the rocket to push off and thus rockets work in a vacuum.Again, what is the gas pushing off?Gas/fluid.
Of course it has back push but on the gas. On the gas. On the gas....not the rocket interior.Clearly you don't get it. And pretending you do only sets you back further.
Oh, I do get it.
Better than you would like.
And I'm pointing out the difference between your wishes and the reality.
In your wishes the exiting molecules get out without force.
In reality thet get pushed out by force (there is no push without force).
In your wishes they accelerate outwards without resisting the force that pushes them.
In reality EVERY force gets reaction, including the force that pushes those molecules out.
Sets me back from where?
We already established that the portion that exits wouldn't go anywhere without force.
We also established that every force has opposite reaction force of the same intensity.
Now you are trying to tell us that pushing portion of gas out won't produce the back push of the rocket off that portion?
Can you grasp this?
It doesn't.Of course it has back push but on the gas. On the gas. On the gas....not the rocket interior.Clearly you don't get it. And pretending you do only sets you back further.
Oh, I do get it.
Better than you would like.
And I'm pointing out the difference between your wishes and the reality.
In your wishes the exiting molecules get out without force.
In reality thet get pushed out by force (there is no push without force).
In your wishes they accelerate outwards without resisting the force that pushes them.
In reality EVERY force gets reaction, including the force that pushes those molecules out.
Sets me back from where?
We already established that the portion that exits wouldn't go anywhere without force.
We also established that every force has opposite reaction force of the same intensity.
Now you are trying to tell us that pushing portion of gas out won't produce the back push of the rocket off that portion?
Can you grasp this?
How does the last bit of gas get out if there is no more gas for it to push off of being that it's the last bit there is?
It doesn't. The gas pushes on the gas/fluid. The rocket sits atop of it and simply rides on it.
Ok you ubdersrand force transfer.
Figure out why the gas inside the tube has to push on the rocket.
It doesn't. The gas pushes on the gas/fluid. The rocket sits atop of it and simply rides on it.
Ok you ubdersrand force transfer.
Figure out why the gas inside the tube has to push on the rocket.
Yes and if that board was raised up your feet would still be attached to it, higher and higher and higher, because the board is pushed up with you along for the ride.It doesn't. The gas pushes on the gas/fluid. The rocket sits atop of it and simply rides on it.
Ok you ubdersrand force transfer.
Figure out why the gas inside the tube has to push on the rocket.
Ugh
If you were a surfer sitting on a board riding a wave - the wave pushes the board
The board pushes your feet.
The gas pushes on the gas/fluid. The rocket sits atop of it and simply rides on it.If the rocket simply sat on top then there is no force on the rocket and it wouldn't go up.
because the board is pushed up with you along for the ride.Again, you have 2 options here, either way is defeat for you.
It doesn't.Of course it has back push but on the gas. On the gas. On the gas....not the rocket interior.Clearly you don't get it. And pretending you do only sets you back further.
Oh, I do get it.
Better than you would like.
And I'm pointing out the difference between your wishes and the reality.
In your wishes the exiting molecules get out without force.
In reality thet get pushed out by force (there is no push without force).
In your wishes they accelerate outwards without resisting the force that pushes them.
In reality EVERY force gets reaction, including the force that pushes those molecules out.
Sets me back from where?
We already established that the portion that exits wouldn't go anywhere without force.
We also established that every force has opposite reaction force of the same intensity.
Now you are trying to tell us that pushing portion of gas out won't produce the back push of the rocket off that portion?
Can you grasp this?
How does the last bit of gas get out if there is no more gas for it to push off of being that it's the last bit there is?
Nah. I explained it all perfectly well. I'm quite happy for you to deny it.The gas pushes on the gas/fluid. The rocket sits atop of it and simply rides on it.If the rocket simply sat on top then there is no force on the rocket and it wouldn't go up.
If the gas is pushing on gas that means there is gas which can be used as leverage and thus rockets work in a vacuum.
The pressure valve is spring loaded. It will only read pressure over the pressure it was designed in.It doesn't.Of course it has back push but on the gas. On the gas. On the gas....not the rocket interior.Clearly you don't get it. And pretending you do only sets you back further.
Oh, I do get it.
Better than you would like.
And I'm pointing out the difference between your wishes and the reality.
In your wishes the exiting molecules get out without force.
In reality thet get pushed out by force (there is no push without force).
In your wishes they accelerate outwards without resisting the force that pushes them.
In reality EVERY force gets reaction, including the force that pushes those molecules out.
Sets me back from where?
We already established that the portion that exits wouldn't go anywhere without force.
We also established that every force has opposite reaction force of the same intensity.
Now you are trying to tell us that pushing portion of gas out won't produce the back push of the rocket off that portion?
Can you grasp this?
How does the last bit of gas get out if there is no more gas for it to push off of being that it's the last bit there is?
If the last bit just sits there and doesn't exit because you say it can't, when I close up the container, the pressure valve should still register a pressure reading from that last bit. But it doesn't, it reads 0. What gives?
No, you didn't. You repeatedly failed to explain it and instead repeatedly contradicted yourself, provided one or 2 word answers which in no way address the issue, or just went off on a tangent about expansion or the atmosphere to further try to confuse things, or just ignored it.Nah. I explained it all perfectly well.The gas pushes on the gas/fluid. The rocket sits atop of it and simply rides on it.If the rocket simply sat on top then there is no force on the rocket and it wouldn't go up.
If the gas is pushing on gas that means there is gas which can be used as leverage and thus rockets work in a vacuum.
I simply look to the logical people to understand what's being said and why rockets do not and cannot work in extreme low pressure.Cut the crap, you aren't looking for logical people, you are looking for gullible fools.
When logical thought is applied it becomes pretty obvious as to why rockets cannot work in a so called vacuum.
Cut the crap, you aren't looking for logical people, you are looking for gullible fools.
The logical people that think about it understand quite well that rockets MUST work in a vacuum.
There is therefore something obviously wrong with what you call "logical thought".When logical thought is applied it becomes pretty obvious as to why rockets cannot work in a so called vacuum.
Cut the crap, you aren't looking for logical people, you are looking for gullible fools.
The logical people that think about it understand quite well that rockets MUST work in a vacuum.
The pressure valve is spring loaded. It will only read pressure over the pressure it was designed in.It doesn't.Of course it has back push but on the gas. On the gas. On the gas....not the rocket interior.Clearly you don't get it. And pretending you do only sets you back further.
Oh, I do get it.
Better than you would like.
And I'm pointing out the difference between your wishes and the reality.
In your wishes the exiting molecules get out without force.
In reality thet get pushed out by force (there is no push without force).
In your wishes they accelerate outwards without resisting the force that pushes them.
In reality EVERY force gets reaction, including the force that pushes those molecules out.
Sets me back from where?
We already established that the portion that exits wouldn't go anywhere without force.
We also established that every force has opposite reaction force of the same intensity.
Now you are trying to tell us that pushing portion of gas out won't produce the back push of the rocket off that portion?
Can you grasp this?
How does the last bit of gas get out if there is no more gas for it to push off of being that it's the last bit there is?
If the last bit just sits there and doesn't exit because you say it can't, when I close up the container, the pressure valve should still register a pressure reading from that last bit. But it doesn't, it reads 0. What gives?
Lose the compression from a container back to normal conditions and your gauge reads zero. That zero can be called equalisation, meaning the air inside it is the same as the air outside of it, meaning it is under that pressure, meaning it cannot leave the container unless physically allowed to expand against external pressure by pushing that external pressure away and allowing that expansion to make the container into a lower pressure which would or could read a negative on a gauge of it was set up to do that.
When logical thought is applied it becomes pretty obvious as to why rockets cannot work in a so called vacuum.If that was the case you would have been able to defend your nonsense with logical thought rather than evasion.
I'm not interested in what temperate difference containment meets.There is therefore something obviously wrong with what you call "logical thought".When logical thought is applied it becomes pretty obvious as to why rockets cannot work in a so called vacuum.
Cut the crap, you aren't looking for logical people, you are looking for gullible fools.
The logical people that think about it understand quite well that rockets MUST work in a vacuum.
Try some logic applied to real experiments on the properties of gasses rather than your imagined ones might lead to a more realist conclusion.
You might learn a bit from this Gas Laws (http://chemistry.bd.psu.edu/jircitano/gases.html).
In there you'll find:
The Gas Laws: Pressure Volume Temperature Relationships:
Boyle's Law: The Pressure-Volume Law
Boyle's law or the pressure-volume law states that the volume of a given amount of gas held at constant temperature varies inversely with the applied pressure when the temperature and mass are constant.
Charles' Law: The Temperature-Volume Law
This law states that the volume of a given amount of gas held at constant pressure is directly proportional to the Kelvin temperature.
Gay-Lussac's Law: The Pressure Temperature Law
This law states that the pressure of a given amount of gas held at constant volume is directly proportional to the Kelvin temperature.
Etc.
Pooh pooh as much as like but you cannot dream science up, you must do experiments to find out how things work.
There's a problem here. You claim that as the gas is escaping it's no longer pushing on the pressure gauge. But when you close the valve, the gas presses on the gauge and you get a pressure reading.Only if there's gauge pressure inside the container as you close the valve, It will then stop expanding out of the valve and immediately be rendered equalised meaning it tries to expand against all sides.
In all instances, according to your notion, a container can never be evacuated of ALL the pressurized gas because it needs some to push off of. So the last bits must stay behind, yet they are still pressurized.Only against equal external pressure which the gauge itself is basically calibrated to.
So when the valve is closed, there should still be some sort of pressure reading left.The reading would be zero because the gauge will be set at 1 atmosphere and that atmosphere will be internal and external in an open valve and equalised container.
You've shown me nothing that means anything in reality.
I have shown clearly how logical thought leads to the unavoidable conclusion that rockets must work in a vacuum.
Your vacuum provides zero or next to zero pressure resistance, so your rocket is not only not going to work in itAgain, if that was the case that means the gas can't leave it either.
Logic says that if there is no such thing as a vacuum, then space is not a vacuum, therefore rockets should work just fine in space.When logical thought is applied it becomes pretty obvious as to why rockets cannot work in a so called vacuum.
Cut the crap, you aren't looking for logical people, you are looking for gullible fools.
The logical people that think about it understand quite well that rockets MUST work in a vacuum.
Yeah, there is this huge gaping hole in the Sceptimatic notion - And JB has brought it up a million times. If the gas 'unfurls', expands, or whatever and pushes off itself when leaving the rocket it would be pushing the rocket as well.Everything I'm saying works from my side. You and other not or refusing to understand it is a problem you need to fix to save you wasting your time.
Literally, the Scepti notion shows that rockets work in a vacuum rather than not.
No logic in that whatsoever. A play on words is all that is.Logic says that if there is no such thing as a vacuum, then space is not a vacuum, therefore rockets should work just fine in space.When logical thought is applied it becomes pretty obvious as to why rockets cannot work in a so called vacuum.
Cut the crap, you aren't looking for logical people, you are looking for gullible fools.
The logical people that think about it understand quite well that rockets MUST work in a vacuum.
Yeah, there is this huge gaping hole in the Sceptimatic notion - And JB has brought it up a million times. If the gas 'unfurls', expands, or whatever and pushes off itself when leaving the rocket it would be pushing the rocket as well.Everything I'm saying works from my side. You and other not or refusing to understand it is a problem you need to fix to save you wasting your time.
Literally, the Scepti notion shows that rockets work in a vacuum rather than not.
You say that "EverythingYeah, there is this huge gaping hole in the Sceptimatic notion - And JB has brought it up a million times. If the gas 'unfurls', expands, or whatever and pushes off itself when leaving the rocket it would be pushing the rocket as well.Everything I'm saying works from my side. You and other not or refusing to understand it is a problem you need to fix to save you wasting your time.
Literally, the Scepti notion shows that rockets work in a vacuum rather than not.
Let's try something.Yeah, there is this huge gaping hole in the Sceptimatic notion - And JB has brought it up a million times. If the gas 'unfurls', expands, or whatever and pushes off itself when leaving the rocket it would be pushing the rocket as well.Everything I'm saying works from my side. You and other not or refusing to understand it is a problem you need to fix to save you wasting your time.
Literally, the Scepti notion shows that rockets work in a vacuum rather than not.
Everuthing?
A portion of the gas in chamber, before it became exhaust, had the speed zero.
That portion also has non-zero mass.
To get out, the mass of the exhaust-to-be has to gain some speed.
To reach that speed it needs acceleration.
And for the acceleration it needs force.
The remaining gas inside gives that force as action, and receives reaction force from the exhaust-to-be.
The reaction force pushes the remaining gas in the opposite direction and gives it the proportional acceleration.
The remainin gas can't can't stay in place without support from something else.
That something else are the walls of the chamber that give action force to the remaining gas.
The remaining gas exerts the reaction force on the chamber.
In vacuum of space the chamber (and the whole rocket) has no support to resist that reaction and stay in place.
That's why the rocket can't stay where it was.
Everything I'm saying works from my side.If that was the case you would be able to explain what the gas pushes off which allows it to leave the rocket while not allowing the rocket to work.
Believe me I'm getting to a point but I need you to answer the questions.How about first you answer the question you have been avoiding for so long?
Most things are a hypothesis and some things are misin/disinformation.You say that "EverythingYeah, there is this huge gaping hole in the Sceptimatic notion - And JB has brought it up a million times. If the gas 'unfurls', expands, or whatever and pushes off itself when leaving the rocket it would be pushing the rocket as well.Everything I'm saying works from my side. You and other not or refusing to understand it is a problem you need to fix to save you wasting your time.
Literally, the Scepti notion shows that rockets work in a vacuum rather than not.I'myou're saying works frommyyour side" but have you verified any of that experimentally?
Until you you verified it experimentally it is simply a hypothesis.
But real rockets have been verified thousands of times and these has been witnessed and photographed by thousands of people.I'm not doubting rockets being real. I'm doubting space rockets as we are told about and how they supposedly work.
Can you verify it?
SpaceX Falcon 9 SES-9 launch, footage from Cocoa Beach with telemetry[/b]
And I have to ask just why do all these companies and space agencies keep launching these rockets if not of them work as claimed?What companies?
It would simply be totally illogical to waste all that money for the past 60 years and more if none of these things worked.It would but then again what is really being wasted?
Simple common sense dictates that rockets work exactly claimed.Not really. Simple common sense should tell anyone that rockets need an atmosphere in order to work. In fact everything needs to be part of an atmosphere in order to work.
Gas, like I said.
What does the gas pushes off which allows it to leave the rocket while not allowing the rocket to work?
Especially when you have no evidence that those "mainstream ideals" are not correct!Until you you verified it experimentally it is simply a hypothesis.Most things are a hypothesis and some things are misin/disinformation.
It's all about deciphering what can be potentially legit and what can actually be legit.
Not an easy task for those trying to get past mainstream ideals.
Do YOU have any contrary evidence? I didn't think so.Quote from: rabinozBut real rockets have been verified thousands of times and these has been witnessed and photographed by thousands of people.I'm not doubting rockets being real. I'm doubting space rockets as we are told about and how they supposedly work.
You know this so why even bother to go back to square one?Quote from: rabinozThis one can be seen at over 100 km above the earth, where there is virtually no air, still accelerating.Can you verify it?
SpaceX Falcon 9 SES-9 launch, footage from Cocoa Beach with telemetry
I didn't think so.
Do YOU have any evidence that those space agencies in the USA, India, China, Europe, Russia and North Korea are connected? I didn't think so.Quote from: rabinozAnd I have to ask just why do all these companies and space agencies keep launching these rockets if not of them work as claimed?What companies?
An Octopus has 8 tentacles. A jelly fish has numerous more.
Think about that.
The rest of what? NASA's $20 billion is chicken feed compared to the annual value of the space industry!Quote from: rabinozIt would simply be totally illogical to waste all that money for the past 60 years and more if none of these things worked.It would but then again what is really being wasted?
Initially you have to make the composites and what not. Then the filming and so on. Then use B list actors among the better one's to pacify the audience and you have your set up.
All you need from then on is additions to props.
A tiny fraction of a budget and I wonder where the rest goes. What do you think?
Nope! The simplest of physics dictates that rockets develop thrust quite independent of any atmosphere!Quote from: rabinozSimple common sense dictates that rockets work exactly claimed.Not really. Simple common sense should tell anyone that rockets need an atmosphere in order to work. In fact everything needs to be part of an atmosphere in order to work.
I'll tell you what won't work. Nothing will work in the vacuum you subscribe to and that should really be ultra logical to anyone willing to bother to understand why.You have never proven that "Nothing will work in the vacuum you subscribe to" and it certainly is not "ultra logical to anyone" with some sense and are "willing to bother to understand why".
Playing chess with the pigeon again are you?I don't really bother with you! You're too far down the rabbit to ever find your way out.
You should really not bother with me but here you are. Make up your mind.
Nope! The simplest of physics dictates that rockets develop thrust quite independent of any atmosphere!Force equals mass times acceleration means nothing unless you put it up against external atmosphere, then you have your force by internal verses external gaseous/fluid fight to accelerate your mass.
All you need is force = mass x acceleration and voila, you have your basic thrust equation and it works!
Let's try something.Yeah, there is this huge gaping hole in the Sceptimatic notion - And JB has brought it up a million times. If the gas 'unfurls', expands, or whatever and pushes off itself when leaving the rocket it would be pushing the rocket as well.Everything I'm saying works from my side. You and other not or refusing to understand it is a problem you need to fix to save you wasting your time.
Literally, the Scepti notion shows that rockets work in a vacuum rather than not.
Everuthing?
A portion of the gas in chamber, before it became exhaust, had the speed zero.
That portion also has non-zero mass.
To get out, the mass of the exhaust-to-be has to gain some speed.
To reach that speed it needs acceleration.
And for the acceleration it needs force.
The remaining gas inside gives that force as action, and receives reaction force from the exhaust-to-be.
The reaction force pushes the remaining gas in the opposite direction and gives it the proportional acceleration.
The remainin gas can't can't stay in place without support from something else.
That something else are the walls of the chamber that give action force to the remaining gas.
The remaining gas exerts the reaction force on the chamber.
In vacuum of space the chamber (and the whole rocket) has no support to resist that reaction and stay in place.
That's why the rocket can't stay where it was.
If you were to run into a closed door not on a latch would you push that door open before that door could stop you in your tracks?
The answer should be yes.
So what if there was a massive sponge against that door and about 10 feet thick away from it and you ran at that sponge. What do you think would happen.
Believe me I'm getting to a point but I need you to answer the questions.
There's a problem here. You claim that as the gas is escaping it's no longer pushing on the pressure gauge. But when you close the valve, the gas presses on the gauge and you get a pressure reading.Only if there's gauge pressure inside the container as you close the valve, It will then stop expanding out of the valve and immediately be rendered equalised meaning it tries to expand against all sides.
Most things are a hypothesis and some things are misin/disinformation.Well at least you are now admitting that you are intentionally spreading misinformation.
It's all about deciphering what can be potentially legit and what can actually be legit.Yes, it is quite hard for those trying to reject reality to find things which are legit.
Not an easy task for those trying to get past mainstream ideals.
Simple common sense should tell anyone that rockets need an atmosphere in order to work.Except as clearly shown by your repeated avoidance of a simple question, IT DOESN'T!
Gas, like I said.Again, that doesn't address the issue.
If you bothered to pay attention you wouldn't need to type so much and have it ignored.You mean I would realise you have absolutely no interest in the truth and I would just stop posting because I know you will honestly address the issue as it shows you are completely wrong and you have absolutely no rational nor honest way out?
Force equals mass times acceleration means nothing unless you put it up against external atmosphereSo you are saying the gas can't accelerate out of the rocket as there is no external atmosphere to push off?
You run at it on your own, under your own energy.
Is there sponge in the room to push me out through that door, or I run out on my own?
Because after all this time you still haven't grasped what I put forward. You simply haven't and you can sit and argue that you have all day long. You cannot grasp what I'm telling you. If that's deliberate then fair enough but it's your time you're wasting by playing this game.There's a problem here. You claim that as the gas is escaping it's no longer pushing on the pressure gauge. But when you close the valve, the gas presses on the gauge and you get a pressure reading.Only if there's gauge pressure inside the container as you close the valve, It will then stop expanding out of the valve and immediately be rendered equalised meaning it tries to expand against all sides.
Again, this is where your musing fails. Gas doesn't just stop expanding in all directions because you create an opening at one end of a container. If that were the case, like mentioned many times before, as soon as the valve is opened the gauge would literally drop to zero. It doesn't. It lowers in direct correspondence to the amount of gas/pressure released. If the valve is halfway open, the gauge will slowly go down. If the gauge is opened 3/4 of the way, the gauge will go down quicker, accordingly.
There's a direct correlation between how/what the gauge reads and the amount of and at what rate the gas is being released. The only way for that to occur is for the gas to still be pressing on the gauge. i.e., expansion. There's no other way around that fact I'm afraid.
It does.
Again, that doesn't address the issue.
You run at it on your own, under your own energy.
Is there sponge in the room to push me out through that door, or I run out on my own?
Explain what would happen.
I knew it was a complete waste of time with you but I gave you a shot.You run at it on your own, under your own energy.
Is there sponge in the room to push me out through that door, or I run out on my own?
Explain what would happen.
If I run on my own, I can decide not to. :)
If I run on my own (unlike gas in chamber), my feet would push the floor backwards.
If the room is fixed to the ground, room floor (and the whole room) would have support and wouldn't move.
If the room was at some boat, it would move backward with momentum equal to
my momentum forward, minus the water drag.
Door opened or closed have no influence. (Rocket apperture and nozzle are always open.)
After I go through the door I could decide if I will keep running those 10 feet across the dirt in front.
From that point on, my movement has no further influence on the room.
If I later run into the sponge, it would compress where my body hits it.
Yes you gave him a shot, but he would rather have the money from his bosses not to understand.I knew it was a complete waste of time with you but I gave you a shot.You run at it on your own, under your own energy.
Is there sponge in the room to push me out through that door, or I run out on my own?
Explain what would happen.
If I run on my own, I can decide not to. :)
If I run on my own (unlike gas in chamber), my feet would push the floor backwards.
If the room is fixed to the ground, room floor (and the whole room) would have support and wouldn't move.
If the room was at some boat, it would move backward with momentum equal to
my momentum forward, minus the water drag.
Door opened or closed have no influence. (Rocket apperture and nozzle are always open.)
After I go through the door I could decide if I will keep running those 10 feet across the dirt in front.
From that point on, my movement has no further influence on the room.
If I later run into the sponge, it would compress where my body hits it.
I knew it was a complete waste of time with you but I gave you a shot.You run at it on your own, under your own energy.
Is there sponge in the room to push me out through that door, or I run out on my own?
Explain what would happen.
If I run on my own, I can decide not to. :)
If I run on my own (unlike gas in chamber), my feet would push the floor backwards.
If the room is fixed to the ground, room floor (and the whole room) would have support and wouldn't move.
If the room was at some boat, it would move backward with momentum equal to
my momentum forward, minus the water drag.
Door opened or closed have no influence. (Rocket apperture and nozzle are always open.)
After I go through the door I could decide if I will keep running those 10 feet across the dirt in front.
From that point on, my movement has no further influence on the room.
If I later run into the sponge, it would compress where my body hits it.
You run at it on your own, under your own energy.
Is there sponge in the room to push me out through that door, or I run out on my own?
Explain what would happen.
Because after all this time you still haven't grasped what I put forward.No, we grasp it quite well, we just realise it is pure nonsense.
It does.The only way for it to address the issue is if you accept that it means that there is something to use as leverage/push against and thus that rockets can work in a vacuum.
It seems like that doesn't it.Yes you gave him a shot, but he would rather have the money from his bosses not to understand.I knew it was a complete waste of time with you but I gave you a shot.You run at it on your own, under your own energy.
Is there sponge in the room to push me out through that door, or I run out on my own?
Explain what would happen.
If I run on my own, I can decide not to. :)
If I run on my own (unlike gas in chamber), my feet would push the floor backwards.
If the room is fixed to the ground, room floor (and the whole room) would have support and wouldn't move.
If the room was at some boat, it would move backward with momentum equal to
my momentum forward, minus the water drag.
Door opened or closed have no influence. (Rocket apperture and nozzle are always open.)
After I go through the door I could decide if I will keep running those 10 feet across the dirt in front.
From that point on, my movement has no further influence on the room.
If I later run into the sponge, it would compress where my body hits it.
Did you not get the " not on a latch" bit?You run at it on your own, under your own energy.
Is there sponge in the room to push me out through that door, or I run out on my own?
Explain what would happen.
You would run into the door and bounce off as the door isn't open. What do you think would happen?
Rockets work in a vacuum.No they don't.
Because after all this time you still haven't grasped what I put forward. You simply haven't and you can sit and argue that you have all day long. You cannot grasp what I'm telling you. If that's deliberate then fair enough but it's your time you're wasting by playing this game.There's a problem here. You claim that as the gas is escaping it's no longer pushing on the pressure gauge. But when you close the valve, the gas presses on the gauge and you get a pressure reading.Only if there's gauge pressure inside the container as you close the valve, It will then stop expanding out of the valve and immediately be rendered equalised meaning it tries to expand against all sides.
Again, this is where your musing fails. Gas doesn't just stop expanding in all directions because you create an opening at one end of a container. If that were the case, like mentioned many times before, as soon as the valve is opened the gauge would literally drop to zero. It doesn't. It lowers in direct correspondence to the amount of gas/pressure released. If the valve is halfway open, the gauge will slowly go down. If the gauge is opened 3/4 of the way, the gauge will go down quicker, accordingly.
There's a direct correlation between how/what the gauge reads and the amount of and at what rate the gas is being released. The only way for that to occur is for the gas to still be pressing on the gauge. i.e., expansion. There's no other way around that fact I'm afraid.
If you genuinely don't get it then you need to pay more attention.
QFTRockets work in a vacuum.No they don't.
Yes they do work :).Rockets work in a vacuum :).No they don't :(.
Hoppy, a word of advice! Don't venture into the upper fora or you might get lost.QFTRockets work in a vacuum.No they don't.
It seems like that doesn't it.Not to any sane, logical person.
If you open the valve more you allow more molecules to expand out meaning the faster they all start to follow suit, meaning the gauge spring pushes faster, meaning the gauge needle shows a faster rate of pressure release.Because after all this time you still haven't grasped what I put forward. You simply haven't and you can sit and argue that you have all day long. You cannot grasp what I'm telling you. If that's deliberate then fair enough but it's your time you're wasting by playing this game.There's a problem here. You claim that as the gas is escaping it's no longer pushing on the pressure gauge. But when you close the valve, the gas presses on the gauge and you get a pressure reading.Only if there's gauge pressure inside the container as you close the valve, It will then stop expanding out of the valve and immediately be rendered equalised meaning it tries to expand against all sides.
Again, this is where your musing fails. Gas doesn't just stop expanding in all directions because you create an opening at one end of a container. If that were the case, like mentioned many times before, as soon as the valve is opened the gauge would literally drop to zero. It doesn't. It lowers in direct correspondence to the amount of gas/pressure released. If the valve is halfway open, the gauge will slowly go down. If the gauge is opened 3/4 of the way, the gauge will go down quicker, accordingly.
There's a direct correlation between how/what the gauge reads and the amount of and at what rate the gas is being released. The only way for that to occur is for the gas to still be pressing on the gauge. i.e., expansion. There's no other way around that fact I'm afraid.
If you genuinely don't get it then you need to pay more attention.
It's not that I haven't 'grasped' what you've put forward. It's just that what you've put forward fails to make sense in reality. How would the gauge go down at the speed corresponding with how much the valve is opened if there was nothing pressing on the gauge?
If I open the valve all the way the gauge will go down faster than if I open the valve only halfway. How does the gauge know to make that corresponding adjustment if there's nothing pressing on the gauge to cause a reading? Because, you know, that's how the millions of pressure gauges in the world work.
Most of it but not all of it.
Again, do you accept that if you have a tube of compressed gas, in avacuumextreme low pressure, with one end open that the gas will leave the tube?
If so, as you claim that such motion is impossible in space as there is no atmosphere to push off, just how is the gas leaving? What is it pushing off which magically works for the gas but not the rocket?It's own expansion from being compressed, like I told you.
Dismiss these argument which show you have no case at all, just further shows you have no case.I've not only not dismissed them I've told you enough times already. It's you that dismisses them and is why you generally get very little answers when you repeat the same thing.
Did you not get the " not on a latch" bit?You run at it on your own, under your own energy.
Is there sponge in the room to push me out through that door, or I run out on my own?
Explain what would happen.
You would run into the door and bounce off as the door isn't open. What do you think would happen?
But a door not on a latch can still be closed.Did you not get the " not on a latch" bit?You run at it on your own, under your own energy.
Is there sponge in the room to push me out through that door, or I run out on my own?
Explain what would happen.
You would run into the door and bounce off as the door isn't open. What do you think would happen?
Read the above quote and tell me prior to you saying "not on a latch", where does it say "not on a latch" in what I quoted.
As well, why not say the door is open.
And a door not latched does not mean open.
But a door not on a latch can still be closed.Did you not get the " not on a latch" bit?You run at it on your own, under your own energy.
Is there sponge in the room to push me out through that door, or I run out on my own?
Explain what would happen.
You would run into the door and bounce off as the door isn't open. What do you think would happen?
Read the above quote and tell me prior to you saying "not on a latch", where does it say "not on a latch" in what I quoted.
As well, why not say the door is open.
And a door not latched does not mean open.
If you had just took notice instead of going into skew tactics I would've got to it but you're not worth the effort to be fair.But a door not on a latch can still be closed.Did you not get the " not on a latch" bit?You run at it on your own, under your own energy.
Is there sponge in the room to push me out through that door, or I run out on my own?
Explain what would happen.
You would run into the door and bounce off as the door isn't open. What do you think would happen?
Read the above quote and tell me prior to you saying "not on a latch", where does it say "not on a latch" in what I quoted.
As well, why not say the door is open.
And a door not latched does not mean open.
And what happens when you run into a closed door?
If you had just took notice instead of going into skew tactics I would've got to it but you're not worth the effort to be fair.But a door not on a latch can still be closed.Did you not get the " not on a latch" bit?You run at it on your own, under your own energy.
Is there sponge in the room to push me out through that door, or I run out on my own?
Explain what would happen.
You would run into the door and bounce off as the door isn't open. What do you think would happen?
Read the above quote and tell me prior to you saying "not on a latch", where does it say "not on a latch" in what I quoted.
As well, why not say the door is open.
And a door not latched does not mean open.
And what happens when you run into a closed door?
If you open the valve more you allow more molecules to expand out meaning the faster they all start to follow suit, meaning the gauge spring pushes faster, meaning the gauge needle shows a faster rate of pressure release.Because the pressure inside is decreasing faster.
Most of it but not all of it.Which means your prior claims about motion in this vacuum are completley wrong as if they were true, it couldn't leave.
You mean like you have repeatedly avoided the issue?Quote from: JackBlackIf so, as you claim that such motion is impossible in space as there is no atmosphere to push off, just how is the gas leaving? What is it pushing off which magically works for the gas but not the rocket?It's own expansion from being compressed, like I told you.
I've not only not dismissed them I've told you enough times already. It's you that dismisses them and is why you generally get very little answers when you repeat the same thing.Telling me you have dismissed them doesn't help either.
If you open the valve more you allow more molecules to expand out meaning the faster they all start to follow suit, meaning the gauge spring pushes faster, meaning the gauge needle shows a faster rate of pressure release.Because after all this time you still haven't grasped what I put forward. You simply haven't and you can sit and argue that you have all day long. You cannot grasp what I'm telling you. If that's deliberate then fair enough but it's your time you're wasting by playing this game.There's a problem here. You claim that as the gas is escaping it's no longer pushing on the pressure gauge. But when you close the valve, the gas presses on the gauge and you get a pressure reading.Only if there's gauge pressure inside the container as you close the valve, It will then stop expanding out of the valve and immediately be rendered equalised meaning it tries to expand against all sides.
Again, this is where your musing fails. Gas doesn't just stop expanding in all directions because you create an opening at one end of a container. If that were the case, like mentioned many times before, as soon as the valve is opened the gauge would literally drop to zero. It doesn't. It lowers in direct correspondence to the amount of gas/pressure released. If the valve is halfway open, the gauge will slowly go down. If the gauge is opened 3/4 of the way, the gauge will go down quicker, accordingly.
There's a direct correlation between how/what the gauge reads and the amount of and at what rate the gas is being released. The only way for that to occur is for the gas to still be pressing on the gauge. i.e., expansion. There's no other way around that fact I'm afraid.
If you genuinely don't get it then you need to pay more attention.
It's not that I haven't 'grasped' what you've put forward. It's just that what you've put forward fails to make sense in reality. How would the gauge go down at the speed corresponding with how much the valve is opened if there was nothing pressing on the gauge?
If I open the valve all the way the gauge will go down faster than if I open the valve only halfway. How does the gauge know to make that corresponding adjustment if there's nothing pressing on the gauge to cause a reading? Because, you know, that's how the millions of pressure gauges in the world work.
When the container is sealed the gas is in equal compression, meaning each gas molecule is compressed and trying to expand against each other....but can't because there's no opening for expansion.
If the gas wasn't still pushing on the gauge, how quickly the gas left wouldn't matter.
Let me try and make this easier. (I'm absolutely sure you'll have difficulty in this and skew it)
What's the gauge spring pushing faster against?
Let me try and make this easier. (I'm absolutely sure you'll have difficulty in this and skew it)
What's the gauge spring pushing faster against?
Imagine a bath with a pressure gauge on it that, as you fill the bath the gauge reacts to the air pressure in the pipe as the water is pushing that air up and compressing it against the gauge needle.
I'm sure you can understand this.
Ok, you fill the bath and the gauge needle says it's full because the air inside the tube is now compressed enough to keep that gauge at that full point because the gauge spring can't push the air away and the air cannot compress any more because the dense water has stopped pushing that air. We now have a sealed unit where there is a POSITIVE pressure on that gauge spring and that gauge spring has a positive push due to it being compressed and storing potential energy but is reliant on it being allowed to be expanded.
Now pull the plug out and think of this as opening a valve.
Once that water starts to go out of the plug hole, so does the compressed air expand out of the tube and gauge and the gauge spring decompresses in following that. No positive pressure is applied to the spring. The spring is now applying the positive pressure behind the air as it turns that potential energy into energy by being allowed to expand that spring, which means you see the pointer drop.
There is zero positive pressure in the opposite direction to the plug hole/valve/nozzle.
When the container is sealed the gas is in equal compression, meaning each gas molecule is compressed and trying to expand against each other....but can't because there's no opening for expansion.Rambling off the same nonsense with your false definitions doesn't help your case.
Put this mindset towards a rocketAnd you will get no where because it is just pure nonsense.
You can happily go against this as you obviously will. That's fine. Just accept that I will not be changing my mindI know you likely wont change your mind as you have no concern at all for the truth, but how about being honest for once and admit you aren't looking for logical people at all.
When the container is sealed the gas is in equal compression, meaning each gas molecule is compressed and trying to expand against each other....but can't because there's no opening for expansion.
If the gas wasn't still pushing on the gauge, how quickly the gas left wouldn't matter.
The gauge spring is also compressed and this shows on the needle. It's positively pushed against.
However, once that valve is opened, the gas immediately at the valve opening expands out against the external environment and every other gas inside starts to expand in a chain reaction towards that valve opening.
The gauge spring is not positively pushed against as this happens. The gauge spring now does what the gas is doing in following that chain reaction which is why you see the gauge needle drop as long as that valve remains open.
If you open that valve a little then the needle will fall a little because the spring is not positively pushed agaiuned, it's now expanding itself with the gas flow of expansion.
The result is, no positive force is pushed in the opposite direction to the valve opening.
Put this mindset towards a rocket and it's clear to see why rockets do not work on the principle of internal push, because there is zero positive push.
It means something has to be a resistance to that consistent flow coming from the valve/nozzle and we have it. It's called ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE.
Now let's make this clear.
You can happily go against this as you obviously will. That's fine. Just accept that I will not be changing my mind and also accept that this is my explanation and everytime you ask me the same question and then telling me I haven't explained, I'll cut out everything of your post and answer one or two words.
I'm just letting you know.
If you persist in going on then so be it.
There is a pressure resistance. I've been telling you all along but you refuse to see it for some strange reason.Let me try and make this easier. (I'm absolutely sure you'll have difficulty in this and skew it)
What's the gauge spring pushing faster against?
Imagine a bath with a pressure gauge on it that, as you fill the bath the gauge reacts to the air pressure in the pipe as the water is pushing that air up and compressing it against the gauge needle.
I'm sure you can understand this.
Ok, you fill the bath and the gauge needle says it's full because the air inside the tube is now compressed enough to keep that gauge at that full point because the gauge spring can't push the air away and the air cannot compress any more because the dense water has stopped pushing that air. We now have a sealed unit where there is a POSITIVE pressure on that gauge spring and that gauge spring has a positive push due to it being compressed and storing potential energy but is reliant on it being allowed to be expanded.
Now pull the plug out and think of this as opening a valve.
Once that water starts to go out of the plug hole, so does the compressed air expand out of the tube and gauge and the gauge spring decompresses in following that. No positive pressure is applied to the spring. The spring is now applying the positive pressure behind the air as it turns that potential energy into energy by being allowed to expand that spring, which means you see the pointer drop.
There is zero positive pressure in the opposite direction to the plug hole/valve/nozzle.
Nope, still doesn't work. When the valve is opened, the gauge goes down in accordance with how fast the pressure is being released. Open the valve more, the gauge goes down faster, open it less, the gauge goes down slower. I'm sure you understand this.
There must be some pressure resistance on the gauge that tells the gauge at what speed it needs to go down. Otherwise, the gauge would immediately drop to zero regardless of whether the valve was opened fully, partially or somewhere in between. I'm sure you understand this.
You realize that how you want pressure gauges to work is not how any pressure gauges work the world over? Now pressure gauges are part of our indoctrinated sheep-like populace conspiracy? At a certain point you have to face at least some simple, rudimentary facts. I mean c'mon.You do realise I'm giving out alternate thought to what we're told, don't you?
So how does the gauge know to go down at the speed in accordance to the amount of pressure being released? None of your explanations address this.It goes down at whatever rate of expansion allows it to go down.
Until you can actually deal with this problem, all you have is pathetic BS.So why are you giving me the time of day?
If that's how they worked you would blow your rocket to smithereens.When the container is sealed the gas is in equal compression, meaning each gas molecule is compressed and trying to expand against each other....but can't because there's no opening for expansion.
If the gas wasn't still pushing on the gauge, how quickly the gas left wouldn't matter.
The gauge spring is also compressed and this shows on the needle. It's positively pushed against.
However, once that valve is opened, the gas immediately at the valve opening expands out against the external environment and every other gas inside starts to expand in a chain reaction towards that valve opening.
The gauge spring is not positively pushed against as this happens. The gauge spring now does what the gas is doing in following that chain reaction which is why you see the gauge needle drop as long as that valve remains open.
If you open that valve a little then the needle will fall a little because the spring is not positively pushed agaiuned, it's now expanding itself with the gas flow of expansion.
The result is, no positive force is pushed in the opposite direction to the valve opening.
Put this mindset towards a rocket and it's clear to see why rockets do not work on the principle of internal push, because there is zero positive push.
It means something has to be a resistance to that consistent flow coming from the valve/nozzle and we have it. It's called ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE.
Now let's make this clear.
You can happily go against this as you obviously will. That's fine. Just accept that I will not be changing my mind and also accept that this is my explanation and everytime you ask me the same question and then telling me I haven't explained, I'll cut out everything of your post and answer one or two words.
I'm just letting you know.
If you persist in going on then so be it.
Real rockets don't have needles, springs, nozzle valves, blocked and unblocked flow, ...
Real rockets pump fuel and oxidizer into the combustion chamber and burn it there,
which increases the pressure inside and pushes some mass of gas out (backward).
It is long-lasting controlled explosion, with intensity regulated by flow of fuel and oxidizer.
Every explosion generates pressure (force per area) in all directions and pushes all matter away from the center.
Gas does not get out on its own, it gets pushed. (And not only gas.)
You can't push (accelerate) any mass without force.
And you can't have any force without the adequate reaction force.
There is a pressure resistance. I've been telling you all along but you refuse to see it for some strange reason.And the point we are making is that you are just lying about what the words mean.
The point I'm making is, it's a negative one, not a positive one.
It goes down at whatever rate of expansion allows it to go down.Which only makes sense if it is still applying pressure to the gauge.
Put some effortFollow your own advice.
You cannot have free space between molecules.Prove it.
So why are you giving me the time of day?Because unlike you, I actually care about the truth, so I will continue calling out your pathetic BS.
If that's how they worked you would blow your rocket to smithereens.Why?
If that's how they worked you would blow your rocket to smithereens.When the container is sealed the gas is in equal compression, meaning each gas molecule is compressed and trying to expand against each other....but can't because there's no opening for expansion.
If the gas wasn't still pushing on the gauge, how quickly the gas left wouldn't matter.
The gauge spring is also compressed and this shows on the needle. It's positively pushed against.
However, once that valve is opened, the gas immediately at the valve opening expands out against the external environment and every other gas inside starts to expand in a chain reaction towards that valve opening.
The gauge spring is not positively pushed against as this happens. The gauge spring now does what the gas is doing in following that chain reaction which is why you see the gauge needle drop as long as that valve remains open.
If you open that valve a little then the needle will fall a little because the spring is not positively pushed agaiuned, it's now expanding itself with the gas flow of expansion.
The result is, no positive force is pushed in the opposite direction to the valve opening.
Put this mindset towards a rocket and it's clear to see why rockets do not work on the principle of internal push, because there is zero positive push.
It means something has to be a resistance to that consistent flow coming from the valve/nozzle and we have it. It's called ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE.
Now let's make this clear.
You can happily go against this as you obviously will. That's fine. Just accept that I will not be changing my mind and also accept that this is my explanation and everytime you ask me the same question and then telling me I haven't explained, I'll cut out everything of your post and answer one or two words.
I'm just letting you know.
If you persist in going on then so be it.
Real rockets don't have needles, springs, nozzle valves, blocked and unblocked flow, ...
Real rockets pump fuel and oxidizer into the combustion chamber and burn it there,
which increases the pressure inside and pushes some mass of gas out (backward).
It is long-lasting controlled explosion, with intensity regulated by flow of fuel and oxidizer.
Every explosion generates pressure (force per area) in all directions and pushes all matter away from the center.
Gas does not get out on its own, it gets pushed. (And not only gas.)
You can't push (accelerate) any mass without force.
And you can't have any force without the adequate reaction force.
We're told they work like that because to tell it like it really is would render space rockets as the fantasy they really are.
Until you can actually deal with this problem, all you have is pathetic BS.So why are you giving me the time of day?
Aren't there more pressing things for you to be getting on with?
ok, 82 pages and you have learned nothing. Got it.Until you can actually deal with this problem, all you have is pathetic BS.So why are you giving me the time of day?
Aren't there more pressing things for you to be getting on with?
How ON EARTH are these flattards managing to continue this nonsense for 82 pages...
It beggars belief...
Correction: radioflat is not a resident of that Mythical Land of Flatardia so he's saying that sceptimatic has learned nothing.ok, 82 pages and you have learned nothing. Got it.Until you can actually deal with this problem, all you have is pathetic BS.So why are you giving me the time of day?
Aren't there more pressing things for you to be getting on with?
How ON EARTH are these flattards managing to continue this nonsense for 82 pages...
It beggars belief...
No, I'm not lying. You not understanding what they mean in what I'm saying is your issue but it isn't me lying.There is a pressure resistance. I've been telling you all along but you refuse to see it for some strange reason.And the point we are making is that you are just lying about what the words mean.
The point I'm making is, it's a negative one, not a positive one.
It is still a positive pressure. Even with it being less than before, it is still positive.
It's a burn not an internal explosion in any form or your rocket would be a crumpled, shattered mess in short order.
For those "smithereens" the regulated explosion would have to be much stronger.
(The dosage of fuel and oxidizer pumped in would have to be much higher.)
It's called not giving up and rattling globalb heads who have a mission to ensure nobody actually see through the global nonsense.Until you can actually deal with this problem, all you have is pathetic BS.So why are you giving me the time of day?
Aren't there more pressing things for you to be getting on with?
How ON EARTH are these flattards managing to continue this nonsense for 82 pages...
It beggars belief...
Of course you've learned. It's been put on a platter for you and a set of equations to say it works.
Correction: radioflat is not a resident of that Mythical Land of Flatardia so he's saying that sceptimatic has learned nothing.
We, on the other hand, have learned plenty about little details of how rockets work and the significance of the well-known thrust equation: (https://www.dropbox.com/s/0c7ice3pw4egizz/Rocket%20Thrust%20Equation.png?dl=1).
No, I'm not lying.You are literally trying to redefine words to pretend the pressure is negative rather than positive.
It's my theory.No, it isn't. It is your collection of incoherent ideas which have no chance of explaining reality.
It's a burn not an internal explosion in any form or your rocket would be a crumpled, shattered mess in short order.This depends entirely upon how you define explosion.
It's a controlled burn against atmospheric resistance. It really is as simple as thatAgain, the atmosphere has nothing to do with it.
far too simple for a space rocket because a space rocket has to cut out the obviousNo, that would be you. You need to cut out the obvious and act oblivious to pretend they can't work in space.
The only thing that shocks me about people believing this space rocket stuff is, anyone who's taken a short amount of time to use their logic and still accepts space rockets.Why would people believing things supported by logic shock you? Are you surprised that people aren't as foolish as you hoped?
It's called not giving up and rattling globalb heads who have a mission to ensure nobody actually see through the global nonsense.You mean to try and prevent people from realising you are just spouting pure nonsense and accepting the reality of a round Earth.
It does against the gauge which is what the argument was about and why I used what I used.No, I'm not lying.You are literally trying to redefine words to pretend the pressure is negative rather than positive.
That is lying.
Just because the pressure is dropping doesn't mean it is negative.
It does against the gauge which is what the argument was about and why I used what I used.No, I'm not lying.You are literally trying to redefine words to pretend the pressure is negative rather than positive.
That is lying.
Just because the pressure is dropping doesn't mean it is negative.
Pay attention and you wouldn't need to continually regurgitate.
You believe that you are the "one"?One what?
For those "smithereens" the regulated explosion would have to be much stronger.It's a burn not an internal explosion in any form or your rocket would be a crumpled, shattered mess in short order.
(The dosage of fuel and oxidizer pumped in would have to be much higher.)
It's a controlled burn against atmospheric resistance. It really is as simple as that but far too simple for a space rocket because a space rocket has to cut out the obvious and this is why the internal explosion nonsense comes about.
The only thing that shocks me about people believing this space rocket stuff is, anyone who's taken a short amount of time to use their logic and still accepts space rockets.
Those who accept them on face value are fine by me, because they don't know any better.
It does against the gauge which is what the argument was about and why I used what I used.No, it doesn't.
Pay attention and you wouldn't need to continually regurgitate.
Don't tell me that walls hold pressure to allow explosions to lift a rocket when we're told a number of 3000 (yes, three thousand) tonne rockets supposedly launched in the 60's....etc.
Let me remind you that explosion IS a burn that generates pressure.
You DO know that the intensity is regulated to be insufficient to break the combustion chamber walls.
The walls contain the pressure increase, so the pressure pushes gas only through the nozzle.
You are also very well aware that no burn needs atmosphere when the oxygen is supplied from an oxidizer.No atmosphere, no burn. Pretty simple.
The pressure inside the combustion chamber will build up regardless of the presence of an atmosphere.Pressure actually would if it really worked as you say. But guess what? Your rocket would be left in a heap on the floor after a pressurised explosion. It would go nowhere and literally be a standing bomb.
We know that you DO know these things, but still continue to blur them by sneaking your own "explanation" in.Of course I know these things. I know what people like yourself has been schooled into. The difference is, I don't buy into the nonsense of it.
Is the purpose of that behavior to hide the reality from yourself, or to deceive those who don't know enough?The purpose is very simple. To ensure that people know I don't buy into it.
The direction is not still the same.It does against the gauge which is what the argument was about and why I used what I used.No, it doesn't.
Pay attention and you wouldn't need to continually regurgitate.
It is still pushing against the gauge, the direction is still the same, so the pressure is still positive.
Pressure in a fluid (a gas or a liquid) is a scalar and does not have any direction.No, it doesn't.The direction is not still the same.
It is still pushing against the gauge, the direction is still the same, so the pressure is still positive.
Don't tell me that walls hold pressure to allow explosions to lift a rocket when we're told a number of 3000 (yes, three thousand) tonne rockets supposedly launched in the 60's....etc.Yes, this is how ridiculous it gets.
This is how ridiculous it gets so don;t even bother with this nonsense.
No atmosphere, no burn. Pretty simple.No, not simple at all.
Your rocket would be left in a heap on the floor after a pressurised explosion. It would go nowhere and literally be a standing bomb.Again, you have literally nothing to back this up.
Of course I know these things.If you actually knew these things you would be able to justify your insanity instead of just repeating it.
The direction is not still the same.So you have a pressure gauge on a tank oriented horizontally.
Don't tell me that walls hold pressure to allow explosions to lift a rocket when we're told a number of 3000 (yes, three thousand) tonne rockets supposedly launched in the 60's....etc.
Wrong.Pressure in a fluid (a gas or a liquid) is a scalar and does not have any direction.No, it doesn't.The direction is not still the same.
It is still pushing against the gauge, the direction is still the same, so the pressure is still positive.
?
And again, figured out how your gas can move when you claim such motion is impossible?
The internal to external expansion of gases against the atmosphere becoming more compressed and resisting it. This is what the rocket sits on....and no I don't mean 3000 tonne so called space rockets. They don't exist.Don't tell me that walls hold pressure to allow explosions to lift a rocket when we're told a number of 3000 (yes, three thousand) tonne rockets supposedly launched in the 60's....etc.
If the pressure is unbearable for the "3000 tonne rocket", then what lifts it off the ground?
The internal to external expansion of gases against the atmosphere becoming more compressed and resisting it. This is what the rocket sits on....and no I don't mean 3000 tonne so called space rockets. They don't exist.Don't tell me that walls hold pressure to allow explosions to lift a rocket when we're told a number of 3000 (yes, three thousand) tonne rockets supposedly launched in the 60's....etc.
If the pressure is unbearable for the "3000 tonne rocket", then what lifts it off the ground?
The lot of it.The internal to external expansion of gases against the atmosphere becoming more compressed and resisting it. This is what the rocket sits on....and no I don't mean 3000 tonne so called space rockets. They don't exist.Don't tell me that walls hold pressure to allow explosions to lift a rocket when we're told a number of 3000 (yes, three thousand) tonne rockets supposedly launched in the 60's....etc.
If the pressure is unbearable for the "3000 tonne rocket", then what lifts it off the ground?
And what exact part of the rocket is sitting on this?
The lot of it.The internal to external expansion of gases against the atmosphere becoming more compressed and resisting it. This is what the rocket sits on....and no I don't mean 3000 tonne so called space rockets. They don't exist.Don't tell me that walls hold pressure to allow explosions to lift a rocket when we're told a number of 3000 (yes, three thousand) tonne rockets supposedly launched in the 60's....etc.
If the pressure is unbearable for the "3000 tonne rocket", then what lifts it off the ground?
And what exact part of the rocket is sitting on this?
What does a hovercraft sit on?
The internal to external expansion of gases against the atmosphere becoming more compressed and resisting it. This is what the rocket sits on....and no I don't mean 3000 tonne so called space rockets. They don't exist.Don't tell me that walls hold pressure to allow explosions to lift a rocket when we're told a number of 3000 (yes, three thousand) tonne rockets supposedly launched in the 60's....etc.
If the pressure is unbearable for the "3000 tonne rocket", then what lifts it off the ground?
Nothing will fly in a vacuum, just so you understand.
Ah! Maybe we should change the name of this thread to "Hovercraft can't fly in a vacuum".
Might be less than 80-odd pages then.
The lot of it.The internal to external expansion of gases against the atmosphere becoming more compressed and resisting it. This is what the rocket sits on....and no I don't mean 3000 tonne so called space rockets. They don't exist.Don't tell me that walls hold pressure to allow explosions to lift a rocket when we're told a number of 3000 (yes, three thousand) tonne rockets supposedly launched in the 60's....etc.
If the pressure is unbearable for the "3000 tonne rocket", then what lifts it off the ground?
And what exact part of the rocket is sitting on this?
What does a hovercraft sit on?
Clearly it does mean something. You managed to get it.The internal to external expansion of gases against the atmosphere becoming more compressed and resisting it. This is what the rocket sits on....and no I don't mean 3000 tonne so called space rockets. They don't exist.Don't tell me that walls hold pressure to allow explosions to lift a rocket when we're told a number of 3000 (yes, three thousand) tonne rockets supposedly launched in the 60's....etc.
If the pressure is unbearable for the "3000 tonne rocket", then what lifts it off the ground?
Your word salad means nothing.
"Internal to external expansion" means that the pressure inside is higher than the pressure outside.
Saturn V used Rocketdyne F-1 engine, which had chamber pressure of 70 bar (69 atm).If a rocket had an engine like this F1 it would not work.
At the Earth surface the difference is 68 atm (external pressure is 1 atm), and up there is 69 atm (external pressure is virtually zero).
Lower pressure difference at the surface means slower exhaust and lower thrust.
In reality, the thrust of F-1 at surface is 6770 kN and in vacuum 7770 kN.
That is because in the atmospere the exhaust speed is 2.58 km/sec compared to 2.98 km/sec in vacuum.
Now multiply that with the mass of the exhaust and the number of engines and tell us that
the rocket can push all that without force, regardless of the presence of the atmosphere around.
And that force can get away without reaction force back to the rocket?
1 bar of the atmospheric pressure sitting outside can hold the rocket,
and 70 bar of the chamber pressure pushing through the nozle can't? :)
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/f6I8PL.png)
As soon as you show me exactly what you believe that water rocket is doing by clearly pointing it out on a diagram of your doing and I'll happily do one showing you how it really works.The lot of it.The internal to external expansion of gases against the atmosphere becoming more compressed and resisting it. This is what the rocket sits on....and no I don't mean 3000 tonne so called space rockets. They don't exist.Don't tell me that walls hold pressure to allow explosions to lift a rocket when we're told a number of 3000 (yes, three thousand) tonne rockets supposedly launched in the 60's....etc.
If the pressure is unbearable for the "3000 tonne rocket", then what lifts it off the ground?
And what exact part of the rocket is sitting on this?
What does a hovercraft sit on?
The whole bottom of the hovercraft.
Draw a water rocket tube.
Highlight the portion that isbbeing pushed upwards from below.
NopeIt just goes to show that you have zero clue how a rocket really works.
This is classic delfection of your part.
You did it to me too many tinmes in your denP.
Ask for RE theory then wave it away after everyone forgets you failed to produce anything yourself.
"Classic" physics is well documented.
Your DenP is not.
Feel free to draw where the rocket is lifted.
Or run away.
If a rocket had an engine like this F1 it would not work.
This engine is just a gimmick.
A real rocket would act like a Firework.
None of this throttle garbage.
Just ignite and immediate full thrusting burn until fuel emptied in short order.
No, while pressure at a surface has a direction, for a fluid it is the same in all directions and thus does not have a direction, just a value.Pressure in a fluid (a gas or a liquid) is a scalar and does not have any direction.Wrong.
?My questions were quite simple.
What does a hovercraft sit on?The high pressure gas below it which is pushing it upwards.
Nothing will fly in a vacuum, just so you understand.So you admit that your gas can't "fly" in a vacuum and thus must remain trapped inside the rocket?
If a rocket had an engine like this F1 it would not work.Why?
As soon as you show me exactly what you believe that water rocket is doing by clearly pointing it out on a diagram of your doing and I'll happily do one showing you how it really works.Stop lying.
Nothing will fly in a vacuum, just so you understand.So you keep saying but you can't even explain how to calculate the lift of an aircraft at various altitudes.
NopeIt just goes to show that you have zero clue how a rocket really works.
This is classic delfection of your part.
You did it to me too many tinmes in your denP.
Ask for RE theory then wave it away after everyone forgets you failed to produce anything yourself.
"Classic" physics is well documented.
Your DenP is not.
Feel free to draw where the rocket is lifted.
Or run away.
All you can do is basically regurgitate what's set up on a platter for you.
There's never any real explanation.
As for me backing out. I did this last time and you started playing your little games, so you can play act all you want.
Show me how your water rocket works by giving as much detail to what is actually happening from your point of view.
Once you do that I'll be more than happy to do one showing what really happens.
If a genuine person asks me to do one I'll consider doing it.
As for you; only when you put up.
Standing where and seeing what?If a rocket had an engine like this F1 it would not work.
This engine is just a gimmick.
A real rocket would act like a Firework.
None of this throttle garbage.
Just ignite and immediate full thrusting burn until fuel emptied in short order.
Gimmick?
Then how so many people were standing there and seeing it lifting those rockets?
Trying to hide the fact that the fuel is pumped into the chamber at a controled speed (and not all at once)?
And trying to run away from the fact that rocket can't accelerate the mass of exhaust without a force?
If the rotors were strong enough and fast enough and the skirt was more robust and larger, the hovercraft would work equally well in mid air but it can't because it would need amazing power and to gain that you need............................you need......to expand gases much more with.......with.....a BURN.
The high pressure gas below it which is pushing it upwards.
Just like with a rocket, the only thing that can push it up is the gas.
But this also shows a key difference between the hovercraft and the rocket.
The hovercraft needs a solid or liquid object to push against to keep that gas pressurised, as the pressure is based upon how quickly the gas can escape, and that is what controls its altitude. If it gets too close to the ground, the pressure increases as not as much gas can escape which pushes it up more. If it gets further away the pressure drops as more air escapes.
If the nonsense you are saying was true, and the air is fine to create that resistance then a hovercraft should work equally well in mid air. But it doesn't.
So this shows it isn't the air creating the resistance for the rocket.
No need to play around with equations to know everything requires an atmosphere in order to work.Nothing will fly in a vacuum, just so you understand.So you keep saying but you can't even explain how to calculate the lift of an aircraft at various altitudes.
Pushing the bottle up, how?NopeIt just goes to show that you have zero clue how a rocket really works.
This is classic delfection of your part.
You did it to me too many tinmes in your denP.
Ask for RE theory then wave it away after everyone forgets you failed to produce anything yourself.
"Classic" physics is well documented.
Your DenP is not.
Feel free to draw where the rocket is lifted.
Or run away.
All you can do is basically regurgitate what's set up on a platter for you.
There's never any real explanation.
As for me backing out. I did this last time and you started playing your little games, so you can play act all you want.
Show me how your water rocket works by giving as much detail to what is actually happening from your point of view.
Once you do that I'll be more than happy to do one showing what really happens.
If a genuine person asks me to do one I'll consider doing it.
As for you; only when you put up.
a typical soda bottle rocket
You have a 1 liter bottle
Have it filled halfway
Have a cork with a tube through the center, so air can be pumped in.
a clip that holds the cork on.
a pump to pump air in.
test one: fill the bottle halfway, put the cork in,
turn the bottle upside down,
Pull the Cork out, water starts to flow out as air flows in, the bottle goes know where.
Test two: fill the bottle halfway, put the cork in,
turn the bottle upside down, attach an air pump, pump air in,
remove clip holding the cork.
the air pressure above The water, pushes the water out at a Great speed, pushing the bottle up into the air.
Opposite and equal reaction.
If the rotors were strong enough and fast enough and the skirt was more robust and larger, the hovercraft would work equally well in mid air but it can't because it would need amazing power and to gain that you need............................you need......to expand gases much more with.......with.....a BURN.
The high pressure gas below it which is pushing it upwards.
Just like with a rocket, the only thing that can push it up is the gas.
But this also shows a key difference between the hovercraft and the rocket.
The hovercraft needs a solid or liquid object to push against to keep that gas pressurised, as the pressure is based upon how quickly the gas can escape, and that is what controls its altitude. If it gets too close to the ground, the pressure increases as not as much gas can escape which pushes it up more. If it gets further away the pressure drops as more air escapes.
If the nonsense you are saying was true, and the air is fine to create that resistance then a hovercraft should work equally well in mid air. But it doesn't.
So this shows it isn't the air creating the resistance for the rocket.
This is why your rocket works with atmosphere and why it lifts off quickly.
BUT.......BUT, not your fictional space rockets of supposed thousands of tonnage. It's complete nonsense and a joke on us......BUT, it is a good sci-fi carry on and people can buy into that if they wish.
No problem. I have zero interest in people like you so it's no issue for me.
You are right, you will remain in your cave, of reality, in which we cannot fathom. So I will leave your to it.
Standing where and seeing what?If a rocket had an engine like this F1 it would not work.
This engine is just a gimmick.
A real rocket would act like a Firework.
None of this throttle garbage.
Just ignite and immediate full thrusting burn until fuel emptied in short order.
Gimmick?
Then how so many people were standing there and seeing it lifting those rockets?
Trying to hide the fact that the fuel is pumped into the chamber at a controled speed (and not all at once)?
And trying to run away from the fact that rocket can't accelerate the mass of exhaust without a force?
One bar of atmosphere?Standing where and seeing what?If a rocket had an engine like this F1 it would not work.
This engine is just a gimmick.
A real rocket would act like a Firework.
None of this throttle garbage.
Just ignite and immediate full thrusting burn until fuel emptied in short order.
Gimmick?
Then how so many people were standing there and seeing it lifting those rockets?
Trying to hide the fact that the fuel is pumped into the chamber at a controled speed (and not all at once)?
And trying to run away from the fact that rocket can't accelerate the mass of exhaust without a force?
Near every big rocket launch site and watching the launch live.
Why those rockets (including Space X) don't "act like a firework"? :)
What is lifting them? 1 bar of the atmosphere, or 70 bar of the engine?
One bar of atmosphere?Standing where and seeing what?If a rocket had an engine like this F1 it would not work.
This engine is just a gimmick.
A real rocket would act like a Firework.
None of this throttle garbage.
Just ignite and immediate full thrusting burn until fuel emptied in short order.
Gimmick?
Then how so many people were standing there and seeing it lifting those rockets?
Trying to hide the fact that the fuel is pumped into the chamber at a controled speed (and not all at once)?
And trying to run away from the fact that rocket can't accelerate the mass of exhaust without a force?
Near every big rocket launch site and watching the launch live.
Why those rockets (including Space X) don't "act like a firework"? :)
What is lifting them? 1 bar of the atmosphere, or 70 bar of the engine?
No wonder you can't get your head around it.
Get it right and understand the action and reaction sequence.
Also don't just sit and give out the one bar as if that's it.
It's around 15 lbs per square inch of external pressure.
Per square inch.
Per square inch.
You have to try and push that 15 lbs per square inch away by creating a pressure to do just that.
Where's that pressure?
From the ignition of the gases coming from the rocket that hits and compresses that atmosphere to a much higher pressure to create a much higher resistance in that stack below, which creates the push back onto those gases of which the rocket basically rests on for a nano second and then a nano second and then a....well you get the point.
It's basically a gas fight as long as that rocket gas is burning at the strength (thrust) it's burning at into that super compressed resistance below.
What you are told is basically baloney but it needs to be baloney otherwise space rockets would be clearly shown to be the fantasy they really are.
And yet none of you can string together a response from your own minds. You have to look it all up and copy and paste diagrams that show nothing of what we're arguing.
It's more of a word salad fight than a 'gas fight'. This whole bit, "From the ignition of the gases coming from the rocket that hits and compresses that atmosphere to a much higher pressure to create a much higher resistance in that stack below, which creates the push back onto those gases of which the rocket basically rests on for a nano second and then a nano second and then a....well you get the point." is like Caesar with grilled chicken, dressing on the side. Wow, that's a whole bunch of words strung together that don't mean anything in aggregate.
It's more like:
"What you are told is basically baloney but it needs to be baloney otherwise space rockets would be clearly shown to work as advertised. Because I don't believe in 'space', pressure gauges, well studied biochemistry and how things work on a molecular level, I have concocted a musing, if you will, replete with strung together words regarding stacks and sponges and such and endeavor to pass it all off as a well founded theory. Yet, I never math, oh no. Nor experiment, absolutely not. Just me and my musings. Enjoy."
- Sceptimatic - 2019
The Saturn V had five Rocketdyne F-1 engines in the first stage - hence the name!Clearly it does mean something. You managed to get it.The internal to external expansion of gases against the atmosphere becoming more compressed and resisting it. This is what the rocket sits on....and no I don't mean 3000 tonne so called space rockets. They don't exist.Don't tell me that walls hold pressure to allow explosions to lift a rocket when we're told a number of 3000 (yes, three thousand) tonne rockets supposedly launched in the 60's....etc.
If the pressure is unbearable for the "3000 tonne rocket", then what lifts it off the ground?
Your word salad means nothing.
"Internal to external expansion" means that the pressure inside is higher than the pressure outside.Quote from: MacariosSaturn V used Rocketdyne F-1 engine, which had chamber pressure of 70 bar (69 atm).If a rocket had an engine like this F1 it would not work.
At the Earth surface the difference is 68 atm (external pressure is 1 atm), and up there is 69 atm (external pressure is virtually zero).
Lower pressure difference at the surface means slower exhaust and lower thrust.
In reality, the thrust of F-1 at surface is 6770 kN and in vacuum 7770 kN.
That is because in the atmospere the exhaust speed is 2.58 km/sec compared to 2.98 km/sec in vacuum.
Now multiply that with the mass of the exhaust and the number of engines and tell us that
the rocket can push all that without force, regardless of the presence of the atmosphere around.
And that force can get away without reaction force back to the rocket?
1 bar of the atmospheric pressure sitting outside can hold the rocket,
and 70 bar of the chamber pressure pushing through the nozle can't? :)
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/f6I8PL.png)
This engine is just a gimmick.What total crap you dream up!
A real rocket would act like a Firework.
None of this throttle garbage.
Just ignite and immediate full thrusting burn until fuel emptied in short order.Garbage! The F-1 engines in the Saturn V provided thrust for 165 seconds (2 min 45 secs).
And yet none of you can string together a response from your own minds. You have to look it all up and copy and paste diagrams that show nothing of what we're arguing.
It's more of a word salad fight than a 'gas fight'. This whole bit, "From the ignition of the gases coming from the rocket that hits and compresses that atmosphere to a much higher pressure to create a much higher resistance in that stack below, which creates the push back onto those gases of which the rocket basically rests on for a nano second and then a nano second and then a....well you get the point." is like Caesar with grilled chicken, dressing on the side. Wow, that's a whole bunch of words strung together that don't mean anything in aggregate.
It's more like:
"What you are told is basically baloney but it needs to be baloney otherwise space rockets would be clearly shown to work as advertised. Because I don't believe in 'space', pressure gauges, well studied biochemistry and how things work on a molecular level, I have concocted a musing, if you will, replete with strung together words regarding stacks and sponges and such and endeavor to pass it all off as a well founded theory. Yet, I never math, oh no. Nor experiment, absolutely not. Just me and my musings. Enjoy."
- Sceptimatic - 2019
When asked to show what you mean in easy detail, you can't and your argument comes down to, "we don;t need to."
If the rotors were strong enough and fast enoughi.e. if it was a helicopter, which relied upon moving atmosphere from above to below, rather than generating its own gas and pushes that away?
This is why your rocket works with atmosphere and why it lifts off quickly.You are yet to show how rockets work with atmosphere rather than just a lot of pressure.
It's complete nonsenseSo far the only nonsense in this thread is that presented by FEers trying to refute the reality of rockets working in space.
One bar of atmosphere?So reality gets in the way?
No wonder you can't get your head around it.
Get it right and understand the action and reaction sequence.We do. You are the one massively struggling with it.
It's around 15 lbs per square inch of external pressure.Or around 10 000 kg/m^2. Not much.
You have to try and push that 15 lbs per square inch away by creating a pressure to do just that.And the much higher pressure of the engine can easily do that, making it as if the atmosphere wasn't there.
What you are told is basically baloney but it needs to be baloney otherwise space rocketsYes, what you repeatedly say is baloney. But you need it to be otherwise they clearly show Earth is round, and you can't handle that.
And yet none of you can string together a response from your own minds.More pathetic lies.
Get it right and understand the action and reaction sequence.
How about you draw a diagram showing exactly how a rocket works.The Saturn V had five Rocketdyne F-1 engines in the first stage - hence the name!Clearly it does mean something. You managed to get it.The internal to external expansion of gases against the atmosphere becoming more compressed and resisting it. This is what the rocket sits on....and no I don't mean 3000 tonne so called space rockets. They don't exist.Don't tell me that walls hold pressure to allow explosions to lift a rocket when we're told a number of 3000 (yes, three thousand) tonne rockets supposedly launched in the 60's....etc.
If the pressure is unbearable for the "3000 tonne rocket", then what lifts it off the ground?
Your word salad means nothing.
"Internal to external expansion" means that the pressure inside is higher than the pressure outside.Quote from: MacariosSaturn V used Rocketdyne F-1 engine, which had chamber pressure of 70 bar (69 atm).If a rocket had an engine like this F1 it would not work.
At the Earth surface the difference is 68 atm (external pressure is 1 atm), and up there is 69 atm (external pressure is virtually zero).
Lower pressure difference at the surface means slower exhaust and lower thrust.
In reality, the thrust of F-1 at surface is 6770 kN and in vacuum 7770 kN.
That is because in the atmospere the exhaust speed is 2.58 km/sec compared to 2.98 km/sec in vacuum.
Now multiply that with the mass of the exhaust and the number of engines and tell us that
the rocket can push all that without force, regardless of the presence of the atmosphere around.
And that force can get away without reaction force back to the rocket?
1 bar of the atmospheric pressure sitting outside can hold the rocket,
and 70 bar of the chamber pressure pushing through the nozle can't? :)
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/f6I8PL.png)
So prove "it would not work" because the Saturn V obviously did work! Look:Quote from: sceptimaticThis engine is just a gimmick.What total crap you dream up!
A real rocket would act like a Firework.
None of this throttle garbage.
It was throttled by controlling the fuel flow rate. What's so strange about that?Quote from: sceptimaticJust ignite and immediate full thrusting burn until fuel emptied in short order.Garbage! The F-1 engines in the Saturn V provided thrust for 165 seconds (2 min 45 secs).
Do you get outside? I mean seriously?Do you?
Rockets do. Everything does, it's why everything works as it does.
You are yet to show how rockets work with atmosphere rather than just a lot of pressure.
As has already been pointed out, hovercraft use the atmosphere, as in they use fans/rotors which move it.
Rockets don't.
Rockets do. Everything does, it's why everything works as it does.
How about you draw a diagram showing exactly how a rocket works.https://www.google.com/search?q=diagram+showing+exactly+how+a+rocket+works
Nope, wrong again!You are yet to show how rockets work with atmosphere rather than just a lot of pressure.Rockets do. Everything does, it's why everything works as it does.
As has already been pointed out, hovercraft use the atmosphere, as in they use fans/rotors which move it.
Rockets don't.
The only issue with it all is the bullcrap we are fed with space rockets and what not.Nope!
How about you draw a diagram showing exactly how a rocket works.
Just point out what happened in thew diagram for that rocket to lift off and accelerate.
Because all I ever see you people do is bring up a load of old flannel that explains nothing, so now's your chance.
Explain it in enough detail to show exactly what's happening.
Ok, there you go.Here you go, like I promised.Just where is the reaction/leverage in this?
What is all the gas pushing against, or do you think gas can just magically push with no leverage at all?
If that is the case, what is wrong with the arrows being the other way around and pushing the rocket?
i.e. something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/9aX9YKp.png)
As you have repeatedly said, you need leverage/resistance to move.
So what is the gas using? Your arrows can't all be in one direction.
So just like always you deflect and don't bother providing an explanation at all.
So thanks for yet again showing your promises are worthless.
A bunch of arrows, ignoring key parts of your model, doesn't make an explanation.
My question remains unanswered, what is the gas using as leverage?
(https://i.postimg.cc/8khtmM2y/iTlCgNi.png) (https://postimages.org/)
They don't explain anything as to what's happening to get that rocket up.How about you draw a diagram showing exactly how a rocket works.https://www.google.com/search?q=diagram+showing+exactly+how+a+rocket+works
Then click on any of the links at all. Any of them. This isn't controversial physics.
Come on, man. You don't need to live in ignorance.
Like i said.Of course it doesn't require you to display anything. You're quite happy to copy and paste whatever is being argued against, as your so called proof, except these diagrams and what not, on rockets supposedly working without the aid of atmosphere, do not show anything that shows them to work without it.
Conventional physics is readily and widely welk docunented and doesnt require us to display it to you here.
You say your theory works.
Please provide the diagram showing what part of the rocket you think sits on the super compressed gas on gas fight below.
Wrong.
Rockets don't need the atmosphere to work, gravitation doesn't need the atmosphere to work, hence everything does not need the atmosphere to work.
It certainly doesn't. All we do need is for those who bypass reality to actually give us back the reality. That's all that's needed.
And, whatever you might dream up, reality does not need your approval, Mr SkeptiManiac.
Your problem is, you think I go against everything. I don't.
Whatever you claim, it is impossible to deduce how everything works from "common sense".
Deducing how out how everything works requires a tremendous amount of research and careful measurement.
One person, however smart he thinks he is, simply cannot do that - get used to that.
We simply have to rely on the work of others.
Yep, including a spinning globe and many many more theories.
If that wasn't true why would there be such a plethora of flat Earth "theories" none of which agree with each other.
Take for example the flat Earth "theories" presented in:
TFES.org: The Flat Earth Wiki (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Flat_Earth_Wiki),
Sandokhan's Advanced Flat Earth Theory (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.0) and
Your flat Denpressure Earth Theory described somewhere.
These are all vastly different so cannot all be correct - and after looking into them it seems far more likely that none are correct.
Rocket pushes the mass of the exhaust backwards with the force.What reaction?
Reaction to that force pushes the remaining mass of the rocket rocket forward.
Wheels of a ground vehicle push road backwards, the reaction pushes the vehicle forward.Using atmosphere in order to do so.
Ship propeller (or wheel at Mississipi, or paddles on boat) pushes water backwards, the reaction pushes the ship forward.Using water and atmosphere in order to do so.
Airplane propeller pushes the air backwards, the reaction pushes the airplane forward.Using atmosphere in order to do so. You're answering your own questions to be fair.
Rocket pushes exhaust backwards, the reaction pushes the rocket forward.
For more details you have tons of messages in this thread, and some videos at YouTube...There are no details on what I'm arguing against with how so called space rockets work.
He doesnt believe and will dismiss it all away with a simple hand wave.I'd like to see one from your side but nobody seems to have a clue.
Problem though is he cant replace it with anything.
Thsi is what YOU PEOPLE need to realise and focus.
Dont let him deflect.
Wheres the diagram scepti?
What part of the rocket is sitting on the gas-on-gas fight?
Imagine compressed gas exiting a container but as it does so, someone manages to push it right back at it, trying to push it back in....what happens?Ok, there you go.Here you go, like I promised.Just where is the reaction/leverage in this?
What is all the gas pushing against, or do you think gas can just magically push with no leverage at all?
If that is the case, what is wrong with the arrows being the other way around and pushing the rocket?
i.e. something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/9aX9YKp.png)
As you have repeatedly said, you need leverage/resistance to move.
So what is the gas using? Your arrows can't all be in one direction.
So just like always you deflect and don't bother providing an explanation at all.
So thanks for yet again showing your promises are worthless.
A bunch of arrows, ignoring key parts of your model, doesn't make an explanation.
My question remains unanswered, what is the gas using as leverage?
(https://i.postimg.cc/8khtmM2y/iTlCgNi.png) (https://postimages.org/)
We have exiting gas
And we have resisting atmosphere.
What part is pushing on the actual rocket (the black lines surrounding the red)?
Imagine compressed gas exiting a container but as it does so, someone manages to push it right back at it, trying to push it back in....what happens?Ok, there you go.Here you go, like I promised.Just where is the reaction/leverage in this?
What is all the gas pushing against, or do you think gas can just magically push with no leverage at all?
If that is the case, what is wrong with the arrows being the other way around and pushing the rocket?
i.e. something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/9aX9YKp.png)
As you have repeatedly said, you need leverage/resistance to move.
So what is the gas using? Your arrows can't all be in one direction.
So just like always you deflect and don't bother providing an explanation at all.
So thanks for yet again showing your promises are worthless.
A bunch of arrows, ignoring key parts of your model, doesn't make an explanation.
My question remains unanswered, what is the gas using as leverage?
(https://i.postimg.cc/8khtmM2y/iTlCgNi.png) (https://postimages.org/)
We have exiting gas
And we have resisting atmosphere.
What part is pushing on the actual rocket (the black lines surrounding the red)?
Incorrect. The fact that rockets don't need any atmosphere has been explained numerous times and demonstrated.Wrong.
Rockets don't need the atmosphere to work, gravitation doesn't need the atmosphere to work, hence everything does not need the atmosphere to work.
Just look in a mirror to learn one of those "who bypass reality".Quote from: rabinozIt certainly doesn't. All we do need is for those who bypass reality to actually give us back the reality. That's all that's needed.
And, whatever you might dream up, reality does not need your approval, Mr SkeptiManiac.
However, if that happens then we would have very little news to go on to play with our heads, from war propaganda to silly space adventures that get sillier every day.
You reject all of physics that goes against the hypotheses you dream up yet those hypotheses have no useful applications.Quote from: rabinozYour problem is, you think I go against everything. I don't.
Whatever you claim, it is impossible to deduce how everything works from "common sense".
Deducing how out how everything works requires a tremendous amount of research and careful measurement.
One person, however smart he thinks he is, simply cannot do that - get used to that.
We simply have to rely on the work of others.
I just don't trust a lot of stuff and also think a lot of stuff is told in an alternate way to the reality.Yes, it's all "your opinion" because you refuse to research the available material on these things that you claim are "are hidden behind a smokescreen".
They still work in reality but the explanations of how and why are hidden behind a smokescreen, in my opinion.
Nope, it does not include the rotating Globe.Quote from: rabinozYep, including a spinning globe and many many more theories.
If that wasn't true why would there be such a plethora of flat Earth "theories" none of which agree with each other.
Take for example the flat Earth "theories" presented in:
TFES.org: The Flat Earth Wiki (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Flat_Earth_Wiki),
Sandokhan's Advanced Flat Earth Theory (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.0) and
Your flat Denpressure Earth Theory described somewhere.
These are all vastly different so cannot all be correct - and after looking into them it seems far more likely that none are correct.
Finding which one is correct will take more than a tiny human with basic craft to fathom.That's already been done and that is why there is such a plethora of flat Earth models - none can possibly work because the Earth is not flat!
What's left?Simply admitting that it is impossible to develop a flat Earth model that "works".
It's all about putting it all together with the experiments (however small) we can all do to gain some kind of potential needle sized realism in a massive haystack of hypotheticals and basic lies.The experiments have been done and there were plenty done many centuries ago. You really should study up on the history of the shape of the Earth.
So there is pressure from the outside, pushing on the exiting, which pushes on the inside of the tube pushing the rocket up.Of course there's pressure from the outside and if this is the so called point you're trying to make then your rocket does not work in your vacuum.
Thata the point weve been trying to make way back on pg50 when you joined this party.
And the same point from the intercon't missile thread.
I will as soon as you or someone like you makes it clear as to how your rocket works in your vacuum.
And why do i ha e to imagine?
Finish your drawing.
Draw it properly.
Make it clear to all.
Have you took over from JackBlack or are you twins?Incorrect. The fact that rockets don't need any atmosphere has been explained numerous times and demonstrated.Wrong.
Rockets don't need the atmosphere to work, gravitation doesn't need the atmosphere to work, hence everything does not need the atmosphere to work.
Don't blame us for your inability or unwillingness to understand it.Quote from: sceptimaticJust look in a mirror to learn one of those "who bypass reality".Quote from: rabinozIt certainly doesn't. All we do need is for those who bypass reality to actually give us back the reality. That's all that's needed.
And, whatever you might dream up, reality does not need your approval, Mr SkeptiManiac.
However, if that happens then we would have very little news to go on to play with our heads, from war propaganda to silly space adventures that get sillier every day.
But the whole point is that the shape of the Earth is not a recent theory and predates any of your claimed "silly space adventures that get sillier every day" by millennia!Quote from: sceptimaticYou reject all of physics that goes against the hypotheses you dream up yet those hypotheses have no useful applications.Quote from: rabinozYour problem is, you think I go against everything. I don't.
Whatever you claim, it is impossible to deduce how everything works from "common sense".
Deducing how out how everything works requires a tremendous amount of research and careful measurement.
One person, however smart he thinks he is, simply cannot do that - get used to that.
We simply have to rely on the work of others.
Whenever you are asked to make a calculation based on those hypotheses you refuse because you can't.
But the real physics of gases and the atmosphere allows the design of aircraft and to predict just how they will fly and perform.Quote from: sceptimaticI just don't trust a lot of stuff and also think a lot of stuff is told in an alternate way to the reality.Yes, it's all "your opinion" because you refuse to research the available material on these things that you claim are "are hidden behind a smokescreen".
They still work in reality but the explanations of how and why are hidden behind a smokescreen, in my opinion.
But most of the theories about gases are based on the Gas Laws that were initially developed from experimental work as far back as 350 years (Boyle's Law). Back there the reasons for these laws were not known and that came later with the kinetic theory of gases, developed during the 1800s.Quote from: sceptimaticNope, it does not include the rotating Globe.Quote from: rabinozYep, including a spinning globe and many many more theories.
If that wasn't true why would there be such a plethora of flat Earth "theories" none of which agree with each other.
Take for example the flat Earth "theories" presented in:
TFES.org: The Flat Earth Wiki (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Flat_Earth_Wiki),
Sandokhan's Advanced Flat Earth Theory (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.0) and
Your flat Denpressure Earth Theory described somewhere.
These are all vastly different so cannot all be correct - and after looking into them it seems far more likely that none are correct.
That was developed gradually over millennia and for some 1800 years the Earth was thought "For truly it is an orb placed in the centre of the universe", the Venerable Bede, around 700 AD.
The Earth's being a slowly rotating was developed over the period from the late 1500s till the early 1700s.Quote from: sceptimaticFinding which one is correct will take more than a tiny human with basic craft to fathom.That's already been done and that is why there is such a plethora of flat Earth models - none can possibly work because the Earth is not flat!
A flat Earth is quite impossible.
One easily reason for this impossibility is that the real Earth has been circumnavigated in enough different directions that those doing it would have to meet the edge that any flat Earth must have.Quote from: sceptimaticWhat's left?Simply admitting that it is impossible to develop a flat Earth model that "works".Quote from: sceptimaticIt's all about putting it all together with the experiments (however small) we can all do to gain some kind of potential needle sized realism in a massive haystack of hypotheticals and basic lies.The experiments have been done and there were plenty done many centuries ago. You really should study up on the history of the shape of the Earth.
And you simply have to, sooner or later, simply face the fact that when it comes to the basic shape and movement of the Earth there is no "massive haystack of hypotheticals and basic lies".
There are still plenty of unknowns but on Earth these are simply very small details or inaccessible locations - such as deep underground.
So there is pressure from the outside, pushing on the exiting, which pushes on the inside of the tube pushing the rocket up.Of course there's pressure from the outside and if this is the so called point you're trying to make then your rocket does not work in your vacuum.
Thata the point weve been trying to make way back on pg50 when you joined this party.
And the same point from the intercon't missile thread.
I will as soon as you or someone like you makes it clear as to how your rocket works in your vacuum.
And why do i ha e to imagine?
Finish your drawing.
Draw it properly.
Make it clear to all.
Surely it can't be hard to do with you lot beating on about it like you are.
Nothing pushes on the inside of the tube, everything is done (as work) externally from the tube, hence why I said what I said earlier.So there is pressure from the outside, pushing on the exiting, which pushes on the inside of the tube pushing the rocket up.Of course there's pressure from the outside and if this is the so called point you're trying to make then your rocket does not work in your vacuum.
Thata the point weve been trying to make way back on pg50 when you joined this party.
And the same point from the intercon't missile thread.
Did you typo "out" or did you not see the bold underlined point i was trying to make?
If I have time today I might just knock up a rough drawing explaining everything from my side.I will as soon as you or someone like you makes it clear as to how your rocket works in your vacuum.
And why do i ha e to imagine?
Finish your drawing.
Draw it properly.
Make it clear to all.
Surely it can't be hard to do with you lot beating on about it like you are.
You already hand waved it away.
What you havent done is shown what is physically in contact with te water rocket to push it up.
Outside air - water - exiting gas - ??? - rocket.
Fill in the blank.
Have youNo and no.tooktaken over from JackBlack or are you twins?
I will as soon as you or someone like you makes it clear as to how your rocket works in your vacuum.
It's what creates the force and how it's created to accelerate a mass.I will as soon as you or someone like you makes it clear as to how your rocket works in your vacuum.
That's been done over and over! It's needs nothing more than Newton's 2nd Law of Motion, force = mass x acceleration
Surely you accept that bit of basic physics.
Nope. The pressure can be so low but it's not so low as to be indistinguishable from your vacuum. Why?
It's not "our vacuum"!
A perfect vacuum might not be possible but even on Earth a pressure so low that you could never tell the difference is quite possible.
I simply can't understand how anyone can believe a rocket can burn fuel inside of it to kick it's own arse into the sky or into so called fantasy space.It's easy!
It really does beggar belief...for those who have given plenty of thought to it, I mean.What really does beggar belief for me is why it is all difficult to accept and I have given the matter plenty of thought, believe me!
I challenge you to measure the difference between a pressure of 1 Pascal (about 1/100,000 th of normal atmospheric pressure) and a perfect vacuum. Yet a pressure of 1 Pascal is classed at the better end of a "good vacuum" and far far removed from an ultra high vacuum.It's not "our vacuum"!Nope. The pressure can be so low but it's not so low as to be indistinguishable from your vacuum. Why?
A perfect vacuum might not be possible but even on Earth a pressure so low that you could never tell the difference is quite possible.
Because your vacuum does not and cannot exist but an extreme low pressure can exist.
And that's all you can work on, unless you want to carry on with arguing for a space vacuum that means a nothing which would mean it literally wouldn't exist.
How about you draw a diagram showing exactly how a rocket works.We have already done that.
Because all I ever see you people do is bring up a load of old flannel that explains nothing, so now's your chance.I see you are projecting again.
Explain it in enough detail to show exactly what's happening.
I will as soon as you or someone like you makes it clear as to how your rocket works in your vacuum.Again, cut the crap.
To burn something inside a sealed container would be to blow it to smithereens. It really is as simple as that.
Burning fuel and oxidised (making up the propellant) in the combustion chamber (not in a vacuum) increases the pressure of that propellant tremendously.
And all that burning, expansion and accelerating is within the rocket before it's reach the vacuum of space.
So I fail to see why you find it impossible to grasp.
Play with as many equations and calculations as you want.
I challenge you to measure the difference between a pressure of 1 Pascal (about 1/100,000 th of normal atmospheric pressure) and a perfect vacuum. Yet a pressure of 1 Pascal is classed at the better end of a "good vacuum" and far far removed from an ultra high vacuum.
You've never studied or worked with any vacuum technology have you? All you have is what you imagine might happen.
Let's see you make one showing clearly how and why your space rocket works.
Now why don't you try making the drawing you promised ages ago
I never said that it was a "sealed container". I said nothing of the sort.To burn something inside a sealed container would be to blow it to smithereens.
Burning fuel and oxidised (making up the propellant) in the combustion chamber (not in a vacuum) increases the pressure of that propellant tremendously.
And all that burning, expansion and accelerating is within the rocket before it's reach the vacuum of space.
So I fail to see why you find it impossible to grasp.
It really is as simple as that.So what I explained as the cause of the thrust in a rocket engine is NOT a bomb!
What you're proposing for your space rocket, is a bomb.
If it's open it's also open at all times, which means there's no need for any combustion chamber to be separated from the atmosphere.
I never said that it was a "sealed container". I said nothing of the sort.
The rocket engine's bell might be open but the burnt propellant cannot get out infinitely fast.
Reaction to the force that pushes the exhaust backwards.Rocket pushes the mass of the exhaust backwards with the force.What reaction?
Reaction to that force pushes the remaining mass of the rocket forward.
Explain exactly what's happening, because that's as sketchy as all hell.As the next portions of the fuel and oxidizer get pumped into combustion chamber they continue
The only use of the atmosphere would be the oxygen from it if the vehicle burns some fuel.Quote from: MacariosWheels of a ground vehicle push road backwards, the reaction pushes the vehicle forward.Using atmosphere in order to do so.
Electric, spring, or paddle vessels don't need the atmosphere. Submarines also don't need the atmosphere.Quote from: MacariosShip propeller (or wheel at Mississipi, or paddles on boat) pushes water backwards, the reaction pushes the ship forward.Using water and atmosphere in order to do so.
Airplane needs the atmosphere around wings to counteract the Earth's gravity. Rocket doesn't.Quote from: MacariosAirplane propeller pushes the air backwards, the reaction pushes the airplane forward.Using atmosphere in order to do so. You're answering your own questions to be fair.
Rocket pushes exhaust backwards, the reaction pushes the rocket forward.
Your denial won't disqualify them, except in your wishes / daydreamings.Quote from: MacariosFor more details you have tons of messages in this thread, and some videos at YouTube...There are no details on what I'm arguing against with how so called space rockets work.
Nothing pushes on the inside of the tube, everything is done (as work) externally from the tube, hence why I said what I said earlier.So there is pressure from the outside, pushing on the exiting, which pushes on the inside of the tube pushing the rocket up.Of course there's pressure from the outside and if this is the so called point you're trying to make then your rocket does not work in your vacuum.
Thata the point weve been trying to make way back on pg50 when you joined this party.
And the same point from the intercon't missile thread.
Did you typo "out" or did you not see the bold underlined point i was trying to make?
There's enough stuff out there to observe, test and repeat to know that anything from inside a container allowed to be released from that container, will follow a flow, whether it's a liquid/fluid/gas.
I simply can't understand how anyone can believe a rocket can burn fuel inside of it to kick it's own arse into the sky or into so called fantasy space. It really does beggar belief...for those who have given plenty of thought to it, I mean.
For those that simply take stuff on face value......well.....I have zero issue with that.
Look, while the operation of a rocket can be explained in very simple terms you seem unable to accept that but, whether you like it or not, the detailed explanation of how a rocket works is not all that simple but I'll do the best that I can - sorry if I fail.If it's open it's also open at all times, which means there's no need for any combustion chamber to be separated from the atmosphere.
I never said that it was a "sealed container". I said nothing of the sort.
The rocket engine's bell might be open but the burnt propellant cannot get out infinitely fast.
| (https://www.dropbox.com/s/hfc4w1ybngwk9dh/Electropaedia%20-%20rocket%20motor.gif?dl=1) Electropaedia - rocket motor | You say, "which means there's no need for any combustion chamber to be separated from the atmosphere" but that separation is a vital part of the operation of the rocket engine. You can have an air cylinder at 100 psig (100 psi above atmospheric pressure) and drill a hole in it and that air will not escape instantly. You could have an air cylinder at 100 psia in a vacuum and drill a hole in it and that air will not escape instantly. In all cases, the flow rate depends on the pressure difference and whatever is impeding the flow. In a rocket engine, the throat of the nozzle is impeding the flow. In the diagram of a rocket motor on the left, the combustion chamber is separated from the outside by first the throat and then the bell. The throat looks large but there is an almost unimaginably flow-rate of burnt propellant that has to flow through it. For reasons I won't go into now (look up de Laval steam turbine nozzles) the velocity in the throat is limited to to the velocity of sound at that temperature and pressure. The propellant flow rate is determined by the fuel and oxidiser pumps feeding it and the combustion chamber pressure is determined by that flow rate of the burnt propellant and the throat size. A very important point is that once the velocity in the throat reaches the velocity of sound that flow rate is completely independent of the outside pressure - be it normal atmospheric pressure or a vacuum. Quote from: sceptimatic And saying propellent not being able to get out infinitely fast means what?As above the flow-rate through the throat is limited by other factors. A vacuum is not "magic": it is only a region of almost zero pressure. Now that burnt propellant exits the throat at a very high temperature but with the velocity limited to the velocity of sound (commonly around 1000 m/s). The shape and exit size of the bell is designed to allow the gas (burnt propellant) to increase in velocity and decrease in temperature and pressure as it travels to the exit. So in the combustion chamber, throat and bell the propellant's velocity is accelerated fron zero (relative to the rocket) us to the exit velocity of thousands of metres per second. And the force needed to cause this acceleration (the force = mass x acceleration equation) is the thrust of the rocket. Ideally, the exit pressure should equal the external pressure but this is not possible with very low outside pressures because the exit area of the bell would be impractically large. |
Because the big burn that comes out of the rocket is apparently just exhaust....meaning it's supposedly exhausted gas burn which you and others keep saying, is irrelevant.The burnt propellant (exhaust) performs its purpose while still inside the rocket engine. Once it leaves the rocket it is irrelevant so long as it cannot build up pressure outside the rocket - then it will change things.
Your rocket is a fantasy. It really is.Nope! That's just your opinion based on nothing more than what you think is common sense.
To tell the truth would be to tell the truth and telling the truth means rockets only work in our atmosphere and all this space stuff is complete and utter nonsense in how we are told.....including the fantasy rocket explanation.Again, that is simply your opinion and the truth is that the atmosphere "gets in the way" in two respects:
To burn something inside a sealed container would be to blow it to smithereens. It really is as simple as that.Good thing it isn't a sealed container.
What you're proposing for your space rocket, is a bomb.
Try putting your own brain into gear and use your own realistic viewsTry following your own advice.
Let's see you make one showing clearly how and why your space rocket works.I already did and it is from the quote chain that was recently quoted.
Your promises are worthless.Once this was provided you showed just how worthless your word is as you refused to provide an explanation of what you claim actually happens which is consistent with your claims.
You have made such promises before, and just ran away when I met my end.
But here you go again:
(https://i.imgur.com/iTlCgNi.png)
For the simplest explanation, we just focus on the right hand side.
There is pressurised gas.
This gas exerts pressure outwards in all directions.
This applies force to the rocket, pushing it away to the left (red arrow).
This results in a reactionary force being applied to the gas, pushing it to the right (black arrow).
This means the rocket is pushed one way while the gas is pushed the other.
For a less basic view, the gas in the middle can't just leave the rocket, as there is gas in the way on the right hand side.
So the gas in the middle, in its attempt to expand, will push the last layer of gas (in purple) out to the right.
Again, this results in a reactionary force pushing the gas in the middle to the left.
Is this way the gas in the middle is acting as a force carrier, allowing the gas at the edge to push the rocket while the rocket pushes the gas at the edge to the right.
This means the gas at the right will be pushed out and the rocket will be pushed to the left, and the gas in the middle will expand outwards, and a new layer will take the place of the purple.
This continues until the pressure drops to 0.
Either way, the end result is the gas pushes the rocket one way and the rocket pushes the gas the other way.
Or in your terms, the gas uses the rocket as leverage/resistance, and the rocket uses the gas as leverage/resistance.
Thus rockets work in a vacuum.
Your turn.
Show me, in a diagram, how the internal combustionUntil you can grasp a cold gas thruster moving on to an rocket which uses combustion is pointless.
Because the big burn that comes out of the rocket is apparently just exhaust....meaning it's supposedly exhausted gas burn which you and others keep saying, is irrelevant.Only once it is actually out of the rocket.
To tell the truth would be to tell the truth and telling the truth means rockets only work in our atmosphere and all this space stuff is complete and utter nonsense in how we are told.....including the fantasy rocket explanation.No, that would be a blatant lie.
Basically saying its a balance of forces.Give up. When one is as far down the rabbit-hole as Sceppy one simply has no room to turn around.
If a push out is matched by a push in, no movement.
Remember when you were talking about action and reaction?Show me in a simple diagram how this happens.
Action is the pushing of the exhaust by the rocket, reaction pushes the rocket off the exhaust.
Why do you need a pump for compressed fuel?Explain exactly what's happening, because that's as sketchy as all hell.As the next portions of the fuel and oxidizer get pumped into combustion chamber they continue
the volatile chemical reaction that keeps the temperature and the pressure in the combustion chamber
high enough to push the next mass of the exhaust at designated speed.
All vehicles require atmosphere in order to work.The only use of the atmosphere would be the oxygen from it if the vehicle burns some fuel.Quote from: MacariosWheels of a ground vehicle push road backwards, the reaction pushes the vehicle forward.Using atmosphere in order to do so.
Electric or spring vehicles don't.Yes they do.
Yes they do.Electric, spring, or paddle vessels don't need the atmosphere. Submarines also don't need the atmosphere.Quote from: MacariosShip propeller (or wheel at Mississipi, or paddles on boat) pushes water backwards, the reaction pushes the ship forward.Using water and atmosphere in order to do so.
A rocket absolutely does need atmosphere.Airplane needs the atmosphere around wings to counteract the Earth's gravity. Rocket doesn't.Quote from: MacariosAirplane propeller pushes the air backwards, the reaction pushes the airplane forward.Using atmosphere in order to do so. You're answering your own questions to be fair.
Rocket pushes exhaust backwards, the reaction pushes the rocket forward.
Airplane uses air to push it backward for moving forward. Rocket pushes the exhaust instead.A rocket cannot push on its own exhaust for lift. It's so stupid it beggars belief.
Tidy this mess up and get back to me.Look, while the operation of a rocket can be explained in very simple terms you seem unable to accept that but, whether you like it or not, the detailed explanation of how a rocket works is not all that simple but I'll do the best that I can - sorry if I fail.If it's open it's also open at all times, which means there's no need for any combustion chamber to be separated from the atmosphere.
I never said that it was a "sealed container". I said nothing of the sort.
The rocket engine's bell might be open but the burnt propellant cannot get out infinitely fast.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/hfc4w1ybngwk9dh/Electropaedia%20-%20rocket%20motor.gif?dl=1)
Electropaedia - rocket motorYou say, "which means there's no need for any combustion chamber to be separated from the atmosphere" but that separation is a vital part of the operation of the rocket engine.
You can have an air cylinder at 100 psig (100 psi above atmospheric pressure) and drill a hole in it and that air will not escape instantly.
You could have an air cylinder at 100 psia in a vacuum and drill a hole in it and that air will not escape instantly.
In all cases, the flow rate depends on the pressure difference and whatever is impeding the flow. In a rocket engine, the throat of the nozzle is impeding the flow.
In the diagram of a rocket motor on the left, the combustion chamber is separated from the outside by first the throat and then the bell. The throat looks large but there is an almost unimaginably flow-rate of burnt propellant that has to flow through it. For reasons I won't go into now (look up de Laval steam turbine nozzles) the velocity in the throat is limited to to the velocity of sound at that temperature and pressure.
The propellant flow rate is determined by the fuel and oxidiser pumps feeding it and the combustion chamber pressure is determined by that flow rate of the burnt propellant and the throat size. A very important point is that once the velocity in the throat reaches the velocity of sound that flow rate is completely independent of the outside pressure - be it normal atmospheric pressure or a vacuum.Quote from: sceptimaticAnd saying propellent not being able to get out infinitely fast means what?As above the flow-rate through the throat is limited by other factors. A vacuum is not "magic": it is only a region of almost zero pressure.
You said it's mixed in the chamber and it then combusts in that chamber and then it does it's job in that chamber of working the rocket.
Tell me how?
Now that burnt propellant exits the throat at a very high temperature but with the velocity limited to the velocity of sound (commonly around 1000 m/s).
The shape and exit size of the bell is designed to allow the gas (burnt propellant) to increase in velocity and decrease in temperature and pressure as it travels to the exit.
So in the combustion chamber, throat and bell the propellant's velocity is accelerated fron zero (relative to the rocket) us to the exit velocity of thousands of metres per second.
And the force needed to cause this acceleration (the force = mass x acceleration equation) is the thrust of the rocket.
Ideally, the exit pressure should equal the external pressure but this is not possible with very low outside pressures because the exit area of the bell would be impractically large.Quote from: sceptimaticBecause the big burn that comes out of the rocket is apparently just exhaust....meaning it's supposedly exhausted gas burn which you and others keep saying, is irrelevant.The burnt propellant (exhaust) performs its purpose while still inside the rocket engine. Once it leaves the rocket it is irrelevant so long as it cannot build up pressure outside the rocket - then it will change things.Quote from: sceptimaticYour rocket is a fantasy. It really is.Nope! That's just your opinion based on nothing more than what you think is common sense.Quote from: sceptimaticTo tell the truth would be to tell the truth and telling the truth means rockets only work in our atmosphere and all this space stuff is complete and utter nonsense in how we are told.....including the fantasy rocket explanation.Again, that is simply your opinion and the truth is that the atmosphere "gets in the way" in two respects:
- The simple static outside pressure reduces the effective thrust. For example the common SpaceX Merlin 1D engine has a sea-level thrust of 854 kN (about 87,000 kg.force) but a vacuum thrust of 981 kN (about 100,000 kg.force)
- The air outside a rocket causes high drag and shock-waves as the rocket crosses the "sound-barrier".
Let's play this really carefully. Simple answer will suffice and see where we get to.To burn something inside a sealed container would be to blow it to smithereens. It really is as simple as that.Good thing it isn't a sealed container.
What you're proposing for your space rocket, is a bomb.
What you are proposing is a strawman.
Basically saying its a balance of forces.No, absolutely not. It's the reason why anything works.
If a push out is matched by a push in, no movement.
Regurgitation does not help you.Basically saying its a balance of forces.Give up. When one is as far down the rabbit-hole as Sceppy one simply has no room to turn around.
If a push out is matched by a push in, no movement.
It's da conspiracy man! THEY are hiding THE TRUTH from the people and Sceppy thinks that "we" are part of THEY so he'll never believe us!
To a conspiritard any evidence we give is simply seen by them as more evidence of the conspiracy. Why you can’t argue with a conspiracy theorist. (https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/why-you-cant-argue-with-a-conspiracy-theorist/)
Why do you need a pump for compressed fuel?Because the combustion chamber is at a higher pressure.
Yes they do.Repeating the same baseless, nonsense assertions wont help your case.
A rocket cannot push on its own exhaust for lift. It's so stupid it beggars belief.No, your objection to it is so stupid id beggars belief.
Unless there's an external reactionary force to resist that ejected fuel the rocket goes nowhere.It is the mass of the ejected fuel which resists changes in motion which provides all the necessary resistance.
Let's play this really carefully. Simple answer will suffice and see where we get to.You are the one that needs to answer simple questions.
The combustion chamber is open to the elements so what are you talking about?Why do you need a pump for compressed fuel?Because the combustion chamber is at a higher pressure.
Tidy this mess up and get back to me.So, you think you know everything so aren't prepared to try to understand something new.
1000 kg (per second) flowing through what diameter pipes?Tidy this mess up and get back to me.So, you think you know everything so aren't prepared to try to understand something new.
OK, the short version.
The propellant (often some 1000 kg burnt every second) starts at zero velocity before being burnt.
Accelerated, how?
In the combustion chamber, throat and bell of the converging-diverging nozzle that propellant is accelerated to an extremely high velocity (sometimes over 3000 metres per second) before exiting the nozzle.
Fair enough as long as you can answer the above with reality.
Accelerating that huge mass to such a high velocity requires a huge force and that force is the source of the rocket engine's thrust.
We'll get to that when you sort out this stuff you're dealing out, because at the minute it's showing nothing of a reality.
The atmosphere has not come into it anywhere!
The "combustion chamber is" NOT "open to the elements so what are you talking about?"Because the combustion chamber is at a higher pressure.
The combustion chamber is open to the elements so what are you talking about?
What higher pressure and how is it higher than a release of compressed gas into it and ignited?The fuel (liquid hydrogen or kerosene ) and oxidiser (liquid oxygen) when burnt make a gas at a very high temperature so in the limited volume of the combustion chamber, are very high pressure.
Why the pump?To pump the fuel and oxidiser into the high pressure of the combustion chamber.
No it's not.The "combustion chamber is" NOT "open to the elements so what are you talking about?"Because the combustion chamber is at a higher pressure.
The combustion chamber is open to the elements so what are you talking about?
The combustion chamber is separated from "the elements" by the throat and the bell of the nozzle.
Is a SCUBA tank "open to the elements" if its tap is broken off.Yes, obviously.
Sure, the highly compressed air will escape rapidly but not instantly! Look how long it takes:Who's on about instantly?
Torpedo Scuba Tank after valve cut by Timo Dersch
Now imagine a combustion chamber feeding gas continually into that tank at a similar pressure.Feeding gas into a tank?
The expanding bell is to convert the very high pressure right at the exit to a lower pressure and higher velocity.
Yes I get it but it makes zero sense to return that power back into the rocket. The flow is to the exit or nozzle, into the atmosphere.Quote from: sceptimaticWhat higher pressure and how is it higher than a release of compressed gas into it and ignited?The fuel (liquid hydrogen or kerosene ) and oxidiser (liquid oxygen) when burnt make a gas at a very high temperature so in the limited volume of the combustion chamber, are very high pressure.
Is the fuel and oxidizer under tank/container pressure?Quote from: sceptimaticWhy the pump?To pump the fuel and oxidiser into the high pressure of the combustion chamber.
Simple:That makes zero sense and I find it hard how people can be fooled by it.
(https://howthingsfly.si.edu/sites/default/files/image-regular/rocket_propulsion_reg_0.jpg)
They don't explain anything as to what's happening to get that rocket up.
It's just a load of mumbo jumbo.
How about you draw a simple diagram making absolutely sure to point to what's happening.
Are you scared to do it or have no clue?
Remember when you were talking about action and reaction?Show me in a simple diagram how this happens.
Action is the pushing of the exhaust by the rocket, reaction pushes the rocket off the exhaust.Quote from: MacariosWhy do you need a pump for compressed fuel?Explain exactly what's happening, because that's as sketchy as all hell.As the next portions of the fuel and oxidizer get pumped into combustion chamber they continue
the volatile chemical reaction that keeps the temperature and the pressure in the combustion chamber
high enough to push the next mass of the exhaust at designated speed.Quote from: MacariosAll vehicles require atmosphere in order to work.The only use of the atmosphere would be the oxygen from it if the vehicle burns some fuel.Quote from: MacariosWheels of a ground vehicle push road backwards, the reaction pushes the vehicle forward.Using atmosphere in order to do so.Quote from: MacariosElectric or spring vehicles don't.Yes they do.Quote from: MacariosYes they do.Electric, spring, or paddle vessels don't need the atmosphere. Submarines also don't need the atmosphere.Quote from: MacariosShip propeller (or wheel at Mississipi, or paddles on boat) pushes water backwards, the reaction pushes the ship forward.Using water and atmosphere in order to do so.Quote from: MacariosA rocket absolutely does need atmosphere.Airplane needs the atmosphere around wings to counteract the Earth's gravity. Rocket doesn't.Quote from: MacariosAirplane propeller pushes the air backwards, the reaction pushes the airplane forward.Using atmosphere in order to do so. You're answering your own questions to be fair.
Rocket pushes exhaust backwards, the reaction pushes the rocket forward.Quote from: MacariosAirplane uses air to push it backward for moving forward. Rocket pushes the exhaust instead.A rocket cannot push on its own exhaust for lift. It's so stupid it beggars belief.
Unless there's an external reactionary force to resist that ejected fuel the rocket goes nowhere.
Luckily there is....it's called atmospheric pressure.
Normally, propellant in the tank is stored at a pressure of about 1-4 bar, if the system uses turbopump to deliver high pressure to the combustion chamber. This method reduces the wall thickness and hence the weight of the tank.(from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propellant_tank (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propellant_tank))
Simple:That makes zero sense and I find it hard how people can be fooled by it.
(https://howthingsfly.si.edu/sites/default/files/image-regular/rocket_propulsion_reg_0.jpg)
Simple diagram you saw in this thread many times. But you are not smart enough to make sense of it.Gobbledegook.
Atmosphere is needed only by vehicles that push air backwards. Other types of vehicles push backwards something else and atmosphere is irrelevant. For example, the action and reaction between the wheels and the road will not disappear in vacuum.
Pump is needed to deliver fuel and oxidizer to prevent the pressure inside the chamber to push the gas back into the storages.
If the word "storages" doesn't make sense to you, try the word "tanks", or any other that would describe the places where the fual and the oxidizer are stored before delivery to the combustion chamber.
Is the fuel and oxidizer under pressure before they reach the pumps?QuoteNormally, propellant in the tank is stored at a pressure of about 1-4 bar, if the system uses turbopump to deliver high pressure to the combustion chamber. This method reduces the wall thickness and hence the weight of the tank.(from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propellant_tank (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propellant_tank))
As you can see, without the pumps you couldn't transfer the fuel and the oxidizer from 1-4 bar tanks to 70 bar combustion chamber.
Does that makes sense to you? :)
EDIT: If rockets were trying to use your operating principle, they wouldn't be able to work.
Luckily, in reality they don't use it.
Here you go, this is reality.Simple:That makes zero sense and I find it hard how people can be fooled by it.
(https://howthingsfly.si.edu/sites/default/files/image-regular/rocket_propulsion_reg_0.jpg)
Good
Then we'll be happy youre not building anything mechanical.
Or
Lot of complaining from the peanut gallery without any intelligible response.
Why not edit that photo and show/ educate us on what portion of the balloon/ water rocket is being pushed on by the outside compressed gas?
The combustion chamber is open to the elements so what are you talking about?This is why I say you should understand the cold gas thruster first.
That makes zero sense and I find it hard how people can be fooled by it.Again, what part doesn't make sense?
Here you go, this is reality.Are those black lines meant to indicate the force from the skin?
(https://i.postimg.cc/kGvhPHfd/rocket-propulsion-reg-0.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
No it's not.The "combustion chamber is" NOT "open to the elements so what are you talking about?"Because the combustion chamber is at a higher pressure.
The combustion chamber is open to the elements so what are you talking about?
The combustion chamber is separated from "the elements" by the throat and the bell of the nozzle.
It it is then it means it's closed and if it's closed then it's basically a bomb.
Your "open" is a very misleading way of describing it.Quote from: rabinozIs a SCUBA tank "open to the elements" if its tap is broken off.Yes, obviously.
Yes! The rocket is propelled by exactly same mechanism that makes that SCUBA tank fly around.Quote from: rabinozSure, the highly compressed air will escape rapidly but not instantly! Look how long it takes:Who's on about instantly?
Torpedo Scuba Tank after valve cut by Timo Dersch
Isyourthe rocket acting like a compressed air tank and if so, where's the pump on the compressed air tank?
Basically you do not need a pump on a rocket. It's pointless because it cannot do the work of what compressed gas can do when released into the atmosphere.It certainly is not "pointless" because it is the fuel pump continuously feeds liquid propellant into the combustion chamber which burns providing a continuous supply of gas at a very high pressure.
See the above about the fuel pump etc.Quote from: rabinozNow imagine a combustion chamber feeding gas continually into that tank at a similar pressure.Feeding gas into a tank?
The expanding bell is to convert the very high pressure right at the exit to a lower pressure and higher velocity.
Explain this a bit more clearly.
The energy isn't fo much returned "back into the rocket" but is used to increase the velocity of the exhaust gas and it is the velocity of that exhaust gas that matters.Quote from: rabinozYes I get it but it makes zero sense to return that power back into the rocket. The flow is to the exit or nozzle, into the atmosphere.Quote from: sceptimaticWhat higher pressure and how is it higher than a release of compressed gas into it and ignited?The fuel (liquid hydrogen or kerosene ) and oxidiser (liquid oxygen) when burnt make a gas at a very high temperature so in the limited volume of the combustion chamber, are very high pressure.
There's no return pressure to push any rocket in the opposite direction.You are getting no "hog-wash", though I might be failing to explain things simply enough for you.
If there is then explain this bit in simple terms and don't give me the hogwash that it isn't simple.
The Saturn V certainly is not fictional! Millions saw it in "real life" and billions on "real-time" TV though you might question how it performed.Quote from: rabinozIs the fuel and oxidizer under tank/container pressure?Quote from: sceptimaticWhy the pump?To pump the fuel and oxidiser into the high pressure of the combustion chamber.
Let's use thefictionalSaturn V as a yardstick.
Here you go, this is reality.
(https://i.postimg.cc/kGvhPHfd/rocket-propulsion-reg-0.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Is the fuel and oxidizer under pressure before they reach the pumps?QuoteNormally, propellant in the tank is stored at a pressure of about 1-4 bar, if the system uses turbopump to deliver high pressure to the combustion chamber. This method reduces the wall thickness and hence the weight of the tank.(from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propellant_tank (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propellant_tank))
As you can see, without the pumps you couldn't transfer the fuel and the oxidizer from 1-4 bar tanks to 70 bar combustion chamber.
Does that makes sense to you? :)
EDIT: If rockets were trying to use your operating principle, they wouldn't be able to work.
Luckily, in reality they don't use it.
Is the fuel and oxidizer under pressure before they reach the pumps?QuoteNormally, propellant in the tank is stored at a pressure of about 1-4 bar, if the system uses turbopump to deliver high pressure to the combustion chamber. This method reduces the wall thickness and hence the weight of the tank.(from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propellant_tank (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propellant_tank))
As you can see, without the pumps you couldn't transfer the fuel and the oxidizer from 1-4 bar tanks to 70 bar combustion chamber.
Does that makes sense to you? :)
EDIT: If rockets were trying to use your operating principle, they wouldn't be able to work.
Luckily, in reality they don't use it.
As you can see already: pressure in storage tanks (area before the pumps) is between 1 and 4 bar.
From that pressure the pumps are transporting it to the chamber where the pressure is 70 bar.
So, ofcourse they are under pressure. It is not vacuum in those tanks.
But that pressure is much lower than the pressure they generate while burning in combustion chamber.
Without the pumps some gas would return from the chamber to the tanks.
It would prevent the intake of more fuel and oxidizer.
There's a reason why access is restricted in the throat to the nozzle. It's because the throat harbours the gas and air mix and the nozzle allows the expansion from ignition and burn against the atmosphere.
If not "open" then the combustion chamber certainly has restricted access to "the elements". And that access is restricted by the throat and the bell part of the nozzle.
No it's not misleading, at all.Quote from: sceptimaticYour "open" is a very misleading way of describing it.Quote from: rabinozIs a SCUBA tank "open to the elements" if its tap is broken off.Yes, obviously.
The ISS had a tiny hole between the inside that was at 14.7 psia and the outside at 0 psia causing a very slow loss of pressure.Look, the ISS is a model.
An astronaut initially blocked the hole with his finger - yes, his finger!
Astronaut plugged leak in space station with his FINGER before crew used tape to patch up hole caused by a METEORITE (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6116245/Astronaut-forced-plug-ISS-leak-FINGER-crew-use-tape-patch-hole.html)
Saying the ISS was "open to the elements" would be totally ridiculous.
Yep, it's called compressed air against the atmosphere which is equally compressed by the exiting compressed air as the valve is opened.Quote from: sceptimaticYes! The rocket is propelled by exactly same mechanism that makes that SCUBA tank fly around.Quote from: rabinozSure, the highly compressed air will escape rapidly but not instantly! Look how long it takes:Who's on about instantly?
Torpedo Scuba Tank after valve cut by Timo Dersch
Isyourthe rocket acting like a compressed air tank and if so, where's the pump on the compressed air tank?
The air in the SCUBA tank at 0:21 in the video sends the TANK flying around for about 9 seconds.
But if there were a larger supply of gas it could fly for much longer.
Why would anyone need a fuel pump on a pressurised container? It makes zero sense.Quote from: sceptimaticBasically you do not need a pump on a rocket. It's pointless because it cannot do the work of what compressed gas can do when released into the atmosphere.It certainly is not "pointless" because it is the fuel pump continuously feeds liquid propellant into the combustion chamber which burns providing a continuous supply of gas at a very high pressure.
Your rocket exits fire. A burn. A burning thrust of compressed gases....in one direction only....into the atmosphere.Quote from: sceptimaticThe energy isn't so much returned "back into the rocket" but is used to increase the velocity of the exhaust gas and it is the velocity of that exhaust gas that matters.Quote from: rabinozYes I get it but it makes zero sense to return that power back into the rocket. The flow is to the exit or nozzle, into the atmosphere.Quote from: sceptimaticWhat higher pressure and how is it higher than a release of compressed gas into it and ignited?The fuel (liquid hydrogen or kerosene ) and oxidiser (liquid oxygen) when burnt make a gas at a very high temperature so in the limited volume of the combustion chamber, are very high pressure.
Maybe go bottom line simple and explain it with simple analogies to show me what's what.Quote from: sceptimaticThere's no return pressure to push any rocket in the opposite direction.You are getting no "hog-wash", though I might be failing to explain things simply enough for you.
If there is then explain this bit in simple terms and don't give me the hogwash that it isn't simple.
But what do you mean by "there's no return pressure to push any rocket in the opposite direction"?Atmosphere. Resistance.
To accelerate a mass, m, to a velocity, v in one second requires a force, F = m x v - that crucial equation! Just Newton's Second Law of Motion, force = mass x acceleration.Like I said before, this means nothing unless it's shown why and how it works.
That force is driving the exhaust back out of the rocket and is supplied by an equal and opposite force on the rocket engine, the rocket's thrust.
And note that it is all inside the rocket engine. What is outside has little influence other than to "get in the way" and reduce the effective thrust a little.The absolute whole purpose of the atmosphere is to get in the way .
Yeah, let's not add to the issue.Quote from: sceptimaticThe Saturn V certainly is not fictional! Millions saw it in "real life" and billions on "real-time" TV though you might question how it performed.Quote from: rabinozIs the fuel and oxidizer under tank/container pressure?Quote from: sceptimaticWhy the pump?To pump the fuel and oxidiser into the high pressure of the combustion chamber.
Let's use thefictionalSaturn V as a yardstick.
The fuel (RP-1, basically purified kerosene in the F-1 engines of the Saturn V) and oxidiser (liquid oxygen) tanks are pressurised enough to feed them to the fuel pumps. That is little problem on Earth and while there is thrust being generated but is a problem in "zero-g" between main engine cutoff (MECO) and the ignition of the second stage - but that's for another time.
But the high-pressure fuel and oxidiser pumps needed pump the propellant into the very high pressure in the combustion chamber are huge "beasts" powered by gas turbines that use the same fuel.How about you tell me how much fuel each engine uses per second and then tell me the diameter of pipes from the pump and also the combustion chamber jet holes as well as the chamber itself.
Read this if you are really interested, SP-4206 Stages to Saturn: III. Fire, Smoke, and Thunder: The Engines (https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4206/ch4.htm).
The massive fuels pumps and the fuel and oxidiser injector plate design took a great deal of research and experimental work in their development.
Let's make this simple.Is the fuel and oxidizer under pressure before they reach the pumps?QuoteNormally, propellant in the tank is stored at a pressure of about 1-4 bar, if the system uses turbopump to deliver high pressure to the combustion chamber. This method reduces the wall thickness and hence the weight of the tank.(from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propellant_tank (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propellant_tank))
As you can see, without the pumps you couldn't transfer the fuel and the oxidizer from 1-4 bar tanks to 70 bar combustion chamber.
Does that makes sense to you? :)
EDIT: If rockets were trying to use your operating principle, they wouldn't be able to work.
Luckily, in reality they don't use it.
As you can see already: pressure in storage tanks (area before the pumps) is between 1 and 4 bar.
From that pressure the pumps are transporting it to the chamber where the pressure is 70 bar.
So, ofcourse they are under pressure. It is not vacuum in those tanks.
But that pressure is much lower than the pressure they generate while burning in combustion chamber.
Without the pumps some gas would return from the chamber to the tanks.
It would prevent the intake of more fuel and oxidizer.
Tell me how a turbo pump works inside a rocket.Is the fuel and oxidizer under pressure before they reach the pumps?QuoteNormally, propellant in the tank is stored at a pressure of about 1-4 bar, if the system uses turbopump to deliver high pressure to the combustion chamber. This method reduces the wall thickness and hence the weight of the tank.(from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propellant_tank (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propellant_tank))
As you can see, without the pumps you couldn't transfer the fuel and the oxidizer from 1-4 bar tanks to 70 bar combustion chamber.
Does that makes sense to you? :)
EDIT: If rockets were trying to use your operating principle, they wouldn't be able to work.
Luckily, in reality they don't use it.
As you can see already: pressure in storage tanks (area before the pumps) is between 1 and 4 bar.
From that pressure the pumps are transporting it to the chamber where the pressure is 70 bar.
So, ofcourse they are under pressure. It is not vacuum in those tanks.
But that pressure is much lower than the pressure they generate while burning in combustion chamber.
Without the pumps some gas would return from the chamber to the tanks.
It would prevent the intake of more fuel and oxidizer.
And indeed this is why one of the most complex engineering challenges of any rocket engine (along with stopping it melting) is designing the turbo pumps to feed the combustion chamber.
If not "open" then the combustion chamber certainly has restricted access to "the elements". And that access is restricted by the throat and the bell part of the nozzle.There's a reason why access is restricted in the throat to the nozzle. It's because the throat harbours the gas and air mix and the nozzle allows the expansion from ignition and burn against the atmosphere.
All the rest of it is basically fictional nonsense set out ot baffle those who are mesmerised by space rockets.
allows the expansion from ignition and burn against the atmosphere.You are yet to provide any sort of rational explanation as to why it needs to push against the atmosphere or how it achieves that.
Basically your ISS would be un able to sustain it's structure.Why? that is just another pathetic assertion from you.
Ohhhh....and if you want to understand what would happen to a container in your so called space....or let's call it an extreme low pressure environment, all you have to do is reverse the process and apply it to a glass thermos that is under low pressure.No, you don't. That doesn't help at all. We have been over this plenty of times already.
Now knock the welded nib off the bottom and see how fast that thermos fills with external pressure.Because it is a tiny volume with a large hole.
It's almost instant.
Your space rocket is fantasy.Then provide a viable alternative. Explain what is happening with the cold gas thruster. Because so far the only options are either rockets work in space, or pure nonsense.
Why would anyone need a fuel pump on a pressurised container? It makes zero sense.It only makes 0 sense when you ignore the explanations which have already been provided.
We know how they work on trucks and stuff, so tell me about this on a so called space rocket that somehow manages to super pump this fuel into a chamber faster than a compressed tank can release it.You are aware it is the exact same principle, but different scales?
A burning thrust of compressed gases....in one direction only....into the atmosphere.In one direction only, because that is the direction the rocket has pushed it into, with a resulting reaction pushing the rocket in the other direction.
A simple analogy would suffice to show me from your side.Except such analogies have already been provided and you just ignore them.
Let's make this simple.I have already made it extremely simple for you, yet you still fail to address the issue and provide a viable alternative to the reality of rockets working in space.
Incorrect! The ISS has been proven numerous times to appear exactly when and where it's been predicted.The ISS had a tiny hole between the inside that was at 14.7 psia and the outside at 0 psia causing a very slow loss of pressure.Look, the ISS is a model.
An astronaut initially blocked the hole with his finger - yes, his finger!
Astronaut plugged leak in space station with his FINGER before crew used tape to patch up hole caused by a METEORITE (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6116245/Astronaut-forced-plug-ISS-leak-FINGER-crew-use-tape-patch-hole.html)
Saying the ISS was "open to the elements" would be totally ridiculous.
If that ISS was real and in the space you believe it is it would be near 15 psi against zero external resistance to that pressure.Rubbish! The structure of the ISS has been designed to withstand that stress.
Basically your ISS would be un able to sustain it's structure.
The most common type of tank is UN type T11 which can carry more than 1000 types of dangerous goods. T11 tanks are the most common tank in use, tested to 6 bars of pressure and have a working pressure of 4 bar. (Qualitank keep a number of tanks available which have current valid test certificates.)This sort of thing:
As for a supposed meteorite hole pinged in it. Why do you people believe all this garbage?Possibly because it is not garbage but is quite true?
One hole and the Earth is apparently being hit by thousands upon thousands of these meteorites, as we're told....and yet only a stray manages to hit at thousands of mph.Sure, "the Earth is apparently being hit by thousands upon thousands of these meteorites" but the earth has an area of 510.1 million km2 and the ISS has an area of less than 1/1000 of a square kilometre! That's an area ratio of some 500 billion.
The modules of the ISS (http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/ISSRG/pdfs/mmod.pdf) are protected by Whipple shields (http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/ares/hvit/basic.cfm): basically an extra wall outside the main pressure hull. A micrometeorite would puncture this shield and disintegrate, leaving nothing big enough to penetrate the main hull. In this image, the shield is on the right:
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/WL9wl.png)
This is the stuff people are coaxed into hanging onto. It bemuses me that most people don't just sit back and listen to the garbage and see it for that........But anyway.Just possibly those people know enough and understand enough to realise that it is all quite feasible.
Ohhhh....and if you want to understand what would happen to a container in your so called space....or let's call it an extreme low pressure environment, all you have to do is reverse the process and apply it to a glass thermos that is under low pressure.Sure BUT:!
You see, the thermos would be your space and the 15 psi would be what's in your supposed ISS.
Now knock the welded nib off the bottom and see how fast that thermos fills with external pressure.
It's almost instant.
That would be your micro-meteorite hole you go on about.
Here you go, this is reality.
(https://i.postimg.cc/kGvhPHfd/rocket-propulsion-reg-0.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Thanks.
Can we clarify if we know the difference between force lines and flow of fluid lines?
Come back to me when you're more civil.Basically your ISS would be un able to sustain it's structure.Why? that is just another pathetic assertion from you.
What makes you say it can't sustain its structure?
Is it because you need to grasp at whatever BS you can to reject reality so you can cling to your FE fantasy?
Simple:That makes zero sense and I find it hard how people can be fooled by it.
(https://howthingsfly.si.edu/sites/default/files/image-regular/rocket_propulsion_reg_0.jpg)
Come back to me when you're more civil.I have been civil.
You come back when you are prepared to face reality.Come back to me when you're more civil.Basically your ISS would be un able to sustain it's structure.Why? that is just another pathetic assertion from you.
What makes you say it can't sustain its structure?
Is it because you need to grasp at whatever BS you can to reject reality so you can cling to your FE fantasy?
Are you saying this tank is what holds the fuel in a rocket?
Rubbish! The structure of the ISS has been designed to withstand that stress.
An "ISO Tank Container" is designed to fit the space of a standard 40' ISO shipping container and has a similar diameter to the ISS is tested at 6 Bar, i.e. 6 x normal atmospheric pressure.QuoteThe most common type of tank is UN type T11 which can carry more than 1000 types of dangerous goods. T11 tanks are the most common tank in use, tested to 6 bars of pressure and have a working pressure of 4 bar. (Qualitank keep a number of tanks available which have current valid test certificates.)This sort of thing:
(https://qualitank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/RIMG1717.jpg)
So why do you find it hard to believe that the ISS cannot withstand an internal pressure of only 14.7 psia?
There's nothing magic about a vacuum - as far as stresses are concerned it's nothing more than a region of almost zero pressure.
A similar sized structure on earth with an internal pressure ot 29.4 psi would be subject to the same stresses.
Rockets can fly in a vacuum.And you think that solves the issue?
Here is a (specifically) beginner's guide (http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/154-people-in-astronomy/space-exploration-and-astronauts/rockets/838-how-do-rockets-move-in-space-beginner) to how that works.
No you haven't.
I have been civil.
It won't be the pretend one you adhere to, that's for absolute certain.
You come back when you are prepared to face reality.
Once again Sceptimatic shows that he doesn’t understand the difference between compression and tensile stress on a cylinder.Do you even know what you're saying?
A cylinder is at least an order of magnitude stronger in tensile vs compression.
Simple:That makes zero sense and I find it hard how people can be fooled by it.
(https://howthingsfly.si.edu/sites/default/files/image-regular/rocket_propulsion_reg_0.jpg)
Balloon top right has an internal left and a force that is unbalanced internal right that is able to escape out the opening.
Net directional motion to the left.
In your version, you were asked to show what part of the rocket is pushed on by the outside expanding gas on gas figt.
Still yet to see.
(https://i.postimg.cc/kGvhPHfd/rocket-propulsion-reg-0.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Read the topic and absorb it and come back with something better.Good advice, you should try following it.
Do you even know what you're saying?I'm pretty sure he does, just like others have already shown.
Quote where you think I don't know.
No, you claimed that the ISS could not withstand the stress of 14.7 psia (almost exactly 1 Bar) inside and 0 psia (the vacuum of space) outside.Are you saying this tank is what holds the fuel in a rocket?
Rubbish! The structure of the ISS has been designed to withstand that stress.
An "ISO Tank Container" is designed to fit the space of a standard 40' ISO shipping container and has a similar diameter to the ISS is tested at 6 Bar, i.e. 6 x normal atmospheric pressure.QuoteThe most common type of tank is UN type T11 which can carry more than 1000 types of dangerous goods. T11 tanks are the most common tank in use, tested to 6 bars of pressure and have a working pressure of 4 bar. (Qualitank keep a number of tanks available which have current valid test certificates.)This sort of thing:
(https://qualitank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/RIMG1717.jpg)
So why do you find it hard to believe that the ISS cannot withstand an internal pressure of only 14.7 psia?
There's nothing magic about a vacuum - as far as stresses are concerned it's nothing more than a region of almost zero pressure.
A similar sized structure on earth with an internal pressure ot 29.4 psi would be subject to the same stresses.
Or is this tank far too small to be a tank for the saturn V?
How big would the saturn V tank be to hold the pressure?Who brought the Saturn V into it? We were talking about the ISS.
Your rocket is not getting off the ground.it is not my rocket! The Saturn V was NASA's rocket but why do you claim it "is not getting off the ground"?
As for theIt is not "the so-called ISS"! It is the ISS and if you bothered to look you could see and photograph the thing.so calledISS, are you saying this tank is the skin of it?
Yes there is. Pay attention to it.Simple:That makes zero sense and I find it hard how people can be fooled by it.
(https://howthingsfly.si.edu/sites/default/files/image-regular/rocket_propulsion_reg_0.jpg)
Balloon top right has an internal left and a force that is unbalanced internal right that is able to escape out the opening.
Net directional motion to the left.
In your version, you were asked to show what part of the rocket is pushed on by the outside expanding gas on gas figt.
Still yet to see.
(https://i.postimg.cc/kGvhPHfd/rocket-propulsion-reg-0.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Forget everyone else, scepti.
Your rocket diagram fails to show what exactly is pushing on the rocket
All you have is your gasongas fight and results in no motion.
And the balloon diagram.
Yoy have no net directional force on the balloon to cause it to move.
has a similar diameter to the ISS is tested at 6 Bar, i.e. 6 x normal atmospheric pressure.Are you saying this tank is what holds the fuel in a rocket?
Or is this tank far too small to be a tank for the saturn V?
Try again! You have the action and reaction forces in the same direction but they must be in opposite directions as in rvlvr's original diagram!Yes there is. Pay attention to it.Simple:That makes zero sense and I find it hard how people can be fooled by it.
(https://howthingsfly.si.edu/sites/default/files/image-regular/rocket_propulsion_reg_0.jpg)
Balloon top right has an internal left and a force that is unbalanced internal right that is able to escape out the opening.
Net directional motion to the left.
In your version, you were asked to show what part of the rocket is pushed on by the outside expanding gas on gas figt.
Still yet to see.
(https://i.postimg.cc/kGvhPHfd/rocket-propulsion-reg-0.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Forget everyone else, scepti.
Your rocket diagram fails to show what exactly is pushing on the rocket
All you have is your gason gas fight and results in no motion.
And the balloon diagram.
You have no net directional force on the balloon to cause it to move.
Pretending it's not there does not make it not there, except in your head..
Simple:
(https://howthingsfly.si.edu/sites/default/files/image-regular/rocket_propulsion_reg_0.jpg)
Yep and I stand by it.
you claimed that the ISS could not withstand the stress of 14.7 psia (almost exactly 1 Bar) inside and 0 psia (the vacuum of space) outside.
So I showed a photo of a tank that has a working pressure of 4 Bar above the outside pressure. That tank is regularly pressure tested to 4 Bar.You showed me a tank that works under atmospheric conditions, noit in your space.
If a tank like than can be built to withstand 6 x the pressure difference experienced by the ISS why should the ISS present an engineering problem?Because of two reasons.
This video from 1:10 on shows the initial construction of the ISS components on the ground and then being assembled.
Bob Lies AGAIN by Everett Anderson
Forget the earlier bit but I could not find the source of that ISS construction video material.
Ok so forget the Saturn V and work out what rockets took up those massive sections. Was it all shuttles?Quote from: sceptimaticHow big would the saturn V tank be to hold the pressure?Who brought the Saturn V into it? We were talking about the ISS.
But "the LOX tank was maintained at 18 to 23 psia during flight" and I can't find the pressures in the RP-1 tank but it was probably similar.
The pressure in the tanks has to be enough to feed the fuel to the fuel pumps.
I won't argue why it wouldn't get off the ground. I'll let you keep your fantasy about that.Quote from: sceptimaticYour rocket is not getting off the ground.it is not my rocket! The Saturn V was NASA's rocket but why do you claim it "is not getting off the ground"?
Each of the five Rocketdyne F-1 engines on the Apollo 11 Saturn V generated 1,522,000 lbf (over 690,000 kg.force).
So the five generated a total thrust of just over 3,450,000 kg.force.
And the launch mass of the Saturn V was 2,970,000 kg so why would it "not get off the ground"?
Yep for the supposed mock up...or should I say, attempts to mock us.Quote from: sceptimaticAs for theIt is not "the so-called ISS"! It is the ISS and if you bothered to look you could see and photograph the thing.so calledISS, are you saying this tank is the skin of it?
But, no that tank was just an example of a tank of a similar size to the ISS modules that can witstand over 4 times the pressure difference that the ISS has to.
You can see those ISS modules being built in the workshops in the above video.
Bring my amendment to that diagram up and take a little bit of time to see where the reaction to action is.
Try again! You have the action and reaction forces in the same direction but they must be in opposite directions as in rvlvr's original diagram!
Yes there is. Pay attention to it.Technically you are right, but it is pushing it backwards, not forwards, and thus doesn't work as an explanation, and isn't balanced in any way.
You showed me a tank that works under atmospheric conditions, noit in your space.The absolute pressure doesn't matter. What does is the differential.
1. It would need to be of a certain thickness of metal skin to hold in the near 15 psi of pressure and don't even bother to pretend it's a nothing.And what certain thickness is that?
2. A hole punctured into the so called ISS, even a small hole would depressurise extremely quickly against near zero resistance.You "showed us why" by completely ignoring the scale.
I showed you why with the thermos nib.
There would be none of this slow hissing like you'd get in normal atmospheric conditions we are used to, because your so called vacuum would be vast and not allow any resistance to escaping internal pressure.That is only your delusional fantasy. Back in reality, all the atmosphere does is determine the pressure differential. The gas itself is what creates the resistance, as it can't just magically fly out.
Bring my amendment to that diagram up and take a little bit of time to see where the reaction to action is.It is quite clear where it is. You have the main force acting on the gas, with the gas being pushed backwards by pure magic and then being pushed forwards by the atmosphere.
Quote from: rabinozSo I showed a photo of a tank that has a working pressure of 4 Bar above the outside pressure. That tank is regularly pressure tested to 4 Bar.You showed me a tank that works under atmospheric conditions, noit in your space.
Quote properly instead of using snippets and answering them without meaning or you'll get this back and waste your own time.Yes there is. Pay attention to it.Technically you are right, but it is pushing it backwards, not forwards, and thus doesn't work as an explanation, and isn't balanced in any way.
Let me make this abundantly clear.Quote from: rabinozSo I showed a photo of a tank that has a working pressure of 4 Bar above the outside pressure. That tank is regularly pressure tested to 4 Bar.You showed me a tank that works under atmospheric conditions, noit in your space.
If a tank is in atmosphere, then the external pressure is 1 bar.
If internal pressure is 6 bar, then the resultant is 5 bar.
It means that the tank can withstand pressure difference of 5 bar (or more, but it was not tested).
If the habitat of the ISS is under pressure of 1 bar, and external pressure is 0 bar,
then the resultant is 1 bar, which is 4 bar weaker.
If the common technology can routinely produce the tank that can withstand at least 5 bar,
then why the Space technology wouldn't produce the tank that withstands 1 bar? :)
Why do you stand by your fantasy?Yep and I stand by it.
you claimed that the ISS could not withstand the stress of 14.7 psia (almost exactly 1 Bar) inside and 0 psia (the vacuum of space) outside.
But that tank is tested to a pressure of 6 times atmospheric pressure (6 Bar) and the pressure difference between the inside of the ISS is only atmospheric pressure (1 Bar).Quote from: rabinozSo I showed a photo of a tank that has a working pressure of 4 Bar above the outside pressure. That tank is regularly pressure tested to 4 Bar.You showed me a tank that works under atmospheric conditions, noit in your space.
And the ISS does have the"certain thickness of metal skin to hold in the near 15 psi of pressure" because it was designed that way!Quote from: rabinozIf a tank like than can be built to withstand 6 x the pressure difference experienced by the ISS why should the ISS present an engineering problem?Because of two reasons.
1. It would need to be of a certain thickness of metal skin to hold in the near 15 psi of pressure and don't even bother to pretend it's a nothing.
2. A hole punctured into theBut you forgot this:so calledISS, even a small hole would depressurise extremely quickly against near zero resistance.
I showed you why with the thermos nib.
The volume of that evacuated space in the Thermos would be around 200 ml or 0.0002 m3 andThe volume of the ISS is about 4,600,000 time that of the vacuum flask - a huge amount more air.
the pressurised volume of the ISS is 915.5 m3!
There would be none of this slow hissing like you'd get in normal atmospheric conditions we are used to, because your so called vacuum would be vast and not allow any resistance to escaping internal pressure.Rubbish! There is nothing magic about a vacuum and in this case the tiny hole limits the flow and with a pressure difference of only 14.7 psi the hole could be temporarily sealed with a bit of suitable tape, which the do have on the ISS for just that.
A massive difference.
Possibly but they would never have to finish the mock-up to the standards needed for putting into space.Quote from: rabinozThis video from 1:10 on shows the initial construction of the ISS components on the ground and then being assembled.
Bob Lies AGAIN by Everett Anderson
Forget the earlier bit but I could not find the source of that ISS construction video material.
Yep, so tell me how they built this mock up?
It wouldn't be from the very same facility, would it?
Of course you'll ignore the rest.Quote from: sceptimaticPossibly but they would never have to finish the mock-up to the standards needed for putting into space.Quote from: rabinozThis video from 1:10 on shows the initial construction of the ISS components on the ground and then being assembled.
Bob Lies AGAIN by Everett Anderson
Forget the earlier bit but I could not find the source of that ISS construction video material.
Yep, so tell me how they built this mock up?
It wouldn't be from the very same facility, would it?
Why would it matter?
I'll ignore the rest as you seem to say nothing of value.
Yes, it is clear that you don't understand the engineering differences between keeping pressure in from a higher pressure out versus in from a lower pressure out.Let me make this abundantly clear.Quote from: rabinozSo I showed a photo of a tank that has a working pressure of 4 Bar above the outside pressure. That tank is regularly pressure tested to 4 Bar.You showed me a tank that works under atmospheric conditions, noit in your space.
If a tank is in atmosphere, then the external pressure is 1 bar.
If internal pressure is 6 bar, then the resultant is 5 bar.
It means that the tank can withstand pressure difference of 5 bar (or more, but it was not tested).
If the habitat of the ISS is under pressure of 1 bar, and external pressure is 0 bar,
then the resultant is 1 bar, which is 4 bar weaker.
If the common technology can routinely produce the tank that can withstand at least 5 bar,
then why the Space technology wouldn't produce the tank that withstands 1 bar? :)
Is that clear enough?
It's pretty clear you have zero clue.
Yes, it is clear that you don't understand the engineering differences between keeping pressure in from a higher pressure out versus in from a lower pressure out.
That you can't tell that railroad tank could hold far more pressure in the other direction is not my problem. It is yours. It is not the same engineering problem whether you understand it or not.It's pretty clear you have zero clue.
Yes, it is clear that you don't understand the engineering differences between keeping pressure in from a higher pressure out versus in from a lower pressure out.
But that's just the point. The argument is about extreme low pressure against atmospheric pressure, whether inside pressure being 15 psi against extreme low pressure or external pressure being 15 psi against extreme internal low pressure/or the tank I put up.That you can't tell that railroad tank could hold far more pressure in the other direction is not my problem. It is yours. It is not the same engineering problem whether you understand it or not.It's pretty clear you have zero clue.
Yes, it is clear that you don't understand the engineering differences between keeping pressure in from a higher pressure out versus in from a lower pressure out.
At least you are entertaining.
And you still don't understand that it isn't the same. The direction matters. That rail tank could withstand the pressure difference in the other direction easily, just as the ISS could.But that's just the point. The argument is about extreme low pressure against atmospheric pressure, whether inside pressure being 15 psi against extreme low pressure or external pressure being 15 psi against extreme internal low pressure/or the tank I put up.That you can't tell that railroad tank could hold far more pressure in the other direction is not my problem. It is yours. It is not the same engineering problem whether you understand it or not.It's pretty clear you have zero clue.
Yes, it is clear that you don't understand the engineering differences between keeping pressure in from a higher pressure out versus in from a lower pressure out.
At least you are entertaining.
Either way you have a severe problem and would also have it even worse if you pit a so called ISS against so called space vacuum with internal pressure of around 15 psi.
Don't underestimate the pounds per square inch.
The rail tank reminds you of it and so would the fictional ISS is fictional space.
The rail tank dictates otherwise...and that's reality.
And you still don't understand that it isn't the same. The direction matters. That rail tank could withstand the pressure difference in the other direction easily, just as the ISS could.
No, the rail tank indicates only that it is weak in one direction. It doesn't show the other direction.The rail tank dictates otherwise...and that's reality.
And you still don't understand that it isn't the same. The direction matters. That rail tank could withstand the pressure difference in the other direction easily, just as the ISS could.
Let me make this abundantly clear.Quote from: rabinozSo I showed a photo of a tank that has a working pressure of 4 Bar above the outside pressure. That tank is regularly pressure tested to 4 Bar.You showed me a tank that works under atmospheric conditions, noit in your space.
If a tank is in atmosphere, then the external pressure is 1 bar.
If internal pressure is 6 bar, then the resultant is 5 bar.
It means that the tank can withstand pressure difference of 5 bar (or more, but it was not tested).
If the habitat of the ISS is under pressure of 1 bar, and external pressure is 0 bar,
then the resultant is 1 bar, which is 4 bar weaker.
If the common technology can routinely produce the tank that can withstand at least 5 bar,
then why the Space technology wouldn't produce the tank that withstands 1 bar? :)
Is that clear enough?
Sorry, this dictates otherwise...and that's reality.The rail tank dictates otherwise...and that's reality.
And you still don't understand that it isn't the same. The direction matters. That rail tank could withstand the pressure difference in the other direction easily, just as the ISS could.
An "ISO Tank Container" is designed to fit the space of a standard 40' ISO shipping container and has a similar diameter to the ISS is tested at 6 Bar, i.e. 6 x normal atmospheric pressure.That "ISO Tank Container" can withstand 6 Bar (87 psi) above atmospheric pressure on Earth.QuoteThe most common type of tank is UN type T11 which can carry more than 1000 types of dangerous goods. T11 tanks are the most common tank in use, tested to 6 bars of pressure and have a working pressure of 4 bar. (Qualitank keep a number of tanks available which have current valid test certificates.)This sort of thing:
(https://qualitank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/RIMG1717.jpg)
So why do you find it hard to believe that the ISS cannot withstand an internal pressure of only 14.7 psia?
There's nothing magic about a vacuum - as far as stresses are concerned it's nothing more than a region of almost zero pressure.
A similar-sized structure on earth with an internal pressure of 29.4 psi would be subject to the same stresses.
This the rest of it.Quote from: rabinozPossibly but they would never have to finish the mock-up to the standards needed for putting into space.Of course you'll ignore the rest.
Why would it matter?
I'll ignore the rest as you seem to say nothing of value.
And as for finishing the mock up to the standards needed for space. There are no standards needed for space. It's a mock up and that's it. It's there to mock us inside a facility where they do all the filming and all the rest of the bullcrap.
You won't argue because you have no reasonable answer so you just ridicule!Ok so forget the Saturn V and work out what rockets took up those massive sections. Was it all shuttles?Quote from: sceptimaticHow big would the saturn V tank be to hold the pressure?Who brought the Saturn V into it? We were talking about the ISS.
But "the LOX tank was maintained at 18 to 23 psia during flight" and I can't find the pressures in the RP-1 tank but it was probably similar.
The pressure in the tanks has to be enough to feed the fuel to the fuel pumps.Quote from: rabinozI won't argue why it wouldn't get off the ground. I'll let you keep your fantasy about that.Quote from: sceptimaticYour rocket is not getting off the ground.it is not my rocket! The Saturn V was NASA's rocket but why do you claim it "is not getting off the ground"?
Each of the five Rocketdyne F-1 engines on the Apollo 11 Saturn V generated 1,522,000 lbf (over 690,000 kg.force).
So the five generated a total thrust of just over 3,450,000 kg.force.
And the launch mass of the Saturn V was 2,970,000 kg so why would it "not get off the ground"?
Again just a meaningless non-answer!Quote from: rabinozYep for the supposed mock up...or should I say, attempts to mock us.Quote from: sceptimaticAs for theIt is not "the so-called ISS"! It is the ISS and if you bothered to look you could see and photograph the thing.so calledISS, are you saying this tank is the skin of it?
But, no that tank was just an example of a tank of a similar size to the ISS modules that can withstand over 4 times the pressure difference that the ISS has to.
You can see those ISS modules being built in the workshops in the above video.
Yes there is. Pay attention to it.Simple:That makes zero sense and I find it hard how people can be fooled by it.
(https://howthingsfly.si.edu/sites/default/files/image-regular/rocket_propulsion_reg_0.jpg)
Balloon top right has an internal left and a force that is unbalanced internal right that is able to escape out the opening.
Net directional motion to the left.
In your version, you were asked to show what part of the rocket is pushed on by the outside expanding gas on gas figt.
Still yet to see.
(https://i.postimg.cc/kGvhPHfd/rocket-propulsion-reg-0.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Forget everyone else, scepti.
Your rocket diagram fails to show what exactly is pushing on the rocket
All you have is your gasongas fight and results in no motion.
And the balloon diagram.
Yoy have no net directional force on the balloon to cause it to move.
Pretending it's not there does not make it not there, except in your head..
Quote properly instead of using snippets and answering them without meaning or you'll get this back and waste your own time.The only one wasting time here is you.
Let me make this abundantly clear.Yes, quite clear. You either have no idea what you are talking about or you are blatantly lying to everyone.
Is that clear enough?
The argument is about extreme low pressure against atmospheric pressure, whether inside pressure being 15 psi against extreme low pressure or external pressure being 15 psi against extreme internal low pressure/or the tank I put up.No, the actual point is that those 2 scenarios are very different. The directionality of the force matters. You equating the 2 shows you don't understand or are lying.
And you still don't understand that it isn't the same. The direction matters. That rail tank could withstand the pressure difference in the other direction easily, just as the ISS could.The rail tank dictates otherwise...and that's reality.
It doesn't show the other direction because the tank is under atmospheric pressure.No, the rail tank indicates only that it is weak in one direction. It doesn't show the other direction.The rail tank dictates otherwise...and that's reality.
And you still don't understand that it isn't the same. The direction matters. That rail tank could withstand the pressure difference in the other direction easily, just as the ISS could.
Nobody's asking for it to be broken from the inside. It's irrelevant at this point of argument.Let me make this abundantly clear.Quote from: rabinozSo I showed a photo of a tank that has a working pressure of 4 Bar above the outside pressure. That tank is regularly pressure tested to 4 Bar.You showed me a tank that works under atmospheric conditions, noit in your space.
If a tank is in atmosphere, then the external pressure is 1 bar.
If internal pressure is 6 bar, then the resultant is 5 bar.
It means that the tank can withstand pressure difference of 5 bar (or more, but it was not tested).
If the habitat of the ISS is under pressure of 1 bar, and external pressure is 0 bar,
then the resultant is 1 bar, which is 4 bar weaker.
If the common technology can routinely produce the tank that can withstand at least 5 bar,
then why the Space technology wouldn't produce the tank that withstands 1 bar? :)
Is that clear enough?
It is to me.
Looks like it is not to you.
The tank shown in your video can be pumped back to the shape.
The material is still whole, only bent.
To break it from inside you need much higher pressure difference.
So: do you really don't understand it?
Or you already understand but hope we can be deceived so easily?
You're not marrying up anything here.
That "ISO Tank Container" can withstand 6 Bar (87 psi) above atmospheric pressure on Earth.
Why should it be difficult to make a similar diameter container to withstand only 14.7 psi in a vacuum on Earth or in space?
And you not answering the question.You're not marrying up anything here.
That "ISO Tank Container" can withstand 6 Bar (87 psi) above atmospheric pressure on Earth.
Why should it be difficult to make a similar diameter container to withstand only 14.7 psi in a vacuum on Earth or in space?
Deal with your space and an internal pressure like your ISS argument.My act's already together, thanks.
What you're showing me is a compressed air tank against a compressed air external environment.
It doesn't marry up. Get your act together.
Pay close attention to it.
Where.
Which sodcific arrow was pointing on what part of the ballon?
rocket?
Colour it green or something so everybody knows.
Why talk so mysteriously.
Make yourself plainly and obviously clear.
If you don't like it just observe and say nothing.
The only one wasting time here is you.
Its all a distraction deflection from his diagram.You people need to sort out your own because none of yours makes any sense of reality. It makes perfect sense for fictional fantasy.
Dont drag this on for another 20pg guys!
Scepti needs to sort out his diagram.
Don't go on about ridicule when you come out with it regularly. Pigeons playing chess?And you not answering the question.You're not marrying up anything here.
That "ISO Tank Container" can withstand 6 Bar (87 psi) above atmospheric pressure on Earth.
Why should it be difficult to make a similar diameter container to withstand only 14.7 psi in a vacuum on Earth or in space?
I asked, "Why should it be difficult to make a similar diameter container to withstand only 14.7 psi in a vacuum on Earth or in space?"
Please answer if with something better than ridicule.
The logical reasons have been given.Quote from: sceptimaticDeal with your space and an internal pressure like your ISS argument.My act's already together, thanks.
What you're showing me is a compressed air tank against a compressed air external environment.
It doesn't marry up. Get your act together.
As far as any stresses on a container are concerned it makes not the slightest difference whether
1) the internal pressure is 6 Bar (87 psi) above atmospheric pressure on Earth, ie 7 Bar absolute (103 psia) or
2) the internal pressure is 6 Bar (87 psi) above zero pressure in space, ie 6 Bar absolute (87 psia).
The stress on a tank, a tyre or the ISS depends only on the difference in pressure.
If you disagree please give logical reason and show how you would calculate the stress.
If you cannot calculate the stress on a simple cylinder your ideas are worthless because real engineers have to do just that!
So you have no answers! Thought not.Don't go on about ridicule when you come out with it regularly. Pigeons playing chess?And you not answering the question.You're not marrying up anything here.
That "ISO Tank Container" can withstand 6 Bar (87 psi) above atmospheric pressure on Earth.
Why should it be difficult to make a similar diameter container to withstand only 14.7 psi in a vacuum on Earth or in space?
I asked, "Why should it be difficult to make a similar diameter container to withstand only 14.7 psi in a vacuum on Earth or in space?"
Please answer if with something better than ridicule.
If you want ridicule I'll give you it aplenty in pm if it floats your boat.
I've seen none! All you ever do is say "The logical reasons have been given" but you appear to have none.Quote from: rabinozThe logical reasons have been given.Quote from: sceptimaticDeal with your space and an internal pressure like your ISS argument.My act's already together, thanks.
What you're showing me is a compressed air tank against a compressed air external environment.
It doesn't marry up. Get your act together.
As far as any stresses on a container are concerned it makes not the slightest difference whether
1) the internal pressure is 6 Bar (87 psi) above atmospheric pressure on Earth, ie 7 Bar absolute (103 psia) or
2) the internal pressure is 6 Bar (87 psi) above zero pressure in space, ie 6 Bar absolute (87 psia).
The stress on a tank, a tyre or the ISS depends only on the difference in pressure.
If you disagree please give logical reason and show how you would calculate the stress.
If you cannot calculate the stress on a simple cylinder your ideas are worthless because real engineers have to do just that!
The tank is a good enough reason to whos what happens with close to 15 psi placed upon it from it's own internal pressure.No, the tank collapsed because the pressure outside (about 15 psia) was too much more than the pressure inside so the sides buckled.
GATX offers capacities ranging from 17,000 to 33,500 gallons and operating pressures up to 600 PSI.But you saw what happened with only 14.7 psia outside and far from a vacuum inside.
You can't comprehend a vacuum or internal to external pressures because your space is fantasy and you can only go on total made up nonsense handed to you of which you swallow with gusto.I can "comprehend a vacuum or internal to external pressures" just fine and I can "calculate the stress on a simple cylinder" but apparently you can't.
And you.
Dream on!
Pay close attention to it.
Where.
Which sodcific arrow was pointing on what part of the ballon?
rocket?
Colour it green or something so everybody knows.
Why talk so mysteriously.
Make yourself plainly and obviously clear.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tTW8dtv5/rocket-propulsion-reg-0.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
I try to answer what you write rationally but you can never say why I am wrong.Dream on!And you.
It rests on the gases it ejects against gases it compresses into.Pay close attention to it.
Where.
Which sodcific arrow was pointing on what part of the ballon?
rocket?
Colour it green or something so everybody knows.
Why talk so mysteriously.
Make yourself plainly and obviously clear.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tTW8dtv5/rocket-propulsion-reg-0.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Thanks for updating it.
You still, very clearly, have no physical force line directly pushing on the rocket/ balloon itself causing it to move.
In this case I feel I do know better. A lot better.I try to answer what you write rationally but you can never say why I am wrong.Dream on!And you.
All you seem able to do is ridicule! Sorry, but that's not good enough.
So, as usual you admit that you have have no answers even to my simply design type question.
And that sort of problem is eminently practical. For the designers of pressure vessels and tanks it's their "bread and butter".
But you seem to claim than you know better than all these people that do that sort of thing in their everyday job.
But you show no evidence of "knowing better"! You could do the simple calculation I requested.In this case I feel I do know better. A lot better.
But you seem to claim than you know better than all these people that do that sort of thing in their everyday job.
Pay close attention to it.
Where.
Which sodcific arrow was pointing on what part of the ballon?
rocket?
Colour it green or something so everybody knows.
Why talk so mysteriously.
Make yourself plainly and obviously clear.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tTW8dtv5/rocket-propulsion-reg-0.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
You don't need calculations to see experiments perform how you expect them to.But you show no evidence of "knowing better"! You could do the simple calculation I requested.In this case I feel I do know better. A lot better.
But you seem to claim than you know better than all these people that do that sort of thing in their everyday job.
If you cannot do calculations using your ideas they are useless.
And you can never show why you claim I'm wrong in my claims - you just fall back on ridicule when you can't explain something.
The engineers designing anything must do calculations to determine the strength needed etc.
So, like it or not, calculations and equations are absolutely essential.
Not sure what you're getting at with this. Care to elaborate?Pay close attention to it.
Where.
Which sodcific arrow was pointing on what part of the ballon?
rocket?
Colour it green or something so everybody knows.
Why talk so mysteriously.
Make yourself plainly and obviously clear.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tTW8dtv5/rocket-propulsion-reg-0.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.imgur.com/fqHaxgV.jpg)
Not sure what you're getting at with this. Care to elaborate?
It rests on the gases it ejects against gases it compresses into.Pay close attention to it.
Where.
Which sodcific arrow was pointing on what part of the ballon?
rocket?
Colour it green or something so everybody knows.
Why talk so mysteriously.
Make yourself plainly and obviously clear.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tTW8dtv5/rocket-propulsion-reg-0.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Thanks for updating it.
You still, very clearly, have no physical force line directly pushing on the rocket/ balloon itself causing it to move.
The rocket itself balances on the gas fight.
Like hovercraft sits on its cushion of air, so does the rocket.
The only difference is in the mass of expansion to compression build at all times for the rocket and the massive fact that the rocket expends it's fuel in massive amounts to enable it to sit on that gas on gas fight as it'#s pushed up.
Pretty simple really but it will be extremely difficult for people to grasp who hold the thought that a rocket can actually kick itself up its own arse consistently to gain altitude without using any atmosphere in order to do so.
It rests on the gases it ejects against gases it compresses into.Pay close attention to it.
Where.
Which sodcific arrow was pointing on what part of the ballon?
rocket?
Colour it green or something so everybody knows.
Why talk so mysteriously.
Make yourself plainly and obviously clear.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tTW8dtv5/rocket-propulsion-reg-0.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Thanks for updating it.
You still, very clearly, have no physical force line directly pushing on the rocket/ balloon itself causing it to move.
The rocket itself balances on the gas fight.
Like hovercraft sits on its cushion of air, so does the rocket.
The only difference is in the mass of expansion to compression build at all times for the rocket and the massive fact that the rocket expends it's fuel in massive amounts to enable it to sit on that gas on gas fight as it'#s pushed up.
Pretty simple really but it will be extremely difficult for people to grasp who hold the thought that a rocket can actually kick itself up its own arse consistently to gain altitude without using any atmosphere in order to do so.
What do you think would happen to that tank if pressurised and placed in an extreme low pressure environment and punctured?It would vent, over a considerable time depending on how large the hole is and how much gas is in there. As this gas has changed velocity it would necessitate a force to act upon it and thus a reactionary force and thus it would also move the tank.
Nobody's asking for it to be broken from the inside. It's irrelevant at this point of argument.No, you are. You are acting like this shows a massive problem for the ISS because it is exposed to a vacuum. The only way for it to be a problem is if you are suggesting the vacuum will cause it to fail, as the vacuum inside the tank did in the video.
Pay close attention to it.Still no arrow of force acting on the rocket or balloon to push it forward.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tTW8dtv5/rocket-propulsion-reg-0.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
If you don't like it just observe and say nothing.No, I will continue to call out your BS, even if you continually ignore me. It just shows that you really have no case, and that you know you are here lying to everyone. You know your claims are pure garbage which cannot withstand any form of rational scrutiny, yet you continue to spout them, knowingly lying to everyone here.
You people need to sort out your own because none of yours makes any sense of reality.If none of it makes any sense, why is it capable of explaining so many observations?
Nobody's asking for it to be broken from the inside. It's irrelevant at this point of argument.Let me make this abundantly clear.Quote from: rabinozSo I showed a photo of a tank that has a working pressure of 4 Bar above the outside pressure. That tank is regularly pressure tested to 4 Bar.You showed me a tank that works under atmospheric conditions, noit in your space.
If a tank is in atmosphere, then the external pressure is 1 bar.
If internal pressure is 6 bar, then the resultant is 5 bar.
It means that the tank can withstand pressure difference of 5 bar (or more, but it was not tested).
If the habitat of the ISS is under pressure of 1 bar, and external pressure is 0 bar,
then the resultant is 1 bar, which is 4 bar weaker.
If the common technology can routinely produce the tank that can withstand at least 5 bar,
then why the Space technology wouldn't produce the tank that withstands 1 bar? :)
Is that clear enough?
It is to me.
Looks like it is not to you.
The tank shown in your video can be pumped back to the shape.
The material is still whole, only bent.
To break it from inside you need much higher pressure difference.
So: do you really don't understand it?
Or you already understand but hope we can be deceived so easily?
The argument is the puncture hole and release of internal pressure to supposed space of zero resistance to it.
You're arguing it without knowing what you're arguing against.
You must do calculations to design things like new aircraft types, bridges, rockets, tall buildings, etc.The engineers designing anything must do calculations to determine the strength needed etc.You don't need calculations to see experiments perform how you expect them to.
So, like it or not, calculations and equations are absolutely essential.
You can clearly see it.It rests on the gases it ejects against gases it compresses into.Pay close attention to it.
Where.
Which sodcific arrow was pointing on what part of the ballon?
rocket?
Colour it green or something so everybody knows.
Why talk so mysteriously.
Make yourself plainly and obviously clear.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tTW8dtv5/rocket-propulsion-reg-0.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Thanks for updating it.
You still, very clearly, have no physical force line directly pushing on the rocket/ balloon itself causing it to move.
The rocket itself balances on the gas fight.
Like hovercraft sits on its cushion of air, so does the rocket.
The only difference is in the mass of expansion to compression build at all times for the rocket and the massive fact that the rocket expends it's fuel in massive amounts to enable it to sit on that gas on gas fight as it'#s pushed up.
Pretty simple really but it will be extremely difficult for people to grasp who hold the thought that a rocket can actually kick itself up its own arse consistently to gain altitude without using any atmosphere in order to do so.
Yes
Its very simple.
There is the balloon or rocket and it is moving because a transferrance of force.
Show that arrow.
You show nothing directly pushing it forward (to the left)
The rocket burn, which you call exhaust, which is not exhaust at that point, compresses the atmosphere below that burn by massively expanding into it.It rests on the gases it ejects against gases it compresses into.Pay close attention to it.
Where.
Which sodcific arrow was pointing on what part of the ballon?
rocket?
Colour it green or something so everybody knows.
Why talk so mysteriously.
Make yourself plainly and obviously clear.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tTW8dtv5/rocket-propulsion-reg-0.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Thanks for updating it.
You still, very clearly, have no physical force line directly pushing on the rocket/ balloon itself causing it to move.
The rocket itself balances on the gas fight.
Like hovercraft sits on its cushion of air, so does the rocket.
The only difference is in the mass of expansion to compression build at all times for the rocket and the massive fact that the rocket expends it's fuel in massive amounts to enable it to sit on that gas on gas fight as it'#s pushed up.
Pretty simple really but it will be extremely difficult for people to grasp who hold the thought that a rocket can actually kick itself up its own arse consistently to gain altitude without using any atmosphere in order to do so.
If this were the case then you would see the rockets exhaust gases impacting against this condensed layer and being deflected in some way.
In reality this is not observed in any way.
Gas has mass. That means it will resist motion. That means it can't just magically accelerate out of a container. That means the gas itself will provide resistance.You need to pay attention.
Nope. I use that video as a simple proof of what 15 psi is capable of if you take away equilibrium as would be if there was a so called ISS against a so called space vacuum.
So, to illustrate the higher internal pressure case and a puncture,
you use the video where internal pressure is "extremely low" and there is no puncture?
LOL
Calculations are fine if reality is being dealt with.You must do calculations to design things like new aircraft types, bridges, rockets, tall buildings, etc.The engineers designing anything must do calculations to determine the strength needed etc.You don't need calculations to see experiments perform how you expect them to.
So, like it or not, calculations and equations are absolutely essential.
And competent aeronautical engineers design new plane types and build simulators accurate for test pilots to learn most of the flight characteristics before even sitting in the plane.
If your ideas don't allow that sort of thing those ideas are useless.
You can clearly see it.It rests on the gases it ejects against gases it compresses into.Pay close attention to it.
Where.
Which sodcific arrow was pointing on what part of the ballon?
rocket?
Colour it green or something so everybody knows.
Why talk so mysteriously.
Make yourself plainly and obviously clear.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tTW8dtv5/rocket-propulsion-reg-0.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Thanks for updating it.
You still, very clearly, have no physical force line directly pushing on the rocket/ balloon itself causing it to move.
The rocket itself balances on the gas fight.
Like hovercraft sits on its cushion of air, so does the rocket.
The only difference is in the mass of expansion to compression build at all times for the rocket and the massive fact that the rocket expends it's fuel in massive amounts to enable it to sit on that gas on gas fight as it'#s pushed up.
Pretty simple really but it will be extremely difficult for people to grasp who hold the thought that a rocket can actually kick itself up its own arse consistently to gain altitude without using any atmosphere in order to do so.
Yes
Its very simple.
There is the balloon or rocket and it is moving because a transferrance of force.
Show that arrow.
You show nothing directly pushing it forward (to the left)
The real issue is, you nor anyone else can provide a diagram that shows where your transference of force is.
Nope. I use that video as a simple proof of what 15 psi is capable of if you take away equilibrium as would be if there was a so called ISS against a so called space vacuum.
Proper tire pressure lets your bike roll quickly, ride smoothly, and avoid flats.
Narrow tires need more air pressure than wide ones:
Road tires typically require 80 to 130 psi (pounds per square inch)
You can clearly see it.No, we can't.
The real issue is, you nor anyone else can provide a diagram that shows where your transference of force is.Did you mean can't?
This creates a massive resistance and spring back against that burn every nano second, kind of thing.As has been said by me and others plenty of times. If that was the case, you would see the exhaust being pushed forwards of the rocket or at the very least blowing straight out to the sides, not backwards.
The rocket you people adhere to has no rational explanation for how it works.If that was true you would have been able to show a problem with the explanation rather than just repeatedly dismissing it.
You need to pay attention.No, you need to come up with a coherent model and actually address the numerous issues you have been avoiding rather than just repeatedly spouting the same refuted garbage.
The gas is compressed and it's that compression being allowed to decompress being the reason why the gas pushes into a resistance, externally.No, it is the fact that gas has mass and, like everything with a mass, thus resists changes in its motion. This is needed in order for the air to be able to provide resistance. If it didn't, then you would be freely able to move through the air with no resistance at all, and that means the gas pushing out wouldn't create any resistance.
Nope. I use that video as a simple proof of what 15 psi is capable of if you take away equilibrium as would be if there was a so called ISS against a so called space vacuum.And as already pointed out, YOU FAILED!
From this point on I'm also arguing that a puncture in this scenario would decompress the so called ISS is super short order, killing all onboard who would have zero chance to plug the hole nor get into any such suit to survive.No, you aren't. You are baselessly asserting it.
What is required is for people to take some time to understand just how the dupe works and understand why it is not reality.Only if by "showing that" you mean showing that what you are providing is the dupe, not reality.
I think I'm showing that.
No you're not! All you are showing is that you haven't the slightest understanding of reality.Calculations are fine if reality is being dealt with.You must do calculations to design things like new aircraft types, bridges, rockets, tall buildings, etc.The engineers designing anything must do calculations to determine the strength needed etc.You don't need calculations to see experiments perform how you expect them to.
So, like it or not, calculations and equations are absolutely essential.
And competent aeronautical engineers design new plane types and build simulators accurate for test pilots to learn most of the flight characteristics before even sitting in the plane.
If your ideas don't allow that sort of thing those ideas are useless.
The stuff you're going with is absolutely not a reality. It's fictional, so calculations are certainly not required.
What is required is for people to take some time to understand just how the dupe works and understand why it is not reality.
I think I'm showing that.
Once the burnt propellant has left the rocket and become the exhaust gases they no longer can have any effect on the the rocket.The rocket burn, which you call exhaust, which is not exhaust at that point, compresses the atmosphere below that burn by massively expanding into it.It rests on the gases it ejects against gases it compresses into.Pay close attention to it.
Where.
Which sodcific arrow was pointing on what part of the ballon?
rocket?
Colour it green or something so everybody knows.
Why talk so mysteriously.
Make yourself plainly and obviously clear.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tTW8dtv5/rocket-propulsion-reg-0.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Thanks for updating it.
You still, very clearly, have no physical force line directly pushing on the rocket/ balloon itself causing it to move.
The rocket itself balances on the gas fight.
Like hovercraft sits on its cushion of air, so does the rocket.
The only difference is in the mass of expansion to compression build at all times for the rocket and the massive fact that the rocket expends it's fuel in massive amounts to enable it to sit on that gas on gas fight as it'#s pushed up.
Pretty simple really but it will be extremely difficult for people to grasp who hold the thought that a rocket can actually kick itself up its own arse consistently to gain altitude without using any atmosphere in order to do so.
If this were the case then you would see the rockets exhaust gases impacting against this condensed layer and being deflected in some way.
In reality this is not observed in any way.
This creates a massive resistance and spring back against that burn every nano second, kind of thing. The rocket rests on this gas fight and is pushed up.
If you want to use your imagination then picture atmospheric warping or basically making a dent in the stack through massive expansion of gas burning, compressing that stack and making a delve through direct action into that area.
Gas has mass. That means it will resist motion. That means it can't just magically accelerate out of a container. That means the gas itself will provide resistance.You need to pay attention.
The gas is compressed and it's that compression being allowed to decompress being the reason why the gas pushes into a resistance, externally.
Gas on gas.You can clearly see it.It rests on the gases it ejects against gases it compresses into.Pay close attention to it.
Where.
Which sodcific arrow was pointing on what part of the ballon?
rocket?
Colour it green or something so everybody knows.
Why talk so mysteriously.
Make yourself plainly and obviously clear.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tTW8dtv5/rocket-propulsion-reg-0.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Thanks for updating it.
You still, very clearly, have no physical force line directly pushing on the rocket/ balloon itself causing it to move.
The rocket itself balances on the gas fight.
Like hovercraft sits on its cushion of air, so does the rocket.
The only difference is in the mass of expansion to compression build at all times for the rocket and the massive fact that the rocket expends it's fuel in massive amounts to enable it to sit on that gas on gas fight as it'#s pushed up.
Pretty simple really but it will be extremely difficult for people to grasp who hold the thought that a rocket can actually kick itself up its own arse consistently to gain altitude without using any atmosphere in order to do so.
Yes
Its very simple.
There is the balloon or rocket and it is moving because a transferrance of force.
Show that arrow.
You show nothing directly pushing it forward (to the left)
The real issue is, you nor anyone else can provide a diagram that shows where your transference of force is.
clearly see what?
the arrow
phsycially contacting the rocket body
where is it?
i see no arrow ON the rocket, POINTING left
maybe colour the ONE arrow, ON the rocket, POINT left, Blue or something
What I put is correct. What you put is complete hogwash.
Once the burnt propellant has left the rocket and become the exhaust gases they no longer can have any effect on the the rocket.
The area travelling much faster than the speed of sound in that gas so no influence can flow upstream. If you don't understand that then you don't know the very first thing about supersonic aerodynamics.
So all your mish-mash is black arrows is just so much graffiti.
Here is one way to look at it. All you need are these two arrows:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/vy31n4q5nhm027h/Rocket%20engine%20forces.jpg?dl=1)
A force to the right is needed to accelerate the burnt propellant from zero to the exhaust velocity.
The reaction to that force, a force to the left, is the thrust pushing the rocket and note that the air outside never came into it.
It's so simple a child could understand but a "smart person", like you, with a "narrative" (you cannot allow rockets to work in space) can never accept it.
No, it's totally inaccurate.Gas has mass. That means it will resist motion. That means it can't just magically accelerate out of a container. That means the gas itself will provide resistance.You need to pay attention.
The gas is compressed and it's that compression being allowed to decompress being the reason why the gas pushes into a resistance, externally.
So the compressed gas (exhaust), which has a higher pressure then uncompressed gas, is decompressing. During that decompression, the high pressure gas is interacting with the atmosphere (uncompressed/low pressure gas), which is then providing enough resistance for the high pressure exhaust to move the rocket.
Is that accurate?
No, it's totally inaccurate.Gas has mass. That means it will resist motion. That means it can't just magically accelerate out of a container. That means the gas itself will provide resistance.You need to pay attention.
The gas is compressed and it's that compression being allowed to decompress being the reason why the gas pushes into a resistance, externally.
So the compressed gas (exhaust), which has a higher pressure then uncompressed gas, is decompressing. During that decompression, the high pressure gas is interacting with the atmosphere (uncompressed/low pressure gas), which is then providing enough resistance for the high pressure exhaust to move the rocket.
Is that accurate?
Gas on gas.
Pay attention.
Now, you pay close attention!What I put is correct. What you put is complete hogwash.
Once the burnt propellant has left the rocket and become the exhaust gases they no longer can have any effect on the rocket.
The area travelling much faster than the speed of sound in that gas so no influence can flow upstream. If you don't understand that then you don't know the very first thing about supersonic aerodynamics.
So all your mish-mash is black arrows is just so much graffiti.
Here is one way to look at it. All you need are these two arrows:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/vy31n4q5nhm027h/Rocket%20engine%20forces.jpg?dl=1)
A force to the right is needed to accelerate the burnt propellant from zero to the exhaust velocity.
The reaction to that force, a force to the left, is the thrust pushing the rocket and note that the air outside never came into it.
It's so simple a child could understand but a "smart person", like you, with a "narrative" (you cannot allow rockets to work in space) can never accept it.
Gas on gas.Try paying attention yourself.
Pay attention.
What I put is correct. What you put is complete hogwash.If that was the case we wouldn't be so easily able to destroy your claims by asking such simple questions like "where is the arrow of force that is accelerating the rocket to the left?" and you would easily be able to point out problems with what we are saying rather than dismissing it as hogwash.
Gas on gas.
Pay attention.
Using exhaust wrong.
What is inaccurate? That's what you said above. I just added additional wordage for clarification.
Yep. It's crashing into it.
The decompressing gas is pushing against the atmosphere.
Nope.
Clearly the exhaust gas is a high pressure gas as it is decompressing.
Yes the atmosphere is at a lower pressure initially in the area that's directly in line with the thrust/super decompression from the rocket gas BURN. Not exhaust.
The atmosphere is clearly at a lower pressure (You can't decompress into a higher pressure).
Nope.
The higher pressure gas (exhaust) is meeting resistance from the lower pressure gas (atmosphere).
Start thinking back to the trampoline. The delve and the spring back against the energy applied to that trampoline.
As you said, the rocket sits on top of the gas. If the gas stacks and moves upward, the rocket which sits on top of it thus moves upward.
Pay attention.
Gas on gas.
Pay attention.
Yes
Theres a picture
Which you drew.
That shows nothing pushing on the rocket/ balloon.
Yet we know the rocket/ balloon moves.
So what arrow in your picutre reflects "reality" of the gas on gas pushing on the rocket?
They have a higher thrust against extreme lo0w pressure because there's very little reactionary resistance to the thrust.Now, you pay close attention!What I put is correct. What you put is complete hogwash.
Once the burnt propellant has left the rocket and become the exhaust gases they no longer can have any effect on the rocket.
The area travelling much faster than the speed of sound in that gas so no influence can flow upstream. If you don't understand that then you don't know the very first thing about supersonic aerodynamics.
So all your mish-mash is black arrows is just so much graffiti.
Here is one way to look at it. All you need are these two arrows:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/vy31n4q5nhm027h/Rocket%20engine%20forces.jpg?dl=1)
A force to the right is needed to accelerate the burnt propellant from zero to the exhaust velocity.
The reaction to that force, a force to the left, is the thrust pushing the rocket and note that the air outside never came into it.
It's so simple a child could understand but a "smart person", like you, with a "narrative" (you cannot allow rockets to work in space) can never accept it.
If what you put is correct then why do rockets have a higher thrust in a vacuum because whatever YOU say they DO?
Read this and learn:There's a massive difference in what you say and it has to be addressed so people understand the difference between a rocket thrusting it's compressive gases into a BURN and the exhaust immediately after that BURN.Once the burnt propellant has left the rocket and become the exhaust gases they no longer can have any effect on the rocket.That makes all you gas-on-gas so much fiction.
Have YOU ever done any real experiments to demonstrate that your ideas are correct.Yep. Small but effective.
If not your thoughts are just unsupported hypotheses.
Those that design and build rocket engines, especially in the early days, have done an untold amount of experimental work.Yes, to make a rocket work in atmosphere.....not in fictional space.
Maybe others but it's me against you lot on here, so yes.
The only person clinging to gas on gas is you.
Gas on gas.
Pay attention.
So, no rocket, just gasses? :)
Gas on gas.
Pay attention.
So, no rocket, just gasses? :)
Wow. Is this all you have left.
::)
So YOU say but you have never even built a rocket engine.They have a higher thrust against extreme lo0w pressure because there's very little reactionary resistance to the thrust.Now, you pay close attention!What I put is correct. What you put is complete hogwash.
Once the burnt propellant has left the rocket and become the exhaust gases they no longer can have any effect on the rocket.
The area travelling much faster than the speed of sound in that gas so no influence can flow upstream. If you don't understand that then you don't know the very first thing about supersonic aerodynamics.
So all your mish-mash is black arrows is just so much graffiti.
Here is one way to look at it. All you need are these two arrows:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/vy31n4q5nhm027h/Rocket%20engine%20forces.jpg?dl=1)
A force to the right is needed to accelerate the burnt propellant from zero to the exhaust velocity.
The reaction to that force, a force to the left, is the thrust pushing the rocket and note that the air outside never came into it.
It's so simple a child could understand but a "smart person", like you, with a "narrative" (you cannot allow rockets to work in space) can never accept it.
If what you put is correct then why do rockets have a higher thrust in a vacuum because whatever YOU say they DO?
It's a near one way street which creates next to zero reaction to the action. Basically pointless, yet is a great fictional story for those willing to accept the sci-fi as sci-fa.
No, YOU haven't been paying attention! The expansion of gases while IN the rocket engine is all that matters.Quote from: rabinozRead this and learn:There's a massive difference in what you say and it has to be addressed so people understand the difference between a rocket thrusting it's compressive gases into a BURN and the exhaust immediately after that BURN.Once the burnt propellant has left the rocket and become the exhaust gases they no longer can have any effect on the rocket.That makes all you gas-on-gas so much fiction.
Just so people do understand. The Burn is the effort. It's the super expansion of gases already expanding from the rocket.
It's just clearing a bigger path or making sure there's a much lower pressure to allow that decompression into to quickly compress it in order to create a massive reaction to that overall action from that rocket.SO YOU say but, as I've said, if there's any fight it can have no effect on the rocket - it's gone!
That reaction becomes the fight in that area.
The exhaust is the plume from the burn, which serves no forceful purpose of its own.Absorbing what you say is easy but believing it is another matter. You only write what you imagine happens and imagination is not enough.
Take some time to absorb this.
Not you Rab, I mean those that are after the reality, not the fiction you adhere to.I'm certainly after reality and in the basics of how a rocket I'm certain that I have it and what I have explains what happens in reality.
Would you care to list these experiments, with links to where they are described, so that others can repeat and check the results?Quote from: rabinozHave YOU ever done any real experiments to demonstrate that your ideas are correct.Yep. Small but effective.
If not your thoughts are just unsupported hypotheses.
Clearly you have not and do rely on appeal to what you accept as, authority.
So YOU say! It can easily be observed that those rockets continue to where the atmospheric pressure to help your ideas and there is no reason not to believe that those rockets keep climbing as claimed on the data read-outs.Quote from: rabinozThose that design and build rocket engines, especially in the early days, have done an untold amount of experimental work.Yes, to make a rocket work in atmosphere.....not in fictional space.
Using exhaust wrong.
What is inaccurate? That's what you said above. I just added additional wordage for clarification.
Quote from: NotSoSkepticalNope.
Clearly the exhaust gas is a high pressure gas as it is decompressing.
You need to understand thrust and exhaust. Both different.
Maybe others but it's me against you lot on here, so yes.
The only person clinging to gas on gas is you.
And that's what really happens.
The rocket is just the holder of one set of gases against the atmosphere.
As long as that rocket can allow extreme expansion against the atmosphere to extremely compress it for that atmosphere to extremely push back, you get the gas on gas fight and that pushes the rocket up.
All the rocket does is sit ion that fight. Just sits there.
Start thinking back to the trampoline.Sure, think back to a trampoline and compare how that works with what is observed for the rocket.
Pay attention.Again, FOLLOW YOUR OWN ADVICE!
They have a higher thrust against extreme lo0w pressure because there's very little reactionary resistance to the thrust.Yes, there is little resistance to that thrust, so what? Once it is thrust they have already gotten what they can out of it.
It's a near one way street which creates next to zero reaction to the action.This is literally impossible.
The Burn is the effort. It's the super expansion of gases already expanding from the rocket.No, the expansion primarily occurs in the rocket, rapidly accelerating the gas with it then leaving at a very high velocity.
I mean those that are after the reality, not the fiction you adhere to.It is quite clear from your actions that you are the one adhering to fiction here.
And that's what really happens.It happening or not is irrelevant to the question at hand and irrelevant to the discussion.
The rocket is just the holder of one set of gases against the atmosphere.HOW?
As long as that rocket can allow extreme expansion against the atmosphere to extremely compress it for that atmosphere to extremely push back, you get the gas on gas fight and that pushes the rocket up.
All the rocket does is sit ion that fight. Just sits there.
Let me ask them, what is the difference between the way a rocket operates in the atmosphere and in a vacuum?In the atmosphere the external pressure means that the burnt propellant cannot expand as much as it can in a vacuum.
Surely there should be a big difference in rocket power in 2 totally different mediums.Sure, there is "a big difference in rocket power in 2 totally different mediums".
Skeppy you are doing a good and Noble work explaining reality to these brainwashed stooges. Let me ask them, what is the difference between the way a rocket operates in the atmosphere and in a vacuum?
Surely there should be a big difference in rocket power in 2 totally different mediums.
Clearly the rocket sits on the gas fight at every stage of that gas fight.Gas on gas.
Pay attention.
So, no rocket, just gasses? :)
Wow. Is this all you have left.
::)
What more do you need? :)
It all boils down to the one simplest thing:
Is there any force by rocket, or on rocket?
Or just gasses push on each other without it?
Once the gases have burned, I agree they have no more use. The point is, they burn external to the rocket and work against atmosphere.
No, YOU haven't been paying attention! The expansion of gases while IN the rocket engine is all that matters.
Once those gases have left the rocket they can have no further effect on the rocket. If you claim otherwise you are simply proving that you have no understanding of supersonic flow.
Nope.Quote from: sceptimaticIt's just clearing a bigger path or making sure there's a much lower pressure to allow that decompression into to quickly compress it in order to create a massive reaction to that overall action from that rocket.SO YOU say but, as I've said, if there's any fight it can have no effect on the rocket - it's gone!
That reaction becomes the fight in that area.
Once the exhaust becomes smoke, its served its purpose and not until.Quote from: sceptimaticThe exhaust is the plume from the burn, which serves no forceful purpose of its own.Absorbing what you say is easy but believing it is another matter. You only write what you imagine happens and imagination is not enough.
Take some time to absorb this.
The exhaust is the gas as soon as it has left the rocket engine bell. After that, it serves no forceful purpose.
I will not get used to anything other than getting used to knowing rockets require atmospheric pressure to work.Quote from: sceptimaticNot you Rab, I mean those that are after the reality, not the fiction you adhere to.I'm certainly after reality and in the basics of how a rocket I'm certain that I have it and what I have explains what happens in reality.
But you have to deny observed reality because it does not fit the narrative that you have dreamed up about reality.
Reality is under not obligation to follow your dreams. Reality is there to be discovered by observation and experiment.
Get used to it!
Nobody's asking you to believe me. I'm simply saying I don;t believe what you adhere to and I have my reasons, which I'm stating.
But I fail to see why believing you is any better than believing the experimental done on rocket engines dating back to at least the 1920's right through to the present time.
Of course because people weren't so indoctrinated as to be brainwashed into believing the nonsense.
Way back in 1903 Konstantin Tsiolkovsky developed the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation based that same basic idea that I've been presenting.
Then in 1926 Robert H. Goddard started build liquid fueled rockets as described in Robert H. Goddard's "A METHOD OF REACHING EXTREME ALTITUDES". (http://www2.clarku.edu/research/archives/pdf/ext_altitudes.pdf)
And he had great trouble convincing some that rockets did not need air to push on.
What data readouts?Quote from: sceptimaticSo YOU say! It can easily be observed that those rockets continue to where the atmospheric pressure to help your ideas and there is no reason not to believe that those rockets keep climbing as claimed on the data read-outs.Quote from: rabinozThose that design and build rocket engines, especially in the early days, have done an untold amount of experimental work.Yes, to make a rocket work in atmosphere.....not in fictional space.
How am I using exhaust wrong? Propellant is burned in a combustion chamber. Once it begins to leave the chamber it is exhaust.No, not at all.
Put simply, the thrust is the violent expansion of gases and it's this violent expansion of gases that leaves the rocket under a burn that creates the massive violent compression of atmosphere from that violent expansion.
I know they are different, but I made no mention of thrust. Since you want to bring it into the discussion, why don't you define both exhaust and thrust so I understand your point of view. I wouldn't want to use a definition that is incorrect.
By your words, the rocket would then be pushed by the green bar you drew.The arrows both sides of it show what I'm talking about in terms of action and reaction.
There would be an arrow from the green bar, pushing on the rocket.
You don't show this.
If you sat on a swing and totallackey pushed the swing, a force line would show him pushing the swing, and the swing pushing on your butt.Yep, my resistance to his push.
You need to adjust your drawing.I could make the drawing way more informative but I expected so called intelligent people to simply see what's what and somehow you can't.
Quote from: NotSoSkepticalPut simply, the thrust is the violent expansion of gases and it's this violent expansion of gases that leaves the rocket under a burn that creates the massive violent compression of atmosphere from that violent expansion.
I know they are different, but I made no mention of thrust. Since you want to bring it into the discussion, why don't you define both exhaust and thrust so I understand your point of view. I wouldn't want to use a definition that is incorrect.
Once that atmosphere is compressed enough it creates the massive resistance to that thrust and ever lessening mass of fuel to keep pushing back onto that thrust for as long as the every lessening mass of the rocket fuel keeps violently thrusting into it.
Having zero resistance to that violent expansion means no reaction to it and no rocket movement.
Pretty basic and simple but it's cast aside in favour of nonsensical explanations in order for the fictional stories of space to be told as fact.
By your words, the rocket would then be pushed by the green bar you drew.The arrows both sides of it show what I'm talking about in terms of action and reaction.
There would be an arrow from the green bar, pushing on the rocket.
You don't show this.
The green bar is merely a reference point for a stack.Quote from: ThemightykaboolIf you sat on a swing and totallackey pushed the swing, a force line would show him pushing the swing, and the swing pushing on your butt.Yep, my resistance to his push.
He's using his internal energy to push me externally and my mass is creating a resistance to that push.Quote from: ThemightykaboolYou need to adjust your drawing.I could make the drawing way more informative but I expected so called intelligent people to simply see what's what and somehow you can't.
The reason you can't is because you do not accept anything other than the mainstream explanation, so on that note I could use as much detail and what not and you would still come out with the same stuff.
I still await the drawing from your side that shows what happens to a rocket in propulsion but all I ever see is one arrow pointing up into the rocket and it makes no sense.
Nobody can explain it because it's nonsense and cannot be rationally explained to work as told.
I'm correct.
Let me ask them, what is the difference between the way a rocket operates in the atmosphere and in a vacuum?In the atmosphere, there is atmospheric drag. This reduces the effective thrust of the rocket.
Surely there should be a big difference in rocket power in 2 totally different mediums.
Clearly the rocket sits on the gas fight at every stage of that gas fight.Then draw in the arrow to show where it is getting pushed. That shouldn't be hard.
The rocket is being pushed up on that continuous gas fight.
All the rocket is doing is decompressing fuel in order for the reaction of external atmosphere to do it's job.
The point is, they burn external to the rocket and work against atmosphere.The point is, THEY DON'T!
It's pretty simple to understand why this is needed but it is not pretty simple to accept the nonsense you adhere to about not needing atmosphere.The one spouting nonsense here is you, as shown by you avoiding simple issues yet again and still refusing to put a simple arrow on your diagram because you know it refutes you.
I will not get used to anything other than getting used to knowing rockets require atmospheric pressure to work.Then PROVE IT!
I'm simply saying I don;t believe what you adhere to and I have my reasons, which I'm stating.No, you aren't stating your reasons. The only reason you have to dismiss rockets working in reality is because they show your fantasy to be wrong.
Put simply, the thrust is the violent expansion of gases and it's this violent expansion of gases that leaves the rocket under a burn that creates the massive violent compression of atmosphere from that violent expansion.Like I have said before, if this pile of garbage was true, you would see the exhaust being thrown in front of the rocket by the atmosphere.
Once that atmosphere is compressed enough it creates the massive resistance to that thrust and ever lessening mass of fuel to keep pushing back onto that thrust for as long as the every lessening mass of the rocket fuel keeps violently thrusting into it.
Having zero resistance to that violent expansion means no reaction to it and no rocket movement.No, what is pretty basic is that the gas itself will provide that resistance. In order to have it so rapidly leave the rocket it will require a significant force and thus generate a significant reactionary force.
Pretty basic and simple but it's cast aside in favour of nonsensical explanations in order for the fictional stories of space to be told as fact.
The arrows both sides of it show what I'm talking about in terms of action and reaction.And it in no way shows any force on the rocket.
Yep, my resistance to his push.Just like the mass of the gas creates a resistance to that push, which pushes the rocket, without any need for the atmosphere.
He's using his internal energy to push me externally and my mass is creating a resistance to that push.
I could make the drawing way more informative but I expected so called intelligent people to simply see what's what and somehow you can't.No, we can easily see what's what.
I still await the drawing from your side that shows what happens to a rocket in propulsionYou have been provided it plenty of times, with plenty of explanations. You are yet to demonstrate a single problem with it, and instead you just repeatedly dismiss it because you cannot accept rockets being real.
Skeppy you are doing a good and Noble work explaining reality to these brainwashed stooges. Let me ask them, what is the difference between the way a rocket operates in the atmosphere and in a vacuum?Exactly but they cannot explain it except to place one arrow going up a nozzle into the rocket. It literally makes zero sense and is a cop out of explanations.
Surely there should be a big difference in rocket power in 2 totally different mediums.
The thrust against extreme low pressure means the gas can expand much more, meaning it hits little resistance, meaning the rocket is a dead stick.Let me ask them, what is the difference between the way a rocket operates in the atmosphere and in a vacuum?In the atmosphere the external pressure means that the burnt propellant cannot expand as much as it can in a vacuum.
This reduces the exit velocity of the burnt propellant at sea-level and hence the thrust.Quote from: hoppySurely there should be a big difference in rocket power in 2 totally different mediums.Sure, there is "a big difference in rocket power in 2 totally different mediums".
As explained above rocket engines produce quite a deal more thrust ina vacuumextreme low pressure than at sea-level.
I hope you can follow this line of reasoning.
Let's give you a though process.Quote from: NotSoSkepticalPut simply, the thrust is the violent expansion of gases and it's this violent expansion of gases that leaves the rocket under a burn that creates the massive violent compression of atmosphere from that violent expansion.
I know they are different, but I made no mention of thrust. Since you want to bring it into the discussion, why don't you define both exhaust and thrust so I understand your point of view. I wouldn't want to use a definition that is incorrect.
Once that atmosphere is compressed enough it creates the massive resistance to that thrust and ever lessening mass of fuel to keep pushing back onto that thrust for as long as the every lessening mass of the rocket fuel keeps violently thrusting into it.
Having zero resistance to that violent expansion means no reaction to it and no rocket movement.
Pretty basic and simple but it's cast aside in favour of nonsensical explanations in order for the fictional stories of space to be told as fact.
Here's where I always get confused: What is the level of atmospheric resistance versus the violent expansion of gases thrust from the rocket? Seemingly the thrust is far more powerful than the atmospheric resistance it is pushing against. Is the atmospheric resistance stronger, for lack of a better term, than the violent expansion of gases thrust from the rocket?
All speculation and adherence to fictional books.Skeppy you are doing a good and Noble work explaining reality to these brainwashed stooges. Let me ask them, what is the difference between the way a rocket operates in the atmosphere and in a vacuum?
Surely there should be a big difference in rocket power in 2 totally different mediums.
That "big" difference is about 15 PSI, which is 1 bar.
Internal pressure of F-1 engine is 70 bar.
In vacuum the difference is 70 bar.
At sea level the difference is 69 bar.
Obviously, the pressure difference in vacuum is about 1.5% higher, with higher exhaust exit velocity which gives more engine thrust.
Clearly the rocket sits on the gas fight at every stage of that gas fight.Gas on gas.
Pay attention.
So, no rocket, just gasses? :)
Wow. Is this all you have left.
::)
What more do you need? :)
It all boils down to the one simplest thing:
Is there any force by rocket, or on rocket?
Or just gasses push on each other without it?
The rocket is being pushed up on that continuous gas fight.
All the rocket is doing is decompressing fuel in order for the reaction of external atmosphere to do it's job.
Forget the exhaust it has no bearing on the force, only the spent energy that created the force.
So, there IS force between the rocket and the exhaust?
Forget the exhaust it has no bearing on the force, only the spent energy that created the force.
So, there IS force between the rocket and the exhaust?
How am I using exhaust wrong? Propellant is burned in a combustion chamber. Once it begins to leave the chamber it is exhaust.No, not at all.
Once it leaves the nozzle as smoke/cloud then it is exhaust and not until.Quote from: NotSoSkepticalPut simply, the thrust is the violent expansion of gases and it's this violent expansion of gases that leaves the rocket under a burn that creates the massive violent compression of atmosphere from that violent expansion.
I know they are different, but I made no mention of thrust. Since you want to bring it into the discussion, why don't you define both exhaust and thrust so I understand your point of view. I wouldn't want to use a definition that is incorrect.
Once that atmosphere is compressed enough it creates the massive resistance to that thrust and ever lessening mass of fuel to keep pushing back onto that thrust for as long as the every lessening mass of the rocket fuel keeps violently thrusting into it.
Having zero resistance to that violent expansion means no reaction to it and no rocket movement.
Pretty basic and simple but it's cast aside in favour of nonsensical explanations in order for the fictional stories of space to be told as fact.
Forget the exhaust it has no bearing on the force, only the spent energy that created the force.
So, there IS force between the rocket and the exhaust?
Surely there should be a big difference in rocket power in 2 totally different mediums.Except the 2 mediums aren't "totally different". One gradually transitions into the other and no one seems to be able to say at what point the rocket should have too little air to push against.
All speculation and adherence to fictional books.Skeppy you are doing a good and Noble work explaining reality to these brainwashed stooges. Let me ask them, what is the difference between the way a rocket operates in the atmosphere and in a vacuum?
Surely there should be a big difference in rocket power in 2 totally different mediums.
That "big" difference is about 15 PSI, which is 1 bar.
Internal pressure of F-1 engine is 70 bar.
In vacuum the difference is 70 bar.
At sea level the difference is 69 bar.
Obviously, the pressure difference in vacuum is about 1.5% higher, with higher exhaust exit velocity which gives more engine thrust.
Exactly but they cannot explain it exceptExcept that it has been repeatedly explained to you and you have literally no refutation against it so instead of even trying you just dismiss it as nonsense.
The thrust against extreme low pressure means the gas can expand much more, meaning it hits little resistance, meaning the rocket is a dead stick.No, meaning it can expand more and accelerate more, meaning it provides more force to the rocket, meaning the rocket is anything but a dead stick.
Let's give you a though process.Or how about you deal with the one I provided right at the start which you have still failed to address.
Exactly but they cannot explain it except to place one arrow going up a nozzle into the rocket. It literally makes zero sense and is a cop out of explanations.
Let's give you a though process.Quote from: NotSoSkepticalPut simply, the thrust is the violent expansion of gases and it's this violent expansion of gases that leaves the rocket under a burn that creates the massive violent compression of atmosphere from that violent expansion.
I know they are different, but I made no mention of thrust. Since you want to bring it into the discussion, why don't you define both exhaust and thrust so I understand your point of view. I wouldn't want to use a definition that is incorrect.
Once that atmosphere is compressed enough it creates the massive resistance to that thrust and ever lessening mass of fuel to keep pushing back onto that thrust for as long as the every lessening mass of the rocket fuel keeps violently thrusting into it.
Having zero resistance to that violent expansion means no reaction to it and no rocket movement.
Pretty basic and simple but it's cast aside in favour of nonsensical explanations in order for the fictional stories of space to be told as fact.
Here's where I always get confused: What is the level of atmospheric resistance versus the violent expansion of gases thrust from the rocket? Seemingly the thrust is far more powerful than the atmospheric resistance it is pushing against. Is the atmospheric resistance stronger, for lack of a better term, than the violent expansion of gases thrust from the rocket?
Imagine an elevator with a rocket nozzle on it that pumps compressed air into and imagine this elevator being a snug fit in the shaft.
What would happen if the compressed air was turned on under the elevator?
Explain what would happen and why.
Imagine an elevator with a rocket nozzle on it that pumps compressed air into and imagine this elevator being a snug fit in the shaft.That is more like a compressed air "gun" not a rocket so the analogy is meaningless - try again.
What would happen if the compressed air was turned on under the elevator?
Explain what would happen and why.Why would I waste my time? It has very little to do with a rocket!
Really, then tell me how.Forget the exhaust it has no bearing on the force, only the spent energy that created the force.
So, there IS force between the rocket and the exhaust?
Can't forget the exhaust, the exhaust is the only reason why rocket works.
The lower pressure gas resists the higher pressure gas by being pressurised more by that higher pressure gas. It's action and reaction in equal terms.
How does a lower pressure gas resist a higher pressure gas to the point where the higher pressure gas stacks and pushes off it?
That diagram makes no rational sense at all with how it's set out.Forget the exhaust it has no bearing on the force, only the spent energy that created the force.
So, there IS force between the rocket and the exhaust?
That's right. Once the burnt propellant has left the rocket engine it is just exhaust gases and can have no further effect on the rocket.
Here are the only forces that are significant.
In the diagram below force to the right is required to accelerate the burnt propellant from zero to the exit velocity.
That force is provided by the inside of the bell of the rocket engine and that force is the thrust on the rocket.
Whether there is sea-level air pressure or a vacuum outside has only a secondary effect on those forces.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/p5c1x7fbpap7e39/Rocket%20engine%20forces%20-%202.jpg?dl=1)
Forces in the bell of the rocket engine nozzle.
It is all so very simple.
Believe who you want to. I don't care what you do.
Funny how those “fictional books” you have such distain for are used to design and build all the technology you take for granted. From cars, planes and computers to bringing power to your home and taking your shit away from it.
Whereas your version of reality has produced nothing more than a few ridiculously long threads on the flat earth society forum, in which you insist that you are right and the rest of the world is wrong.
Who should I believe? Hmmmm?
Draw the diagram and explain it and I'll copy it and add in what happens.Exactly but they cannot explain it exceptExcept that it has been repeatedly explained to you and you have literally no refutation against it so instead of even trying you just dismiss it as nonsense.The thrust against extreme low pressure means the gas can expand much more, meaning it hits little resistance, meaning the rocket is a dead stick.No, meaning it can expand more and accelerate more, meaning it provides more force to the rocket, meaning the rocket is anything but a dead stick.Let's give you a though process.Or how about you deal with the one I provided right at the start which you have still failed to address.
You have a tube, with one end open, in a vacuum. Inside the tube is highly pressurised gas.
Explain what would happen and why, making sure you also identify any source of leverage/push-on-push/action-reaction.
But it is contained in the rocket scenario.Let's give you a though process.Quote from: NotSoSkepticalPut simply, the thrust is the violent expansion of gases and it's this violent expansion of gases that leaves the rocket under a burn that creates the massive violent compression of atmosphere from that violent expansion.
I know they are different, but I made no mention of thrust. Since you want to bring it into the discussion, why don't you define both exhaust and thrust so I understand your point of view. I wouldn't want to use a definition that is incorrect.
Once that atmosphere is compressed enough it creates the massive resistance to that thrust and ever lessening mass of fuel to keep pushing back onto that thrust for as long as the every lessening mass of the rocket fuel keeps violently thrusting into it.
Having zero resistance to that violent expansion means no reaction to it and no rocket movement.
Pretty basic and simple but it's cast aside in favour of nonsensical explanations in order for the fictional stories of space to be told as fact.
Here's where I always get confused: What is the level of atmospheric resistance versus the violent expansion of gases thrust from the rocket? Seemingly the thrust is far more powerful than the atmospheric resistance it is pushing against. Is the atmospheric resistance stronger, for lack of a better term, than the violent expansion of gases thrust from the rocket?
Imagine an elevator with a rocket nozzle on it that pumps compressed air into and imagine this elevator being a snug fit in the shaft.
What would happen if the compressed air was turned on under the elevator?
Explain what would happen and why.
My guess is that the compressed air, being contained by the elevator shaft, would push on all sides of the chamber (shaft) below the elevator car and push the car upwards. Ironically, this is exactly how submarine missiles are launched out of their tubes. But I digress.
However, this does not equal nor address how a rocket with stronger thrust pushes off of a weaker atmosphere as the atmosphere is not contained within a 'shaft' like the elevator car. So how is your thought process relevant to the rocket scenario and why?
You really can't think for yourself, can you?Imagine an elevator with a rocket nozzle on it that pumps compressed air into and imagine this elevator being a snug fit in the shaft.That is more like a compressed air "gun" not a rocket so the analogy is meaningless - try again.
What would happen if the compressed air was turned on under the elevator?
Large air cannon fires telephone pole over 2000 feet by missmorganphoenix
Huge Air Cannon by ALtheSciencePalQuote from: sceptimaticExplain what would happen and why.Why would I waste my time? It has very little to do with a rocket!
Really, then tell me how.Forget the exhaust it has no bearing on the force, only the spent energy that created the force.
So, there IS force between the rocket and the exhaust?
Can't forget the exhaust, the exhaust is the only reason why rocket works.
You see, a real exhaust is spent fuel.
Get that?
Spent fuel.
So anything AFTER your burn, is spent fuel and is exhaust.
So let's start from that point and you tell me how exhaust makes your rocket work.
Or are you going to refuse?
Of course it doesn't explain anything to you and your like minded pals. I wouldn't expect it to, when your stance is entirely on the space rocket nonsense and how it supposedly works.
You already played that game for 10s of pg in the ballistic thread.
Answer your own theory with proofs how the "conventional"physics doesnt work.
Your incoherent word vomit of gasongas dossnt explain anything.
Somehow satellites get into orbit for us.Of course it doesn't explain anything to you and your like minded pals. I wouldn't expect it to, when your stance is entirely on the space rocket nonsense and how it supposedly works.
You already played that game for 10s of pg in the ballistic thread.
Answer your own theory with proofs how the "conventional"physics doesnt work.
Your incoherent word vomit of gasongas dossnt explain anything.
But it is contained in the rocket scenario.
Why?
Because it's a direct thrust against the atmosphere that actually makes that delve into the stack below and compressing it, which basically caves in the atmosphere around it back against the exhausting burn.
If you want a better analogy then think of pushing a football into a bath of water. You make a delve by the energy you place on that football and that water you pushed away has made a minor stack compression, raising it or basically you seeing the bath level raise a bit due to that ball being pushed down against a resistance which became bigger when you thrust the ball into it and that resistance crushes back.
The atmosphere is doing the very same.
That diagram makes no rational sense at all with how it's set out.Forget the exhaust it has no bearing on the force, only the spent energy that created the force.
So, there IS force between the rocket and the exhaust?
That's right. Once the burnt propellant has left the rocket engine it is just exhaust gases and can have no further effect on the rocket.
Here are the only forces that are significant.
In the diagram below force to the right is required to accelerate the burnt propellant from zero to the exit velocity.
That force is provided by the inside of the bell of the rocket engine and that force is the thrust on the rocket.
Whether there is sea-level air pressure or a vacuum outside has only a secondary effect on those forces.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/p5c1x7fbpap7e39/Rocket%20engine%20forces%20-%202.jpg?dl=1)
Forces in the bell of the rocket engine nozzle.
It is all so very simple.
Here's a much better diagram of reality.
(https://i.postimg.cc/brrPfw63/Rocket-engine-forces-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
The arrows to the left are atmospheric resistance to the larger arrows to the right which are the burning fuel super expanding and compressing into the atmosphere. Not the arrows to the left being compressed.
I should add in what happens at the sides, externally but this gives the gist.
And this is why your space rockets will remain fantasy.
Of course it doesn't explain anything to you and your like minded pals. I wouldn't expect it to, when your stance is entirely on the space rocket nonsense and how it supposedly works.
You already played that game for 10s of pg in the ballistic thread.
Answer your own theory with proofs how the "conventional"physics doesnt work.
Your incoherent word vomit of gasongas dossnt explain anything.
Believe who you want to. I don't care what you do.
Funny how those “fictional books” you have such distain for are used to design and build all the technology you take for granted. From cars, planes and computers to bringing power to your home and taking your shit away from it.
Whereas your version of reality has produced nothing more than a few ridiculously long threads on the flat earth society forum, in which you insist that you are right and the rest of the world is wrong.
Who should I believe? Hmmmm?
Really, then tell me how.Forget the exhaust it has no bearing on the force, only the spent energy that created the force.
So, there IS force between the rocket and the exhaust?
Can't forget the exhaust, the exhaust is the only reason why rocket works.
You see, a real exhaust is spent fuel.
Get that?
Spent fuel.
So anything AFTER your burn, is spent fuel and is exhaust.
So let's start from that point and you tell me how exhaust makes your rocket work.
Or are you going to refuse?
No, you wake up and do some serious thinking.You really can't think for yourself, can you?
Why would I waste my time? It has very little to do with a rocket!
Put your books down and think.
Draw the diagram and explain it and I'll copy it and add in what happens.I already did. You then drew pure nonsense which was refuted straight away.
Over to you.
You see, a real exhaust is spent fuel.Or expelled gas.
Or are you going to refuse?So far you have been the one repeatedly refusing to explain quite simple things, at least simple for those who don't reject reality.
That diagram makes no rational sense at all with how it's set out.Then why are you completely incapable of pointing out any problem with it?
But it is contained in the rocket scenario.No, it isn't.
Because it's a direct thrust against the atmosphere that actually makes that delve into the stack below and compressing it, which basically caves in the atmosphere around it back against the exhausting burn.Like I said before, which you have repeatedly ignored, if this is actually what was happening then the exhaust would be getting pushed upwards by the atmosphere and be pushed in front of the rocket, or at the very least out to the sides.
If you want a better analogy then think of pushing a football into a bath of water. You make a delve by the energy you place on that football and that water you pushed away has made a minor stack compression, raising it or basically you seeing the bath level raise a bit due to that ball being pushed down against a resistance which became bigger when you thrust the ball into it and that resistance crushes back.
But it is contained in the rocket scenario.Let's give you a though process.Quote from: NotSoSkepticalPut simply, the thrust is the violent expansion of gases and it's this violent expansion of gases that leaves the rocket under a burn that creates the massive violent compression of atmosphere from that violent expansion.
I know they are different, but I made no mention of thrust. Since you want to bring it into the discussion, why don't you define both exhaust and thrust so I understand your point of view. I wouldn't want to use a definition that is incorrect.
Once that atmosphere is compressed enough it creates the massive resistance to that thrust and ever lessening mass of fuel to keep pushing back onto that thrust for as long as the every lessening mass of the rocket fuel keeps violently thrusting into it.
Having zero resistance to that violent expansion means no reaction to it and no rocket movement.
Pretty basic and simple but it's cast aside in favour of nonsensical explanations in order for the fictional stories of space to be told as fact.
Here's where I always get confused: What is the level of atmospheric resistance versus the violent expansion of gases thrust from the rocket? Seemingly the thrust is far more powerful than the atmospheric resistance it is pushing against. Is the atmospheric resistance stronger, for lack of a better term, than the violent expansion of gases thrust from the rocket?
Imagine an elevator with a rocket nozzle on it that pumps compressed air into and imagine this elevator being a snug fit in the shaft.
What would happen if the compressed air was turned on under the elevator?
Explain what would happen and why.
My guess is that the compressed air, being contained by the elevator shaft, would push on all sides of the chamber (shaft) below the elevator car and push the car upwards. Ironically, this is exactly how submarine missiles are launched out of their tubes. But I digress.
However, this does not equal nor address how a rocket with stronger thrust pushes off of a weaker atmosphere as the atmosphere is not contained within a 'shaft' like the elevator car. So how is your thought process relevant to the rocket scenario and why?
Why?
Because it's a direct thrust against the atmosphere that actually makes that delve into the stack below and compressing it, which basically caves in the atmosphere around it back against the exhausting burn.
Nope! There is no "atmospheric resistance to the larger arrows to the right which are the burning fuel super expanding and compressing into the atmosphere" because it is in a vacuum!That diagram makes no rational sense at all with how it's set out.Forget the exhaust it has no bearing on the force, only the spent energy that created the force.
So, there IS force between the rocket and the exhaust?
That's right. Once the burnt propellant has left the rocket engine it is just exhaust gases and can have no further effect on the rocket.
Here are the only forces that are significant.
In the diagram below force to the right is required to accelerate the burnt propellant from zero to the exit velocity.
That force is provided by the inside of the bell of the rocket engine and that force is the thrust on the rocket.
Whether there is sea-level air pressure or a vacuum outside has only a secondary effect on those forces.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/p5c1x7fbpap7e39/Rocket%20engine%20forces%20-%202.jpg?dl=1)
Forces in the bell of the rocket engine nozzle.
It is all so very simple.Here's a much better diagram of reality.
(https://i.postimg.cc/brrPfw63/Rocket-engine-forces-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)The arrows to the left are atmospheric resistance to the larger arrows to the right which are the burning fuel super expanding and compressing into the atmosphere. Not the arrows to the left being compressed.
I should add in what happens at the sides, externally but this gives the gist.[/s]Look at the exhaust stream of a real rocket and note that at sea-level it does not expand greatly into the atmosphere because the pressure in that exhaust stream in very little if any above atmospheric pressure.
That's funny!And this is why your space rockets will remain fantasy.
Come back when you untwist yourself.
But it is contained in the rocket scenario.
Why?
Because it's a direct thrust against the atmosphere that actually makes that delve into the stack below and compressing it, which basically caves in the atmosphere around it back against the exhausting burn.
If you want a better analogy then think of pushing a football into a bath of water. You make a delve by the energy you place on that football and that water you pushed away has made a minor stack compression, raising it or basically you seeing the bath level raise a bit due to that ball being pushed down against a resistance which became bigger when you thrust the ball into it and that resistance crushes back.
The atmosphere is doing the very same.
But in your theory there is no space.
Its all air jnder a dome.
If you consider in your water-football analogy that the water is air and the air is space.
It doesnet exist.
Your anaolgy would require a football fully submerged in a tank of water.
When the ball is pulled down, there is no "compressing stack" and there is no change in level of water - yet the ball rises all on its own.
Why?
Bounancy.
Then your analogy dsscribes a helium or hotair balloon floating up without use of booster rockets.
And therefore your analogy is non relevant.
Then stay out of it.Of course it doesn't explain anything to you and your like minded pals. I wouldn't expect it to, when your stance is entirely on the space rocket nonsense and how it supposedly works.
You already played that game for 10s of pg in the ballistic thread.
Answer your own theory with proofs how the "conventional"physics doesnt work.
Your incoherent word vomit of gasongas dossnt explain anything.
Your game was to deflect the conversation away from you failng to answer your own theory.
Keep failing.
Whatever you see is not in the space you're told exists.Believe who you want to. I don't care what you do.
Funny how those “fictional books” you have such distain for are used to design and build all the technology you take for granted. From cars, planes and computers to bringing power to your home and taking your shit away from it.
Whereas your version of reality has produced nothing more than a few ridiculously long threads on the flat earth society forum, in which you insist that you are right and the rest of the world is wrong.
Who should I believe? Hmmmm?
I see you call yourself a flat earth Scientist. How as a scientist do you explain the existence of so many satellites that are visible on a guaranteed regular basis with either the naked eye or a pair of 10X40 standard binoculars? This is not something open for debate as anyone with half a mind can look up and see them. I find it difficult to understand that you call yourself a scientist and yet refuse to accept the reality of satellites.
Burning fuel is not exhaust.
Several people told you how already:
Fule is burnt in the chamber, creating pressure and exhaust.
Rocket is pushing the exhaust out using pressure.
The exhaust has mass.
You can't push any mass without force.
And since every force has reaction, the reaction to this pushing force is the force that pushes back on the rocket.
You can use any other name while the "exhaust" is not yet outside.
For example, you can name it "exhaust-to-be".
But semantics won't change the operating principle.
Draw a diagram of what you think happens in the elevator shaft with the scenario I gave you and we'll go from there.No, you wake up and do some serious thinking.You really can't think for yourself, can you?
Why would I waste my time? It has very little to do with a rocket!
Put your books down and think.
I do think and the projectile in the cannon or the "rocket" in the elevator shaft are pushed out by the force of the compressed air of the back of the projectile or the "rocket".
On the other hand, a rocket in space is pushed by the pressure of the burnt propellant on the inside of the rocket nozzle.
Just put some effort into thinking about that and then explain what is wrong with it.
Rocket engines work better in a vacuum than in air - get used to the real world.
If you disagree please tell us at what air pressure the rocket engine ceases to provide thrust because the rockets keep accelerating way about 100,000 feet where no winged aircraft can fly - just how is that possible?
PS You can also explain the thrust by using action-reaction and get the same result.
Draw a diagram like I asked and explain it.Draw the diagram and explain it and I'll copy it and add in what happens.I already did. You then drew pure nonsense which was refuted straight away.
Over to you.
Here was the basic diagram showing the setup:
(https://i.imgur.com/mP5b3FP.png)
And here it is with some arrows of force drawn in:
(https://i.imgur.com/iTlCgNi.png)
The gas (in red) is under extreme pressure, and pushes outwards in all directions. This results in a force on the tube (in red, pointing left) with a reactionary force on the gas (in black, pushing right). You can even consider the gas right at the edge separately, where you have the high pressure gas pushing this thin layer (in magenta) to the right as indicated by the red arrow pointing right. This has a reactionary force shown by the purple arrow pointing left, pushing on the remaining gas.
Try actually providing a solution which doesn't have a force on the rocket, but still has the action-reaction pairs.
Remember, the gas needs to be pushing off something to move, or else there is no reason to assume the rocket needs to.
This is the massive problem you have been avoiding right from the start which clearly shows that rockets MUST work in a vacuum.
Its contained by atmosphere crushing back against the thrust.
This isn't making any sense. How is the atmosphere contained like the elevator shaft when it's not contained?
How is the atmosphere compressed without containment? What's causing the atmosphere directly below the thrust of the rocket only to become rigid enough for it to push off of without containment? Do you have a diagram that explains this and why?
Whatever you see is not in the space you're told exists.And how do you know that? You've never been there nor bothered looking with a telescope or good camera.
And whatever you do see, take a picture and show me the satellites you clearly believe yu know are up there.Why should I?
Draw a diagram of what you think happens in the elevator shaft with the scenario I gave you and we'll go from there.Why would I need to?
I said: "If you disagree please tell us at what air pressure the rocket engine ceases to provide thrust because the rockets keep accelerating way above 100,000 feet where no winged aircraft can fly - just how is that possible?"<< Irrelevant >>No, you wake up and do some serious thinking.You really can't think for yourself, can you?
Why would I waste my time? It has very little to do with a rocket!
Put your books down and think.
I do think and the projectile in the cannon or the "rocket" in the elevator shaft are pushed out by the force of the compressed air of the back of the projectile or the "rocket".
On the other hand, a rocket in space is pushed by the pressure of the burnt propellant on the inside of the rocket nozzle.
Just put some effort into thinking about that and then explain what is wrong with it.
Rocket engines work better in a vacuum than in air - get used to the real world.
If you disagree please tell us at what air pressure the rocket engine ceases to provide thrust because the rockets keep accelerating way above 100,000 feet where no winged aircraft can fly - just how is that possible?
PS You can also explain the thrust by using action-reaction and get the same result.
Its contained by atmosphere crushing back against the thrust.
This isn't making any sense. How is the atmosphere contained like the elevator shaft when it's not contained?
How is the atmosphere compressed without containment? What's causing the atmosphere directly below the thrust of the rocket only to become rigid enough for it to push off of without containment? Do you have a diagram that explains this and why?
Once that thrust is exhausting so does the containment.
Burning fuel creates the exhaust which is directed by the nozzle to the right (action force) : the reaction force is to the left ( moving the rocket ) as the exhaust leaves the nozzle.Burning fuel is not exhaust.
Several people told you how already:
Fule is burnt in the chamber, creating pressure and exhaust.
Rocket is pushing the exhaust out using pressure.
The exhaust has mass.
You can't push any mass without force.
And since every force has reaction, the reaction to this pushing force is the force that pushes back on the rocket.
You can use any other name while the "exhaust" is not yet outside.
For example, you can name it "exhaust-to-be".
But semantics won't change the operating principle.
Burned fuel is exhaust.
Two entirely different things.
Have you ever considered that?Whatever you see is not in the space you're told exists.And how do you know that? You've never been there nor bothered looking with a telescope or good camera.Quote from: sceptimaticAnd whatever you do see, take a picture and show me the satellites you clearly believe yu know are up there.Why should I?
Hundreds of others take better photos than I could and you wouldn't believe a photo I took anyway.
ISS through my Telescope (Compilation) by J.W.Astronomy
You refuse to believe this for no other reason than that it doesn't fit with your "world-view".
Maybe your whole world-view is wrong - ever considered that?
Because it's not irrelevant, it's pertinent.Draw a diagram of what you think happens in the elevator shaft with the scenario I gave you and we'll go from there.Why would I need to?
Surely simply explaining that, if the seal is good enough, the pressure air in the shaft builds up until the force on the "rocket/projectile" is sufficient to expel it.
But that's totally irrelevant to a rocket tens of kilometres above the Earth. Why would I waste my time on irrelevancies?
A rocket will fly as high as its fuel allows, which is not for long.I said: "If you disagree please tell us at what air pressure the rocket engine ceases to provide thrust because the rockets keep accelerating way above 100,000 feet where no winged aircraft can fly - just how is that possible?"<< Irrelevant >>No, you wake up and do some serious thinking.You really can't think for yourself, can you?
Why would I waste my time? It has very little to do with a rocket!
Put your books down and think.
I do think and the projectile in the cannon or the "rocket" in the elevator shaft are pushed out by the force of the compressed air of the back of the projectile or the "rocket".
On the other hand, a rocket in space is pushed by the pressure of the burnt propellant on the inside of the rocket nozzle.
Just put some effort into thinking about that and then explain what is wrong with it.
Rocket engines work better in a vacuum than in air - get used to the real world.
If you disagree please tell us at what air pressure the rocket engine ceases to provide thrust because the rockets keep accelerating way above 100,000 feet where no winged aircraft can fly - just how is that possible?
PS You can also explain the thrust by using action-reaction and get the same result.
If you've no rational answer I'll assume that you have none.
The atmosphere is only far weaker until it becomes more pressurised. The massive expansion of burning fuel from the rocket sees to that massive pressurisation/compression.Its contained by atmosphere crushing back against the thrust.
This isn't making any sense. How is the atmosphere contained like the elevator shaft when it's not contained?
How is the atmosphere compressed without containment? What's causing the atmosphere directly below the thrust of the rocket only to become rigid enough for it to push off of without containment? Do you have a diagram that explains this and why?
Once that thrust is exhausting so does the containment.
But again, this makes no sense. The atmosphere is still far weaker than the thrust and wouldn't provide a stronger rigid containment like your analogy to compressed air in an elevator shaft lifting the passenger car from below.
Please explain what forces create this stronger than thrust atmospheric containment, how, and why.
If the burn from the nozzle is thrusting, it is not exhaust.Burning fuel creates the exhaust which is directed by the nozzle to the right (action force) : the reaction force is to the left ( moving the rocket ) as the exhaust leaves the nozzle.Burning fuel is not exhaust.
Several people told you how already:
Fule is burnt in the chamber, creating pressure and exhaust.
Rocket is pushing the exhaust out using pressure.
The exhaust has mass.
You can't push any mass without force.
And since every force has reaction, the reaction to this pushing force is the force that pushes back on the rocket.
You can use any other name while the "exhaust" is not yet outside.
For example, you can name it "exhaust-to-be".
But semantics won't change the operating principle.
Burned fuel is exhaust.
Two entirely different things.
Then stay out of it.Of course it doesn't explain anything to you and your like minded pals. I wouldn't expect it to, when your stance is entirely on the space rocket nonsense and how it supposedly works.
You already played that game for 10s of pg in the ballistic thread.
Answer your own theory with proofs how the "conventional"physics doesnt work.
Your incoherent word vomit of gasongas dossnt explain anything.
Your game was to deflect the conversation away from you failng to answer your own theory.
Keep failing.
The atmosphere is only far weaker until it becomes more pressurised. The massive expansion of burning fuel from the rocket sees to that massive pressurisation/compression.Its contained by atmosphere crushing back against the thrust.
This isn't making any sense. How is the atmosphere contained like the elevator shaft when it's not contained?
How is the atmosphere compressed without containment? What's causing the atmosphere directly below the thrust of the rocket only to become rigid enough for it to push off of without containment? Do you have a diagram that explains this and why?
Once that thrust is exhausting so does the containment.
But again, this makes no sense. The atmosphere is still far weaker than the thrust and wouldn't provide a stronger rigid containment like your analogy to compressed air in an elevator shaft lifting the passenger car from below.
Please explain what forces create this stronger than thrust atmospheric containment, how, and why.
Surely you are capable of understanding that.
Burnt propellant/exhaust are just words but if that's the way you want it.Burning fuel creates the exhaust which is directed by the nozzle to the right (action force) : the reaction force is to the left ( moving the rocket ) as the exhaust leaves the nozzle.If the burn from the nozzle is thrusting, it is not exhaust.
A car burning fuel inside a piston is using that burn to push the piston.
The exhaust pipe is the waste gases from that burn.
The rocket sits on the gas fight. What about that can't you understand?Then stay out of it.Of course it doesn't explain anything to you and your like minded pals. I wouldn't expect it to, when your stance is entirely on the space rocket nonsense and how it supposedly works.
You already played that game for 10s of pg in the ballistic thread.
Answer your own theory with proofs how the "conventional"physics doesnt work.
Your incoherent word vomit of gasongas dossnt explain anything.
Your game was to deflect the conversation away from you failng to answer your own theory.
Keep failing.
No
Im keeping you on track.
What froce line pushes on the balloon/ rocket?
Show one
In contact
With the rocket
Thats how force diagrams work.
Because it's never fully contained. Only massive thrust will create the pressure compression into the stack.The atmosphere is only far weaker until it becomes more pressurised. The massive expansion of burning fuel from the rocket sees to that massive pressurisation/compression.Its contained by atmosphere crushing back against the thrust.
This isn't making any sense. How is the atmosphere contained like the elevator shaft when it's not contained?
How is the atmosphere compressed without containment? What's causing the atmosphere directly below the thrust of the rocket only to become rigid enough for it to push off of without containment? Do you have a diagram that explains this and why?
Once that thrust is exhausting so does the containment.
But again, this makes no sense. The atmosphere is still far weaker than the thrust and wouldn't provide a stronger rigid containment like your analogy to compressed air in an elevator shaft lifting the passenger car from below.
Please explain what forces create this stronger than thrust atmospheric containment, how, and why.
Surely you are capable of understanding that.
How does the atmosphere become pressurized when it is not contained? How does the atmosphere become compressed when it is not contained?
Again, this makes no sense. There is nothing containing a pressurized atmosphere like your analogy of the compressed air under the passenger car in the elevator shaft. Surely you are capable of understanding that.
Please explain what forces create this stronger than thrust atmospheric containment, how, and why.
There's nothing hard about it as long as the truth is told and what you're saying is not the whole truth.Burnt propellant/exhaust are just words but if that's the way you want it.Burning fuel creates the exhaust which is directed by the nozzle to the right (action force) : the reaction force is to the left ( moving the rocket ) as the exhaust leaves the nozzle.If the burn from the nozzle is thrusting, it is not exhaust.
A car burning fuel inside a piston is using that burn to push the piston.
The exhaust pipe is the waste gases from that burn.
In a rocket engine, and it's just as much an engine as a car engine,The thrust is the force necessary to accelerate that burnt propellant from it's very high pressure, Mach 1 velocity state to the [low pressure, hypersonic velocity state[/i] at the exit.
- the fuel and oxidizer is burnt in the combustion chamber,
- the nozzle (throat and bell) convert that very high pressure (70 to 300 Bar) burnt propellant into low pressure very high velocity gas and thrust
- and the exit from the nozzle is the exhaust.
What's so hard about that?
Burning fuel is not exhaust.
Several people told you how already:
Fule is burnt in the chamber, creating pressure and exhaust.
Rocket is pushing the exhaust out using pressure.
The exhaust has mass.
You can't push any mass without force.
And since every force has reaction, the reaction to this pushing force is the force that pushes back on the rocket.
You can use any other name while the "exhaust" is not yet outside.
For example, you can name it "exhaust-to-be".
But semantics won't change the operating principle.
Burned fuel is exhaust.
Two entirely different things.
Show me the chamber.Burning fuel is not exhaust.
Several people told you how already:
Fule is burnt in the chamber, creating pressure and exhaust.
Rocket is pushing the exhaust out using pressure.
The exhaust has mass.
You can't push any mass without force.
And since every force has reaction, the reaction to this pushing force is the force that pushes back on the rocket.
You can use any other name while the "exhaust" is not yet outside.
For example, you can name it "exhaust-to-be".
But semantics won't change the operating principle.
Burned fuel is exhaust.
Two entirely different things.
Whatever you name it, it burned in the chamber, to exit requires force (action provided by the pressure), and reaction to that force accelerates the rocket.
Because it's never fully contained. Only massive thrust will create the pressure compression into the stack.The atmosphere is only far weaker until it becomes more pressurised. The massive expansion of burning fuel from the rocket sees to that massive pressurisation/compression.Its contained by atmosphere crushing back against the thrust.
This isn't making any sense. How is the atmosphere contained like the elevator shaft when it's not contained?
How is the atmosphere compressed without containment? What's causing the atmosphere directly below the thrust of the rocket only to become rigid enough for it to push off of without containment? Do you have a diagram that explains this and why?
Once that thrust is exhausting so does the containment.
But again, this makes no sense. The atmosphere is still far weaker than the thrust and wouldn't provide a stronger rigid containment like your analogy to compressed air in an elevator shaft lifting the passenger car from below.
Please explain what forces create this stronger than thrust atmospheric containment, how, and why.
Surely you are capable of understanding that.
How does the atmosphere become pressurized when it is not contained? How does the atmosphere become compressed when it is not contained?
Again, this makes no sense. There is nothing containing a pressurized atmosphere like your analogy of the compressed air under the passenger car in the elevator shaft. Surely you are capable of understanding that.
Please explain what forces create this stronger than thrust atmospheric containment, how, and why.
Did you not understand the delve bit?
Pay attention because you're clearly not.
Of course the atmosphere is weaker but the thrust is a direct hit into it and super compresses that atmosphere by the super expansion created by that burn.
Clearly you are making things up on the fly when stumped and not paying attention to your own words regarding a 'delve'. Try and keep up.
In your analogy the space underneath the passenger car is a closed containment inside the elevator shaft. You claim that the thrust creates a 'delve' (e.g. a shaft) beneath the rocket that contains the thrust and then propels the rocket upward. However, here's where you really need to pay attention, the atmosphere on all sides of the 'delve' is weaker than the thrust. And there is nothing to contain this 'delve' to make it stronger and more resistant than the thrust from the rocket.
Do you not understand your own 'delve' bit?
Again, please explain what forces create this stronger than thrust atmospheric containment, how, and why. You have failed to do so thus far.
Draw a diagram like I asked and explain it.I did. I drew a diagram, I provided it here, I gave you an explanation of how it works in reality, completely with action-reaction pairs.
Its contained by atmosphere crushing back against the thrust.If that was the case it wouldn't go far from the rocket. It would all be stuck at the nozzle.
A rocket will fly as high as its fuel allows, which is not for long.For a tiny rocket it isn't long. For a much larger rocket, it lasts much longer, several minutes, long enough to get it to space.
The reason why the rocket gains the height it does is due to loss of mass (fuel) whilst still thrusting against ever lessending resistance.No, the reason why it gains height is because the thrust produced is greater than the weight.
The atmosphere is only far weaker until it becomes more pressurised. The massive expansion of burning fuel from the rocket sees to that massive pressurisation/compression.Compressed air cannot magically compress the atmosphere to a pressure greater than it. The best you can do is go to a midway point.
Surely you are capable of understanding that.
The rocket sits on the gas fight. What about that can't you understand?The part where you diagram doesn't have an arrow of force acting on the rocket.
The problem with you and others is, you can't or will not let go of that fictional space vacuum and to admit what I'm telling you will kill it off, so I well understand why you pretend you have no clue.Again, you are projecting your own inadequcies.
Think of the water analogy in the bath to understand what I'm saying.Why not stick to the trampoline?
You people need to pay attention and use your own brains.Again, follow your own advice. We are using our brains, and that is what leads us to conclude your nonsense is nonsense.
Just put your fictional space rocket books down for a minute and pay attention.
No, I'm telling the the "whole truth" as far as I know it for the part of the thrust produced by the force needed to accelerate the burnt propellant.There's nothing hard about it as long as the truth is told and what you're saying is not the whole truth.If the burn from the nozzle is thrusting, it is not exhaust.Burnt propellant/exhaust are just words but if that's the way you want it.
A car burning fuel inside a piston is using that burn to push the piston.
The exhaust pipe is the waste gases from that burn.
In a rocket engine, and it's just as much an engine as a car engine,The thrust is the force necessary to accelerate that burnt propellant from it's very high pressure, Mach 1 velocity state to the [low pressure, hypersonic velocity state[/i] at the exit.
- the fuel and oxidizer is burnt in the combustion chamber,
- the nozzle (throat and bell) convert that very high pressure (70 to 300 Bar) burnt propellant into low pressure very high velocity gas and thrust
- and the exit from the nozzle is the exhaust.
What's so hard about that?
You neglect one very important factor. Can you guess what it is?No, I don't believe that I did, but do tell!
Show me the chamber.
The rocket sits on the gas fight. What about that can't you understand?Then stay out of it.Of course it doesn't explain anything to you and your like minded pals. I wouldn't expect it to, when your stance is entirely on the space rocket nonsense and how it supposedly works.
You already played that game for 10s of pg in the ballistic thread.
Answer your own theory with proofs how the "conventional"physics doesnt work.
Your incoherent word vomit of gasongas dossnt explain anything.
Your game was to deflect the conversation away from you failng to answer your own theory.
Keep failing.
No
Im keeping you on track.
What froce line pushes on the balloon/ rocket?
Show one
In contact
With the rocket
Thats how force diagrams work.
A hovercraft sits on a gas fight. I'm sure you can understand that.
The problem with you and others is, you can't or will not let go of that fictional space vacuum and to admit what I'm telling you will kill it off, so I well understand why you pretend you have no clue.
This thrusting is the ( action force ) to the right, the ( reaction force ) is to the left against the nozzle moving the rocket to the left. Leaving the exhaust trailing behind.If the burn from the nozzle is thrusting, it is not exhaust.Burning fuel creates the exhaust which is directed by the nozzle to the right (action force) : the reaction force is to the left ( moving the rocket ) as the exhaust leaves the nozzle.Burning fuel is not exhaust.
Several people told you how already:
Fule is burnt in the chamber, creating pressure and exhaust.
Rocket is pushing the exhaust out using pressure.
The exhaust has mass.
You can't push any mass without force.
And since every force has reaction, the reaction to this pushing force is the force that pushes back on the rocket.
You can use any other name while the "exhaust" is not yet outside.
For example, you can name it "exhaust-to-be".
But semantics won't change the operating principle.
Burned fuel is exhaust.
Two entirely different things.
A car burning fuel inside a piston is using that burn to push the piston.
The exhaust pipe is the waste gases from that burn.
Of course the atmosphere is weaker but the thrust is a direct hit into it and super compresses that atmosphere by the super expansion created by that burn.
Clearly you are making things up on the fly when stumped and not paying attention to your own words regarding a 'delve'. Try and keep up.
In your analogy the space underneath the passenger car is a closed containment inside the elevator shaft. You claim that the thrust creates a 'delve' (e.g. a shaft) beneath the rocket that contains the thrust and then propels the rocket upward. However, here's where you really need to pay attention, the atmosphere on all sides of the 'delve' is weaker than the thrust. And there is nothing to contain this 'delve' to make it stronger and more resistant than the thrust from the rocket.
Do you not understand your own 'delve' bit?
Again, please explain what forces create this stronger than thrust atmospheric containment, how, and why. You have failed to do so thus far.
It creates a containment because the atmosphere crushes back against that direct hit.
Underneath that direct hit is the delve into the atmosphere and that delve has to lose atmosphere. Where does it go?
Think of the water analogy in the bath to understand what I'm saying.
You people need to pay attention and use your own brains.
Just put your fictional space rocket books down for a minute and pay attention.
can't you see that at the bottom of this picture that the bell is going to build up pressure directly under the rocket to provide the lift. BECAUSE of the atmosphere resistance around the edge of the bell. If the were a vacuum around the bell the exhaust pressure would just dissipate instantly. Why do you even need the nozzle if the power of the exhaust is what is moving the rocket?Show me the chamber.
(https://www.mpoweruk.com/images/rocket_motor.gif) (https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3ca8e3bd100a56d9d2752518b317ff9a)
EDIT: The chamber gas expansion / the internal pressure pushes in all directions.
Left-right components balance themselves out, up-down components don't.
Down component pushes the gas out, up component "carries" the rocket up.
(The directions "up", "down", "left", "right" here are relative to the images.)
The stack of sponges. How many times does he have to tell that!
Hops is making the drag effects to overcomplicate the diagram and introduce more elements in an attempt to distract that sceptis diagram fails to show what specifically is touching the rocket to lift it.if it was just exhaust shooting out the back that moves a rocket, then you would not need the bell nozzle. The nozzle collects the exhaust force to "stack" it under the rocket. You wouldn't need a nozzle if it was just exhaust shooting out the bottom of the rocket to produce lift.
Yes, you certainly do need the bell nozzle. It is not just the mass of burnt propellant but it's velocity is just as important.Hops is making the drag effects to overcomplicate the diagram and introduce more elements in an attempt to distract that sceptis diagram fails to show what specifically is touching the rocket to lift it.if it was just exhaust shooting out the back that moves a rocket, then you would not need the bell nozzle.
can't you see that at the bottom of this picture that the bell is going to build up pressure directly under the rocket to provide the lift.No, because there is no way for it to transfer it back.
If the were a vacuum around the bell the exhaust pressure would just dissipate instantly.How?
Why do you even need the nozzle if the power of the exhaust is what is moving the rocket?That is akin to asking why a gun has a barrel. It has one to harness the pressurised gas.
Hops is making the drag effects to overcomplicate the diagram and introduce more elements in an attempt to distract that sceptis diagram fails to show what specifically is touching the rocket to lift it.if it was just exhaust shooting out the back that moves a rocket, then you would not need the bell nozzle. The nozzle collects the exhaust force to "stack" it under the rocket. You wouldn't need a nozzle if it was just exhaust shooting out the bottom of the rocket to produce lift.
It doesn't "build up pressure". In an optimally designed rocket engine the exit pressure is almost equal to the outside pressure though this "optimally designed rocket engine" is impractical in a vacuum.can't you see that at the bottom of this picture that the bell is going to build up pressure directly under the rocket to provide the lift. BECAUSE of the atmosphere resistance around the edge of the bell.Show me the chamber.
(https://www.mpoweruk.com/images/rocket_motor.gif) (https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3ca8e3bd100a56d9d2752518b317ff9a)
EDIT: The chamber gas expansion / the internal pressure pushes in all directions.
Left-right components balance themselves out, up-down components don't.
Down component pushes the gas out, up component "carries" the rocket up.
(The directions "up", "down", "left", "right" here are relative to the images.)
If the were a vacuum around the bell the exhaust pressure would just dissipate instantly. Why do you even need the nozzle if the power of the exhaust is what is moving the rocket?
Look at the exhaust stream of a real rocket and note that at sea-level it does not expand greatly into the atmosphere because the pressure in that exhaust stream in very little if any above atmospheric pressure.
Look at this when near sea-level:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/r29xdblpx6bd5si/Rocket%20Exhaust%20-%20Falcon%209%20heavy%20low%20altitude.jpg?dl=1)
Note how narrow the exhaust trail is, hardly wider than the rocket's width.
Then, at high altitude and very low air-pressure:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/o85a851ewg6h9ou/Rocket%20Exhaust%20-%20Falcon%209%20heavy%20very%20low%20air%20pressure.jpg?dl=1)
Here the rocket is seen edge-on but see how wide the exhaust trail has expanded in the much lower pressure air.
I agree, the nozzle is important for atmospheric travel. It helps produce the stacking effect that skeppy talks about. In a vacuum it wouldn't help.
I agree, the nozzle is important for atmospheric travel. It helps produce the stacking effect that skeppy talks about. In a vacuum it wouldn't help.Then why do rockets work better in a vacuum than at sea-level?
The force is exerted through the nozzle, that is why the nozzle is there. It keeps the force from spreading out sideway, and sends the force down only to produce the stacking effect.I agree, the nozzle is important for atmospheric travel. It helps produce the stacking effect that skeppy talks about. In a vacuum it wouldn't help.
Sceptis stack analogy fails to show what part is pushing the rocket up.
The green bar he drew shows force acting on it frpm both sides.
But shows exerts no force on the rocket.
To keep with skeppy's kind of language. You have been super about rockets traveling in a vacuum.I agree, the nozzle is important for atmospheric travel. It helps produce the stacking effect that skeppy talks about. In a vacuum it wouldn't help.Then why do rockets work better in a vacuum than at sea-level?
I agree, the nozzle is important for atmospheric travel. It helps produce the stacking effect that skeppy talks about. In a vacuum it wouldn't help.
Yes, you certainly do need the bell nozzle. It is not just the mass of burnt propellant but it's velocity is just as important.Hops is making the drag effects to overcomplicate the diagram and introduce more elements in an attempt to distract that sceptis diagram fails to show what specifically is touching the rocket to lift it.if it was just exhaust shooting out the back that moves a rocket, then you would not need the bell nozzle.
The bell nozzle, as has been explained numerous times, converts the high-pressure gas moving at the speed of sound in the throat into a much higher velocity but lower pressure gas at the exit.
The major part of a rocket's thrust is simply (mass flow rate) x (exit velocity).
Does the force push against the nozzle as it spreads out? Have Newton's 3 laws been repealed?The force is exerted through the nozzle, that is why the nozzle is there. It keeps the force from spreading out sideway, and sends the force down only to produce the stacking effect.I agree, the nozzle is important for atmospheric travel. It helps produce the stacking effect that skeppy talks about. In a vacuum it wouldn't help.
Sceptis stack analogy fails to show what part is pushing the rocket up.
The green bar he drew shows force acting on it frpm both sides.
But shows exerts no force on the rocket.
can't you see that at the bottom of this picture that the bell is going to build up pressure directly under the rocket to provide the lift. BECAUSE of the atmosphere resistance around the edge of the bell. If the were a vacuum around the bell the exhaust pressure would just dissipate instantly. Why do you even need the nozzle if the power of the exhaust is what is moving the rocket?Show me the chamber.
(https://www.mpoweruk.com/images/rocket_motor.gif) (https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3ca8e3bd100a56d9d2752518b317ff9a)
EDIT: The chamber gas expansion / the internal pressure pushes in all directions.
Left-right components balance themselves out, up-down components don't.
Down component pushes the gas out, up component "carries" the rocket up.
(The directions "up", "down", "left", "right" here are relative to the images.)
It only has to compress the atmosphere enough to create a barrier in the stack. A delve directly in the path of it and that compression cannot be compressed any more than what the object compressing it, offers, as you mention.
Compressed air cannot magically compress the atmosphere to a pressure greater than it. The best you can do is go to a midway point.
Let me try and help you out.No, I'm telling the the "whole truth" as far as I know it for the part of the thrust produced by the force needed to accelerate the burnt propellant.There's nothing hard about it as long as the truth is told and what you're saying is not the whole truth.If the burn from the nozzle is thrusting, it is not exhaust.Burnt propellant/exhaust are just words but if that's the way you want it.
A car burning fuel inside a piston is using that burn to push the piston.
The exhaust pipe is the waste gases from that burn.
In a rocket engine, and it's just as much an engine as a car engine,The thrust is the force necessary to accelerate that burnt propellant from it's very high pressure, Mach 1 velocity state to the [low pressure, hypersonic velocity state[/i] at the exit.
- the fuel and oxidizer is burnt in the combustion chamber,
- the nozzle (throat and bell) convert that very high pressure (70 to 300 Bar) burnt propellant into low pressure very high velocity gas and thrust
- and the exit from the nozzle is the exhaust.
What's so hard about that?
There is an extra component when the rocket is in low the pressure environment of space.
That extra thrust is produced when the pressure of the burnt propellant at the exit exceeds the outside pressure.
If you need to include this extra thrust it is (exit area) x (exit pressure - outside pressure). In the vacuum of space that outside pressure is, of course zero!
But I omitted this because of your aversion to equations.Quote from: sceptimaticYou neglect one very important factor. Can you guess what it is?No, I don't believe that I did, but do tell!
If it did that it would cancel everything out.Show me the chamber.
(https://www.mpoweruk.com/images/rocket_motor.gif) (https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3ca8e3bd100a56d9d2752518b317ff9a)
EDIT: The chamber gas expansion / the internal pressure pushes in all directions.
Left-right components balance themselves out, up-down components don't.
Down component pushes the gas out, up component "carries" the rocket up.
(The directions "up", "down", "left", "right" here are relative to the images.)
It perfectly explains what I'm talking about. It just needs to be applied to the rocket in a different form, in terms of a burn....but in essence it is the exact same end product of a gas on gas fight.
https://cdn4.explainthatstuff.com/how-hovercraft-works.png
https://images.slideplayer.com/23/6642676/slides/slide_5.jpg
see teh arrows pushing the bottom of the hover craft up?
that's what you're missing on your drawing.
the super compressed green bar is NOT a part of the rocket.
it is exhaust fluid that the rocket is sitting ON (as you claim).
so then there should be a force line, from said green bar, to the inside of the rocket.
draw it.
Elaborate on this because it makes no sense.
This thrusting is the ( action force ) to the right, the ( reaction force ) is to the left against the nozzle moving the rocket to the left. Leaving the exhaust trailing behind.
Interrupt combustion is not relevant.
I agree, the nozzle is important for atmospheric travel. It helps produce the stacking effect that skeppy talks about. In a vacuum it wouldn't help.Care to actually bother reading what has been said and responding to that?
It only has to compress the atmosphere enough to create a barrier in the stack.And as clearly observed from how the exhaust behaves, it never does that.
I keep saying time and time and time again for people to pay attentionAll the while you keep your eyes closed and avoid as much of reality as possible.
Let me try and help you out.Then do so, rather than appeal to more pathetic distractions.
Picture a massive water tank.See, this is unhelpful. Rather than deal with the issues you just appeal to a completely different situation.
Put a nozzle underneath that water tank and open it up.
Tell me where the forces are acting in that flow of water in terms up pushing the water tank up.
You can clearly see the water being expelled from the tank to the ground but where is the opposite push, vertically up into the tank?
If there is none then how in the hell do you expect your rocket to produce the same opposing force?
If it did that it would cancel everything out.WHY?
Come on for crying out loud, surely you can see this.
The only way it could possibly work is if it has an opposing resistance to the mass expansion of that burning fuel.inertia, because the gas requires a force to move it, and that creates the reactionary force on the rocket.
It does....it's called
Because you will not accept it can. You refuse to even dare to understand it.
First, to super compress the atmosphere it would need to be contained. It it is not. There is no mechanism for the atmosphere to 'crush back'. How would it know to do that? What is the atmosphere pushing against to 'crush back'?
Second, the atmosphere gets thinner (weaker) as the rocket ascends. How does an even weaker atmosphere at higher elevations provide the same super compressed 'crush' as with lower elevations?Loss of mass with the same thrust, meaning the rocket can navigate ever decreasing atmospheric pressure. It's a marriage made in the skies.
Third, you ask where does the atmosphere go below the rocket. Equally, where does the atmosphere go above the rocket?If you paid attention to everything I said previous, over many pages and many pages in other topics, you'd have a better understanding but you choose to rebel it rather than learn it.
Lastly, your water analogy has to do with buoyancy in a tub, not a rocket in the atmosphere. So it it is incorrect, illogical, and wildly irrelevant.It's all buoyancy if you want to argue it that way.
The atmosphere is stacked at every level.I agree, the nozzle is important for atmospheric travel. It helps produce the stacking effect that skeppy talks about. In a vacuum it wouldn't help.
Then you have to ask yourself, does the stack extend all the way to the ground no matter the altitude of the rocket? If not, what is supporting the stack? What is the containment that is allowing a stack to form and build a greater resistance to the thrust from the rocket?
They don't. It's a fallacy that you adhere to.I agree, the nozzle is important for atmospheric travel. It helps produce the stacking effect that skeppy talks about. In a vacuum it wouldn't help.Then why do rockets work better in a vacuum than at sea-level?
Throwing a ball has a longer range at higher altitudes than throwing it more horizontal, so what's your issue with my set up?Yes, you certainly do need the bell nozzle. It is not just the mass of burnt propellant but it's velocity is just as important.Hops is making the drag effects to overcomplicate the diagram and introduce more elements in an attempt to distract that sceptis diagram fails to show what specifically is touching the rocket to lift it.if it was just exhaust shooting out the back that moves a rocket, then you would not need the bell nozzle.
The bell nozzle, as has been explained numerous times, converts the high-pressure gas moving at the speed of sound in the throat into a much higher velocity but lower pressure gas at the exit.
The major part of a rocket's thrust is simply (mass flow rate) x (exit velocity).
the nozzle can also be used for steering if equipped with a gimbal.
By the way, air to air missiles have a higher speed and longer range when shot at high altitudes than at sea level. Yet another thing that doesn't fit with skeppy's version.
There is absolutely nothing inside that rocket that pushes that rocket up..................... Nothing.Except that it been explained over and over that accelerating the burnt propellant from zero to thousands of metres per second requires a lot of force on that gas.
Put some thought into it if you want to find the truth.We do and we have found the truth on that matter.
Because you will not accept it can. You refuse to even dare to understand it.Quit with the insults. We don't accept it because it is pure nonsense and you just repeatedly assert the same refuted nonsense and insult us for not accepting it.
The atmosphere above the rocket is the pressure to push through. It's the resistance to the energy applied below. It's always there, just every decreasing in pressure.Which would then prevent the rocket going upwards.
Buoyancy in very simple words is the below mass resistance to the above mass pushed against it.No, buoyancy, in very simple terms, is any fluid applying an upwards force on any object inside it.
From this point the thrust cannot compress trhe atmosphere any more so it returns the pressure back to the rocket but each time it doesHOW?
Put some thought into it if you want to find the truth.That's your problem, we have put thought into it and found the truth, and it isn't your nonsense.
It's a different "kettle of fish"!By the way, air to air missiles have a higher speed and longer range when shot at high altitudes than at sea level. Yet another thing that doesn't fit with skeppy's version.Throwing a ball has a longer range at higher altitudes than throwing it more horizontal, so what's your issue with my set up?
If it did that it would cancel everything out.Show me the chamber.
(https://www.mpoweruk.com/images/rocket_motor.gif) (https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3ca8e3bd100a56d9d2752518b317ff9a)
EDIT: The chamber gas expansion / the internal pressure pushes in all directions.
Left-right components balance themselves out, up-down components don't.
Down component pushes the gas out, up component "carries" the rocket up.
(The directions "up", "down", "left", "right" here are relative to the images.)
Come on for crying out loud, surely you can see this.
The only way it could possibly work is if it has an opposing resistance to the mass expansion of that burning fuel.
It does....it's called atmospheric resistance.
That diagram is a big con.
It may look ok to those who don't care to challenge it but it's clearly utter nonsense in the way it's put out when you omit external resistance to what that nozzle puts out.
You don't tell me how it works you just say that it does.There is absolutely nothing inside that rocket that pushes that rocket up..................... Nothing.Except that it been explained over and over that accelerating the burnt propellant from zero to thousands of metres per second requires a lot of force on that gas.
That force is the cause of the rocket engine's thrust and you've never proven otherwise.I know the force is the cause of it and I've never proved otherwise because it's not needed.
It doesn't fit my narrative because they don't work in the space you're told of.Quote from: sceptimaticPut some thought into it if you want to find the truth.We do and we have found the truth on that matter.
But you cannot accept that rockets can work in space because it doesn't fit with your preconceived narrative.
Again, if what you were saying was true, the exhaust would not go significantly below the rocket. It would remain trapped with the rocket and/or be blown in front of the rocket.All this time and you still don't grasp ,it. Surely you must be playing games.
Of course it generates more thrust. It generates more thrust against lesser pressure because it has less pressure to resist that thrust.
It's a different "kettle of fish"!
An "air to air missile" is not thrown but is propelled by a rocket engine that generates more thrust in the lower pressure air at higher altitudes.
Let me try and help you out.No, I'm telling the the "whole truth" as far as I know it for the part of the thrust produced by the force needed to accelerate the burnt propellant.There's nothing hard about it as long as the truth is told and what you're saying is not the whole truth.If the burn from the nozzle is thrusting, it is not exhaust.Burnt propellant/exhaust are just words but if that's the way you want it.
A car burning fuel inside a piston is using that burn to push the piston.
The exhaust pipe is the waste gases from that burn.
In a rocket engine, and it's just as much an engine as a car engine,The thrust is the force necessary to accelerate that burnt propellant from it's very high pressure, Mach 1 velocity state to the [low pressure, hypersonic velocity state[/i] at the exit.
- the fuel and oxidizer is burnt in the combustion chamber,
- the nozzle (throat and bell) convert that very high pressure (70 to 300 Bar) burnt propellant into low pressure very high velocity gas and thrust
- and the exit from the nozzle is the exhaust.
What's so hard about that?
There is an extra component when the rocket is in low the pressure environment of space.
That extra thrust is produced when the pressure of the burnt propellant at the exit exceeds the outside pressure.
If you need to include this extra thrust it is (exit area) x (exit pressure - outside pressure). In the vacuum of space that outside pressure is, of course zero!
But I omitted this because of your aversion to equations.Quote from: sceptimaticYou neglect one very important factor. Can you guess what it is?No, I don't believe that I did, but do tell!
Picture a massive water tank.
Put a nozzle underneath that water tank and open it up.
Tell me where the forces are acting in that flow of water in terms up pushing the water tank up.
You can clearly see the water being expelled from the tank to the ground but where is the opposite push, vertically up into the tank?
If there is none then how in the hell do you expect your rocket to produce the same opposing force?
Everything has mass, so obviously it has mass.If it did that it would cancel everything out.Show me the chamber.
(https://www.mpoweruk.com/images/rocket_motor.gif) (https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3ca8e3bd100a56d9d2752518b317ff9a)
EDIT: The chamber gas expansion / the internal pressure pushes in all directions.
Left-right components balance themselves out, up-down components don't.
Down component pushes the gas out, up component "carries" the rocket up.
(The directions "up", "down", "left", "right" here are relative to the images.)
Come on for crying out loud, surely you can see this.
The only way it could possibly work is if it has an opposing resistance to the mass expansion of that burning fuel.
It does....it's called atmospheric resistance.
That diagram is a big con.
It may look ok to those who don't care to challenge it but it's clearly utter nonsense in the way it's put out when you omit external resistance to what that nozzle puts out.
Rocket pushes gas in one direction, gas pushes rocket back in opposite direction would "cancel everything out"? :)
Your attempts to fit your "atmospheric resistance" into the whole picture are obviously flawed.
Expelled gas is not rigid enough to serve as a paddle.
Now when we cleared that out, tell us what are you trying to claim:
1. Gas that rocket expells has no mass?
2. Or the expelled mass of the gas exits on its own, without the force to push it out?The force to push it out is entirely by the decompression of the gas against itself, not against the rocket.
3. Or the action force that pushes on the mass of the expelled gas does not have the reaction force that pushes back on the rocket?The action force is the gas. The rocket is just the passenger riding on it.
Two non-anchored things with massAs long as there's a medium, any non-anchored opposites will push against each other and move.
that push on each other
will always both move
in the opposite directions from each other.
All that atmosphere can do to a rocket is to slow it down.Yep, as long as the rocket uses atmosphere to be pushed, it has to come up against a resistance of that same atmosphere to slow it down and it's up to the consistent energy being applied to push into the opposing atmosphere that keeps the rocket at a consistent speed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/zHxGz9.png)
I haven't failed to realise anything.
You fail to realize the reason why i used a WATER rocket as my example.
It perfectly explains what I'm talking about. It just needs to be applied to the rocket in a different form, in terms of a burn....but in essence it is the exact same end product of a gas on gas fight.
https://cdn4.explainthatstuff.com/how-hovercraft-works.png
https://images.slideplayer.com/23/6642676/slides/slide_5.jpg
see teh arrows pushing the bottom of the hover craft up?
that's what you're missing on your drawing.
the super compressed green bar is NOT a part of the rocket.
it is exhaust fluid that the rocket is sitting ON (as you claim).
so then there should be a force line, from said green bar, to the inside of the rocket.
draw it.
Please pay attention! I have explained that numerous times.You don't tell me how it works you just say that it does.There is absolutely nothing inside that rocket that pushes that rocket up..................... Nothing.Except that it been explained over and over that accelerating the burnt propellant from zero to thousands of metres per second requires a lot of force on that gas.
Tell me what accelerates it.
Explain simply what accelerates the gas from the rocket.
The upwards components of the pressure in the bell causes the upwards force on the bell and the thrust on the rocket.
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3ca8e3bd100a56d9d2752518b317ff9a)
The chamber gas expansion / the internal pressure pushes in all directions.
Left-right components balance themselves out, up-down components don't.
Down component pushes the gas out, up component "carries" the rocket up.
(The directions "up", "down", "left", "right" here are relative to the images.)
Which is rubbish because one person did not develop the modern rocket engine alone though a lot of practical development was done by Robert Goddard.Quote from: rabinozThat force is the cause of the rocket engine's thrust and you've never proven otherwise.I know the force is the cause of it and I've never proved otherwise because it's not needed.
What is needed is to prove what that force actually is and this is the real crux of the issue.
Time for me to grill you and see what you know from your own head.
No, "It doesn't fit your narrative because" you claim that "they don't work in the space " we accept is there.Quote from: rabinozIt doesn't fit my narrative because they don't work in the space you're told of.Quote from: sceptimaticPut some thought into it if you want to find the truth.We do and we have found the truth on that matter.
But you cannot accept that rockets can work in space because it doesn't fit with your preconceived narrative.
It's not lifting it up from inside of it, is it?It perfectly explains what I'm talking about. It just needs to be applied to the rocket in a different form, in terms of a burn....but in essence it is the exact same end product of a gas on gas fight.
https://cdn4.explainthatstuff.com/how-hovercraft-works.png
https://images.slideplayer.com/23/6642676/slides/slide_5.jpg
see teh arrows pushing the bottom of the hover craft up?
that's what you're missing on your drawing.
the super compressed green bar is NOT a part of the rocket.
it is exhaust fluid that the rocket is sitting ON (as you claim).
so then there should be a force line, from said green bar, to the inside of the rocket.
draw it.
No
You fail again.
My point of those diagrams is to show you the force arrows pushing on the physical bottom of the hovercraft, lifting it up.
Your diagram has no such arrows.
Not related to my statement. I was not talking to you. The point is that they don't lose power at all when the air gets thinner.Throwing a ball has a longer range at higher altitudes than throwing it more horizontal, so what's your issue with my set up?Yes, you certainly do need the bell nozzle. It is not just the mass of burnt propellant but it's velocity is just as important.Hops is making the drag effects to overcomplicate the diagram and introduce more elements in an attempt to distract that sceptis diagram fails to show what specifically is touching the rocket to lift it.if it was just exhaust shooting out the back that moves a rocket, then you would not need the bell nozzle.
The bell nozzle, as has been explained numerous times, converts the high-pressure gas moving at the speed of sound in the throat into a much higher velocity but lower pressure gas at the exit.
The major part of a rocket's thrust is simply (mass flow rate) x (exit velocity).
the nozzle can also be used for steering if equipped with a gimbal.
By the way, air to air missiles have a higher speed and longer range when shot at high altitudes than at sea level. Yet another thing that doesn't fit with skeppy's version.
When the fuel and oxidiser (ie the propellant) are burnt in the combustion chamber they generate gas at a very high pressure but still comparatively low velocity.The combustion chamber being where we are told it is in these rockets makes zero sense, especially with the diagram of pumps to aid the supposed fuel transfer.
That burnt propellant leaves the combustion chambers through the narrower throat and enters the bell of the nozzle still at a very high pressure.Nothing is leaving anywhere through a narrower throat under a burn to transfer that burn into rocket power.
But the exit pressure at the outlet of the bell is at a low pressure as little above the outside pressure as possible.Let me explain your rocket very simply. I mean a real rocket.
This pressure differential between the high pressure at the inlet end of the bell and the low pressure at the exit it the cause of the gases acceleration.
Now look at this from Macarios:As above.The upwards components of the pressure in the bell causes the upwards force on the bell and the thrust on the rocket.
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3ca8e3bd100a56d9d2752518b317ff9a)
The chamber gas expansion / the internal pressure pushes in all directions.
Left-right components balance themselves out, up-down components don't.
Down component pushes the gas out, up component "carries" the rocket up.
(The directions "up", "down", "left", "right" here are relative to the images.)
I'm not bothered who developed the rocket engine. If it's a vertical rocket then the engines are fictional. If it has wings the engines are genuine and generally work as told.Quote from: sceptimaticWhich is rubbish because one person did not develop the modern rocket engine alone though a lot of practical development was done by Robert Goddard.Quote from: rabinozThat force is the cause of the rocket engine's thrust and you've never proven otherwise.I know the force is the cause of it and I've never proved otherwise because it's not needed.
What is needed is to prove what that force actually is and this is the real crux of the issue.
Time for me to grill you and see what you know from your own head.
Your trouble is that you try to drag all this out of your head with no real knowledge of physics or the properties and behaviour of gases.By all means have a go and say these things. You do so based on having zero knowledge of the reality of what you are arguing, so be my guest when you place yourself on that higher pedestal in your own mind. It means nothing.
You cannot do it no matter how smart you are.It's only essential to have a background knowledge of something that is entirely physically real.
It is absolutely essential the have the background knowledge and the intelligence to use that knowledge.
But you have proven over and over again that you do not have this essential knowledge.
It would make no difference to the rocket because the rocket is not working in near zero atmosphere. It's fiction. It cannot work, no matter how you dress it up.Quote from: sceptimaticNo, "It doesn't fit your narrative because" you claim that "they don't work in the space " we accept is there.Quote from: rabinozIt doesn't fit my narrative because they don't work in the space you're told of.Quote from: sceptimaticPut some thought into it if you want to find the truth.We do and we have found the truth on that matter.
But you cannot accept that rockets can work in space because it doesn't fit with your preconceived narrative.
And you are quite wrong because real rockets work extremely well in real space!
SpaceX launches Starlink 2, third batch of 60 Starlink satellites (1/6/2020)
And note that at 3:27 into the video the Falcon 9 is travelling at 6366 km/hr at 50 km altitude and it still accelerating though the main engines will shortly cut-off fro stage separation.
At 50 km altitude, the air pressure is only about 0.04 psi compared to 14.7 at sea-level.
And at 4:26 into the video the Falcon 9 2nd stage is travelling at 8456 km/hr at 100 km altitude and it still accelerating.
Here the air pressure is only about 0.000004 psi and so close to a vacuum that it would make no difference to a rocket.
I do have to ask why SpaceX, NASA, Arianespace, ROSCOSMOS etc would waste the billions of dollars if their rockets did not would?Maybe they aren't wasting billions.
The paying customers of SpaceX and Arianespace are not going to throw money at SpaceX and Arianespace for dumping rockets and satellites inti the ocean of whatever you claim happens to them.What paying customers?
Correct, they maintain a consistent speed due to losing mass and gaining more thrust against ever lessenging atmospheric resistance.Not related to my statement. I was not talking to you. The point is that they don't lose power at all when the air gets thinner.Throwing a ball has a longer range at higher altitudes than throwing it more horizontal, so what's your issue with my set up?Yes, you certainly do need the bell nozzle. It is not just the mass of burnt propellant but it's velocity is just as important.Hops is making the drag effects to overcomplicate the diagram and introduce more elements in an attempt to distract that sceptis diagram fails to show what specifically is touching the rocket to lift it.if it was just exhaust shooting out the back that moves a rocket, then you would not need the bell nozzle.
The bell nozzle, as has been explained numerous times, converts the high-pressure gas moving at the speed of sound in the throat into a much higher velocity but lower pressure gas at the exit.
The major part of a rocket's thrust is simply (mass flow rate) x (exit velocity).
the nozzle can also be used for steering if equipped with a gimbal.
By the way, air to air missiles have a higher speed and longer range when shot at high altitudes than at sea level. Yet another thing that doesn't fit with skeppy's version.
The atmosphere is stacked at every level.I agree, the nozzle is important for atmospheric travel. It helps produce the stacking effect that skeppy talks about. In a vacuum it wouldn't help.
Then you have to ask yourself, does the stack extend all the way to the ground no matter the altitude of the rocket? If not, what is supporting the stack? What is the containment that is allowing a stack to form and build a greater resistance to the thrust from the rocket?
Every millimetre all the way up.
The more energy you push into it the more you compress it to create a crush back to equal that thrust.
From this point the thrust cannot compress trhe atmosphere any more so it returns the pressure back to the rocket but each time it does, the rocket sits atop of it and simply rides on it.
There is absolutely nothing inside that rocket that pushes that rocket up..................... Nothing.
Put some thought into it if you want to find the truth.
No, they continue to accelerate. Again, I was talking about (though not to you) air to air missiles which typically have a horizontal flight path.Correct, they maintain a consistent speed due to losing mass and gaining more thrust against ever lessenging atmospheric resistance.Not related to my statement. I was not talking to you. The point is that they don't lose power at all when the air gets thinner.Throwing a ball has a longer range at higher altitudes than throwing it more horizontal, so what's your issue with my set up?Yes, you certainly do need the bell nozzle. It is not just the mass of burnt propellant but it's velocity is just as important.Hops is making the drag effects to overcomplicate the diagram and introduce more elements in an attempt to distract that sceptis diagram fails to show what specifically is touching the rocket to lift it.if it was just exhaust shooting out the back that moves a rocket, then you would not need the bell nozzle.
The bell nozzle, as has been explained numerous times, converts the high-pressure gas moving at the speed of sound in the throat into a much higher velocity but lower pressure gas at the exit.
The major part of a rocket's thrust is simply (mass flow rate) x (exit velocity).
the nozzle can also be used for steering if equipped with a gimbal.
By the way, air to air missiles have a higher speed and longer range when shot at high altitudes than at sea level. Yet another thing that doesn't fit with skeppy's version.
This is an absolute requirement for the rocket to keep a stable speed but it does not last for long before the fuel is spent enough to lose its ability to carry on that thrust build and so your rocket becomes a dead stick on the vertical or an arcing ocean missile.
I haven't failed to realise anything.
You fail to realize the reason why i used a WATER rocket as my example.
Your water rocket does not work in how you think it does.
It's not lifting it up from inside of it, is it?It perfectly explains what I'm talking about. It just needs to be applied to the rocket in a different form, in terms of a burn....but in essence it is the exact same end product of a gas on gas fight.
https://cdn4.explainthatstuff.com/how-hovercraft-works.png
https://images.slideplayer.com/23/6642676/slides/slide_5.jpg
see teh arrows pushing the bottom of the hover craft up?
that's what you're missing on your drawing.
the super compressed green bar is NOT a part of the rocket.
it is exhaust fluid that the rocket is sitting ON (as you claim).
so then there should be a force line, from said green bar, to the inside of the rocket.
draw it.
No
You fail again.
My point of those diagrams is to show you the force arrows pushing on the physical bottom of the hovercraft, lifting it up.
Your diagram has no such arrows.
And neither is your rocket.
The hovercraft rides atop that air fight just as a rocket rides atop the gas and air fight.
No it doesn't. You trying to twist it, changes nothing.The atmosphere is stacked at every level.I agree, the nozzle is important for atmospheric travel. It helps produce the stacking effect that skeppy talks about. In a vacuum it wouldn't help.
Then you have to ask yourself, does the stack extend all the way to the ground no matter the altitude of the rocket? If not, what is supporting the stack? What is the containment that is allowing a stack to form and build a greater resistance to the thrust from the rocket?
Every millimetre all the way up.
The more energy you push into it the more you compress it to create a crush back to equal that thrust.
From this point the thrust cannot compress trhe atmosphere any more so it returns the pressure back to the rocket but each time it does, the rocket sits atop of it and simply rides on it.
There is absolutely nothing inside that rocket that pushes that rocket up..................... Nothing.
Put some thought into it if you want to find the truth.
This directly contradicts your reply before it:
" ever decreasing atmospheric pressure."
The air to air missile will only ever have a horizontal flight path if it has wings.
No, they continue to accelerate. Again, I was talking about (though not to you) air to air missiles which typically have a horizontal flight path.
I've done plenty and will do more as time goes on....but it won't be for your benefit, obviously.I haven't failed to realise anything.
You fail to realize the reason why i used a WATER rocket as my example.
Your water rocket does not work in how you think it does.
Youve failed to descriptively draw and verbally communicate how it works.
But do keep on claiming youre right.
I've explained what's happening, what do I need to show?It's not lifting it up from inside of it, is it?It perfectly explains what I'm talking about. It just needs to be applied to the rocket in a different form, in terms of a burn....but in essence it is the exact same end product of a gas on gas fight.
https://cdn4.explainthatstuff.com/how-hovercraft-works.png
https://images.slideplayer.com/23/6642676/slides/slide_5.jpg
see teh arrows pushing the bottom of the hover craft up?
that's what you're missing on your drawing.
the super compressed green bar is NOT a part of the rocket.
it is exhaust fluid that the rocket is sitting ON (as you claim).
so then there should be a force line, from said green bar, to the inside of the rocket.
draw it.
No
You fail again.
My point of those diagrams is to show you the force arrows pushing on the physical bottom of the hovercraft, lifting it up.
Your diagram has no such arrows.
And neither is your rocket.
The hovercraft rides atop that air fight just as a rocket rides atop the gas and air fight.
Dafuq?
See the frist image for example.
See the black part labeled "skirt"?
See the arrows pushing up on the bottom of the hovercraft?
Thats what you need to show.
Scepti quote:The green line is merely to show one side to the other side, meaning thrust to atmospheric resistance to that thrust.
The rocket merely sits atop this.
Then your green line gasfigght will be pushing the rocket up.
So there should be arrows from this, pushing on the rocket/ balloon.
You've never seen an air to air missile, have you? I've never seen one without wings. But that is just a weak distraction from the fact that they continue to accelerate and don't lose power at high altitudes as they should if they were dependent upon the atmosphere for thrust.The air to air missile will only ever have a horizontal flight path if it has wings.
No, they continue to accelerate. Again, I was talking about (though not to you) air to air missiles which typically have a horizontal flight path.
Otherwise it will simply, slowly descend.
So you've never seen an air to air missile without wings.
You've never seen an air to air missile, have you? I've never seen one without wings. But that is just a weak distraction from the fact that they continue to accelerate and don't lose power at high altitudes as they should if they were dependent upon the atmosphere for thrust.
Did you miss this?This thrusting is the ( action force ) to the right, the ( reaction force ) is to the left against the nozzle moving the rocket to the left. Leaving the exhaust trailing behind.If the burn from the nozzle is thrusting, it is not exhaust.Burning fuel creates the exhaust which is directed by the nozzle to the right (action force) : the reaction force is to the left ( moving the rocket ) as the exhaust leaves the nozzle.Burning fuel is not exhaust.
Several people told you how already:
Fule is burnt in the chamber, creating pressure and exhaust.
Rocket is pushing the exhaust out using pressure.
The exhaust has mass.
You can't push any mass without force.
And since every force has reaction, the reaction to this pushing force is the force that pushes back on the rocket.
You can use any other name while the "exhaust" is not yet outside.
For example, you can name it "exhaust-to-be".
But semantics won't change the operating principle.
Burned fuel is exhaust.
Two entirely different things.
A car burning fuel inside a piston is using that burn to push the piston.
The exhaust pipe is the waste gases from that burn.
Internal combustion is not relevant.
This thrusting is the ( action force ) to the right, the ( reaction force ) is to the left against the nozzle moving the rocket to the left. Leaving the exhaust trailing behind.
Internal combustion is not relevant.
Did you miss this?Nope. I answered it.
Again, I was not speaking to you. I'm not going to get drawn into your games again. Thanks for the humor.So you've never seen an air to air missile without wings.
You've never seen an air to air missile, have you? I've never seen one without wings. But that is just a weak distraction from the fact that they continue to accelerate and don't lose power at high altitudes as they should if they were dependent upon the atmosphere for thrust.
So what exactly have you seen and tell me how it worked.
I've explained what's happening, what do I need to show?It's not lifting it up from inside of it, is it?It perfectly explains what I'm talking about. It just needs to be applied to the rocket in a different form, in terms of a burn....but in essence it is the exact same end product of a gas on gas fight.
https://cdn4.explainthatstuff.com/how-hovercraft-works.png
https://images.slideplayer.com/23/6642676/slides/slide_5.jpg
see teh arrows pushing the bottom of the hover craft up?
that's what you're missing on your drawing.
the super compressed green bar is NOT a part of the rocket.
it is exhaust fluid that the rocket is sitting ON (as you claim).
so then there should be a force line, from said green bar, to the inside of the rocket.
draw it.
No
You fail again.
My point of those diagrams is to show you the force arrows pushing on the physical bottom of the hovercraft, lifting it up.
Your diagram has no such arrows.
And neither is your rocket.
The hovercraft rides atop that air fight just as a rocket rides atop the gas and air fight.
Dafuq?
See the frist image for example.
See the black part labeled "skirt"?
See the arrows pushing up on the bottom of the hovercraft?
Thats what you need to show.
The skirt stops the downflow of air from escaping so it compresses the air under that skirt and the hovercraft sits atop of that compression.
So what's the issue?
My drawing's fine. Work out why it's fine.
There is no issue with hovercrafts.
Tge issue is your diagram you edited with force arrows pushing on a green bar doesnt show force arrows hitting the bottom of the balloon to lift it up.
Say it out loud:
Arrows
Directly
Touching
The balloon.
Fix your drawing
(https://i.postimg.cc/tTW8dtv5/rocket-propulsion-reg-0.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
You don't tell me how it works you just say that it does.No, we have told you repeatedly and you just repeatedly ignore it and dismiss it as hogwash or nonsense.
Time for me to grill you and see what you know from your own head.Not until you have provided what you said you would.
It doesn't fit my narrative because they don't work in the space you're told of.You mean because in your narrative they don't work in space.
All this time and you still don't grasp ,it. Surely you must be playing games.No, all this time and I still grasp it. I still understand you are spouting whatever pathetic BS you can to avoid admitting reality.
Of course it generates more thrust. It generates more thrust against lesser pressure because it has less pressure to resist that thrust.Which when extrapolated means the atmosphere is doing nothing except hindering it so in a vacuum it would generate more thrust and thus rockets would work in a vacuum.
However the thrust does not propel it any fasterIt will accelerate it more. If it didn't, it wouldn't be greater thrust.
The higher thrust simply means the rocket can hold it's own massNo, higher thrust means more force acting on the rocket, meaning more acceleration (and even more when you note that the mass has decreased).
Pretty simple when you understand the basics without being coaxed into nonsense territoryYes, rockets are pretty simple when you actually understand the basics without any of your foolish nonsense.
The force to push it out is entirely by the decompression of the gas against itself, not against the rocket.This makes no sense at all.
The reaction is the atmosphere resisting by compression.No, that is an entirely separate force.
As long as there's a medium, any non-anchored opposites will push against each other and move.Why is a medium needed?
It's not lifting it up from inside of it, is it?Have you even bothered looking at the diagrams?
Compressed gas has zero requirement for a pumpThere is a requirement, because unlike in your fantasy where compressed gases just move by magic instantly, back in reality the flow rate is based upon the pressure differential and a pump will allow you to pump the gas much faster. A pump also allows you to pump it into a higher pressure region, such as the combustion chamber.
to even contemplate putting two fuels together under the pressures we're told and then igniting them in such a small space would blow up the rocket.No, an argument is most certainly needed. Otherwise you have nothing more than a pathetic baseless assertion.
No argument needed. It simply would.
Let me explain your rocket very simply. I mean a real rocket.Again, try to actually explain it. You are yet to even attempt it.
If it has wings the engines are genuine and generally work as told.The wings are irrelevant and have no bearing on how the rocket works.
It's only essential to have a background knowledge of something that is entirely physically real.You mean like space rockets?
You can't even give me a simple explanation as to why they work in your space, in your mind.Stop lying. We have repeatedly given you explanations.
My drawing's fine. Work out why it's fine.It works fine because you are just a pathetic troll with no interest in the truth at all and weren't trying to make a diagram to describe reality?
Your drawing is rubbish with meaningless arrows going all over the place. There is no barrier where exhaust gases hit the atmosphere.Fix your drawingMy drawing's fine. Work out why it's fine.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tTW8dtv5/rocket-propulsion-reg-0.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Quote from: Macarios2. Or the expelled mass of the gas exits on its own, without the force to push it out?The force to push it out is entirely by the decompression of the gas against itself, not against the rocket.
Quote from: Macarios3. Or the action force that pushes on the mass of the expelled gas does not have the reaction force that pushes back on the rocket?The action force is the gas. The rocket is just the passenger riding on it.
The reaction is the atmosphere resisting by compression.
Quote from: MacariosTwo non-anchored things with massAs long as there's a medium, any non-anchored opposites will push against each other and move.
that push on each other
will always both move
in the opposite directions from each other.
Quote from: MacariosAll that atmosphere can do to a rocket is to slow it down.Yep, as long as the rocket uses atmosphere to be pushed, it has to come up against a resistance of that same atmosphere to slow it down and it's up to the consistent energy being applied to push into the opposing atmosphere that keeps the rocket at a consistent speed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/zHxGz9.png)
My drawing's fine. Work out why it's fine.
There is no issue with hovercrafts.
Tge issue is your diagram you edited with force arrows pushing on a green bar doesnt show force arrows hitting the bottom of the balloon to lift it up.
Say it out loud:
Arrows
Directly
Touching
The balloon.
Fix your drawing
(https://i.postimg.cc/tTW8dtv5/rocket-propulsion-reg-0.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
No....no...no....no.Of course it generates more thrust. It generates more thrust against lesser pressure because it has less pressure to resist that thrust.Which when extrapolated means the atmosphere is doing nothing except hindering it so in a vacuum it would generate more thrust and thus rockets would work in a vacuum.
The greater thrust is merely what the rocket can give out against what opposes it.However the thrust does not propel it any fasterIt will accelerate it more. If it didn't, it wouldn't be greater thrust.
There is no more force. It's all a case of equalling out based on stacking atmosphere the rocket is thrusting against, which is (like I said) ever lowering pressure resistance to the thrust, meaning more thrust is allowed by ever changing air pressures as a weaker resistance to the exiting gas burn.The higher thrust simply means the rocket can hold it's own massNo, higher thrust means more force acting on the rocket, meaning more acceleration (and even more when you note that the mass has decreased).
If they were pushed against each other then the gases inside would create their own medium between the objects and push them apart by means of stacking that gas.As long as there's a medium, any non-anchored opposites will push against each other and move.Why is a medium needed?
Just what do you think would happen if there is no medium and these 2 non-anchored objects push against each other? Do they just sit there, doing nothing?
The skirt is the air trap. It stops the air from above pushing out the curtain to quickly giving the chance to pressurise and the hovercraft sits on that.It's not lifting it up from inside of it, is it?Have you even bothered looking at the diagrams?
The is exactly what is happening.
The air directly below the hovercraft, inside the region contained by the skirt, being at a higher pressure than the air above the hovercraft, pushes the hovercraft upwards.
This also acts as a negative feedback loop maintaining the hovercraft at a fairly consistent altitude above the ground.
That is quite an important part, it shows arrows of force acting on the hovercraft to keep it up. That is what you are completely missing with your diagram for rockets. You are yet to show any force acting on the rocket to move it.
The pump is pointless.Compressed gas has zero requirement for a pumpThere is a requirement, because unlike in your fantasy where compressed gases just move by magic instantly, back in reality the flow rate is based upon the pressure differential and a pump will allow you to pump the gas much faster. A pump also allows you to pump it into a higher pressure region, such as the combustion chamber.
There is every reason.to even contemplate putting two fuels together under the pressures we're told and then igniting them in such a small space would blow up the rocket.No, an argument is most certainly needed. Otherwise you have nothing more than a pathetic baseless assertion.
No argument needed. It simply would.
There is absolutely no reason to conclude that it would blow up the rocket.
What you are suggesting is akin to suggesting a standard combustion engine in a car is impossible as when the fuel-air mixture is ignited it would blow up the engine.
Already done. Refusal to accept it is not my issue, it's your issue.Let me explain your rocket very simply. I mean a real rocket.Again, try to actually explain it. You are yet to even attempt it.
Explain how the gas accelerates out of the rocket. What force is acting on it? What is the reaction to this force?
Then explain what is forcing the rocket forwards or upwards?
Draw a simple diagram with these arrows of force.
I may not be able to put it out as any official story of fiction but I can certainly believe it to be fiction from my own point of view....which is all I'm doing.
In fact, if you wish to assert anything is fictional, you will need a decent background knowledge on it, or else you have no basis to assert it is fictional.
I think I've refuted them quite easily but then I'm biased for myself, just as you are for yourself and the WE you keep mentioning.You can't even give me a simple explanation as to why they work in your space, in your mind.Stop lying. We have repeatedly given you explanations.
Explanations which actually provide an origin for the force on the rocket.
Explanations which you are completely unable to refute in any way.
I explained it well enough for anyone who wished to try to understand it.
Meanwhile, you provide us with nothing.
You are yet to explain how the gas accelerates out of the rocket.
You are yet to provide any diagram which shows a force on the rocket.
You have literally nothing except your pathetic, baseless dismissals of reality and pathetic, baseless assertions of pure nonsense.
A pathetic troll. Hmmmmm.My drawing's fine. Work out why it's fine.It works fine because you are just a pathetic troll with no interest in the truth at all and weren't trying to make a diagram to describe reality?
The diagram I gave is fine. It shows exactly what's happening in reality.
Because if you were going for a diagram to describe reality it completely fails as you have no force acting on the rocket or balloon to move them to the left, and you have completely unbalanced forces, where you have an action without a reaction.
The initial diagram, which actually had them was fine, but you had to reject it because it meant rockets work in space.
Your rockets are fictional.Your drawing is rubbish with meaningless arrows going all over the place. There is no barrier where exhaust gases hit the atmosphere.Fix your drawingMy drawing's fine. Work out why it's fine.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tTW8dtv5/rocket-propulsion-reg-0.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Look at the exhaust stream of a real rocket.
Note that at sea-level it does not expand into the atmosphere because the pressure in that exhaust stream in very little if any above atmospheric pressure.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/r29xdblpx6bd5si/Rocket%20Exhaust%20-%20Falcon%209%20heavy%20low%20altitude.jpg?dl=1)
Note how narrow the exhaust trail is, hardly wider than the rocket's width.
Then, at high altitude and very low air-pressure the exhaust stream can spread out:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/o85a851ewg6h9ou/Rocket%20Exhaust%20-%20Falcon%209%20heavy%20very%20low%20air%20pressure.jpg?dl=1)
See how wide the exhaust trail has expanded in the much lower pressure air.
But it neither case is there the slightest sign of the exhaust gas hitting any barrier.
Fix your drawing!
Expanding gas will only expand if it hits a resistance it can push into, at first. Once that resistance builds up against that expanding gas, that gas starts to be compressed and the following expanding gas also becomes more compressed in a chain reaction, until a barrier is created to build that gas and leave anything on top of is as a passenger riding on that gas....including the rocket.Quote from: Macarios2. Or the expelled mass of the gas exits on its own, without the force to push it out?The force to push it out is entirely by the decompression of the gas against itself, not against the rocket.
Are you trying to say that the expanding gas will decompress in one direction only?
It will press backwards, and for some reason refuse to press forward? :)
What would stop it?
It's all about thrust and how much of it can create a massive compressive reaction to it.Quote from: Macarios3. Or the action force that pushes on the mass of the expelled gas does not have the reaction force that pushes back on the rocket?The action force is the gas. The rocket is just the passenger riding on it.
The reaction is the atmosphere resisting by compression.
Gas exits from the rocket pressed by gass itself and not the rocket?
And when the atmosphere slows it down the rocket suddenly receives some force?
So, 70 bar of the engine pressure will not move the rocket, but 1 bar of the atmosphere will?
Are you deliberately avoiding the fact that the same atmosphere presses the nose of the rocket, not only the tail?
It presses with 1 bar on both ends.
Assuming you could do it in a vacuum then yes they would move away from each other but only by the amount of energy placed into them in the first place by uncoiling, but then they would stop dead in their uncoiled position and still attached, only moving by the length of their uncoiled state.So, two springs in vacuum will not move away from each other because there is no medium?Quote from: MacariosTwo non-anchored things with massAs long as there's a medium, any non-anchored opposites will push against each other and move.
that push on each other
will always both move
in the opposite directions from each other.
Don't be silly. Not even mid school students would believe you that. :)
The rocket thrusts and compresses the air under it and around the area of thrust. The atmosphere compresses massively and crushed back like a big spring barrier.Quote from: MacariosAll that atmosphere can do to a rocket is to slow it down.Yep, as long as the rocket uses atmosphere to be pushed, it has to come up against a resistance of that same atmosphere to slow it down and it's up to the consistent energy being applied to push into the opposing atmosphere that keeps the rocket at a consistent speed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/zHxGz9.png)
Let me repeat: the same atmosphere presses the rocket from both ends, not only from the tail.
(It also equally presses from all sides.)
As much as it gets compressed by the exhaust moving backward,
that much gets compressed by the rocket itself moving forward.
This is where happens the cancelation you were talking about before.
The mentioned "positive effect of the air drag" may occur on airplane wings,Same principles apply only different ways of setting up.
as the force that keeps airplane in air. Also on flaps when slowing down is desired effect.
But you already know that airplanes don't use rocket engines.A propeller or jet engine or rocket engine. They all perform the exact same function of burning fuel to gain lift/movement by using atmospheric pressure as their compressive ally to negotiate the very same atmosphere for movement within it.
They use either propellers, or jet engines.
And, unlike rockets, they do lean on air.
That directly contradicts everything observed in reality and what you said.No....no...no....no.Of course it generates more thrust. It generates more thrust against lesser pressure because it has less pressure to resist that thrust.Which when extrapolated means the atmosphere is doing nothing except hindering it so in a vacuum it would generate more thrust and thus rockets would work in a vacuum.
The atmosphere is far from a hindrance and you should know fine well this is the real case.
The atmosphere enables EVERYTHING to work and provides the equal and opposite reaction to the action.Again, that makes no sense. You have the gas in the rocket, in a vacuum, how does it accelerate out? There is no atmosphere and thus no possibility for the action-reaction to be met with the atmosphere.
That rocket cannot gain any further vertical acceleration after thisAgain, stop just repeating the same baseless garbage.
There is no more force.Then there is no more thrust.
If they were pushed against each other then the gases inside would create their own medium between the objects and push them apart by means of stacking that gas.Right, so a rocket works by the gas inside making a medium and stacking that gas?
All they would do is push each other to the extent of their lever and stop dead.Why?
It's all about putting your mind to work.Again, you should really try it some time.
And of course yet again you completely ignore what has been said.Quote from: JackBlackThe skirt is the air trap. It stops the air from above pushing out the curtain to quickly giving the chance to pressurise and the hovercraft sits on that.It's not lifting it up from inside of it, is it?Have you even bothered looking at the diagrams?
The is exactly what is happening.
The air directly below the hovercraft, inside the region contained by the skirt, being at a higher pressure than the air above the hovercraft, pushes the hovercraft upwards.
This also acts as a negative feedback loop maintaining the hovercraft at a fairly consistent altitude above the ground.
That is quite an important part, it shows arrows of force acting on the hovercraft to keep it up. That is what you are completely missing with your diagram for rockets. You are yet to show any force acting on the rocket to move it.
Go and get a bicycle pump and seal off the end then stand it up like a rocket and push the plunger down.Notice no need for the atmosphere?
Now leave loose.
What happens?
Exactly, the plunger springs up due to compressed air being allowed to decompress.
The pump is pointless.Again, repeating the same BS and ignoring what has been said won't help your case.
There is every reason.Then why don't you try providing them?
A car has a controlled air intake and fuel intake.You mean like the rocket with it's fuel and oxidiser pumps?
It's not based on allowing a fuel pump to super pump fuel and air into the piston chamber.It is effectively the same, with the car having fuel and air injected into the chamber.
You cannot regulate hydrogen, oxygen and kerosene into a so called combustion chamber at the rates we are told and then expect to ignite it for an internal push, for crying out loud.Again, PROVE IT!
It would blow the rocket to smithereens.
Already done. Refusal to accept it is not my issue, it's your issue.Stop lying.
I may not be able to put it out as any official story of fiction but I can certainly believe it to be fiction from my own point of view....which is all I'm doing.No, you are asserting things as facts.
Nobody is telling you to accept it as that. I'm simply counteracting your stance on your belief of official stories told to you or what you read and accepted as fact, based on zero physical knowledge.And that is the problem, what you are spouting is based upon zero physical knowledge. What you are dismissing is based upon plenty of physical knowledge.
I think I've refuted them quite easilyDismissing them as hogwash is not refuting them.
I explained it well enough for anyone who wished to try to understand it.You mean you have "explained" it well enough for anyone wanting to just accept the BS.
You're losing the argument by doing this.No, the argument was lost for your side before you even joined, by the same simple issue you are still avoiding.
The diagram I gave is fine. It shows exactly what's happening in reality.So in reality there is no force acting on the rocket? So the rocket just sits there.
Your balloon diagram is fictional. It cannot work and any rational person should see that.If it can't work, then explain what is wrong with it. Don't just assert a bunch of garbage or dismiss it, actually explain what is wrong with it.
The greater thrust is merely what the rocket can give out against what opposes it.
A rocket lifting off at full thrust is doing so at sea level.
That rocket cannot gain any further vertical acceleration after this, it can only maintain it by being allowed to thrust more into a burn and that can only happen if the atmosphere reduces the external pressure, which it does, all the way up.
More thrust but no extra gain other than a stable in flight rocket, until the fuel on board is not enough to continue the fight.
A car has a controlled air intake and fuel intake.
It's not based on allowing a fuel pump to super pump fuel and air into the piston chamber. The carb regulates it so you get just enough air and fuel to ignite and create a burn with each spark and in turn pushing down a piston to mechanically operate the gears and drive shafts.
The rocket has zero need to create this. It would be counter productive and massive added mass for zero return.
You cannot regulate hydrogen, oxygen and kerosene into a so called combustion chamber at the rates we are told and then expect to ignite it for an internal push, for crying out loud.
It would blow the rocket to smithereens.
It's not a case of simply having A force line. There's never one particular force line. It's a case of mass expansion to mass compression in a chain reaction scenario.
Maybe we can try another approach.
Why do you feel arrows don't need to be pushing on the rocket - when you claim the rocket sits on the barrier.
If the barrier is pushing the rocket, does it not mean there should be a force line?
(http://[url=https://cdn4.explainthatstuff.com/how-hovercraft-works.png)[/url]
https://cdn4.explainthatstuff.com/how-hovercraft-works.png[/img][/url]
(http://[url=https://images.slideplayer.com/23/6642676/slides/slide_5.jpg)]
https://images.slideplayer.com/23/6642676/slides/slide_5.jpg[/img][/url]
It's not a case of simply having A force line. There's never one particular force line.Then draw multiple pictures showing how the forces change over time to manage to push the rocket.
Now equate that to the trampoline analogy I gaveOr pay attention to what I have already said about it.
The rocket is merely a container for the gases to be released against the atmosphere and the rocket rides atop of that fight.
The only thing that it can use for the reaction is the rocket.
Incorrect! Those are screenshots of a video of a real SpaceX Falcon 9-heavy launch that numerous people watch.Your rockets are fictional.Your drawing is rubbish with meaningless arrows going all over the place. There is no barrier where exhaust gases hit the atmosphere.Fix your drawingMy drawing's fine. Work out why it's fine.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tTW8dtv5/rocket-propulsion-reg-0.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Look at the exhaust stream of a real rocket.
Note that at sea-level it does not expand into the atmosphere because the pressure in that exhaust stream in very little if any above atmospheric pressure.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/r29xdblpx6bd5si/Rocket%20Exhaust%20-%20Falcon%209%20heavy%20low%20altitude.jpg?dl=1)
Note how narrow the exhaust trail is, hardly wider than the rocket's width.
Then, at high altitude and very low air-pressure the exhaust stream can spread out:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/o85a851ewg6h9ou/Rocket%20Exhaust%20-%20Falcon%209%20heavy%20very%20low%20air%20pressure.jpg?dl=1)
See how wide the exhaust trail has expanded in the much lower pressure air.
But it neither case is there the slightest sign of the exhaust gas hitting any barrier.
Fix your drawing!
But even so...regardless of them being fictional...what you are arguing, I've just answered, above.No, you haven't answered it!
::)The greater thrust is merely what the rocket can give out against what opposes it.
A rocket lifting off at full thrust is doing so at sea level.
That rocket cannot gain any further vertical acceleration after this, it can only maintain it by being allowed to thrust more into a burn and that can only happen if the atmosphere reduces the external pressure, which it does, all the way up.
More thrust but no extra gain other than a stable in flight rocket, until the fuel on board is not enough to continue the fight.
This rocket seems to gain quite a lot of speed after take-off (Watch the telemetry HUD, lower left). What are you talking about?
I've bolded the pertinent part.A car has a controlled air intake and fuel intake.
It's not based on allowing a fuel pump to super pump fuel and air into the piston chamber. The carb regulates it so you get just enough air and fuel to ignite and create a burn with each spark and in turn pushing down a piston to mechanically operate the gears and drive shafts.
Wow, you're really starting to make stuff up. Ever hear of a supercharger?
A supercharger is an air compressor that increases the pressure or density of air supplied to an internal combustion engine. This gives each intake cycle of the engine more oxygen, letting it burn more fuel and do more work, thus increasing power.
"Max, look at the blower..."
My 2006 Cooper has a supercharger. Hasn't blown up...yet.
Yep you regulate it to cook.The rocket has zero need to create this. It would be counter productive and massive added mass for zero return.
You cannot regulate hydrogen, oxygen and kerosene into a so called combustion chamber at the rates we are told and then expect to ignite it for an internal push, for crying out loud.
It would blow the rocket to smithereens.
How so? I regulate the gas flow and air intake into my barbecue and it hasn't blown up...yet. For crying out loud.
When you show me exactly how your space rocket works by simple and basic explanation of a clear and simple to see diagram, I'll be happy to go through varying stages on the rocket.It's not a case of simply having A force line. There's never one particular force line.Then draw multiple pictures showing how the forces change over time to manage to push the rocket.
Or show lines which are an average.
Either way, YOU NEED AN ARROW OF FORCE ON THE ROCKET!Now equate that to the trampoline analogy I gaveOr pay attention to what I have already said about it.
Your nonsense requires that when we bounce on a trampoline, our feet go through the trampoline while our torso goes up by magic, with no force acting on it.
Again, a simple trampoline shows your nonsense to be wrong, as the gas doesn't go up with the rocket.
There's no push inside of the rocket. It's all done externally.Again, what is pushing on the rocket? Can you explain that at all.
I've bolded the pertinent part.No, just like always you have completely ignored the pertinent part.
Your rocket is carrying compressed oxygen and hydrogen. It does not need and cannot be super charged by compressionAgain, pure nonsense.
If you want your rocket to lift off at full thrust you are regulating nothing after that.Again, pure nonsense.
When you show me exactly how your space rocket works by simple and basic explanation of a clear and simple to see diagram, I'll be happy to go through varying stages on the rocket.Stop lying. You have made plenty of promises like that before, yet every time I meet my end you just skip out on yours.
::)The greater thrust is merely what the rocket can give out against what opposes it.
A rocket lifting off at full thrust is doing so at sea level.
That rocket cannot gain any further vertical acceleration after this, it can only maintain it by being allowed to thrust more into a burn and that can only happen if the atmosphere reduces the external pressure, which it does, all the way up.
More thrust but no extra gain other than a stable in flight rocket, until the fuel on board is not enough to continue the fight.
This rocket seems to gain quite a lot of speed after take-off (Watch the telemetry HUD, lower left). What are you talking about?
Quote from: StashI've bolded the pertinent part.A car has a controlled air intake and fuel intake.
It's not based on allowing a fuel pump to super pump fuel and air into the piston chamber. The carb regulates it so you get just enough air and fuel to ignite and create a burn with each spark and in turn pushing down a piston to mechanically operate the gears and drive shafts.
Wow, you're really starting to make stuff up. Ever hear of a supercharger?
A supercharger is an air compressor that increases the pressure or density of air supplied to an internal combustion engine. This gives each intake cycle of the engine more oxygen, letting it burn more fuel and do more work, thus increasing power.
"Max, look at the blower..."
My 2006 Cooper has a supercharger. Hasn't blown up...yet.
Just in case you're scratching your head, your super charger is compressing the atmospheric air.
Your rocket is carrying compressed oxygen and hydrogen. It does not need and cannot be super charged by compression....it already is and when released under it's own expansion, you would need to control the flow, not add to it, so a pump is about as much needed as a chocolate fireguard on a cold winters fire warming evening.
Let's hark back to the saturn V nonsense.
Show me the combustion chamber and show me the pumps, then explain to me how each chamber manages to not only fill with gas and kerosene but also be ignited and burned at the mammoth amounts we're told about.
Let's see you sort this old mess out.
By all means use as much info as you can get to try and back yourself up.
Nobody has managed it yet.....let's see you do it.
Quote from: StashYep you regulate it to cook.The rocket has zero need to create this. It would be counter productive and massive added mass for zero return.
You cannot regulate hydrogen, oxygen and kerosene into a so called combustion chamber at the rates we are told and then expect to ignite it for an internal push, for crying out loud.
It would blow the rocket to smithereens.
How so? I regulate the gas flow and air intake into my barbecue and it hasn't blown up...yet. For crying out loud.
If you want your rocket to lift off at full thrust you are regulating nothing after that. It's a burn at full thrust for the atmosphere it is in at each point.
There's no regulation and none required unless you were to shut it down or starve it, which would kill it, so it's pointless.
I can bring up a screen shot of the starship enterprise or the armageddon shuttles going up...and so on. What would I be proving to you?
Incorrect! Those are screenshots of a video of a real SpaceX Falcon 9-heavy launch that numerous people watch.
I imagine that you could easily go and observe such launches yourself if you dared.Of course. I suppose I go hitch a ride to mars on the next manned flight.....eh?
But you wouldn't dare because it might destroy you whole house of cards.It's not really about daring. It's more to the point of, it wouldn't happen.
There's plenty of signs of a gas fight.You can view it every day with everything.Quote from: sceptimaticBut even so...regardless of them being fictional...what you are arguing, I've just answered, above.No, you haven't answered it!
You claim that there is a "gas fight" immediately behind the rocket; see your own diagram above.
But there is no sign of such a "gas fight" behind the real rocket; see my photos above.
Please present evidence for your claims or admit that they simply come from your imagination.When you present your evidence I'll be happy to counter it as I do.
I can bring up a screen shot of the starship enterprise or the armageddon shuttles going up...and so on. What would I be proving to you?And can you go watch that yourself? No!
It's not really about daring. It's more to the point of, it wouldn't happen.So now you are going to the extreme of saying all these rocket launches which have been observed by countless people, are just pure fiction?
You're spouting it all off without the faintest knowledge of whether it's all real or not.No. Simple physics dictates rockets MUST work. And there is plenty of evidence, evidence which you cannot refute at all. This includes evidence you can obtain yourself, such as using GPS.
You see, simplicity kills off the fantasy and people want to adhere to fantasyYes, simplicity kills your fantasy and shows that rockets must work in a vacuum.
When you present your evidence I'll be happy to counter it as I do.You clearly don't understand what countering is. It isn't just dismissing it as hogwash. It is showing a problem with it.
I didn't say it sits on crap.There's no push inside of the rocket. It's all done externally.Again, what is pushing on the rocket? Can you explain that at all.
Stop just saying it sits on crap. Actually explain what provide the force to the rocket to push it up and where this is happening.
Again, until you do you have not even attempted to explain how rockets work.
This rocket seems to gain quite a lot of speed after take-off (Watch the telemetry HUD, lower left). What are you talking about?Can you verify this as being real?
And you've watched many or some or one...have you?I can bring up a screen shot of the starship enterprise or the armageddon shuttles going up...and so on. What would I be proving to you?And can you go watch that yourself? No!
Meanwhile, you can go watch the launch of these rockets.
You may as well be rejecting that grass is green.
I'm not doubting rocket launches. I'm telling you that space rockets do not exist.It's not really about daring. It's more to the point of, it wouldn't happen.So now you are going to the extreme of saying all these rocket launches which have been observed by countless people, are just pure fiction?
Who's going down that route? It appears you're getting all worked up and making up stuff to fit your own agenda.
Good job going down the path of complete insanity and claiming basically everyone on Earth is in on the conspiracy.
Simple physics do not dictate rockets work.You're spouting it all off without the faintest knowledge of whether it's all real or not.No. Simple physics dictates rockets MUST work. And there is plenty of evidence, evidence which you cannot refute at all. This includes evidence you can obtain yourself, such as using GPS.
Simplicity is showing the space rocket fantasy up for what it is.You see, simplicity kills off the fantasy and people want to adhere to fantasyYes, simplicity kills your fantasy and shows that rockets must work in a vacuum.
The problem is that you are clinging to your fantasy.
I fully understand what it is. It's what I'm doing now which is infuriating you.When you present your evidence I'll be happy to counter it as I do.You clearly don't understand what countering is. It isn't just dismissing it as hogwash. It is showing a problem with it.
This rocket seems to gain quite a lot of speed after take-off (Watch the telemetry HUD, lower left). What are you talking about?Can you verify this as being real?
Can you verify the fuel?
Can you verify the thrust?
Can you verify anything about this rocket?
You're not supposed to do anything. You can choose what you want to do and you have. You chose to accept it all as legitimate without (as you admit) knowing the truth.This rocket seems to gain quite a lot of speed after take-off (Watch the telemetry HUD, lower left). What are you talking about?Can you verify this as being real?
Can you verify the fuel?
Can you verify the thrust?
Can you verify anything about this rocket?
Of course not. But why am I supposed to suspect otherwise that it's not real?
It's not the only one out there for one. There are plenty. And I'm not in the business of immediately thinking it's a fabrication and amateur rocketeers are liars just so they can refute your personal musings. Narcissistic much?There are plenty of pictures of men on the moon or rovers on mars or drawings of voyagers into deep space....as we are told. And son on and so on and so on.
Conversely, what evidence do you have? What evidence do you have that shows this is a fabrication?It depends on what you decide is evidence.
It's only just you saying so because it doesn't fit your world view.Of course it doesn't fit my world view. It doesn't fit because I see too many discrepancies.
Sorry, that's not good enough. Evidence, not just your musings is required.My evidence will never suit you.
A million points of evidence have been shown as to how rockets work and how they work in a vacuum and you haven't presented a lick of evidence of how they don't.Of course.
What would evidence look like to you that shows you are wrong?Very simple.
What would evidence look like to you that shows you are correct?Not being able to see he physical truth of any of this stuff. That's evidence enough that something is amiss but only physical proof of seeing what I'm arguing against will put the cat amongst the pigeons.
If you presented a video, or a paper, or a book, or, god forbid, some math, that showed you had an actual reality stance, I would take notice and not dismiss out of hand like you do for everything. But you present nothing to even remotely back your musings up. Nothing. Just dismals for the not so modern world and insults. Curious that you have no evidence.You don't have to take notice. You can ditch this right now and just sit back and smirk.
I'm not pretending that they are real.I can bring up a screen shot of the starship enterprise or the armageddon shuttles going up...and so on. What would I be proving to you?
Incorrect! Those are screenshots of a video of a real SpaceX Falcon 9-heavy launch that numerous people watch.
By all means pretend they're real but don't expect me to swallow it.
Stop being totally ridiculous! Thousands observe rocket launches from quite a few places on earth.Quote from: rabinozI imagine that you could easily go and observe such launches yourself if you dared.Of course. I suppose I go hitch a ride to mars on the next manned flight.....eh?
Like I said to stash. I'm not interested in changing your opinion. Feel free to believe in what you want. It's not my business to tell you.I'm not pretending that they are real.I can bring up a screen shot of the starship enterprise or the armageddon shuttles going up...and so on. What would I be proving to you?
Incorrect! Those are screenshots of a video of a real SpaceX Falcon 9-heavy launch that numerous people watch.
By all means pretend they're real but don't expect me to swallow it.
I just see no reason to doubt that rockets can produce higher thrusts in a vacuum.
And you've never posted evidence that would make me change my opinion.
Thousands observe rocket launches?Quote from: sceptimaticStop being totally ridiculous! Thousands observe rocket launches from quite a few places on earth.Quote from: rabinozI imagine that you could easily go and observe such launches yourself if you dared.Of course. I suppose I go hitch a ride to mars on the next manned flight.....eh?
But it's not my problem if you are unable to face reality.
However, I will tell you that rockets into the space they tell us about, is nonsense...and this is what we're arguing.Yes, you tell us that but you never post any evidence only words that come from your imagination and nowhere else.
You admit you have no evidenceWhere did I "admit that"? You are the one that has nothing.
so you're reliant on simply being told or acceptance of what you believe is fact, by mass opinion and diagrams that do not show a reality in terms of you knowing it for sure.And what is wrong with believing experiments done by others when they fit with my own experience?
No, you are the one that differs from what almost everybody else claims is real so the onus is one you to come up with evidence.Quote from: rabinozThousands observe rocket launches?Quote from: sceptimaticStop being totally ridiculous! Thousands observe rocket launches from quite a few places on earth.Quote from: rabinozI imagine that you could easily go and observe such launches yourself if you dared.Of course. I suppose I go hitch a ride to mars on the next manned flight.....eh?
But it's not my problem if you are unable to face reality.
How many thousands observe space rocket launches?
Just show me some proof from your own knowing of your facts.
It's not a case of simply having A force line. There's never one particular force line. It's a case of mass expansion to mass compression in a chain reaction scenario.
Maybe we can try another approach.
Why do you feel arrows don't need to be pushing on the rocket - when you claim the rocket sits on the barrier.
If the barrier is pushing the rocket, does it not mean there should be a force line?
(http://[url=https://cdn4.explainthatstuff.com/how-hovercraft-works.png)[/url]
https://cdn4.explainthatstuff.com/how-hovercraft-works.png[/img][/url]
(http://[url=https://images.slideplayer.com/23/6642676/slides/slide_5.jpg)]
https://images.slideplayer.com/23/6642676/slides/slide_5.jpg[/img][/url]
It's like allowing a compressed spring (rocket gas to burn) to be released from above so it expands (uncoils) towards the ground. BUT..........BUT..... imagine directly under that uncoiling spring you have a uncoiled spring (atmosphere) which absorbs the expansion of the above spring (rocket gas/burn) and is then compressed itself, until that strength of uncoiling from above cannot compress it any more.
It's at this exact point where the rocket is at a stage of being able to be held, or ride atop of that spring uncoiling from it whilst balancing on that spring below.
Now all you have to understand from this point ion is the rocket thrusting continuously or to get back to the spring, the spring from above (rocket/gas/burn) continuously uncoiling at that strength and the below spring (atmosphere) compressing and holding to enable that ride on that spring.
Now equate that to the trampoline analogy I gave with the direct push into a delve in the trampoline and you see how it's directly contained for only the specific time required at each thrust.
There's evidence been posted many a time. It may not be accepted as concrete proof but you've seen many experiments.However, I will tell you that rockets into the space they tell us about, is nonsense...and this is what we're arguing.Yes, you tell us that but you never post any evidence only words that come from your imagination and nowhere else.
Show me some real evidence then, that you know to be concrete.Quote from: sceptimaticYou admit you have no evidenceWhere did I "admit that"? You are the one that has nothing.
Nothing at all wrong with believing anything from others if that's how you run with stuff. Just as long as you don;t use them as factual when you cannot prove anything.Quote from: sceptimaticso you're reliant on simply being told or acceptance of what you believe is fact, by mass opinion and diagrams that do not show a reality in terms of you knowing it for sure.And what is wrong with believing experiments done by others when they fit with my own experience?
Whatever you might claim one person, no matter how "smart" cannot dream all the explanations for these things.
They wouldn't and don't do that.Quote from: sceptimaticNo, you are the one that differs from what almost everybody else claims is real so the onus is one you to come up with evidence.Quote from: rabinozThousands observe rocket launches?Quote from: sceptimaticStop being totally ridiculous! Thousands observe rocket launches from quite a few places on earth.Quote from: rabinozI imagine that you could easily go and observe such launches yourself if you dared.Of course. I suppose I go hitch a ride to mars on the next manned flight.....eh?
But it's not my problem if you are unable to face reality.
How many thousands observe space rocket launches?
Just show me some proof from your own knowing of your facts.
So you show some proof that your idea of how gases behave is correct when it simply does not make sense to anyone else.
You claim that the atmosphere "stacks" and causes a nett downward force on objects but fluids cannot do that.
And I don't remember you ever having given any logical reason why all these space agencies, including SpaceX, Blue Origin, Arianespace, ROSCOSMOS, ISRO, JAXA, NASA, Rocket Lab, Virgin Galactic and a few others would waste billions of dollars a year launching rockets that do nothing!
Why would they do that?
How do satellites get into position?There's evidence been posted many a time. It may not be accepted as concrete proof but you've seen many experiments.However, I will tell you that rockets into the space they tell us about, is nonsense...and this is what we're arguing.Yes, you tell us that but you never post any evidence only words that come from your imagination and nowhere else.Quote from: rabinozShow me some real evidence then, that you know to be concrete.Quote from: sceptimaticYou admit you have no evidenceWhere did I "admit that"? You are the one that has nothing.Quote from: rabinozNothing at all wrong with believing anything from others if that's how you run with stuff. Just as long as you don;t use them as factual when you cannot prove anything.Quote from: sceptimaticso you're reliant on simply being told or acceptance of what you believe is fact, by mass opinion and diagrams that do not show a reality in terms of you knowing it for sure.And what is wrong with believing experiments done by others when they fit with my own experience?
Whatever you might claim one person, no matter how "smart" cannot dream all the explanations for these things.Quote from: rabinozThey wouldn't and don't do that.Quote from: sceptimaticNo, you are the one that differs from what almost everybody else claims is real so the onus is one you to come up with evidence.Quote from: rabinozThousands observe rocket launches?Quote from: sceptimaticStop being totally ridiculous! Thousands observe rocket launches from quite a few places on earth.Quote from: rabinozI imagine that you could easily go and observe such launches yourself if you dared.Of course. I suppose I go hitch a ride to mars on the next manned flight.....eh?
But it's not my problem if you are unable to face reality.
How many thousands observe space rocket launches?
Just show me some proof from your own knowing of your facts.
So you show some proof that your idea of how gases behave is correct when it simply does not make sense to anyone else.
You claim that the atmosphere "stacks" and causes a nett downward force on objects but fluids cannot do that.
And I don't remember you ever having given any logical reason why all these space agencies, including SpaceX, Blue Origin, Arianespace, ROSCOSMOS, ISRO, JAXA, NASA, Rocket Lab, Virgin Galactic and a few others would waste billions of dollars a year launching rockets that do nothing!
Why would they do that?
It's all nonsense.
Anything that is launched (in my opinion) is either a missile or a simple fabricated lightweight effigy that goes nowhere. Most likely a helium/hydrogen vertical blimp/balloon like effort.
How do satellites get into position?They don't.
Sorry, but that is what my dish points at. How do you think satellite TV works?How do satellites get into position?They don't.
I didn't say it sits on crap.I paraphrased.
The only thing in your favour is, nobody is willing to back me up to say that I did explain itAnd the fact that you never explained it and never made any attempt to, instead repeatedly dodging requests to explain it and just lying and saying you have.
However, I know I have explained and that's good enough for me.See, it is statements like these which show you aren't acting like you are just providing your opinion. These statements show that you are acting like you are providing facts.
In the meantime show me how your space rockets work.I already have repeatedly. You were unable to show a single thing wrong the explanation and instead just dismissed it as nonsense.
And you've watched many or some or one...have you?I'm not the paranoid one rejecting reality. I have enough evidence to conclude that rockets will work in space and see no need to go watch them.
I'm not doubting rocket launches.Yes you were. You dismissed the launches people see as fake.
I'm not questioning real rocketsNo, you are outright rejecting them. Remember, real rockets work in space. If you reject rockets working in space, you are rejecting real rockets.
No I'm not, so who's sitting there reeling off bullcrap?Still you, where you quite happily change your story as it suits you, repeatedly contradicting yourself.
Simple physics do not dictate rockets work.Then why are you completely incapable of refuting this very real simple physics which demands they do work?
Trust me on this; if I didn't see anything that gave me a mind to question it, I wouldn't be questioning.And what gives you a mind to question it?
I have done small experiments with evacuation chambers and also simple logical deductions as well as seeing what I believe to be discrepancies with a lot of what we're shown.No, we don't know what you are talking about.
Silly stuff like atmosphere changing as a rocket launches, for no reason legitimate wise but it makes perfect sense why things would be altered if we were being duped.
You know what I'm talking about so don't waste your time asking me to prove it. It's all there in the videos we are told to accept as a truth.
It beggars belief that people fall for this utter utter garbage but they do.Except again, you are yet to show a single problem with it.
Visiting a rocket on the launchpad to see and inspect it to see if it is made of what we are told.i.e. an extremely high standard which you know you will not get unless you pay a lot of money.
Then viewing the space where the so called astronauts sit.
And then once satisfied with that, watching those same so called astronauts get into the rocket and be strapped inside with a camera videoing the capsule door firly closed as well as any other potential exits under camera surveillance.
Then watch it lift off from the very same vantage points of the so called experts seen looking out of windows at the supposed same thing.
Not being able to see he physical truth of any of this stuff.No, that is not evidence to any sane person.
I'm simply putting my point across as strongly as you people are, whether you accept any of it or none of it.You might think you are, but you are not.
However, I will tell you that rockets into the space they tell us about, is nonsense...and this is what we're arguing.And that is the problem.
There's evidence been posted many a time.What evidence?
Then you need to deal with what is faking them, where for GPS, with so much information available, the only option would be to completely blanket Earth in transmitters which would very noticeable and still has the potential for serious failure.How do satellites get into position?They don't.
And I don't remember you ever having given any logical reason why all these space agencies, including SpaceX, Blue Origin, Arianespace, ROSCOSMOS, ISRO, JAXA, NASA, Rocket Lab, Virgin Galactic and a few others would waste billions of dollars a year launching rockets that do nothing!They wouldn't and don't do that.
Why would they do that?
It's all nonsense.
Anything that is launched (in my opinion) is either a missile or a simple fabricated lightweight effigy that goes nowhere.
Most likely a helium/hydrogen vertical blimp/balloon like effort.Stop being totally ridiculous and start facing the real world out there!
Only someone quite out of touch with reality could possibly deny that something is up the travelling at about 7 km/sec and no helium balloon or aeroplane can do that.
Not wrong! The ISS is travelling along a trajectory in curve spacetime. You can call it "falling" if you like but the ISS is still travelling.Only someone quite out of touch with reality could possibly deny that something is up the travelling at about 7 km/sec and no helium balloon or aeroplane can do that.
Wrong. Whatever it is, it is not travelling.
ISS completes 100,000th orbit of Earth: mission control (https://m.phys.org/news/2016-05-international-space-station-100000th-orbit.html)
"Today the ISS made its hundred thousandth orbit around Earth," the mission control centre based in the Moscow region said in a statement.
Travelling at an altitude of about 250 miles (400 kilometres) and a speed of about 17,500 miles (28,000 kilometres) per hour, the space station circles the Earth once every 90 minutes.
Its "anniversary orbit" lasted from 7:35 am to 9:10 am Moscow time (0435 to 0610 GMT), mission control said.
The ISS has now travelled 2.6 billion miles "or about the distance of 10 round trips to Mars," NASA said on the station's official Twitter feed.
"This is a significant milestone and is a tribute to this international partnership made up of the European Space Agency, of Russia, Canada, Japan and the United States," US flight engineer Jeff Williams said from the station in a video posted by NASA.
That requires fuelThe only fuel used in that the ISS used as it travelled those 2.6 billion miles was a relatively small amount for the periodic reboots.
and it's been up there for years. It is actually falling.You can look on it as falling if you need simplistic explanations like that but the ISS is still travelling.
Stop being such a pedantic fuss-pot intent on nothing more than proving others wrong - when clearly you are the one that's wrong.
What occurred to me reading this is the degree of censorship or absent info in the world.This rocket seems to gain quite a lot of speed after take-off (Watch the telemetry HUD, lower left). What are you talking about?Can you verify this as being real?
Can you verify the fuel?
Can you verify the thrust?
Can you verify anything about this rocket?
Of course not. But why am I supposed to suspect otherwise that it's not real? It's not the only one out there for one. There are plenty. And I'm not in the business of immediately thinking it's a fabrication and amateur rocketeers are liars just so they can refute your personal musings. Narcissistic much?
Conversely, what evidence do you have? What evidence do you have that shows this is a fabrication? It's only just you saying so because it doesn't fit your world view. Sorry, that's not good enough. Evidence, not just your musings is required. A million points of evidence have been shown as to how rockets work and how they work in a vacuum and you haven't presented a lick of evidence of how they don't.
What would evidence look like to you that shows you are wrong? What would evidence look like to you that shows you are correct?
If you presented a video, or a paper, or a book, or, god forbid, some math, that showed you had an actual reality stance, I would take notice and not dismiss out of hand like you do for everything. But you present nothing to even remotely back your musings up. Nothing. Just dismals for the not so modern world and insults. Curious that you have no evidence.
Not much I can do about that as the alternative does not seem all that attractive.The use of 'fusspot' makes you sound old.
Stop being such a pedantic fuss-pot intent on nothing more than proving others wrong - when clearly you are the one that's wrong.
Tim (wot?) the context you provided 'travelling' is a clumsy word at bestWell, I'm in pretty good company. The site Phys.org used it in exactly the same context as do many others.
I guess I am travelling at near 30km/s around the galactic core right? But who would boast about that in such a wayWell, according to my sources you are travelling at nearer 230±30 km/s but what's a few hundred km/s around here.
What occurred to me reading this is the degree of censorship or absent info in the world.Where is there any hint of "censorship or absent info" in relation to how rockets get thrust in a vacuum?
I've heard they don't tell how much fuel they use.
So thats like 20 bathtubs full (cubic metre of water weighs a ton) per second? For 5 minutes?I've heard they don't tell how much fuel they use.
A 1 second search:
"The first stage of the Saturn V rocket, using five F-1 rocket engines, produced 7.5 million lbs. (3.4 million kilograms) of thrust and was used during launch for about 2 minutes. It gobbled up 20 tons (40,000 pounds) of fuel per second."
A 1 minute search would reveal a whole lot more. I don't know where you hear your non-information from, but maybe put a little effort in before you start off a statement with "I heard..."
So thats like 20 bathtubs full (cubic metre of water weighs a ton) per second? For 5 minutes?I've heard they don't tell how much fuel they use.
A 1 second search:
"The first stage of the Saturn V rocket, using five F-1 rocket engines, produced 7.5 million lbs. (3.4 million kilograms) of thrust and was used during launch for about 2 minutes. It gobbled up 20 tons (40,000 pounds) of fuel per second."
A 1 minute search would reveal a whole lot more. I don't know where you hear your non-information from, but maybe put a little effort in before you start off a statement with "I heard..."
This rocket seems to gain quite a lot of speed after take-off (Watch the telemetry HUD, lower left). What are you talking about?Can you verify this as being real?
Can you verify the fuel?
Can you verify the thrust?
Can you verify anything about this rocket?
Of course not. But why am I supposed to suspect otherwise that it's not real?
You're not supposed to do anything. You can choose what you want to do and you have. You chose to accept it all as legitimate without (as you admit) knowing the truth. Maybe you should adjust your musings to accommodate evidence rather than just dismiss everything as fake. Far more sciency to do so.
It also does not give you grounds to call me wrong in questioning it and refusing to believe it until satisfied that facts prove me wrong.
This hasn't happened and this is where I am.
Quote from: StashIt's not the only one out there for one. There are plenty. And I'm not in the business of immediately thinking it's a fabrication and amateur rocketeers are liars just so they can refute your personal musings. Narcissistic much?There are plenty of pictures of men on the moon or rovers on mars or drawings of voyagers into deep space....as we are told. And son on and so on and so on.
Thousands and thousands of pictures, words, models and even video of all kinds of stuff, that, to any normal everyday go about your life person will accept as a truth and argue as a truther, without actually knowing the truth.
Can you understand that?
Of course you can jump up and shout as loud as you want that they're all real.
They're being questioned because people see too much dodgy stuff with a lot of it.
Trust me on this; if I didn't see anything that gave me a mind to question it, I wouldn't be questioning.
But this is not the case.
Quote from: StashConversely, what evidence do you have? What evidence do you have that shows this is a fabrication?It depends on what you decide is evidence.
I have done small experiments with evacuation chambers and also simple logical deductions as well as seeing what I believe to be discrepancies with a lot of what we're shown.
Silly stuff like atmosphere changing as a rocket launches, for no reason legitimate wise but it makes perfect sense why things would be altered if we were being duped.
You know what I'm talking about so don't waste your time asking me to prove it. It's all there in the videos we are told to accept as a truth.
Quote from: StashIt's only just you saying so because it doesn't fit your world view.Of course it doesn't fit my world view. It doesn't fit because I see too many discrepancies.
It fits your world view because you simply adhere to the schooling you received and the mass peer pressure of those around you conforming to that mindset.
Quote from: StashSorry, that's not good enough. Evidence, not just your musings is required.
My evidence will never suit you.
Equally you do not possess the evidence that will suit me.
I simply want facts.
Can you provide the facts from your person?
Quote from: StashA million points of evidence have been shown as to how rockets work and how they work in a vacuum and you haven't presented a lick of evidence of how they don't.
Of course.
We've been told rockets placed satellites 23,000 miles into space.
Rockets dropping rovers into mars atmosphere that was supposedly so close to a vacuum and yet used parachutes.
I could go on and on and on with all this so called evidence.
Voyager 1 and 2 supposedly billions and billions of miles into deep space and still sending back data.
Something sent from the 70's, apparently.
And yet we struggle to communicate on Earth.
It beggars belief that people fall for this utter utter garbage but they do.
Quote from: StashWhat would evidence look like to you that shows you are wrong?Very simple.
Visiting a rocket on the launchpad to see and inspect it to see if it is made of what we are told.
Then viewing the space where the so called astronauts sit.
And then once satisfied with that, watching those same so called astronauts get into the rocket and be strapped inside with a camera videoing the capsule door firly closed as well as any other potential exits under camera surveillance.
Then watch it lift off from the very same vantage points of the so called experts seen looking out of windows at the supposed same thing.
That's it. If that happened I would not even want to see it go out of sight. I would accept I'm totally wrong from that point.
What's the chances of that happening?
Quote from: StashWhat would evidence look like to you that shows you are correct?Not being able to see he physical truth of any of this stuff. That's evidence enough that something is amiss but only physical proof of seeing what I'm arguing against will put the cat amongst the pigeons.
Quote from: StashIf you presented a video, or a paper, or a book, or, god forbid, some math, that showed you had an actual reality stance, I would take notice and not dismiss out of hand like you do for everything. But you present nothing to even remotely back your musings up. Nothing. Just dismals for the not so modern world and insults. Curious that you have no evidence.You don't have to take notice. You can ditch this right now and just sit back and smirk.
I'm not asking you to accept what I say. I'm simply putting my point across as strongly as you people are, whether you accept any of it or none of it.
What I argue with you people is not for your benefit. You lot are merely the counterargument to my counterargument. Or basically, you lot are the resistance to the potential reality by adhering to fiction as your reality...from my side...and obviously vice versa.
The people who really count are those who are interested, who can see there's issue with what we're told.
They're the people that will sit back and take notice, amid you and others attempts to try to badger me out of it.
This rocket seems to gain quite a lot of speed after take-off (Watch the telemetry HUD, lower left). What are you talking about?Can you verify this as being real?
Can you verify the fuel?
Can you verify the thrust?
Can you verify anything about this rocket?
I've heard they don't tell how much fuel they use.And where did you "hear" that "they don't tell how much fuel they use"?
This rocket seems to gain quite a lot of speed after take-off (Watch the telemetry HUD, lower left). What are you talking about?Can you verify this as being real?
Can you verify the fuel?
Can you verify the thrust?
Can you verify anything about this rocket?
Btw, can you verify you are not Heiwa?
I'm still waiting for scepti to explain how a rocket works when you point it down towards the earth surface. What is the exhaust stacking against?The rocket is still pushing on the atmosphere, it is obvious because there is nothing else there. What kind of drugs are you on that makes you so dense?
I'm still waiting for scepti to explain how a rocket works when you point it down towards the earth surface. What is the exhaust stacking against?The rocket is still pushing on the atmosphere, it is obvious because there is nothing else there. What kind of drugs are you on that makes you so dense?
The places are blanketed in transmitters and many are atop skyscrapers, not to mention the every increasing amount of towers being built. They're all over, so don't be giving me that flannel.Then you need to deal with what is faking them, where for GPS, with so much information available, the only option would be to completely blanket Earth in transmitters which would very noticeable and still has the potential for serious failure.How do satellites get into position?They don't.
The only rational explanation for how GPS works is with satellites.
How much atmosphere does a 100 ton rocket push off of?I'm still waiting for scepti to explain how a rocket works when you point it down towards the earth surface. What is the exhaust stacking against?The rocket is still pushing on the atmosphere, it is obvious because there is nothing else there. What kind of drugs are you on that makes you so dense?
They can't be in space because it doesn't exist.o_____O???
If you were told the starship enterprise was reaL you'd accept it.Quote from: sceptimaticMost likely a helium/hydrogen vertical blimp/balloon like effort.Stop being totally ridiculous and start facing the real world out there!
Do these look like "helium/hydrogen vertical blimp/balloon like" things?
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/r29xdblpx6bd5si/Rocket%20Exhaust%20-%20Falcon%209%20heavy%20low%20altitude.jpg?dl=1)
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/o85a851ewg6h9ou/Rocket%20Exhaust%20-%20Falcon%209%20heavy%20very%20low%20air%20pressure.jpg?dl=1)
And, like it or not, the International Space Station is up there.
You can see it with unaided eyes coming over at predicted times.
You can measure its transit time between locations thousands of kilometres apart and so a couple of people can determine its speed.
3 Observations, One ISS, One Conclusion - ISS IS VERY VERY FAST by WheresWa11y
You can photograph it with an ordinary camera or better through a telescope and see its shape.
Only someone quite out of touch with reality could possibly deny that something is up the travelling at about 7 km/sec and no helium balloon or aeroplane can do that.
But I guess if you are happy with your dreamland it doesn't really matter.
How much atmosphere does a 100 ton rocket push off of?
Why would you post that when you know I’m just going to report it?
How much atmosphere does a 100 ton rocket push off of?
3,789 woodchucks.
Because he knows you're a jerk.Why would you post that when you know I’m just going to report it?
How much atmosphere does a 100 ton rocket push off of?
3,789 woodchucks.
How much atmosphere does a 100 ton rocket push off of?
3,789 woodchucks.
Why would you post that when you know I’m just going to report it?
If you were told the starship enterprise was reaL you'd accept it.That would depend on who is telling it and what evidence they provide to back it up. As it happens, there are plenty of people who like to ruin science fiction movies by pointing out all of the science mistakes. Just do a Google search for "bad movie physics" and see how many results you get.
If you were told both armageddon shuttles were real and were headed to blow an asteroid up, you'd believe it.
If you were told any of the star wars stuff was a reality, you'd believe it, because that's the business you're in. A belief and adherence to official narratives and mass opinion.
So you telling me those rockets are real space rockets is like telling me the pyramids are coal fired hovercrafts.The thing is that we aren't just telling you, but we're also explaining how the space rockets work based on well known and well established scientific principles. You're the one who is saying that everything that we think we know about physics is wrong and we should just take your word on how things really work.
Please provide links about GPS operation in this way. How can you receive from GPS transmitters in the middle of deserts and oceans?The places are blanketed in transmitters and many are atop skyscrapers, not to mention the every increasing amount of towers being built. They're all over, so don't be giving me that flannel.Then you need to deal with what is faking them, where for GPS, with so much information available, the only option would be to completely blanket Earth in transmitters which would very noticeable and still has the potential for serious failure.How do satellites get into position?They don't.
The only rational explanation for how GPS works is with satellites.
They can't be in space because it doesn't exist.
All that is left is higher altitude for man made objects that can sit in it, such as helium/hydrogen, etc blimps or whatever can sit above a atmospheric cut off point to balanced out a buoyancy.
Going to answer my question?Because he knows you're a jerk.Why would you post that when you know I’m just going to report it?
How much atmosphere does a 100 ton rocket push off of?
3,789 woodchucks.
Like me ;D, much to my wife's chagrin :(!If you were told the starship enterprise was reaL you'd accept it.That would depend on who is telling it and what evidence they provide to back it up. As it happens, there are plenty of people who like to ruin science fiction movies by pointing out all of the science mistakes.
If you were told both armageddon shuttles were real and were headed to blow an asteroid up, you'd believe it.
If you were told any of the star wars stuff was a reality, you'd believe it, because that's the business you're in. A belief and adherence to official narratives and mass opinion.
I'm still waiting for scepti to explain how a rocket works when you point it down towards the earth surface. What is the exhaust stacking against?The rocket is still pushing on the atmosphere, it is obvious because there is nothing else there. What kind of drugs are you on that makes you so dense?
No, I would dismiss it unless it could be shown to be possible and even I'd need evidence that I could believe.And, like it or not, the International Space Station is up there.If you were told the starship enterprise was reaL you'd accept it.
You can see it with unaided eyes coming over at predicted times.
You can measure its transit time between locations thousands of kilometres apart and so a couple of people can determine its speed.
3 Observations, One ISS, One Conclusion - ISS IS VERY VERY FAST by WheresWa11y
You can photograph it with an ordinary camera or better through a telescope and see its shape.
Only someone quite out of touch with reality could possibly deny that something is up the travelling at about 7 km/sec and no helium balloon or aeroplane can do that.
But I guess if you are happy with your dreamland it doesn't really matter.
If you were told both armageddon shuttles were real and were headed to blow an asteroid up, you'd believe it.I wouldn't believe any of that unless it could be backed by independent evidence.
If you were told any of the star wars stuff was a reality, you'd believe it, because that's the business you're in. A belief and adherence to official narratives and mass opinion.No, I most certainly would not consider that Star Wars trash was real! You ask my wife what I think of Star Wars Space Westerns!
So you telling me those rockets are real space rockets is like telling me the pyramids are coal fired hovercrafts.It's not my problem that you are unable to accept reality.
Btw, can you verify you are not Heiwa?
I'm still waiting for scepti to explain how a rocket works when you point it down towards the earth surface. What is the exhaust stacking against?The exhaust or the burn?
?They can't be in space because it doesn't exist.o_____O???
Correct, it will depend on who is telling the stories or who sells the storylines for fiction told as fact or fact told as legitimate fact.If you were told the starship enterprise was reaL you'd accept it.That would depend on who is telling it and what evidence they provide to back it up. As it happens, there are plenty of people who like to ruin science fiction movies by pointing out all of the science mistakes. Just do a Google search for "bad movie physics" and see how many results you get.
If you were told both armageddon shuttles were real and were headed to blow an asteroid up, you'd believe it.
If you were told any of the star wars stuff was a reality, you'd believe it, because that's the business you're in. A belief and adherence to official narratives and mass opinion.
(https://i.imgflip.com/v3y9n.jpg)
No you're not. You're telling me how space rockets work because you were told they work on the principles you decided were a truth, without proof.So you telling me those rockets are real space rockets is like telling me the pyramids are coal fired hovercrafts.The thing is that we aren't just telling you, but we're also explaining how the space rockets work based on well known and well established scientific principles. You're the one who is saying that everything that we think we know about physics is wrong and we should just take your word on how things really work.
Ipse dixit vs quite a lot of work put into said fields of science and engineering. Tons of gall needed to make that work to one’s advantage.That depends on what fields are being argued and what truth there is in those fields.
Come on guys. Less than 5 pages to go to get another scepti century thread.I'm only on page 58.
The rocket is still pushing on the atmosphere, it is obvious because there is nothing else there. What kind of drugs are you on that makes you so dense?No, it isn't obvious at all.
The places are blanketed in transmitters and many are atop skyscrapersThat is still not blanketed to the level needed for GPS, and I don't see many skyscrapers or the like out of cities.
They can't be in space because it doesn't exist.Except that is the only place they can be, so space must exist.
If you were told the starship enterprise was reaL you'd accept it.No, I would reject it as it relies upon pure fantasy.
If you were told both armageddon shuttles were real and were headed to blow an asteroid up, you'd believe it.No, I would reject it unless they told me the "asteroid" they were going to blow up was more appropriately called a tiny rock.
Correct, it will depend on who is telling the stories or who sells the storylines for fiction told as fact or fact told as legitimate fact.And you left out the key part, EVIDENCE!
Newton's 3 laws have been proven to work just fine over and over again for hundreds of years. It's your "pressure on pressure" that has yet to be proven.Quote from: markjoNo you're not. You're telling me how space rockets work because you were told they work on the principles you decided were a truth, without proof.So you telling me those rockets are real space rockets is like telling me the pyramids are coal fired hovercrafts.The thing is that we aren't just telling you, but we're also explaining how the space rockets work based on well known and well established scientific principles. You're the one who is saying that everything that we think we know about physics is wrong and we should just take your word on how things really work.
Newton's 3 laws have been proven to work just fine over and over again for hundreds of years. It's your "pressure on pressure" that has yet to be proven.Quote from: markjoNo you're not. You're telling me how space rockets work because you were told they work on the principles you decided were a truth, without proof.So you telling me those rockets are real space rockets is like telling me the pyramids are coal fired hovercrafts.The thing is that we aren't just telling you, but we're also explaining how the space rockets work based on well known and well established scientific principles. You're the one who is saying that everything that we think we know about physics is wrong and we should just take your word on how things really work.
Fix your drawing or tells us why the green bar doesnt exert a force on the balloonThe bar is merely to show the crash compression from internal to the compression externally.
What's this crap about "nano seconds"?Fix your drawing or tells us why the green bar doesnt exert a force on the balloonThe bar is merely to show the crash compression from internal to the compression externally.
Now all you need to do is picture this happening in nano seconds until the fuel is depleted.
The bar is merely to show the crash compression from internal to the compression externally.And it does absolutely nothing to show us how the gas accelerates from the rocket or how the rocket is accelerated.
Newtons so called laws have not been proven to work at all in terms of what really happens.
Newton's 3 laws have been proven to work just fine over and over again for hundreds of years. It's your "pressure on pressure" that has yet to be proven.
None of the one's you lot put down are coherent.
Let alone be put down in a coherent diagram
Who's talking about burning a quantity of fuel in nano seconds? Not me. I see you twisting stuff.What's this crap about "nano seconds"?Fix your drawing or tells us why the green bar doesnt exert a force on the balloonThe bar is merely to show the crash compression from internal to the compression externally.
Now all you need to do is picture this happening in nano seconds until the fuel is depleted.
Do you even think about what you write? Apparently not!
The Falcon 9 second stage carries about 64,000 kg of propellant. It would impossible to burn that in nano seconds.
It fact that engine burns for over 6 1/2 minutes. Stop talking utter rubbish and face reality.
I perfectly explained it and if you'd paid attention you'd grasp it, if you really wanted to, or may already do, yet choose denial.The bar is merely to show the crash compression from internal to the compression externally.And it does absolutely nothing to show us how the gas accelerates from the rocket or how the rocket is accelerated.
Especially as already pointed out, you have no arrow of force acting on the rocket, and your force arrows are completely unbalanced.
For example, consider the arrow furthest to the left.
I presume this is meant to be an arrow of force accelerating the gas towards the right.
What is the reactionary force for this?
What is this gas pushing against to accelerate out of the rocket?
Newtons so called laws have not been proven to work at all in terms of what really happens.They are backed up by mountains of evidence and rational thought.
None of the one's you lot put down are coherent.No, it doesn't.
It works both ways.
I perfectly explained it and if you'd paid attention you'd grasp itYou mean you repeatedly failed to explain it because you know there is no way you can explain yet cling to your fantasy, so you just lie and repeatedly claim to have explained it.
There is no evidence. It cannot be explained.Newtons so called laws have not been proven to work at all in terms of what really happens.They are backed up by mountains of evidence and rational thought.
All you can do to counter them is dismiss them as nonsense.
If it actually was nonsense you would be able to explain why.
Fix your drawing or tells us why the green bar doesnt exert a force on the balloonThe bar is merely to show the crash compression from internal to the compression externally.
Now all you need to do is picture this happening in nano seconds until the fuel is depleted.
I told you what force was on the rocket. You chose to ignore it and pretend you weren't told.Fix your drawing or tells us why the green bar doesnt exert a force on the balloonThe bar is merely to show the crash compression from internal to the compression externally.
Now all you need to do is picture this happening in nano seconds until the fuel is depleted.
No ones expecting you to able to draw a picutre that moves.
Unless you want to animate it, go ahead.
But you still yet to properly draw a single frame.
We understand what your green bar is.
You need to jndersrand that for in order for the rocket/ ballooon to move, something needs to push it.
If that push cones from the green bar, show the arrow.
Imagine the force arrow as a human arm.
Extending out from the body, in a direction, with a rough size proportional to the magnitude.
Draw it.
Or tell us why you dont need to draw it.
YesTo draw it I'd have to draw lots and lots of green bars under a rocket and show the rocket advancing.
You SAID the force comes from the gas on gas fight.
And that the rocket/ balloon sits on the green bar and rides it.
So
Draw it.
Draw the green bar pushing on the rocket.
Or
Tell us why it doesnt need to be drawn.
YesA helicopter shows you the simple way a rocket works by using atmosphere.
You SAID the force comes from the gas on gas fight.
And that the rocket/ balloon sits on the green bar and rides it.
So
Draw it.
Draw the green bar pushing on the rocket.
Or
Tell us why it doesnt need to be drawn.
Because in the real (denP or otherwise) world, for something to move, it must be pushed or pulled on against something else.
A surfer has his feet pushdd on by the board.
The board is pushed on by the wave.
Draw it.
YesTo draw it I'd have to draw lots and lots of green bars under a rocket and show the rocket advancing.
You SAID the force comes from the gas on gas fight.
And that the rocket/ balloon sits on the green bar and rides it.
So
Draw it.
Draw the green bar pushing on the rocket.
Or
Tell us why it doesnt need to be drawn.
How do you propose I do that unless I animate it?
Get one of your animator friends to animate what I'm proposing and I'll coach them through it all so they can tweak it as I point out what I need doing.
You seem to be going on all the time so follow what I say or get someone to do it.
Now may be a good time for everyone to ignore sceptitank.Not yet! There's only two more pages to go!
YesA helicopter shows you the simple way a rocket works by using atmosphere.
You SAID the force comes from the gas on gas fight.
And that the rocket/ balloon sits on the green bar and rides it.
So
Draw it.
Draw the green bar pushing on the rocket.
Or
Tell us why it doesnt need to be drawn.
Because in the real (denP or otherwise) world, for something to move, it must be pushed or pulled on against something else.
A surfer has his feet pushdd on by the board.
The board is pushed on by the wave.
Draw it.
The only difference with the rocket is in the external burn expansion of the atmosphere to compress it rather than the internal expansion of the helicopter fuel to create an external compression from the blades.
So tell me what the helicopter is riding on?
Did you ever watch an episode of mythbusters where they wanted to see if a helicopter inside a truck would make the truck weigh less if it was hovered inside of it instead of laid on the floor of that truck?YesA helicopter shows you the simple way a rocket works by using atmosphere.
You SAID the force comes from the gas on gas fight.
And that the rocket/ balloon sits on the green bar and rides it.
So
Draw it.
Draw the green bar pushing on the rocket.
Or
Tell us why it doesnt need to be drawn.
Because in the real (denP or otherwise) world, for something to move, it must be pushed or pulled on against something else.
A surfer has his feet pushdd on by the board.
The board is pushed on by the wave.
Draw it.
The only difference with the rocket is in the external burn expansion of the atmosphere to compress it rather than the internal expansion of the helicopter fuel to create an external compression from the blades.
So tell me what the helicopter is riding on?
Air
The helicopter baldes push on the air and the airpushes back.
There is a transmission of force at the point of contact on the blades.
Show that on your green bar.
Anyone can feel free to ignore me. Ignore me for life, Go on.Still waiting for you to explain what satellite TV dishes point at. In your area most point southish to a transmitter at 28.2deg E above equator for Sky TV.
I mean sokarul cannot do it and itches to get into this stuff but can't.
So anyone that wishes to ignore....please do it. Don't whine about it....just do it because I'll still be putting my thoughts into the forum.
Did you ever watch an episode of mythbusters where they wanted to see if a helicopter inside a truck would make the truck weigh less if it was hovered inside of it instead of laid on the floor of that truck?YesA helicopter shows you the simple way a rocket works by using atmosphere.
You SAID the force comes from the gas on gas fight.
And that the rocket/ balloon sits on the green bar and rides it.
So
Draw it.
Draw the green bar pushing on the rocket.
Or
Tell us why it doesnt need to be drawn.
Because in the real (denP or otherwise) world, for something to move, it must be pushed or pulled on against something else.
A surfer has his feet pushdd on by the board.
The board is pushed on by the wave.
Draw it.
The only difference with the rocket is in the external burn expansion of the atmosphere to compress it rather than the internal expansion of the helicopter fuel to create an external compression from the blades.
So tell me what the helicopter is riding on?
Air
The helicopter baldes push on the air and the airpushes back.
There is a transmission of force at the point of contact on the blades.
Show that on your green bar.
If you did, do you recall no change in measured weight because the blades pushed the atmosphere down to create a much larger compression of the atmosphere under that helicopter, meaning it could push into the atmosphere above by resting on this compressed air?
You see, to hover it has to push down on the truck with it's own mass of compressed air.
The more it compresses the more it can sit on that compressive build up, meaning it can move higher.
The rocket does the same thing in essence, except it uses a different way of performing the compression, as I've stated before.
It's pretty simple to grasp but you people will insist these fantasy space rockets kick themselves up their own arses.
Did you ever watch an episode of mythbusters where they wanted to see if a helicopter inside a truck would make the truck weigh less if it was hovered inside of it instead of laid on the floor of that truck?YesA helicopter shows you the simple way a rocket works by using atmosphere.
You SAID the force comes from the gas on gas fight.
And that the rocket/ balloon sits on the green bar and rides it.
So
Draw it.
Draw the green bar pushing on the rocket.
Or
Tell us why it doesnt need to be drawn.
Because in the real (denP or otherwise) world, for something to move, it must be pushed or pulled on against something else.
A surfer has his feet pushdd on by the board.
The board is pushed on by the wave.
Draw it.
The only difference with the rocket is in the external burn expansion of the atmosphere to compress it rather than the internal expansion of the helicopter fuel to create an external compression from the blades.
So tell me what the helicopter is riding on?
Air
The helicopter baldes push on the air and the airpushes back.
There is a transmission of force at the point of contact on the blades.
Show that on your green bar.
If you did, do you recall no change in measured weight because the blades pushed the atmosphere down to create a much larger compression of the atmosphere under that helicopter, meaning it could push into the atmosphere above by resting on this compressed air?
You see, to hover it has to push down on the truck with it's own mass of compressed air.
The more it compresses the more it can sit on that compressive build up, meaning it can move higher.
The rocket does the same thing in essence, except it uses a different way of performing the compression, as I've stated before.
It's pretty simple to grasp but you people will insist these fantasy space rockets kick themselves up their own arses.
Did you ever watch an episode of mythbusters where they wanted to see if a helicopter inside a truck would make the truck weigh less if it was hovered inside of it instead of laid on the floor of that truck?YesA helicopter shows you the simple way a rocket works by using atmosphere.
You SAID the force comes from the gas on gas fight.
And that the rocket/ balloon sits on the green bar and rides it.
So
Draw it.
Draw the green bar pushing on the rocket.
Or
Tell us why it doesnt need to be drawn.
Because in the real (denP or otherwise) world, for something to move, it must be pushed or pulled on against something else.
A surfer has his feet pushdd on by the board.
The board is pushed on by the wave.
Draw it.
The only difference with the rocket is in the external burn expansion of the atmosphere to compress it rather than the internal expansion of the helicopter fuel to create an external compression from the blades.
So tell me what the helicopter is riding on?
Air
The helicopter baldes push on the air and the airpushes back.
There is a transmission of force at the point of contact on the blades.
Show that on your green bar.
If you did, do you recall no change in measured weight because the blades pushed the atmosphere down to create a much larger compression of the atmosphere under that helicopter, meaning it could push into the atmosphere above by resting on this compressed air?
You see, to hover it has to push down on the truck with it's own mass of compressed air.
The more it compresses the more it can sit on that compressive build up, meaning it can move higher.
The rocket does the same thing in essence, except it uses a different way of performing the compression, as I've stated before.
It's pretty simple to grasp but you people will insist these fantasy space rockets kick themselves up their own arses.
There is no evidence. It cannot be explained.You ignoring the evidence (just like you ignoring the rest of my post) doesn't mean it isn't there.
We went through this before and you were stumped to explain.
I told you what force was on the rocket. You chose to ignore it and pretend you weren't told.No, you repeatedly avoided saying what force was acting on the rocket, likely because you know that it refutes you.
You'll continue to ignore it no matter what, because that's what you people do.
The diagrams are there so take some time to understand them if you're genuine.
A helicopter shows you the simple way a rocket works by using atmosphere.No, a helicopter works using vastly different principles.
If you did, do you recall no change in measured weight because the blades pushed the atmosphere down to create a much larger compression of the atmosphere under that helicopter, meaning it could push into the atmosphere above by resting on this compressed air?What the air does after it has left the helicopter is irrelevant.
Nope.Did you ever watch an episode of mythbusters where they wanted to see if a helicopter inside a truck would make the truck weigh less if it was hovered inside of it instead of laid on the floor of that truck?YesA helicopter shows you the simple way a rocket works by using atmosphere.
You SAID the force comes from the gas on gas fight.
And that the rocket/ balloon sits on the green bar and rides it.
So
Draw it.
Draw the green bar pushing on the rocket.
Or
Tell us why it doesnt need to be drawn.
Because in the real (denP or otherwise) world, for something to move, it must be pushed or pulled on against something else.
A surfer has his feet pushdd on by the board.
The board is pushed on by the wave.
Draw it.
The only difference with the rocket is in the external burn expansion of the atmosphere to compress it rather than the internal expansion of the helicopter fuel to create an external compression from the blades.
So tell me what the helicopter is riding on?
Air
The helicopter baldes push on the air and the airpushes back.
There is a transmission of force at the point of contact on the blades.
Show that on your green bar.
If you did, do you recall no change in measured weight because the blades pushed the atmosphere down to create a much larger compression of the atmosphere under that helicopter, meaning it could push into the atmosphere above by resting on this compressed air?
You see, to hover it has to push down on the truck with it's own mass of compressed air.
The more it compresses the more it can sit on that compressive build up, meaning it can move higher.
The rocket does the same thing in essence, except it uses a different way of performing the compression, as I've stated before.
It's pretty simple to grasp but you people will insist these fantasy space rockets kick themselves up their own arses.
So if I put a scale under a rocket, after the rocket has lifted off straight up and is a mile in the sky, the scale should still show the same weight?
It is very simple if you understand it's all happening externally, meaning your rocket does not get its uplift force from inside it.
The rotors provide a force on the air equal and opposite to the lift force. This in turn provides an equal and opposite force on the floor of the truck.
Just as rocket propellant provides an equal and opposite force on the rocket.
Newton’s laws satisfied in all cases.
Yes. It’s very simple. The rocket case is the simplest. Why don’t you get it? Is it because you don’t want get it?
Incorrect!Newton’s laws satisfied in all cases.It is very simple if you understand it's all happening externally, meaning your rocket does not get its uplift force from inside it.
Yes. It’s very simple. The rocket case is the simplest. Why don’t you get it? Is it because you don’t want get it?
It is very simple if you understand it's all happening externally, meaning your rocket does not get its uplift force from inside it.
The rotors provide a force on the air equal and opposite to the lift force. This in turn provides an equal and opposite force on the floor of the truck.
Just as rocket propellant provides an equal and opposite force on the rocket.
Newton’s laws satisfied in all cases.
Yes. It’s very simple. The rocket case is the simplest. Why don’t you get it? Is it because you don’t want get it?
Guys
Lets help him finish his thought beyond gas-gas fight.
Work on completing his theory.
He just waves you all away.
Unles your goal is to get to tripl digit pg faster.
Only a few to go!
Who cares what causes inertia? I don't need to know what causes an internal combustion engine to work in order to drive a car. Newton's laws describe motion well enough so that engineers can build all sorts of things, including rockets that work in a vacuum.Newtons so called laws have not been proven to work at all in terms of what really happens.
Newton's 3 laws have been proven to work just fine over and over again for hundreds of years. It's your "pressure on pressure" that has yet to be proven.
They simply state so called inertia or f=ma but not what causes it.
This is the issue and if it's not explained then it's a nonsense, just like space rockets are a nonsense.
Start at 35 seconds.Incorrect!Newton’s laws satisfied in all cases.It is very simple if you understand it's all happening externally, meaning your rocket does not get its uplift force from inside it.
Yes. It’s very simple. The rocket case is the simplest. Why don’t you get it? Is it because you don’t want get it?
It has explained carefully numerous times that by the time the burnt propellant has left the rocket its work is done!
Once the rocket is even a little above any solid object that could deflect the exhaust stream back onto the rocket[1] what happens to the exhaust stream is totally irrelevant.
You obviously know nothing about supersonic and hypersonic motion in gases - go and learn something.
[1] Launch pads are designed so that as little as possible of the exhaust stream is deflected back onto the rocket
because of the damage it would cause to the rocket.
Go and learn something and stop pretending that YOU know better than all the specialists in the field - you do not!
The dreamers are you people adhering to the fantasy set out for you.
It gets the force when it throws mass out the back.
I know this because I studied it. I’ve derived the basic fluid flow equations (although that was a while ago, not sure I could do it now). I’ve used the equations to design, build and test gas systems and vacuum systems. Just like millions of other physicists and engineers have done to create the technology that you use to deny basic science.
You haven’t studied this. You haven’t tested your ideas. You haven’t even bothered to learn how the rest of the world understands it, which should be the absolute first step before claiming they are wrong.
You just dream it up and spout your fantasy version on the internet. That’s fine. Believe what you want.
The part I have a problem is you telling everyone else they don’t understand, or are indoctrinated or whatever. They do understand. They are right, you are wrong.
Newton's so called laws do not amply describe anything to mean something.Who cares what causes inertia? I don't need to know what causes an internal combustion engine to work in order to drive a car. Newton's laws describe motion well enough so that engineers can build all sorts of things, including rockets that work in a vacuum.Newtons so called laws have not been proven to work at all in terms of what really happens.
Newton's 3 laws have been proven to work just fine over and over again for hundreds of years. It's your "pressure on pressure" that has yet to be proven.
They simply state so called inertia or f=ma but not what causes it.
This is the issue and if it's not explained then it's a nonsense, just like space rockets are a nonsense.
It (Newton's Laws) relies on what if scenarios that have never happened.
Seriously, but that wasn't a very good example. These might give a better view of the steps taken to deflect the exhaust:Start at 35 seconds.It is very simple if you understand it's all happening externally, meaning your rocket does not get its uplift force from inside it.Incorrect!
It has explained carefully numerous times that by the time the burnt propellant has left the rocket its work is done!
Once the rocket is even a little above any solid object that could deflect the exhaust stream back onto the rocket[1] what happens to the exhaust stream is totally irrelevant.
You obviously know nothing about supersonic and hypersonic motion in gases - go and learn something.
Launch pads are designed so that as little as possible of the exhaust stream is deflected back onto the rocket
because of the damage it would cause to the rocket.
Go and learn something and stop pretending that YOU know better than all the specialists in the field - you do not!
Seriously? ;D
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/vr5823ogq4kygs4/LC39A%20Flame%20Trench%20-%2028%20April%202011.jpg?dl=1)
LC39A Flame Trench - 28 April 2011 (https://www.youtube.com/embed/dTAjGiZvI9k)
The day before the first launch attempt of Endeavour on STS-134, I and a coworker went out to LC39A to document the placement of pressure, heat, and temperature sensors on the SRB side of the main flame deflector inside the flame trench. This video gives an idea of what conditions are one day before a shuttle launch. The dripping water that you hear is from the water deluge system which is filled and primed to douse the launch pad at liftoff for sound suppression and heat mitigation.
It is very simple if you understand it's all happening externally, meaning your rocket does not get its uplift force from inside it.Again, HOW?
The drawing is the Rosetta Stone, here.I think future historians will view it as of greater importance.
The if scenario.It (Newton's Laws) relies on what if scenarios that have never happened.
What scenarios do you speak of?
fix your drawingThere is but it's overlooked by you and others because you refuse to see it or you simply can't grasp the set up of chain reaction compression or expansion of molecules.
or explain why it doesn't need fixing.
because the way you have it right now, there's nothing actually pushing on the rocket/ balloon
That's no example, either.
Seriously, but that wasn't a very good example. These might give a better view of the steps taken to deflect the exhaust:Quote from: Michel Mephit(https://www.dropbox.com/s/vr5823ogq4kygs4/LC39A%20Flame%20Trench%20-%2028%20April%202011.jpg?dl=1)
LC39A Flame Trench - 28 April 2011 (https://www.youtube.com/embed/dTAjGiZvI9k)
The day before the first launch attempt of Endeavour on STS-134, I and a coworker went out to LC39A to document the placement of pressure, heat, and temperature sensors on the SRB side of the main flame deflector inside the flame trench. This video gives an idea of what conditions are one day before a shuttle launch. The dripping water that you hear is from the water deluge system which is filled and primed to douse the launch pad at liftoff for sound suppression and heat mitigation.
And here is a Shuttle launch showing where the exhaust stream is deflected too:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/29kkkvo50nlzs6u/STS-134%20-%20The%20final%20launch%20of%20Endeavour%20-%20Full%20Launch%20in%20HD.jpg?dl=1)
STS-134 - The final launch of Endeavour - Full Launch in HD at 10:01 (https://www.youtube.com/embed/ShRa2RG2KDI)
As it stands, from the skepti drawing and all of the skepti descriptions presented, the rocket/balloon never moves. It would just sit there, static, losing a 'gas-on-gas' fight.As it stands, you can't grasp what's been said.
It allows the gas to expand into the much less resistant external atmosphere until that expanding rocket gas compresses that weaker atmosphere to now react in equal terms to that expansion.
How does somethign external to the rocket magically accelerate the gas inside the rocket?
By having the rocket simply sit on top of the gas on gas fight,a s explained aplenty in this topic and also the above quote.
How does that then magically accelerate the rocket, with no connection to the rocket?
No.
Trying to have it all happen externally to cling to fantasy of requiring an atmosphere, all so you can dismiss the reality of rockets working in space and having plenty of pictures of the clearly round Earth, all so you can cling to your FE fantasy is not simple at all.
There's no self contradictions, at all.
It requires so much convoluted nonsense and self-contradictions it isn't funny.
Yep. But the question is, how?
What is simple is reality. You have the gas inside the rocket. This is accelerated to a very high speed.
So give me the force and reactionary force inside the rocket.
This requires a force and a reactionary force which can only apply to the rocket, which means the rocket will accelerate, even without the atmosphere.
i.e. rockets work in space
This is very simple.
fix your drawingThere is but it's overlooked by you and others because you refuse to see it or you simply can't grasp the set up of chain reaction compression or expansion of molecules.
or explain why it doesn't need fixing.
because the way you have it right now, there's nothing actually pushing on the rocket/ balloon
As it stands, from the skepti drawing and all of the skepti descriptions presented, the rocket/balloon never moves. It would just sit there, static, losing a 'gas-on-gas' fight.As it stands, you can't grasp what's been said.
It allows the gas to expand into the much less resistant external atmosphere until that expanding rocket gas compresses that weaker atmosphere to now react in equal terms to that expansion.
How does somethign external to the rocket magically accelerate the gas inside the rocket?
From this point on the expanded gas moves the rocket because the compressive force back from atmosphere creates a consistent barrier against that thrust/expansion/burn.Quote from: JackBlackBy having the rocket simply sit on top of the gas on gas fight,a s explained aplenty in this topic and also the above quote.
How does that then magically accelerate the rocket, with no connection to the rocket?Quote from: JackBlackNo.
Trying to have it all happen externally to cling to fantasy of requiring an atmosphere, all so you can dismiss the reality of rockets working in space and having plenty of pictures of the clearly round Earth, all so you can cling to your FE fantasy is not simple at all.
I'm giving you a reality in order for you to have a word with yourself and see the fantasy you adhere to.
What you actually do is up to you.Quote from: JackBlackThere's no self contradictions, at all.
It requires so much convoluted nonsense and self-contradictions it isn't funny.
You merely saying it means nothing.Quote from: JackBlackYep. But the question is, how?
What is simple is reality. You have the gas inside the rocket. This is accelerated to a very high speed.
What accelerates it?
How does it accelerate.
Give me a simple analogy of what's happening at this point.Quote from: JackBlackSo give me the force and reactionary force inside the rocket.
This requires a force and a reactionary force which can only apply to the rocket, which means the rocket will accelerate, even without the atmosphere.
i.e. rockets work in space
This is very simple.
Just explain how this can work.
I'll make this simple for you.
Give me a perfect analogy of what would be happening in your space with a container of compressed gas and losing the entire lid from one end.
Tell me what happens to the gas and give an analogy to what is happening as you lose the gas to your space in order to move your rocket forward as the gas goes the opposite way.
Let's see what you've got because nobody has ever explained what happens, except to simply mention action and reaction, which means nothing unless you show what it is.
Over to you.
Seriously, you need to take an introductory lab physics course. Newton's laws are pretty much the first thing that they cover and have you perform experiments to verify for yourself.Newton's so called laws do not amply describe anything to mean something.Who cares what causes inertia? I don't need to know what causes an internal combustion engine to work in order to drive a car. Newton's laws describe motion well enough so that engineers can build all sorts of things, including rockets that work in a vacuum.Newtons so called laws have not been proven to work at all in terms of what really happens.
Newton's 3 laws have been proven to work just fine over and over again for hundreds of years. It's your "pressure on pressure" that has yet to be proven.
They simply state so called inertia or f=ma but not what causes it.
This is the issue and if it's not explained then it's a nonsense, just like space rockets are a nonsense.
It describes something that means nothing when looked at logically and simply.
It relies on what if scenarios that have never happened.
The if scenario.It (Newton's Laws) relies on what if scenarios that have never happened.
What scenarios do you speak of?
Bring up each supposed law and let's go through it. You'll soon understand the so called laws are not laws at all, because they do not exist as a reality in terms of explanation of what is happening.
You draw where your action and reaction is occuring to get your rocket moving.fix your drawingThere is but it's overlooked by you and others because you refuse to see it or you simply can't grasp the set up of chain reaction compression or expansion of molecules.
or explain why it doesn't need fixing.
because the way you have it right now, there's nothing actually pushing on the rocket/ balloon
We can grasp a chain reaction.
One thing, pushing on another, which pushes one another, which pushes on another.
You, are dodging once again by crying nonexistent foul.
https://images.app.goo.gl/6NmxHA4FqSJCHnbt6
Draw the damn lines.
You people refuse to follow what's being said. You create your own issue....or maybe you deliberately do it. Who knows?As it stands, from the skepti drawing and all of the skepti descriptions presented, the rocket/balloon never moves. It would just sit there, static, losing a 'gas-on-gas' fight.As it stands, you can't grasp what's been said.
No one can.
You refuse to speak english.
Try drawing it.
A picture is worth a1,000 words.
Ok then, show me an experiment to confirm Newton's supposed first law.
Seriously, you need to take an introductory lab physics course. Newton's laws are pretty much the first thing that they cover and have you perform experiments to verify for yourself.
You draw where your action and reaction is occuring to get your rocket moving.fix your drawingThere is but it's overlooked by you and others because you refuse to see it or you simply can't grasp the set up of chain reaction compression or expansion of molecules.
or explain why it doesn't need fixing.
because the way you have it right now, there's nothing actually pushing on the rocket/ balloon
We can grasp a chain reaction.
One thing, pushing on another, which pushes one another, which pushes on another.
You, are dodging once again by crying nonexistent foul.
https://images.app.goo.gl/6NmxHA4FqSJCHnbt6
Draw the damn lines.
Tell me what's happening.
Once you do this I'll be happy to amend it.
You people refuse to follow what's being said. You create your own issue....or maybe you deliberately do it. Who knows?As it stands, from the skepti drawing and all of the skepti descriptions presented, the rocket/balloon never moves. It would just sit there, static, losing a 'gas-on-gas' fight.As it stands, you can't grasp what's been said.
No one can.
You refuse to speak english.
Try drawing it.
A picture is worth a1,000 words.
Bring up each supposed law and let's go through it. You'll soon understand the so called laws are not laws at all, because they do not exist as a reality in terms of explanation of what is happening.That has been done, and then you fled, because you know you cannot rationally refute these laws of motion.
There is but it's overlookedNo, there isn't, as there is clearly no arrow on the rocket at all.
It allows the gas to expandAllowing something to happen is not providing a force.
By having the rocket simply sit on top of the gas on gas fight,a s explained aplenty in this topic and also the above quote.No, as pointed out plenty of times, THIS EXPLAINS NOTHING!
I'm giving you a realityYour complete inability to provide an explanation which actually addresses the issues shows you are clearly not giving us reality.
There's no self contradictions, at all.Good thing I'm not just merely saying it and instead have provided examples of these contradictions repeatedly.
You merely saying it means nothing.
I'll make this simple for you.There is no perfect analogy, and why bother with pathetic analogies when there are much better explanations?
Give me a perfect analogy of what would be happening in your space with a container of compressed gas and losing the entire lid from one end.
Over to you.How about over to you?
Once you do this I'll be happy to amend it.Cut the BS.
Open you eyes! The exhaust stream is deflected to either side to minimise the blast reflected back on the rocket.That's no example, either.
Seriously, but that wasn't a very good example. These might give a better view of the steps taken to deflect the exhaust:Quote from: Michel Mephit(https://www.dropbox.com/s/vr5823ogq4kygs4/LC39A%20Flame%20Trench%20-%2028%20April%202011.jpg?dl=1)
LC39A Flame Trench - 28 April 2011 (https://www.youtube.com/embed/dTAjGiZvI9k)
The day before the first launch attempt of Endeavour on STS-134, I and a coworker went out to LC39A to document the placement of pressure, heat, and temperature sensors on the SRB side of the main flame deflector inside the flame trench. This video gives an idea of what conditions are one day before a shuttle launch. The dripping water that you hear is from the water deluge system which is filled and primed to douse the launch pad at liftoff for sound suppression and heat mitigation.
And here is a Shuttle launch showing where the exhaust stream is deflected too:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/29kkkvo50nlzs6u/STS-134%20-%20The%20final%20launch%20of%20Endeavour%20-%20Full%20Launch%20in%20HD.jpg?dl=1)
STS-134 - The final launch of Endeavour - Full Launch in HD at 10:01 (https://www.youtube.com/embed/ShRa2RG2KDI)
You people refuse to follow what's being said.No, we don't!
An object in motion stays in motion and an object at rest stays at rest unless acted upon by an external force. What part of that is so hard to understand? If you want an example, just get into your car, accelerate to about 5 mph and then slam on your brakes. That sudden lurch forward is your body wanting to stay in motion while the car wants to stop.Ok then, show me an experiment to confirm Newton's supposed first law.
Seriously, you need to take an introductory lab physics course. Newton's laws are pretty much the first thing that they cover and have you perform experiments to verify for yourself.
Explain it.
There are many you can find online.Ok then, show me an experiment to confirm Newton's supposed first law.
Seriously, you need to take an introductory lab physics course. Newton's laws are pretty much the first thing that they cover and have you perform experiments to verify for yourself.
Explain it.
There's none of it hard t o understand.An object in motion stays in motion and an object at rest stays at rest unless acted upon by an external force.Ok then, show me an experiment to confirm Newton's supposed first law.
Seriously, you need to take an introductory lab physics course. Newton's laws are pretty much the first thing that they cover and have you perform experiments to verify for yourself.
Explain it.
What part of that is so hard to understand?
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.
If you want an example, just get into your car, accelerate to about 5 mph and then slam on your brakes. That sudden lurch forward is your body wanting to stay in motion while the car wants to stop.
Yes, that's what I'm saying.There are many you can find online.Ok then, show me an experiment to confirm Newton's supposed first law.
Seriously, you need to take an introductory lab physics course. Newton's laws are pretty much the first thing that they cover and have you perform experiments to verify for yourself.
Explain it.
https://www.indypl.org/blog/for-kids/science-experiment-newtons-first-law-of-motion
Are you saying that you have discovered that science as used and taught is wrong? Who agrees with you?
So you're saying that your kitchen table is not at rest? How do you keep it from moving around the room? Did you need to nail it to the floor?There's none of it hard t o understand.An object in motion stays in motion and an object at rest stays at rest unless acted upon by an external force.Ok then, show me an experiment to confirm Newton's supposed first law.
Seriously, you need to take an introductory lab physics course. Newton's laws are pretty much the first thing that they cover and have you perform experiments to verify for yourself.
Explain it.
What part of that is so hard to understand?
It tells you exactly what you want to know.
The problem is, it's not showing a reality and cannot show a reality.
You see, the object at rest will stay at rest unless acted upon by an external force.
Great, you could argue this is the case....but is it?
You see, there's ALWAYS an external force acting upon any object. It is never at rest.
However, the next one is the clincher.Yes, that's what the law says. An external force (usually friction) pretty much always acts on an object in motion. However, there are ways of reducing friction and keeping the motion relatively constant. A car sliding on ice is a good example.
An object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an external force.
It clearly will not stay in motion then, because there's always an external force acting upon the object.
The only way you can argue this is to use the fiction of a vacuum of so called space to say something will move forever once in motion or stay perfectly still forever if left in space.Or, you could learn the delicate art of abstraction which allows you to break events down into simpler terms. Yes, friction always exists in the real world. No one is saying anything different. However, it's often preferred to think of an imaginary idealized environment doesn't exist so you can get a clearer idea of a concept. Once you grasp the concept (in this case, the notion that an object in motion will stay in motion), then you can bring the problem into the real world and add various external forces (friction, inclines, etc.) to get a better understanding of how an object moves.
It becomes a nonsense.No, it isn't nonsense. It's simply a starting point, not a final destination. After all, you have to learn to stand on your feet before you can run.
This is why the law is not a law at all. It's made up nonsense.
"Atmospheric slosh"? ??? Never heard of such a thing. How does it work?Quote from: markjoNo. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.
If you want an example, just get into your car, accelerate to about 5 mph and then slam on your brakes. That sudden lurch forward is your body wanting to stay in motion while the car wants to stop.
The problem is, it's not showing a reality and cannot show a reality.No, it does show a key part of reality.
An object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an external force.No, it is actually that it continues with its motion. An external force will change the motion, which can be to stop it (in some reference frame) or it could be to speed it up, or just change the direction.
It clearly will not stay in motion then, because there's always an external force acting upon the object.
The only way you can argue this is to use the fiction of a vacuum of so called space to say something will move forever once in motion or stay perfectly still forever if left in space.Or, as was originally done, we can look how the different forces impact motion, and extrapolate back to no force.
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.While pure nonsense, that just pushes the problem back. Why does the atmosphere slosh?
Who agrees with you?Yes, that's what I'm saying.There are many you can find online.Ok then, show me an experiment to confirm Newton's supposed first law.
Seriously, you need to take an introductory lab physics course. Newton's laws are pretty much the first thing that they cover and have you perform experiments to verify for yourself.
Explain it.
https://www.indypl.org/blog/for-kids/science-experiment-newtons-first-law-of-motion
Are you saying that you have discovered that science as used and taught is wrong? Who agrees with you?
There are many you can find online.Yes, that's what I'm saying.
https://www.indypl.org/blog/for-kids/science-experiment-newtons-first-law-of-motion
Are you saying that you have discovered that science as used and taught is wrong? Who agrees with you?
It's not about nailing it to the floor. It's about contraction and expansion. It's always under external force, is what I'm saying, which means it's never at rest in reality....only to the naked, immediate eye view..
So you're saying that your kitchen table is not at rest? How do you keep it from moving around the room? Did you need to nail it to the floor?
It's not a case of ways to reduce friction. It's about having to totally rid the object of any friction. Any external force.However, the next one is the clincher.Yes, that's what the law says. An external force (usually friction) pretty much always acts on an object in motion. However, there are ways of reducing friction and keeping the motion relatively constant. A car sliding on ice is a good example.
An object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an external force.
It clearly will not stay in motion then, because there's always an external force acting upon the object.
No....no....no.The only way you can argue this is to use the fiction of a vacuum of so called space to say something will move forever once in motion or stay perfectly still forever if left in space.Or, you could learn the delicate art of abstraction which allows you to break events down into simpler terms. Yes, friction always exists in the real world. No one is saying anything different. However, it's often preferred to think of an imaginary idealized environment doesn't exist so you can get a clearer idea of a concept. Once you grasp the concept (in this case, the notion that an object in motion will stay in motion), then you can bring the problem into the real world and add various external forces (friction, inclines, etc.) to get a better understanding of how an object moves.
By all means use sayings but standing on your own two feet before running is something of a reality that can be shown.It becomes a nonsense.No, it isn't nonsense. It's simply a starting point, not a final destination. After all, you have to learn to stand on your feet before you can run.
This is why the law is not a law at all. It's made up nonsense.
The best way to understand it is to sit in a bath and swish the water away from you."Atmospheric slosh"? ??? Never heard of such a thing. How does it work?Quote from: markjoNo. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.
If you want an example, just get into your car, accelerate to about 5 mph and then slam on your brakes. That sudden lurch forward is your body wanting to stay in motion while the car wants to stop.
I think sceptis weirdo mind has issue with the fact you can never proove the base claim by removing all forces because there is always a force somewhere that needs to be taken into consideration.Can you prove the so called laws?
Basically saying there is no such thing as absolute zero temp because as soon as you try to measure it, you would introduce a heat source and void it.
Same as his "vauum doesnt exist" arguemtn because there is always somethi mng, like the exhaust gas of a rocket, space dust, or etc.
But again, its a non argument.
What scepti needs to do is prove HIS theory and draw a proper damn diagram!!!
Can you draw the damn arrows?I don’t think he can. Would have done so already, if able.
Or explain why you dont need them.
Likewise, tell us how the rocket accelerates.Picture a tube of water in freezing conditions where, as soon as the water is released from the tube, it freezes.
What is pushing on it? We know it can't be the atmosphere as it is on the wrong side or the rocket is protected from it by the gas coming out of the rocket engine. The only option is the gas.
You can attach anything you like to the mindset of someone who has a differing opinion to the one you are and have been thoroughly schooled into and adhere to.There are many you can find online.Yes, that's what I'm saying.
https://www.indypl.org/blog/for-kids/science-experiment-newtons-first-law-of-motion
Are you saying that you have discovered that science as used and taught is wrong? Who agrees with you?
Does anyone see a classic case of the Dunning-Kruger-Syndrome in spades here?
But Sandokhan, Tom Bishop, Wise, John Davis and you, Sceppy, all claim the same thing but all have quite different:They ALL insist that they, themselves are right. So who is right? Either one or none is right.
- Maps or "Continental Layouts".
- "Models" of the flat Earth.
- Explanations for gravity.
- And in some case even a vastly different chronology.
I'll take the easy way out and stick with the simplest explanation of all - that gravity is real and the Earth is a sedately rotating ball that orbits the Sun.
Can you draw the damn arrows?Of course I can and I will.
Or explain why you dont need them.
I can but can you draw one showing your space rocket and how it works.Can you draw the damn arrows?I don’t think he can. Would have done so already, if able.
Or explain why you dont need them.
Quote from: markjoThe best way to understand it is to sit in a bath and swish the water away from you."Atmospheric slosh"? ??? Never heard of such a thing. How does it work?Quote from: markjoNo. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.
If you want an example, just get into your car, accelerate to about 5 mph and then slam on your brakes. That sudden lurch forward is your body wanting to stay in motion while the car wants to stop.
What happens?
Or, this.
The only difference is in pressure build of air and the immediate release of it.
And if that's the case then it makes the law a nothing.Do you understand what a law is in the scientific context?
The best way to understand it is to sit in a bath and swish the water away from you.The momentum of the water keeps it moving.
What happens?
Picture a tube of waterWhy do you need to continue to appeal to these pathetic analogies rather than just explaining what is happening?
Once allowed to flow, atmospheric interferenceWe are dealing with something happening in a vacuum. What atmospheric interference is there?
Of course I can and I will.WHEN?
First of all I'd like you to draw your diagram of how your rocket works by making it perfectly clear as to what is happening.This has been provided for you countless times.
Picture a tube of water in freezing conditionsIf it's in "freezing conditions" why hasn't it already frozen?
where, as soon as the water is released from the tube, it freezes.But "external atmospheric interference" has virtually no effect on the freezing point of water.
So, inside the tube the water is protected from external atmospheric interference.
Once allowed to flow, atmospheric interference immediately hits the flow and freezes is. Do you agree?No! it would have already frozen and would not flow!
I'll take it you do, because you can't dent it.No! I don't agree and I've already dented ??? it and explained why.
<< All this is now quite irrelevant! >>Try again.
Can you draw the damn arrows?Of course I can and I will.
Or explain why you dont need them.
First of all I'd like you to draw your diagram of how your rocket works by making it perfectly clear as to what is happening.
Nearly at the 100! I'm so fucking excited.We're trying and Sceppy is very trying but no match for Heiwa.
Come on, one last push!
You don't need people here to explain, just look online for the answer and come back with what you think is right or wrong.I can but can you draw one showing your space rocket and how it works.Can you draw the damn arrows?I don’t think he can. Would have done so already, if able.
Or explain why you don't need them.
Your diagram not a simple copy and paste of some diagram that shows nothing.
Over to you.
You dodged it because you can see what the end result would be.Picture a tube of water in freezing conditionsIf it's in "freezing conditions" why hasn't it already frozen?Quote from: sceptimaticwhere, as soon as the water is released from the tube, it freezes.But "external atmospheric interference" has virtually no effect on the freezing point of water.
So, inside the tube the water is protected from external atmospheric interference.
So who cares if it is or is not "protected from external atmospheric interference"?Quote from: sceptimaticOnce allowed to flow, atmospheric interference immediately hits the flow and freezes is. Do you agree?No! it would have already frozen and would not flow!Quote from: sceptimaticI'll take it you do, because you can't dent it.No! I don't agree and I've already dented ??? it and explained why.Quote from: sceptimatic<< All this is now quite irrelevant! >>Try again.
But you can't change the facts: Rockets work better in a vacuum than at sea-level - get used to reality for a change!
Draw the arrows.
UesI seem to see all that with you people.
The end result would be the same as the denp thread and the ballistic thread.
You ask questions and string people along with no intention of listening or producing your own counter points.
Merely waving it away witha "dupe" or a "nu-uh".
Draw the arrows.
I expect better.
Draw the arrows.
If I may interject (and help push this to 100 pages), I don't think he actually can do this - it doesn't seem he really understands what you and others are asking for. He seems to have a wonderful imagination, but his comprehension skills don't shine very bright in these threads.
Plenty of information available online, please find and comment.UesI seem to see all that with you people.
The end result would be the same as the denp thread and the ballistic thread.
You ask questions and string people along with no intention of listening or producing your own counter points.
Merely waving it away witha "dupe" or a "nu-uh".
Draw the arrows.
Draw your diagram on how your space rocket works.
Contraction and expansion aren't considered motion in the classical mechanics sense. Motion is moving from point A to point B.It's not about nailing it to the floor. It's about contraction and expansion. It's always under external force, is what I'm saying, which means it's never at rest in reality....only to the naked, immediate eye view..
So you're saying that your kitchen table is not at rest? How do you keep it from moving around the room? Did you need to nail it to the floor?
No one, not even Newton, is denying that external forces exist and can't be completely removed. That's why he put in the "unless acted upon by an external force" bit in his first law. I don't know why you think that external forces invalidate the first law.Quote from: markjoIt's not a case of ways to reduce friction. It's about having to totally rid the object of any friction. Any external force.However, the next one is the clincher.Yes, that's what the law says. An external force (usually friction) pretty much always acts on an object in motion. However, there are ways of reducing friction and keeping the motion relatively constant. A car sliding on ice is a good example.
An object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an external force.
It clearly will not stay in motion then, because there's always an external force acting upon the object.
It cannot be done, so admit that.
And if that's the case then it makes the law a nothing. It's a fiction.
There's simply no reality about what is said.
By all means argue it but it's hard to deny.
Reality can get complicated, so sometimes it's easier to use a simplified imaginary scenario to explain what's going on. That doesn't mean that the first law doesn't work in real, complex scenarios.Quote from: markjoNo....no....no.The only way you can argue this is to use the fiction of a vacuum of so called space to say something will move forever once in motion or stay perfectly still forever if left in space.Or, you could learn the delicate art of abstraction which allows you to break events down into simpler terms. Yes, friction always exists in the real world. No one is saying anything different. However, it's often preferred to think of an imaginary idealized environment doesn't exist so you can get a clearer idea of a concept. Once you grasp the concept (in this case, the notion that an object in motion will stay in motion), then you can bring the problem into the real world and add various external forces (friction, inclines, etc.) to get a better understanding of how an object moves.
Either it is something or it's not, in terms of reality.
If you want to say the laws are imaginary and would work in that imaginary scenario then I'll happily go along with that.
If you want the scenario to be a real life law then it has to have real life implications.
These so called laws do not in terms of explanations as to showing a bonafide reality..
Of course it can. You're just overthinking things.Quote from: markjoBy all means use sayings but standing on your own two feet before running is something of a reality that can be shown.It becomes a nonsense.No, it isn't nonsense. It's simply a starting point, not a final destination. After all, you have to learn to stand on your feet before you can run.
This is why the law is not a law at all. It's made up nonsense.
What is postured with the so called laws, cannot be shown to be real.
Granted air and water are both fluids and share some similar properties, but air is far less dense than water and can't push nearly as hard as water can. In fact, Newton's second law can help you figure out how hard water and air can push based on their mass and how fast they're moving. You should look into that some time.Quote from: markjoThe best way to understand it is to sit in a bath and swish the water away from you."Atmospheric slosh"? ??? Never heard of such a thing. How does it work?Quote from: markjoNo. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.
If you want an example, just get into your car, accelerate to about 5 mph and then slam on your brakes. That sudden lurch forward is your body wanting to stay in motion while the car wants to stop.
What happens?
Or, this.
The only difference is in pressure build of air and the immediate release of it.
Just a new person here and no FE'r.They are able to expand into the atmosphere, just like any rocket or missile under a burning thrust.
I do have a question for sceptimatic. Can you explain how rockets from a firework works? The thrust these rockets provide are not able to press the atmosphere yet they will go into the air at a pretty high altitude. So how can these rockets fly?
Just a new person here and no FE'r.They are able to expand into the atmosphere, just like any rocket or missile under a burning thrust.
I do have a question for sceptimatic. Can you explain how rockets from a firework works? The thrust these rockets provide are not able to press the atmosphere yet they will go into the air at a pretty high altitude. So how can these rockets fly?
You dodged it because you can see what the end result would be.No, he explained issues with your "analogy" because it has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
I seem to see all that with you people.Again, you are projecting your own inadequacies onto others. It is the only way for you to cling to your fantasy.
Draw your diagram on how your space rocket works.
No, I dodged nothing and carefully explained to you when would happen in reality.You dodged it because you can see what the end result would be.
No! I don't agree and I've already dented ??? it and explained why.Quote from: sceptimatic<< All this is now quite irrelevant! >>Try again.
But you can't change the facts: Rockets work better in a vacuum than at sea-level - get used to reality for a change!
How does the freezing temperature of water vary with respect to pressure? (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60170/how-does-the-freezing-temperature-of-water-vary-with-respect-to-pressure)Read the link for further information.
Q:
I know when the pressure is reduced, the boiling temperature of water is reduced as well. But how does the pressure affect the freezing point of water?
In a low-pressure environment, is water's freezing temperature higher or lower than 0oC?
A1:
If you decrease the pressure, the freezing point of water will increase ever so slightly. From 0° C at 1 atm pressure it will increase up to 0.01° C at 0.006 atm. This is the tripple point of water. At pressures below this, water will never be liquid. It will change directly between solid and gas phase (sublimation). The temperature for this phase change, the sublimation point, will decrease as the pressure is further decreased. To learn more details, image google "water phase diagram" and study the pictures.
You can have a look at this pressure/temperature phase diagram of water:
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/n6LXj.gif)
Phase diagram taken from Martin Chaplin's webpage (http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_phase_diagram.html), under license CC-BY-NC-ND. This webpage is highly recommended, with tons of useful links and articles.
For reference, the diagram shows a point labeled ‘‘E" for fairly standard human conditions, around 25oC (∼77oF) and normal atmospheric pressure.
Quote from: markjoNo. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.
If you want an example, just get into your car, accelerate to about 5 mph and then slam on your brakes. That sudden lurch forward is your body wanting to stay in motion while the car wants to stop.
Quote from: markjoNo. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.
If you want an example, just get into your car, accelerate to about 5 mph and then slam on your brakes. That sudden lurch forward is your body wanting to stay in motion while the car wants to stop.
Ah-HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
That is all I can say really.
Congrats everyone on reaching 100 pages of circular argument, I guess.
Just a new person here and no FE'r.They are able to expand into the atmosphere, just like any rocket or missile under a burning thrust.
I do have a question for sceptimatic. Can you explain how rockets from a firework works? The thrust these rockets provide are not able to press the atmosphere yet they will go into the air at a pretty high altitude. So how can these rockets fly?
That's worthy of inclusive in my signature. Will Sceppy demand royalty fees?Quote from: markjoNo. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.
If you want an example, just get into your car, accelerate to about 5 mph and then slam on your brakes. That sudden lurch forward is your body wanting to stay in motion while the car wants to stop.
Ah-HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
That is all I can say really.
Congrats everyone on reaching 100 pages of circular argument, I guess.
That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.
Once you provide me with a diagram showing exactly how your rocket works.Just a new person here and no FE'r.They are able to expand into the atmosphere, just like any rocket or missile under a burning thrust.
I do have a question for sceptimatic. Can you explain how rockets from a firework works? The thrust these rockets provide are not able to press the atmosphere yet they will go into the air at a pretty high altitude. So how can these rockets fly?
Great
Coukd you possibly provide a diagram that describes this?
What exactly are you trying to prove with this?No, I dodged nothing and carefully explained to you when would happen in reality.You dodged it because you can see what the end result would be.
No! I don't agree and I've already dented ??? it and explained why.Quote from: sceptimatic<< All this is now quite irrelevant! >>Try again.
But you can't change the facts: Rockets work better in a vacuum than at sea-level - get used to reality for a change!
I've no idea what you might dream up in that weird mind of yours but that's quite irrelevant and seems quite unrelated to reality!
If you don't believe me read this:QuoteHow does the freezing temperature of water vary with respect to pressure? (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60170/how-does-the-freezing-temperature-of-water-vary-with-respect-to-pressure)Read the link for further information.
Q:
I know when the pressure is reduced, the boiling temperature of water is reduced as well. But how does the pressure affect the freezing point of water?
In a low-pressure environment, is water's freezing temperature higher or lower than 0oC?
A1:
If you decrease the pressure, the freezing point of water will increase ever so slightly. From 0° C at 1 atm pressure it will increase up to 0.01° C at 0.006 atm. This is the tripple point of water. At pressures below this, water will never be liquid. It will change directly between solid and gas phase (sublimation). The temperature for this phase change, the sublimation point, will decrease as the pressure is further decreased. To learn more details, image google "water phase diagram" and study the pictures.
You can have a look at this pressure/temperature phase diagram of water:
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/n6LXj.gif)
Phase diagram taken from Martin Chaplin's webpage (http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_phase_diagram.html), under license CC-BY-NC-ND. This webpage is highly recommended, with tons of useful links and articles.
For reference, the diagram shows a point labeled ‘‘E" for fairly standard human conditions, around 25oC (∼77oF) and normal atmospheric pressure.
Hope you like it :D!
How do you manage to work that out?Just a new person here and no FE'r.They are able to expand into the atmosphere, just like any rocket or missile under a burning thrust.
I do have a question for sceptimatic. Can you explain how rockets from a firework works? The thrust these rockets provide are not able to press the atmosphere yet they will go into the air at a pretty high altitude. So how can these rockets fly?
If this is the case then they will not going higher then 1 or 2 inches from the ground. While in practice these rockets are going much higher then the 1 or 2 inches. So again, how can these tiny rockets compress the atmosphere so much that they can go that high in the sky.
Have it for free, on me.That's worthy of inclusive in my signature. Will Sceppy demand royalty fees?Quote from: markjoNo. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.
If you want an example, just get into your car, accelerate to about 5 mph and then slam on your brakes. That sudden lurch forward is your body wanting to stay in motion while the car wants to stop.
Ah-HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
That is all I can say really.
Congrats everyone on reaching 100 pages of circular argument, I guess.That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.
Apparently scepti doesn't realize that his "slosh effect" is an example of inertia.In your own words explain what inertia is or does.
*sigh*Apparently scepti doesn't realize that his "slosh effect" is an example of inertia.In your own words explain what inertia is or does.
Remember it has to have a reason for being a name in reality.Huh? ??? What do you mean? What do names have to do with reality? Inertia is a certain innate property of matter that was identified and they had to name it something. It's like asking why they named a certain color green.
So, inertia is anything that is still until something moves it?
*sigh*
How many time does it need to be explained before you get it? Seriously, is there a number? Are we getting close? Well, let's increment that counter by one.
Do you know how when you put a book on a table and the book doesn't move if you leave it alone? That's because inertia says that objects at rest stays at rest unless you do something to move it.
Do you know how when you roll a ball down the sidewalk and it keeps going after you let it go? That's because inertia says that objects in motion stay in motion unless something happens to make it slow down or stop.Something will never stay in motion, because something will always be acting upon it, so that explanation is also void.
I don't know how to explain it any more simply than that.You don't need to. It's simple enough to understand it's nonsense...seriously.
They key word is in bold.Remember it has to have a reason for being a name in reality.Huh? ??? What do you mean? What do names have to do with reality? Inertia is a certain innate property of matter that was identified and they had to name it something. It's like asking why they named a certain color green.
If you what to know look it up, this will save a lot of your time.Apparently scepti doesn't realize that his "slosh effect" is an example of inertia.In your own words explain what inertia is or does.
Remember it has to have a reason for being a name in reality.
Quote from: markjoHuh? ??? What do you mean? What do names have to do with reality? Inertia is a certain innate property of matter that was identified and they had to name it something. It's like asking why they named a certain color green.They key word is in bold.
Imaginary. A dreamed up piece of nonsense to describe something that cannot happen.
Once you provide me with a diagram showing exactly how your rocket works.Again, stop lying and stop stalling.
Show exactly what's happening and why it happens.
Once you do this I'll certainly expand (pardon the pun) on my diagram to show what really happens.
So, inertia is anything that is still until something moves it?No, inertia is a measure of how difficult it is to change an object's velocity.
BullshitOnce you provide me with a diagram showing exactly how your rocket works.Just a new person here and no FE'r.They are able to expand into the atmosphere, just like any rocket or missile under a burning thrust.
I do have a question for sceptimatic. Can you explain how rockets from a firework works? The thrust these rockets provide are not able to press the atmosphere yet they will go into the air at a pretty high altitude. So how can these rockets fly?
Great
Coukd you possibly provide a diagram that describes this?
Show exactly what's happening and why it happens.
Once you do this I'll certainly expand (pardon the pun) on my diagram to show what really happens.
What forces cause the object to expand and contract?So, inertia is anything that is still until something moves it?
*sigh*
How many time does it need to be explained before you get it? Seriously, is there a number? Are we getting close? Well, let's increment that counter by one.
Do you know how when you put a book on a table and the book doesn't move if you leave it alone? That's because inertia says that objects at rest stays at rest unless you do something to move it.
You know something is always moving any object by expansion and contraction, right?
It's fine for you to argue that it's not really moving but, if you want to be honest, it's not true.If you're talking about the microscopic vibrations of individual atoms and molecules, they don't count because when you look at the object as a whole, those vibrations cancel each other out and there is no overall motion.
Just because something isn't moving to the naked eye, does not mean it's still.
So, in this case, inertia means nothing. the word can be erased because it's worthless as a reality.No, it means that you're overthinking your scenario.
An object will always be acted upon by an external/unbalanced force. Always.The "unless it's acted upon by an external force" part is exactly why the law does pertain to reality.
The saying is meaningless and so is the word, inertia, unless it pertains to a reality.
*sigh*Quote from: markjoThey key word is in bold.Remember it has to have a reason for being a name in reality.Huh? ??? What do you mean? What do names have to do with reality? Inertia is a certain innate property of matter that was identified and they had to name it something. It's like asking why they named a certain color green.
Imaginary. A dreamed up piece of nonsense to describe something that cannot happen.
innate adjective
in·nate | \ i-ˈnāt How to pronounce innate (audio) , ˈi-ˌnāt \
Definition of innate
1 : existing in, belonging to, or determined by factors present in an individual from birth : native, inborn innate behavior
2 : belonging to the essential nature of something : inherent
That exploding fire doesn't rely on air to push the rocket body. It relies on the tons of exploding rocket fuel for this force.
Combustion requires a fuel and oxidant. Air is not a requirement.
How does a flat Earth digress into rockets supposedly not being able to work in space, anyway? Rockets clearly do work in space, and that has no bearing whatsoever on the shape of the Earth. It's a completely separate matter.
any pressure greater than zero is a difference in air pressure.
therefore there can be thrust.
sorry, maybe catch up from starting at the medicine ball part of this thread
The oxygen in more than just compressed. It is liquefied into a liquid with a density a little greater than that of water at room temperature.Combustion requires a fuel and oxidant. Air is not a requirement.
An oxidant (or oxidizing agent) is something which creates oxygen, which is present in air. But oxygen can be isolated and compressed, yes.
But without a difference in air pressure, there cannot be thrust.What does that mean? Rockets do not needto generate thrust from any difference in air pressure.
Sceptimatic, objects with lower mass are easier to move around than objects with higher mass. And not just carry because of weight, but also to change direction when rotating and speed up or speed down when moving forward. What's going on there? What word would you use to describe that observation?Energy to mass transference against resistance of external matter.
Inertia is how difficult it is to change an objects velocity?So, inertia is anything that is still until something moves it?No, inertia is a measure of how difficult it is to change an object's velocity.
We call the rate of change of velocity acceleration so inertia is a measure of how difficult it is to accelerate an object.
If the change in an object's velocity is in a straight line we call the acceleration linear.
In this case of linear acceleration the inertia of object is simply it's called it's mass and that is the quantitative definition of mass.
You seem to be hiding behind your attempts to make out I'm hiding.BullshitOnce you provide me with a diagram showing exactly how your rocket works.Just a new person here and no FE'r.They are able to expand into the atmosphere, just like any rocket or missile under a burning thrust.
I do have a question for sceptimatic. Can you explain how rockets from a firework works? The thrust these rockets provide are not able to press the atmosphere yet they will go into the air at a pretty high altitude. So how can these rockets fly?
Great
Coukd you possibly provide a diagram that describes this?
Show exactly what's happening and why it happens.
Once you do this I'll certainly expand (pardon the pun) on my diagram to show what really happens.
I have more chance of winning heiwas moin challenge.
You did this already in the ballistic thread.
Or is your memory short?
You were given a diagram and asked to mark it up.
And clearly by our 40pg of requests, your marked up diagram was lacking a key feature which youve yet to provide.
Keep dodging.
Keep hiding your superior intelect from the rest of us duped sheeple.
Sceptimatic, objects with lower mass are easier to move around than objects with higher mass. And not just carry because of weight, but also to change direction when rotating and speed up or speed down when moving forward. What's going on there? What word would you use to describe that observation?Energy to mass transference against resistance of external matter.
Inertia vs atmosloshing experimentIt'll tell me nothing about inertia.
Skepti go and place bowling ball on the ground (relatively unmoving and still).
Place a volley ball beside it (they are roughly the same volume as defined in the conventional sense).
Give each a kick as hard as you can.
The level if pain you experience will tell you how much inertia and how nonexistent atmosloshing there is.
You seem to be hiding behind your attempts to make out I'm hiding.BullshitOnce you provide me with a diagram showing exactly how your rocket works.Just a new person here and no FE'r.They are able to expand into the atmosphere, just like any rocket or missile under a burning thrust.
I do have a question for sceptimatic. Can you explain how rockets from a firework works? The thrust these rockets provide are not able to press the atmosphere yet they will go into the air at a pretty high altitude. So how can these rockets fly?
Great
Coukd you possibly provide a diagram that describes this?
Show exactly what's happening and why it happens.
Once you do this I'll certainly expand (pardon the pun) on my diagram to show what really happens.
I have more chance of winning heiwas moin challenge.
You did this already in the ballistic thread.
Or is your memory short?
You were given a diagram and asked to mark it up.
And clearly by our 40pg of requests, your marked up diagram was lacking a key feature which youve yet to provide.
Keep dodging.
Keep hiding your superior intelect from the rest of us duped sheeple.
Put up what I asked for.
It should be easy for you people, it's all on a plate, isn't it?
Just a heads up.
Do not put up a diagram unless you can thoroughly and simply explain what is happening to make your rocket work without using external atmosphere.
I need to know exactly what's happening, because all I've every see is a few arrows and that's it.
I'm waiting and I'll be patient.
You use the word "resistance" but that can describe "inertia" or "friction".Sceptimatic, objects with lower mass are easier to move around than objects with higher mass. And not just carry because of weight, but also to change direction when rotating and speed up or speed down when moving forward. What's going on there? What word would you use to describe that observation?Energy to mass transference against resistance of external matter.
What forces cause the object to expand and contract?Atmospheric pressure changes upon the object.
That's like saying the bugs living on a bed bugs body are not relevant to us but are relevant to the bed bug, most likely, but can be discarded as nothing to us in terms of us not being capable of seeing, so are irrelevant in terms of how they move or operate.It's fine for you to argue that it's not really moving but, if you want to be honest, it's not true.If you're talking about the microscopic vibrations of individual atoms and molecules, they don't count because when you look at the object as a whole, those vibrations cancel each other out and there is no overall motion.
Just because something isn't moving to the naked eye, does not mean it's still.
Or maybe I'm simply giving you a bit of realism.So, in this case, inertia means nothing. the word can be erased because it's worthless as a reality.No, it means that you're overthinking your scenario.
Unless means nothing.An object will always be acted upon by an external/unbalanced force. Always.The "unless it's acted upon by an external force" part is exactly why the law does pertain to reality.
The saying is meaningless and so is the word, inertia, unless it pertains to a reality.
Innate is a good word to use because it gives the impression that it's a natural occurrence borne out of nothing other than the mind of an individual but not fitting anything of reality to anyone else.*sigh*Quote from: markjoThey key word is in bold.Remember it has to have a reason for being a name in reality.Huh? ??? What do you mean? What do names have to do with reality? Inertia is a certain innate property of matter that was identified and they had to name it something. It's like asking why they named a certain color green.
Imaginary. A dreamed up piece of nonsense to describe something that cannot happen.Quote from: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innateinnate adjective
in·nate | \ i-ˈnāt How to pronounce innate (audio) , ˈi-ˌnāt \
Definition of innate
1 : existing in, belonging to, or determined by factors present in an individual from birth : native, inborn innate behavior
2 : belonging to the essential nature of something : inherent
Then it requires retweaking to what I've just postulated.Sceptimatic, objects with lower mass are easier to move around than objects with higher mass. And not just carry because of weight, but also to change direction when rotating and speed up or speed down when moving forward. What's going on there? What word would you use to describe that observation?Energy to mass transference against resistance of external matter.
Seems like you just restated Newton's 1st.
Then it requires retweaking to what I've just postulated.Sceptimatic, objects with lower mass are easier to move around than objects with higher mass. And not just carry because of weight, but also to change direction when rotating and speed up or speed down when moving forward. What's going on there? What word would you use to describe that observation?Energy to mass transference against resistance of external matter.
Seems like you just restated Newton's 1st.
For the 15th thousandth time:In a closed vessel the gas is pushing on all sides of the container and on the molecules themselves.
- Gas is pushing in directions within the vessel
- Gas is released from one end whilst still pushing in all directions within the vessel (Hence all of the world's pressure gauges still showing a pressure reading at the closed end of the vessel...all of them, the world over...)
- Gas being released out of the open end is pushing on the closed end as well, opposite.
- Vessel moves
In your world/diagram, the vessel never moves.
What does that mean? Rockets do not needto generate thrust from any difference in air pressure."...accelerate the burn propellent." is not a meaningful or logical sentence. Why would you want to apply a motion to the fuel itself?
I assume that you haven't bothered to read the numerous posts showing that most of a rocket's thrust is generated internally by the force needed to accelerate the burnt propellant.
A huge force is needed to accelerate that mass and that force is the thrust of the rocket.
Ok then, let's call it resistance.You use the word "resistance" but that can describe "inertia" or "friction".Sceptimatic, objects with lower mass are easier to move around than objects with higher mass. And not just carry because of weight, but also to change direction when rotating and speed up or speed down when moving forward. What's going on there? What word would you use to describe that observation?Energy to mass transference against resistance of external matter.
But the effects of "inertia" and "friction" are very different.Resistance is friction. Vibration is friction. If you call resistance inertia then you call friction the same.
A force against friction results in the conversion of one form of energy into heat energy and is wasted.
A force against inertial results in the conversion of one form of energy into kinetic energy which can be recovered.Of course it can be recovered but like above, what you put in you get out. It's just how energy is applied.
A common example of this is the kinetic energy stored in a rotating flywheel.Same thing applies.
See this Swedish paper Flywheel Energy Storage for Automotive Applications by Magnus Hedlund et al (https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/8/10/10636/pdf).
The gauge still reads a pressure drop but the actual gauge itself does not have any positive force upon it but it does have a positive resistance to the decompressing spring...
If you have to read this 100 times to grasp it, then do so. It might help you.
And this is the ultimate crux of it all.What does that mean? Rockets do not needto generate thrust from any difference in air pressure."...accelerate the burn propellent." is not a meaningful or logical sentence. Why would you want to apply a motion to the fuel itself?
I assume that you haven't bothered to read the numerous posts showing that most of a rocket's thrust is generated internally by the force needed to accelerate the burnt propellant.
A huge force is needed to accelerate that mass and that force is the thrust of the rocket.
Yes, a difference in air pressure must be present to initiate movement within a heavy object in the context of aeronautical flight.
That is how they are propelled. By generating a cushion of high air pressure that must be replaced by low air pressure which moves into the place of the high pressure area, pushing the body of the aircraft in the opposite direction of space where low pressure air is replacing the high pressure air.
"The thrust of the rocket" also lacks any required qualifier to form a identifiable statement. Perhaps you meant 'the thrust generated by the force of the engine upon the overall body of the rocket.'
But you have failed to separate the force from the vehicle itself. Which is a fairly fundamental misunderstanding of the most basic principles of physics.
Having said all that. It's not like I fully understand it all. I rather get the feeling even my logic has lead me down the garden path a bit.
But according to thermodynamics, you cannot propel an object in space without air pressure. By propellers, jet engines or rockets.
I asked you to read what I said.The gauge still reads a pressure drop but the actual gauge itself does not have any positive force upon it but it does have a positive resistance to the decompressing spring...
If you have to read this 100 times to grasp it, then do so. It might help you.
If the gauge had no force upon it, it would read zero.
If you have to read this 100 times to grasp it, then do so. It might help you.
I asked you to read what I said.The gauge still reads a pressure drop but the actual gauge itself does not have any positive force upon it but it does have a positive resistance to the decompressing spring...
If you have to read this 100 times to grasp it, then do so. It might help you.
If the gauge had no force upon it, it would read zero.
If you have to read this 100 times to grasp it, then do so. It might help you.
The gauge has a resistance to its own decompressing spring.
Read what I said.
The only time the gauge would read immediate zero is if all the gas molecules over atmosphere resistant pressure were instantly removed.
This is not the case, so the spring rides on the back of the gas molecules towards the front where there is an opening.
It can only rest on the back of the molecules and follow them out as they slowly expand behind those in front and those in front and those in front.
Take some time to engage in what I'm telling you. Your own inability to grasp it is borne from your own fear of going against your mainstream peer pressured views.
Gas being released out of the open end is pushing on the closed end as well, opposite
But according to thermodynamics, you cannot propel an object in space without air pressure. By propellers, jet engines or rockets.
Gas being released out of the open end is pushing on the closed end as well, opposite
You seem to think that gas is pushing upon the inside of the vessel at the front end of the craft. Think about this. This would only generate tension within the fuselage walls,
pushing the container from the exit point to the front end, resulting in the vessel tearing apart.
But according to thermodynamics, you cannot propel an object in space without air pressure.
How so? Do explain.
I'm trying to figure out how it's all lost on you.I asked you to read what I said.The gauge still reads a pressure drop but the actual gauge itself does not have any positive force upon it but it does have a positive resistance to the decompressing spring...
If you have to read this 100 times to grasp it, then do so. It might help you.
If the gauge had no force upon it, it would read zero.
If you have to read this 100 times to grasp it, then do so. It might help you.
The gauge has a resistance to its own decompressing spring.
Read what I said.
The only time the gauge would read immediate zero is if all the gas molecules over atmosphere resistant pressure were instantly removed.
This is not the case, so the spring rides on the back of the gas molecules towards the front where there is an opening.
It can only rest on the back of the molecules and follow them out as they slowly expand behind those in front and those in front and those in front.
Take some time to engage in what I'm telling you. Your own inability to grasp it is borne from your own fear of going against your mainstream peer pressured views.
I asked you to read what I said. You didn't.
If the gauge had no force upon it, it would read zero. If there was no force on the gauge, it would pop straight to zero. Something is preventing, resisting, it from doing so. That's how pressure gauges work and how billions of people on the planet, use, and rely on them.
How is this simple notion lost on you? If there is no resistance there is no measurement. But there is a measurement. There is resistance. There is pressure. It's so bloody simple. It's not even rocket science.
Gas being released out of the open end is pushing on the closed end as well, oppositeI never wrote that so how did you manage to quote it from that time?
Gas being released out of the open end is pushing on the closed end as well, opposite
You seem to think that gas is pushing upon the inside of the vessel at the front end of the craft. Think about this. This would only generate tension within the fuselage walls,
pushing the container from the exit point to the front end, resulting in the vessel tearing apart.
How so? Do explain.
I'm trying to figure out how it's all lost on you.I asked you to read what I said.The gauge still reads a pressure drop but the actual gauge itself does not have any positive force upon it but it does have a positive resistance to the decompressing spring...
If you have to read this 100 times to grasp it, then do so. It might help you.
If the gauge had no force upon it, it would read zero.
If you have to read this 100 times to grasp it, then do so. It might help you.
The gauge has a resistance to its own decompressing spring.
Read what I said.
The only time the gauge would read immediate zero is if all the gas molecules over atmosphere resistant pressure were instantly removed.
This is not the case, so the spring rides on the back of the gas molecules towards the front where there is an opening.
It can only rest on the back of the molecules and follow them out as they slowly expand behind those in front and those in front and those in front.
Take some time to engage in what I'm telling you. Your own inability to grasp it is borne from your own fear of going against your mainstream peer pressured views.
I asked you to read what I said. You didn't.
If the gauge had no force upon it, it would read zero. If there was no force on the gauge, it would pop straight to zero. Something is preventing, resisting, it from doing so. That's how pressure gauges work and how billions of people on the planet, use, and rely on them.
How is this simple notion lost on you? If there is no resistance there is no measurement. But there is a measurement. There is resistance. There is pressure. It's so bloody simple. It's not even rocket science.
You have to be doing this on purpose, surely.
You're over complicating things, making up things, all in support of a higher notion. It's not like none of us get your POV. Rockets can't work in a vacuum because that upsets your whole denpressure apple cart. We're all well aware of your sponges, springs, and sloshings.I do but it doesn't suit people like yourself who relies on bringing up off the shelf servings to push out. This is most likely why you cannot think for yourself and grasp stuff.
However, at the end of the day;
- You have no science, math, diagrams, nothing to support your notions.
- You repeatedly claim that only being personal taste and feel witness to something makes it real, yet no one has ever tasted or felt or even seen your carbonite sun and melting/regenerating dome - Yet you claim they are real, hypocrisy at its best.This is a different matter but feel free to make a topic on it.
None of this is an "inability to grasp it is borne from your own fear of going against your mainstream peer pressured views," as you claim. You just hide behind that contrived hubris so as not to actually have to back up your claims.I certainly don;t hide behind anything. I merely explain my stuff to people like you who actually do hide behind the off the shelf answers in books and such like, then peek over to view the next resistance to the mainstream view, find the relevant answer and sling it out there as if you thought of it yourself.
How about a diagram showing how the rocket moves. Your one diagram shows it never moving. And we all know that isn't reality.Once you show me a diagram that you do yourself showing exactly how your rocket works, making sure you point to exactly what's happening to make it move as we are told and not simply put up a copy and paste of a diagram that shows absolutely nothing.
You're over complicating things, making up things, all in support of a higher notion. It's not like none of us get your POV. Rockets can't work in a vacuum because that upsets your whole denpressure apple cart. We're all well aware of your sponges, springs, and sloshings.
However, at the end of the day;
- You have no science, math, diagrams, nothing to support your notions.
I do but it doesn't suit people like yourself who relies on bringing up off the shelf servings to push out. This is most likely why you cannot think for yourself and grasp stuff.
Quote from: Stash- You repeatedly claim that only being personal taste and feel witness to something makes it real, yet no one has ever tasted or felt or even seen your carbonite sun and melting/regenerating dome - Yet you claim they are real, hypocrisy at its best.This is a different matter but feel free to make a topic on it.
Quote from: StashNone of this is an "inability to grasp it is borne from your own fear of going against your mainstream peer pressured views," as you claim. You just hide behind that contrived hubris so as not to actually have to back up your claims.I certainly don;t hide behind anything. I merely explain my stuff to people like you who actually do hide behind the off the shelf answers in books and such like, then peek over to view the next resistance to the mainstream view, find the relevant answer and sling it out there as if you thought of it yourself.
If you want to play insults then fine but remember who the parrot is.
I can think for myself.
Quote from: StashHow about a diagram showing how the rocket moves. Your one diagram shows it never moving. And we all know that isn't reality.Once you show me a diagram that you do yourself showing exactly how your rocket works, making sure you point to exactly what's happening to make it move as we are told and not simply put up a copy and paste of a diagram that shows absolutely nothing.
If you can do that I absolutely promise I'll put up a diagram...in fact diagrams showing exactly what's really happening with thee rockets and what wouldn't happen in so called space.
I'm willing to do all that and I'll do it on some drawing paper with a pencil and maybe coloured pencils and even explain it all in writing, then get my wife to take a picture of it so I can put it into the forum.
How's that?
I'll be frank. I don't believe the science behind space flight is sound.I gathered that but your not believing something changes nothing.
The numbers don't add up.What numbers don't add up?
I believe them to be big tins filled with helium with tacked on afterburners to make loads of noise and 'splosions.You might believe that but you need evidence if you expect to convince anybody else.
I just want to see one go all the way into space and not veer off at about 2000 feet then have the camera cut to some other sh*t and call it a day.No successful rocket launch "veers off at about 2000 feet". If you think that you're a terrible judge of distance.
I'll be frank. I don't believe the science behind space flight is sound.I gathered that but your not believing something changes nothing.Quote from: HattyFatnerThe numbers don't add up.What numbers don't add up?Quote from: HattyFatnerI believe them to be big tins filled with helium with tacked on afterburners to make loads of noise and 'splosions.You might believe that but you need evidence if you expect to convince anybody else.Quote from: HattyFatnerI just want to see one go all the way into space and not veer off at about 2000 feet then have the camera cut to some other sh*t and call it a day.No successful rocket launch "veers off at about 2000 feet". If you think that you're a terrible judge of distance.
It might be a bit hard videoing a rocket "going all the way into space" from the ground but this one is from a camera on the rocket from launch to orbit:
Rocket cam shots from launch to orbit
I guess you'll justifying ridicule it but ridicule is a very weak argument.
And here's a Shuttle launch seen from a commercial aircraft:
Space Shuttle Launch: Viewed From an Airplane by Neil Monday
That Shuttle gets to a far higher height than that aircraft.
Nobody in their right mind could call that a "big tin filled with helium with tacked on afterburners to make loads of noise and 'splosions."
In order for combustion to occur, there must be oxygen.You mean like that provided by the tank often full of liquid oxygen?
The difference in air pressure is what would cause perpendicular momentum in a foreign object. Without air, there cannot be combustion or a difference in air pressure.You mean like the large difference in pressure between the engine of the rocket and the vacuum of space?
An oxidant (or oxidizing agent) is something which creates oxygen, which is present in air.No, an oxidant is something which causes oxidation to occur. This is a chemical process where electron are lost from one species (the species being oxidised) and gained by another species (the species being reduced, the oxidising agent).
Because if rockets are not real, there is no proof for a globular earth or even space and therefore gravity, on which all the physical sciences are based upon.Wrong, and all counts.
You mean 1 atmosphere which is sea level air pressure. If you are saying there is less air pressure the farther up you travel then air pressure will decrease steadily until you leave the atmosphere in which there is no air pressure so no possibility of thrust.You have already admitted a gradient is required. i.e. a difference in pressure.
The guy with the medicine ball is just jerking his body a bit - the ball is not in effect at all.No, the ball is crucial, without it, he won't move much at all.
What you are seeing is the counter motion on an axis (his shoulder) of a dense object moving from being close to his chest to being moved to away from his chest then released. The release does not generate thrust, but the movement of the dense object at speed via his arm muscles, repositioned the center of his body & trolley slightly, causing it to move a few inches backwards.Yes, it is the acceleration of that object which requires a force and thus an equal and opposite force.
I just remembered that 'mass' is a meaningless term that relies on gravity for explanation which is as far as I'm concerned, an unproven quantity. The actual term I should have used is 'weight'.No, you have it the wrong way around.
"...accelerate the burn propellent." is not a meaningful or logical sentence. Why would you want to apply a motion to the fuel itself?No, it is quite logical and meaningful, at least the version without your typos.
Think about this. This would only generate tension within the fuselage walls, pushing the container from the exit point to the front end, resulting in the vessel tearing apart.How?
That's my best guess.Perhaps you should stop guessing then?
The numbers don't add up.Care to provide the numbers and show how they don't add up?
If air is required for movement or flight on earthAnd that is a MASSIVE if.
In all other explanations of aerodynamic flight
a difference in air pressure results in propulsion. But in space, this condition is no longer required.Technically it is still there in space.
My conclusion to Newton's Laws of Motion is that they are divisive and deliberately opaque. That is, he could not have believed them himself. They simply defy understanding or explanation.Your inability or unwillingness to understand them has no bearing on others.
Inertia is how difficult it is to change an objects velocity?We aren't the ones who need to make up our minds.
Make up your minds.
You seem to be hiding behind your attempts to make out I'm hiding.And now you are hiding behind your projection of you hiding. Good job.
It'll tell me nothing about inertia.No, it tells you one is harder to move, i.e. has more inertia.
My own reactionary force against my kick will tell me that one ball is much more dense than the other
Resistance is friction. Vibration is friction. If you call resistance inertia then you call friction the same.No, they are fundamentally different.
The only time the gauge would read immediate zero is if all the gas molecules over atmosphere resistant pressure were instantly removed.Or if they just magically stopped pushing on it.
I did not write "...accelerate the burn propellent". Try reading what is written.What does that mean? Rockets do not need generate thrust from any difference in air pressure."...accelerate the burn propellent." is not a meaningful or logical sentence. Why would you want to apply a motion to the fuel itself?
I assume that you haven't bothered to read the numerous posts showing that most of a rocket's thrust is generated internally by the force needed to accelerate the burnt propellant.
A huge force is needed to accelerate that mass and that force is the thrust of the rocket.
You tell me what force is needed to accelerate a mass of 329 kg from zero to 2570 m/s in one second.But without a difference in air pressure, there cannot be thrust.What does that mean? Rockets do not need to generate thrust from any difference in air pressure.
I assume that you haven't bothered to read the numerous posts showing that most of a rocket's thrust is generated internally by the force needed to accelerate the burnt propellant.
A typical rocket engine like the SpaceX Merlin 1D burns about 329 kg per sec of propellant and accelerates it to about 2570 m/s.
A huge force is needed to accelerate that mass and that force is the thrust of the rocket.
But according to thermodynamics, you cannot propel an object in space without air pressure. By propellers, jet engines or rockets.Thermodynamics says nothing of the sort!
That's about 3 hours of reading and answering to tie me up for a good day.And all it was was responding to your nonsense.
I don't think you can liquify oxygen or extract it.Really?
But I ask you, if you are carrying apparatus that can extract an oxydent to extract that oxygen like substance in order to create combustion. How is that more efficient than simply carrying the oxygen-like material in the first instance?Liquid oxygen isn't being used to extract oxygen, it IS oxygen.
I wouldn't ridicule something, only cast doubt on it's authenticity based on information which run's counter to the narrative put forward by space agencies.The second video was taken by a passenger on a common airliner so surely he'd be unbiased.
I'm going to find some numbers that don't add up.I would assume that you wouldn't know what "numbers . . . don't add up" before marking that claim!
In the meantime, maybe you could explain why air is not needed for propulsion in space which is what I think everyone is trying to understand.I already did and have said much the same in much more detail earlier in the thread.
I'll be frank. I don't believe the science behind space flight is sound.I gathered that but your not believing something changes nothing.Quote from: HattyFatnerThe numbers don't add up.What numbers don't add up?Quote from: HattyFatnerI believe them to be big tins filled with helium with tacked on afterburners to make loads of noise and 'splosions.You might believe that but you need evidence if you expect to convince anybody else.Quote from: HattyFatnerI just want to see one go all the way into space and not veer off at about 2000 feet then have the camera cut to some other sh*t and call it a day.No successful rocket launch "veers off at about 2000 feet". If you think that you're a terrible judge of distance.
It might be a bit hard videoing a rocket "going all the way into space" from the ground but this one is from a camera on the rocket from launch to orbit:
Rocket cam shots from launch to orbit
I guess you'll justifying ridicule it but ridicule is a very weak argument.
And here's a Shuttle launch seen from a commercial aircraft:
Space Shuttle Launch: Viewed From an Airplane by Neil Monday
That Shuttle gets to a far higher height than that aircraft.
Nobody in their right mind could call that a "big tin filled with helium with tacked on afterburners to make loads of noise and 'splosions."
"It is a common misconception that rockets are unable to accelerate in space. The fact is that rockets do accelerate. There is indeed nothing for rockets to push off of in space - at least nothing which is external to the rocket. But that's no problem for rockets. Rockets are able to accelerate due to the fact that they burn fuel and push the exhaust gases in a direction opposite the direction which they wish to accelerate."Pretty much sums it up.
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law
Answer D
This is the official explanation of how rockets can move in space.
"...they burn fuel and push the exhaust gases in a direction..."
This is not an explanation. If air is required for movement or flight on earth, it has not been explained here as to why it is no longer required in space.
In all other explanations of aerodynamic flight, a difference in air pressure results in propulsion. But in space, this condition is no longer required. But it is not explained as to why this is.
My conclusion to Newton's Laws of Motion is that they are divisive and deliberately opaque. That is, he could not have believed them himself. They simply defy understanding or explanation.
It's the emperor's new clothes.
Thing is. How is it efficient to have such a fiery burning fuel that is directed out to the side and billowing out in such a way?The rocket engines has to go somewhere when it's close to the ground and it is direct out each into huge flame trenches, as in:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/vr5823ogq4kygs4/LC39A%20Flame%20Trench%20-%2028%20April%202011.jpg?dl=1)
LC39A Flame Trench - 28 April 2011 (https://www.youtube.com/embed/dTAjGiZvI9k)
The day before the first launch attempt of Endeavour on STS-134, I and a coworker went out to LC39A to document the placement of pressure, heat, and temperature sensors on the SRB side of the main flame deflector inside the flame trench. This video gives an idea of what conditions are one day before a shuttle launch. The dripping water that you hear is from the water deluge system which is filled and primed to douse the launch pad at liftoff for sound suppression and heat mitigation.
This doesn't look at all like the jet fighters I see which use the same technique. They burn almost invisible. I'm only guessing as I'm not a rocket science but that video looks pretty phoney. Why can't I see it's contrails or the launch pad? It's trajectory is precisely at the angle as to obscure the launch pad for the whole 10 minute video.You want everything! If the video showed both the rocket and the launch pad the rocket would be so small tou'd hardly see it!
I'm not sure why it's so difficult to point a camera at the sky for a period longer than 10 minutes to put my mind at restBut by the time the rocket is in space it is usually a few hundred kilometres downrange:
re. the entire world system of science and education.NASA, SpaceX and other agencies publish voluminous information. If you choose to deny what's what can they do.
"It is a common misconception that rockets are unable to accelerate in space. The fact is that rockets do accelerate. There is indeed nothing for rockets to push off of in space - at least nothing which is external to the rocket. But that's no problem for rockets. Rockets are able to accelerate due to the fact that they burn fuel and push the exhaust gases in a direction opposite the direction which they wish to accelerate."
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law
Answer D
This is the official explanation of how rockets can move in space.
"...they burn fuel and push the exhaust gases in a direction..."
This is not an explanation. If air is required for movement or flight on earth, it has not been explained here as to why it is no longer required in space.
In all other explanations of aerodynamic flight, a difference in air pressure results in propulsion. But in space, this condition is no longer required. But it is not explained as to why this is.
My conclusion to Newton's Laws of Motion is that they are divisive and deliberately opaque. That is, he could not have believed them himself. They simply defy understanding or explanation.
It's the emperor's new clothes.
PS. Please don’t say that Thermodynamics states something, unless it really does. It’s a real subject, not whatever you want it to be. If you want to use it in an argument, find out how it actually works first.
If the internet can only say "it pushed out the fuel" and not saying against what the fuel is pushingThe fuel is pushing against the rocket.
Already people are calling me names, taking things I said out of context and putting words in my mouth.Just what is being taken out of context? Who is calling you names?
I'm now going to actually do some research and you can pick teeny tiny holes in every little thing and ignore the key point of how something can push itself in a vacuum.And now you are projecting.
I now have about 20 defences to make and I will have to go and read this whole 100 page thread because it is lazy of me not to do so or expect you to post a simple explanation because it is too convoluted or complicated to explain in any kind of truncated form.Except I provided a simple explanation, as have others, which you just dismissed or brought up pure nonsense to attack it, which was then refuted.
Thing is. How is it efficient to have such a fiery burning fuel that is directed out to the side and billowing out in such a way?Where is it directed out the sides?
This doesn't look at all like the jet fighters I see which use the same technique.Jet's use a fundamentally different technique and have a much smaller pressure range to deal with.
Pretty much sums it up.Yes, it does. You guys get a simple explanation, and then blatantly misrepresent it to pretend it is completely wrong, complete with setting up pathetic strawmen to attack.
If you are dissatisfied with every video stop bitching go and watch a few launches youself! Thousands of others do.
PS. Please don’t say that Thermodynamics states something, unless it really does. It’s a real subject, not whatever you want it to be. If you want to use it in an argument, find out how it actually works first.
It was a discipline invented to explore the possibilities of the steam engine and there are a few different kinds. I don't pretend to understand everything there is to know but my outline earlier is accurate.
It is about the transfer of heat through matter calculated on the pretext of all things being equal or balancing out to a inert state eventually.
The Stirling engine is a prime example of thermodynamics put into application. My favourite ever invention.
It's used in aerodynamics to calculate thrust via the transfer of heat through the air and resulting air pressures. Also in meteorology. It has a wiki article or two.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics#Classical_thermodynamics
But according to thermodynamics, you cannot propel an object in space without air pressure. By propellers, jet engines or rockets.
QuoteBut according to thermodynamics, you cannot propel an object in space without air pressure. By propellers, jet engines or rockets.
Citation needed. Please provide a reputable source, or admit you just made that up.
QuoteBut according to thermodynamics, you cannot propel an object in space without air pressure. By propellers, jet engines or rockets.
Citation needed. Please provide a reputable source, or admit you just made that up.
When I refer to thermodynamics I'm talking about the science of heat transfer and how the law of motion in terms of thrust and motion in the context of air flight necessitate an atmosphere of gas and would not apply within a vacuum which would require a different branch of science to create a workable scientific model.
Did that make sense to you?
There's probably something in here...
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337460709_Aerodynamic_Thermodynamic_Modeling_and_Simulation_of_Turbofan_Engine
Nowhere in my thermodynamics texts does it state that you can’t propel and object in space. I’ve seen such a claim from the field of Thermodynamics (which I did study, btw).
An oxidant does not create oxygen.Combustion requires a fuel and oxidant. Air is not a requirement.
An oxidant (or oxidizing agent) is something which creates oxygen, which is present in air. But oxygen can be isolated and compressed, yes.
But without a difference in air pressure, there cannot be thrust.
Here’s a site explaining some rocket thermodynamics:
http://www.braeunig.us/space/thermo.htm
Nowhere in my thermodynamics texts does it state that you can’t propel an object in space. I’ve never seen such a claim from the field of Thermodynamics (which I did study, btw).
Nowhere in my thermodynamics texts does it state that you can’t propel and object in space. I’ve seen such a claim from the field of Thermodynamics (which I did study, btw).
Is it stated anywhere in your texts that this is possible? I never heard that before. Because two opposing pressures is key to thermodynamics working at all isn't it?
According to wikipedia "In chemistry, an oxidizing agent (oxidant, oxidizer) is a substance that has the ability to oxidize other substances."An oxidant does not create oxygen.Combustion requires a fuel and oxidant. Air is not a requirement.
An oxidant (or oxidizing agent) is something which creates oxygen, which is present in air. But oxygen can be isolated and compressed, yes.
But without a difference in air pressure, there cannot be thrust.
Nowhere in my thermodynamics texts does it state that you can’t propel and object in space. I’ve seen such a claim from the field of Thermodynamics (which I did study, btw).
Is it stated anywhere in your texts that this is possible? I never heard that before. Because two opposing pressures is key to thermodynamics working at all isn't it?
There are pressure changes going from the combustion chamber to the exhaust plume. Not to mention in subsystems like the turbo pumps on the fuel and oxidant lines.
My books don’t explicitly state that rockets work in a vacuum, possibly because they were written long before flat earthers starting claiming they didn’t.
It just doesn’t need saying because the physics of thermodynamics is perfectly compatible with rockets working in space. Same with all the other engineering subjects. You can look at the fluid flow, the heat transfers, the basic laws of motion, and it’s all just fine.
You might have missed it on the 100+ pages before you joined, but in the simplest terms:
Rocket throws mass out the back, rocket goes forward. An equal and opposite reaction. That’s really all you need to know to get the principle.
s:Throws mass out of the back, how?
Rocket throws mass out the back, rocket goes forward. An equal and opposite reaction. That’s really all you need to know to get the principle.
Yes. That doesn't mean it creates oxygen. You can pay me $200 an hour to tutor you or you can just keep following the links in wikipedia until you understand.I'll take Wikipedia please. Even though it revised it's flat earth page in the region of 10,000 times. That's a genuine estimate by the way. Check out how many revisions there are. Also, it changed the revision history because the article is completely different to when I read it 5 years ago. And I mean it is utterly different. No-one on the internet was saying global earth theory was accepted even before the 1940's until about 5 years ago when history was revised again.
Nowhere in my thermodynamics texts does it state that you can’t propel and object in space. I’ve seen such a claim from the field of Thermodynamics (which I did study, btw).
Is it stated anywhere in your texts that this is possible? I never heard that before. Because two opposing pressures is key to thermodynamics working at all isn't it?
There are pressure changes going from the combustion chamber to the exhaust plume. Not to mention in subsystems like the turbo pumps on the fuel and oxidant lines.
My books don’t explicitly state that rockets work in a vacuum, possibly because they were written long before flat earthers starting claiming they didn’t.
It just doesn’t need saying because the physics of thermodynamics is perfectly compatible with rockets working in space. Same with all the other engineering subjects. You can look at the fluid flow, the heat transfers, the basic laws of motion, and it’s all just fine.
You might have missed it on the 100+ pages before you joined, but in the simplest terms:
Rocket throws mass out the back, rocket goes forward. An equal and opposite reaction. That’s really all you need to know to get the principle.
The pressure changes need to be opposing from an exterior and interior system to create thrust in the body of the vehicle. Is how I understand it.
Is it your website? I'm curious why you removed the moon hoax pages.
Flat earther's did not claim you can't create thrust in a vacuum, that was the scientific consensus up until the moon landing proved them wrong. Not my words, the words of https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law
s:Throws mass out of the back, how?
Rocket throws mass out the back, rocket goes forward. An equal and opposite reaction. That’s really all you need to know to get the principle.
And throwing anything against zero resistance will not push a rocket forward. It just won't.
Allowing mass to compress the atmosphere will create an equal reaction to that mass. This includes your rocket burn expand out of being compressed inside a rocket to compressing the atmosphere it expands into.
A rocket burn cannot do anything against extreme minimal resistance.
I have a strong feeling the new guy hatty is actually scepti.I don't expect to have to defend myself on here. Put this in angry ranting and, if you feel the poster is me and it bothers you, go to the admin who may take the time to put your mind at rest, I would think.
Scepti typically gets very excited to start denP froms scratch with new comers.
Im very surprised he didnt after 3pg of relative agreement between the two.
So
Would new guy and old guy please draw hiw the green bar pushes on the rocket?
Thanks
You were given many diagrams.Are you afraid to do a diagram or can't you do a diagram because you actually have no clue how in the hell your rocket is supposed to work?
We re all still.waiting for you to provide the one diagram showing what pushes on the rocket to lift it..
Keep on dodging.
200 here we come.
I AM afraid to do a diagram AND I can't you do a diagram because I actually have no clue how in the hell rockets ARE supposed to work
This should be meat and drink to you and people like you, yet everyone shy's away.
Let's see what you can produce or let's see what your like minded friends can produce.
Nowhere in my thermodynamics texts does it state that you can’t propel an object in space. I’ve never seen such a claim from the field of Thermodynamics (which I did study, btw).That don’t mean jack here. Not with the learned individuals who know better.
No problem.
I AM afraid to do a diagram AND I can't do a diagram because I actually have no clue how in the hell rockets ARE supposed to work.
Plenty of explanations of how rockets work online. Why the obsession with people here explaining?You were given many diagrams.Are you afraid to do a diagram or can't you do a diagram because you actually have no clue how in the hell your rocket is supposed to work?
We re all still.waiting for you to provide the one diagram showing what pushes on the rocket to lift it..
Keep on dodging.
200 here we come.
This should be meat and drink to you and people like you, yet everyone shy's away.
Let's see what you can produce or let's see what your like minded friends can produce.
What happens if the atmospheric pressure doesn't change?What forces cause the object to expand and contract?Atmospheric pressure changes upon the object.
You can't see the forest for the trees can you?Quote from: markjoThat's like saying the bugs living on a bed bugs body are not relevant to us but are relevant to the bed bug, most likely, but can be discarded as nothing to us in terms of us not being capable of seeing, so are irrelevant in terms of how they move or operate.It's fine for you to argue that it's not really moving but, if you want to be honest, it's not true.If you're talking about the microscopic vibrations of individual atoms and molecules, they don't count because when you look at the object as a whole, those vibrations cancel each other out and there is no overall motion.
Just because something isn't moving to the naked eye, does not mean it's still.
The reality is, big or small, it all matters, because without the small you do not get the big and for this to happen there has to be movement.
No, you're just making things more complicated than they need to be.Quote from: markjoOr maybe I'm simply giving you a bit of realism.So, in this case, inertia means nothing. the word can be erased because it's worthless as a reality.No, it means that you're overthinking your scenario.
No, that scenario has nothing to do with what I said.Quote from: markjoUnless means nothing.An object will always be acted upon by an external/unbalanced force. Always.The "unless it's acted upon by an external force" part is exactly why the law does pertain to reality.
The saying is meaningless and so is the word, inertia, unless it pertains to a reality.
I can say to you, do this work unless you want to be sacked. Nothing has happened other than me mentioning a scenario.
Let's call this inertia threat.
If you do the work you won't be sacked, so the threat only exists if you do not do what is asked of you.
If you refuse to do the work then you get sacked. It is no longer a threat, it's a reality that you were sacked. The threat simply existed as nothing more than a verbal.
Inertia is nothing more than a word that does not mean anything as a reality.
All words are imaginary. Get over it.Quote from: markjoInnate is a good word to use because it gives the impression that it's a natural occurrence borne out of nothing other than the mind of an individual but not fitting anything of reality to anyone else.*sigh*Quote from: markjoThey key word is in bold.Remember it has to have a reason for being a name in reality.Huh? ??? What do you mean? What do names have to do with reality? Inertia is a certain innate property of matter that was identified and they had to name it something. It's like asking why they named a certain color green.
Imaginary. A dreamed up piece of nonsense to describe something that cannot happen.Quote from: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innateinnate adjective
in·nate | \ i-ˈnāt How to pronounce innate (audio) , ˈi-ˌnāt \
Definition of innate
1 : existing in, belonging to, or determined by factors present in an individual from birth : native, inborn innate behavior
2 : belonging to the essential nature of something : inherent
In essence it's imaginary.
I'm still waiting just for a continuous video of going from launch pad to turn round and look at the whole world without any cuts.Then go make your own rocket.
Everyone is.No, only those looking to deny reality.
I would have thought this would be simple given their funding.How?
Please find that video for me.No. It has no bearing on the discussion at hand.
There's probably something in here...No, that means a turbofan engine wont work without the atmosphere.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337460709_Aerodynamic_Thermodynamic_Modeling_and_Simulation_of_Turbofan_Engine
"An engine component model is established by means of the gas flow path of the engine. "
That means you can't fly without gas. In thermodynamics at least.
Is it stated anywhere in your texts that this is possible?There are plenty of texts regarding rocket flight, including in space.
Because two opposing pressures is key to thermodynamics working at all isn't it?No, it isn't.
According to wikipedia "In chemistry, an oxidizing agent (oxidant, oxidizer) is a substance that has the ability to oxidize other substances."Yes, like I said before.
The pressure changes need to be opposing from an exterior and interior system to create thrust in the body of the vehicle. Is how I understand it.And your understanding has a significant flaw. One of these pressures can be 0. There is no need for both to be a significant pressure.
Flat earther's did not claim you can't create thrust in a vacuum, that was the scientific consensus up until the moon landing proved them wrong. Not my words, the words of https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-LawNo, they certainly did. They objected to all the pictures from space clearly showing Earth being round, so to attack it they claimed that rockets can't work in space.
No-one on the internet was saying global earth theory was accepted even before the 1940's until about 5 years ago when history was revised again.That is pure nonsense, even for FE standards.
At the point the ball is released, no motion is in effect.Look harder. There clearly is motion then.
All that will happen is the trolley containing the spring and ball will shift to the amount the center of the combined weight of the ball and aparatus is moved by the spring up until the point the ball is no longer affecting the apparatus by it's contact at which point the apparatus will come to a halt.No, it will keep moving.
Try it and record it because I an't be bothered. I don't think I can do any more here.You are the one that seems to need help. You are rejecting reality based upon nothing more than wild speculation.
Throws mass out of the back, how?Already explained, the high pressure gas. Remember?
And throwing anything against zero resistance will not push a rocket forward.The mass of the gas provides the resistance.
I don't expect to have to defend myself on here.There is the believers only section for that.
And as an added extra, I'm still waiting for your diagram.They have already been provided to you.
Are you afraid to do a diagram or can't you do a diagram because you actually have no clue how in the hell your rocket is supposed to work?And there you go projecting again.
How do you manage to work that out?Just a new person here and no FE'r.They are able to expand into the atmosphere, just like any rocket or missile under a burning thrust.
I do have a question for sceptimatic. Can you explain how rockets from a firework works? The thrust these rockets provide are not able to press the atmosphere yet they will go into the air at a pretty high altitude. So how can these rockets fly?
If this is the case then they will not going higher then 1 or 2 inches from the ground. While in practice these rockets are going much higher then the 1 or 2 inches. So again, how can these tiny rockets compress the atmosphere so much that they can go that high in the sky.
... And throwing anything against zero resistance will not push a rocket forward...
s:Throws mass out of the back, how?
Rocket throws mass out the back, rocket goes forward. An equal and opposite reaction. That’s really all you need to know to get the principle.
And throwing anything against zero resistance will not push a rocket forward. It just won't.
Allowing mass to compress the atmosphere will create an equal reaction to that mass. This includes your rocket burn expand out of being compressed inside a rocket to compressing the atmosphere it expands into.
A rocket burn cannot do anything against extreme minimal resistance.
Scepti, that was for the new poster, so he/she doesn’t have to read through 100 pages of people trying to explain it to you.
I know you won’t accept it, but Hatty might not reject basically all of physics like you.
I have a strong feeling the new guy hatty is actually scepti.
Scepti typically gets very excited to start denP froms scratch with new comers.
Im very surprised he didnt after 3pg of relative agreement between the two.
So
Would new guy and old guy please draw hiw the green bar pushes on the rocket?
Thanks
I have a strong feeling the new guy hatty is actually scepti.
Scepti typically gets very excited to start denP froms scratch with new comers.
Im very surprised he didnt after 3pg of relative agreement between the two.
So
Would new guy and old guy please draw hiw the green bar pushes on the rocket?
Thanks
Seems to be on reddit (https://www.reddit.com/user/Hattyfatner/) saying dumb shit about space. And Hearthstone.I have a strong feeling the new guy hatty is actually scepti.
Scepti typically gets very excited to start denP froms scratch with new comers.
Im very surprised he didnt after 3pg of relative agreement between the two.
So
Would new guy and old guy please draw hiw the green bar pushes on the rocket?
Thanks
Possible. Might also be a danang alt. Look at Hatty's hand drawn avatar and danang's hand drawn south pole flat earth. Suck horribly.
Ok hold up.No. 2 different new
New guy hatty is now bright and now believes in rockets?
Very confusing because when hatty/ bright first joined, he was promoting denP.
I have a strong feeling the new guy hatty is actually scepti.
Scepti typically gets very excited to start denP froms scratch with new comers.
Im very surprised he didnt after 3pg of relative agreement between the two.
So
Would new guy and old guy please draw hiw the green bar pushes on the rocket?
Thanks
No. I am not scepti since I know that rockets are working in space and satellites are very real. Therefor I don't draw the diagram since the correct one is already drawn. That is the original drawing before scepti draws his green bar where no arrow is pointing towards the rocket and therefor no force is pushing the rocket forward. Hence my question about the firework rocket.
Scepti. What I said previously. How is it possible that a firework rocket can fly if you say that the air will be 'super compressed' by the exhaust. This little firework rocket is not capable to do this, yet it will fly. Please explain how this is possible with your 'theory'.I think Sceppy has given up:
I AM afraid to do a diagram AND I can't do a diagram because I actually have no clue how in the hell rockets ARE supposed to work.No problem.
Scepti. What I said previously. How is it possible that a firework rocket can fly if you say that the air will be 'super compressed' by the exhaust. This little firework rocket is not capable to do this, yet it will fly. Please explain how this is possible with your 'theory'.I think Sceppy has given up:
The one in this mysterious magic mountain that no one who has visited or overflown the North Pole have ever seen ::)?Scepti. What I said previously. How is it possible that a firework rocket can fly if you say that the air will be 'super compressed' by the exhaust. This little firework rocket is not capable to do this, yet it will fly. Please explain how this is possible with your 'theory'.I think Sceppy has given up:
Thats too bad, :( I was really hoping sceptimatic would finally try to explain the force that pushes a rocket in his world. Probably something to do with a sloshing, stacked, atmosphere, but you cant discount that maybe his magic crystal at the center of the (flat) world was involved?
The one in this mysterious magic mountain that no one who has visited or overflown the North Pole have ever seen ::)?Scepti. What I said previously. How is it possible that a firework rocket can fly if you say that the air will be 'super compressed' by the exhaust. This little firework rocket is not capable to do this, yet it will fly. Please explain how this is possible with your 'theory'.I think Sceppy has given up:
Thats too bad, :( I was really hoping sceptimatic would finally try to explain the force that pushes a rocket in his world. Probably something to do with a sloshing, stacked, atmosphere, but you cant discount that maybe his magic crystal at the center of the (flat) world was involved?
I don't think this is going to make 200 pages. :-\
Scepti. What I said previously. How is it possible that a firework rocket can fly if you say that the air will be 'super compressed' by the exhaust. This little firework rocket is not capable to do this, yet it will fly. Please explain how this is possible with your 'theory'.Of course it's capable of doing it. What do you think that fire is doing coming out the arse end of it?
I think Sceppy has given up.No you didn't.
Just as soon as a global Earth rocket scientist shows me how their rocket works by making it clear and obvious as to what is happening to get it from atmosphere into space, as we're told space is supposed to be.Scepti. What I said previously. How is it possible that a firework rocket can fly if you say that the air will be 'super compressed' by the exhaust. This little firework rocket is not capable to do this, yet it will fly. Please explain how this is possible with your 'theory'.I think Sceppy has given up:
Thats too bad, :( I was really hoping sceptimatic would finally try to explain the force that pushes a rocket in his world. Probably something to do with a sloshing, stacked, atmosphere, but you cant discount that maybe his magic crystal at the center of the (flat) world was involved?
All he had to do was draw a few arrows...I'll do much better than that once one of you lot explain your rocket and how it works in a proper manner with clear detailed diagram.
I find it odd you do not get it. I mean the whole world knows they work.I find it odd that you people don't question the nonsense of space rockets.
'We' know that they get 'our' satellites into orbit so we can watch TV and navigate.I find it odd you do not get it. I mean the whole world knows they work.I find it odd that you people don't question the nonsense of space rockets.
I find it odd you do not get it. I mean the whole world knows they work.He knows how they work. He has his game to play.
All he had to do was draw a few arrows...I'll do much better than that once one of you lot explain your rocket and how it works in a proper manner with clear detailed diagram.
Don't pretend anyone has because they have only shows one arrow going one way and another going the other, inside a rocket.
Senseless.
I'll be patient.
Why not look it up, not difficult. No need to show you here.Just as soon as a global Earth rocket scientist shows me how their rocket works by making it clear and obvious as to what is happening to get it from atmosphere into space, as we're told space is supposed to be.Scepti. What I said previously. How is it possible that a firework rocket can fly if you say that the air will be 'super compressed' by the exhaust. This little firework rocket is not capable to do this, yet it will fly. Please explain how this is possible with your 'theory'.I think Sceppy has given up:
Thats too bad, :( I was really hoping sceptimatic would finally try to explain the force that pushes a rocket in his world. Probably something to do with a sloshing, stacked, atmosphere, but you cant discount that maybe his magic crystal at the center of the (flat) world was involved?
Yet nobody seems to know. I wonder why that is?
It's expanding into the atmosphere and compressing it and the atmosphere is crushing rights backExcept it clearly isn't.
Just as soon as a global Earth rocket scientist shows me how their rocket worksSo many pages ago?
Senseless.Yes, you most certainly do seem senseless.
I find it odd you do not get it. I mean the whole world knows they work.The whole world knows they work in the atmosphere. Sceppy can think on his own, stooges can't.
The whole world knows they work in the atmosphere. Sceppy can think on his own, stooges can't.Pretty much the whole world knows they work in space.
Sure, "Sceppy can think on his own" and gets the wrong answers almost every time.I find it odd you do not get it. I mean the whole world knows they work.The whole world knows they work in the atmosphere. Sceppy can think on his own, stooges can't.
Just as soon as a global Earth rocket scientist shows me how their rocket works by making it clear and obvious as to what is happening to get it from atmosphere into space, as we're told space is supposed to be.Scepti. What I said previously. How is it possible that a firework rocket can fly if you say that the air will be 'super compressed' by the exhaust. This little firework rocket is not capable to do this, yet it will fly. Please explain how this is possible with your 'theory'.I think Sceppy has given up:
Thats too bad, :( I was really hoping sceptimatic would finally try to explain the force that pushes a rocket in his world. Probably something to do with a sloshing, stacked, atmosphere, but you cant discount that maybe his magic crystal at the center of the (flat) world was involved?
It sure seemed like it.I think Sceppy has given up.No you didn't.
I find it odd you do not get it. I mean the whole world knows they work.The whole world knows they work in the atmosphere. Sceppy can think on his own, stooges can't.
Scepti. What I said previously. How is it possible that a firework rocket can fly if you say that the air will be 'super compressed' by the exhaust. This little firework rocket is not capable to do this, yet it will fly. Please explain how this is possible with your 'theory'.Of course it's capable of doing it. What do you think that fire is doing coming out the arse end of it?
It's expanding into the atmosphere and compressing it and the atmosphere is crushing rights back, creating a platform against the thrust and following it for as long as that thrust is capable.
Again, what causes the gas to accelerate out of the rocket?
If you cannot answer this question you have no case at all.
I have no clue how a space rocket works. There's no diagram that shows how it works. Just nonsensical stuff that tells us to accept that it does when it goes against the grain of reality.I find it odd you do not get it. I mean the whole world knows they work.He knows how they work. He has his game to play.
What the hell is all that nonsense.It sure seemed like it.I think Sceppy has given up.No you didn't.
But why do you bother when it so obvious that you haven't the slightest understanding how large "space rocket engines" work?
Here's the pressure distribution through a typical pump-fed liquid-fuelled rocket engine:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ogr8d6bjvh3jlas/Scheme%20of%20pressure%20distribution%20in%20a%20pumping%20fed%20rocket%20engine.png?dl=1)
Scheme of pressure distribution in a pumping fed rocket engine.
The rocket's thrust is due to the high pressure on the nozzle as the burnt propellant is accelerated from transonic to hypersonic (up to 3000 m/s) velocities.
I guess that you have heard that force = mass x acceleration?
Have fun!
The very same way you would compresses a weaker resistant sponge until your mass compressed it enough to support it.
- How is the expanding gas 'compressing' a weaker resistance?
- How is the expanding gas making a 'platform'By compressing the opposing resistant gas into being one. As above.
- How is the expanding gas pushing off this weaker 'platform'?By this time it is not a weaker platform, it's a equal reactionary platform which now springs back after the crash of thrust, all he way up for as long as that thrust remains consistent.
Once and again, many diagrams have been shown here as to how a rocket works in our world, yet, you have shown none that work in your world.I have and better than what's been shown to me.
Yet you keep on asking for diagrams and such that have already been provided.
Why do you continue to stall in presenting the 'arrows' necessary to lift a rocket off the ground? If you can't answer the question, you have no case at all.Because I want to see what you lot have from your own brains and without using obscure nonsense.
Scepti. What I said previously. How is it possible that a firework rocket can fly if you say that the air will be 'super compressed' by the exhaust. This little firework rocket is not capable to do this, yet it will fly. Please explain how this is possible with your 'theory'.Of course it's capable of doing it. What do you think that fire is doing coming out the arse end of it?
It's expanding into the atmosphere and compressing it and the atmosphere is crushing rights back, creating a platform against the thrust and following it for as long as that thrust is capable.
The very same way you would compresses a weaker resistant sponge until your mass compressed it enough to support it.
- How is the expanding gas 'compressing' a weaker resistance?
Quote from: Stash- How is the expanding gas making a 'platform'By compressing the opposing resistant gas into being one. As above.
Quote from: Stash- How is the expanding gas pushing off this weaker 'platform'?By this time it is not a weaker platform, it's a equal reactionary platform which now springs back after the crash of thrust, all he way up for as long as that thrust remains consistent.
Quote from: StashOnce and again, many diagrams have been shown here as to how a rocket works in our world, yet, you have shown none that work in your world.
Yet you keep on asking for diagrams and such that have already been provided.
I have and better than what's been shown to me.
Quote from: StashWhy do you continue to stall in presenting the 'arrows' necessary to lift a rocket off the ground? If you can't answer the question, you have no case at all.Because I want to see what you lot have from your own brains and without using obscure nonsense.
Can't you read? It shows the "pressure distribution in a pumping fed rocket engine."What the hell is all that nonsense.It sure seemed like it.I think Sceppy has given up.No you didn't.
But why do you bother when it so obvious that you haven't the slightest understanding how large "space rocket engines" work?
Here's the pressure distribution through a typical pump-fed liquid-fuelled rocket engine:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ogr8d6bjvh3jlas/Scheme%20of%20pressure%20distribution%20in%20a%20pumping%20fed%20rocket%20engine.png?dl=1)
Scheme of pressure distribution in a pumping fed rocket engine.
The rocket's thrust is due to the high pressure on the nozzle as the burnt propellant is accelerated from transonic to hypersonic (up to 3000 m/s) velocities.
I guess that you have heard that force = mass x acceleration?
Have fun!
Do I have to spell this all out in bigger letters?I did and have explained "exactly what's going on and why" numerous times!
Show me a diagram of how a space rocket works. Show me exactly what's going on and why,
so I can understand what you and other push out as your reality.That doesn't seem possible as long as you insist that the stuff you dream up is "reality".
None of you seem to know but rely on finding obscure diagrams that show nothing.Maybe they seem obscure to because you haven't the slightest understanding of the the most basic ideas of physics.
I'm willing to show how my gases work to propel a rocket but I need to see how your gases actually propel your rocket in atmosphere and in your vacuum of your space.I've explained it numerous times!
I have no clue how a space rocket works.So why claim they can't?
Your diagrams have all been complete failures with no hope of ever matching reality.Quote from: StashOnce and again, many diagrams have been shown here as to how a rocket works in our world, yet, you have shown none that work in your world.I have and better than what's been shown to me.
Yet you keep on asking for diagrams and such that have already been provided.
By this time it is not a weaker platform, it's a equal reactionary platform which now springs back after the crash of thrust, all he way up for as long as that thrust remains consistent.Again, we know this isn't the case.
I have no clue how a space rocket works. There's no diagram that shows how it works. Just nonsensical stuff that tells us to accept that it does when it goes against the grain of reality.I find it odd you do not get it. I mean the whole world knows they work.He knows how they work. He has his game to play.
What the hell is all that nonsense.It sure seemed like it.I think Sceppy has given up.No you didn't.
But why do you bother when it so obvious that you haven't the slightest understanding how large "space rocket engines" work?
Here's the pressure distribution through a typical pump-fed liquid-fuelled rocket engine:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ogr8d6bjvh3jlas/Scheme%20of%20pressure%20distribution%20in%20a%20pumping%20fed%20rocket%20engine.png?dl=1)
Scheme of pressure distribution in a pumping fed rocket engine.
The rocket's thrust is due to the high pressure on the nozzle as the burnt propellant is accelerated from transonic to hypersonic (up to 3000 m/s) velocities.
I guess that you have heard that force = mass x acceleration?
Have fun!
Do I have to spell this all out in bigger letters?
Show me a diagram of how a space rocket works. Show me exactly what's going on and why,
so I can understand what you and other push out as your reality.
None of you seem to know but rely on finding obscure diagrams that show nothing.
I'm willing to show how my gases work to propel a rocket but I need to see how your gases actually propel your rocket in atmosphere and in your vacuum of your space.
The very same way you would compresses a weaker resistant sponge until your mass compressed it enough to support it.
- How is the expanding gas 'compressing' a weaker resistance?Quote from: Stash- How is the expanding gas making a 'platform'By compressing the opposing resistant gas into being one. As above.Quote from: Stash- How is the expanding gas pushing off this weaker 'platform'?By this time it is not a weaker platform, it's a equal reactionary platform which now springs back after the crash of thrust, all he way up for as long as that thrust remains consistent.Quote from: StashOnce and again, many diagrams have been shown here as to how a rocket works in our world, yet, you have shown none that work in your world.I have and better than what's been shown to me.
Yet you keep on asking for diagrams and such that have already been provided.Quote from: StashWhy do you continue to stall in presenting the 'arrows' necessary to lift a rocket off the ground? If you can't answer the question, you have no case at all.Because I want to see what you lot have from your own brains and without using obscure nonsense.
Nope. I don't argue for the exhaust, I argue the point before exhaustion which is the burn, which is far from exhaust.Scepti. What I said previously. How is it possible that a firework rocket can fly if you say that the air will be 'super compressed' by the exhaust. This little firework rocket is not capable to do this, yet it will fly. Please explain how this is possible with your 'theory'.Of course it's capable of doing it. What do you think that fire is doing coming out the arse end of it?
It's expanding into the atmosphere and compressing it and the atmosphere is crushing rights back, creating a platform against the thrust and following it for as long as that thrust is capable.
Ok Scepti. So you think that the exhaust of a firework rocket has the same pressure as from a spare rocket?
Another question. What amount of force is needed to compress the air beneath the exhaust of a rocket?You want to play with figures?
I bet that you are not able to tell this us.
BTW: A firework rocket don't have an arse ;DWhere is that burn coming from?
Try explaining how your rocket works, first.Already done! So maybe you could answer these simple questions:
| (https://www.dropbox.com/s/h0zt7ql0l2gzqpm/Rocket%20Engine%20Pressures%20-%20Braeunig%20ROCKET%20PROPULSION%20fig1-01.gif?dl=1) |
Try explaining how your rocket works, first.
Try explaining how your rocket works, first.Already done! So maybe you could answer these simple questions:If you answered Y to all the above then the rocket thrust it the total forward force of that gas on the bell of the rocket.
- Does it require a force to increase the velocity of a mass Y/N?
- Does gas have mass Y/N?
- Therefore does it require a force to accelerate a mass Y/N?
- Is the propellant accelerated in the rocket engine Y/N?
- Does gas pressure on a surface cause a force on that surface Y/N?
- In the bell of the rocket engine shown on the right, does the pressure of the propellant
on the walls of the bell have a component directed towards the front of the rocket Y/N?(https://www.dropbox.com/s/h0zt7ql0l2gzqpm/Rocket%20Engine%20Pressures%20-%20Braeunig%20ROCKET%20PROPULSION%20fig1-01.gif?dl=1)
If not please explain you problem with that question.
Let's see if your head can absorb this.The very same way you would compresses a weaker resistant sponge until your mass compressed it enough to support it.
- How is the expanding gas 'compressing' a weaker resistance?
The 'sponge' would only be compressed in one direction, from the top, in this instance. That wouldn't make the 'sponge' rigid enough to provide a suitable resistance. There's nothing underneath the 'sponge' for it to compress against. How might the levitating 'sponge' float there under the rocket thrust with nothing beneath it?
Save us all the trouble of trying to figure out your weirdo analogies
Nope. I don't argue for the exhaustNo, you do, you just pretend it is something else by inventing new definitions.
Try explaining how your rocket works, first.Our side already has plenty of times.
Do you think that the 101st explanation will suddenly work when the previous 100 failed?I try to come up with simpler and simpler ways of putting it but I guess it's "Rocket Science".
Also, only 9 months later Copper Knickers asked the following question:There you go. I took the time out to answer them in my own words. Sit and argue them all you want by looking in your, all knowing no wrong science book of mainstream answers to any questions that you follow without question.
You claim "I understand what they mean." OK, please define:
"mass",.....The amount of material that makes up an object.
"weight",....The amount compactness of a material that can displace atmospheric pressure.
"volume",...The amount of porosity in any object.
"density"....The structure of a material that can displace atmospheric pressure to create a scale reading. (Denpressure)
"speed",....The ability to go a distance in a certain time in any direction.
"velocity",..... The speed of something in one direction, only.
"acceleration",.....The continuous build up of movement.
"force",..... Any energy push in any direction
"inertia",..... Something that cannot be explained as anything, to be fair.
"pressure",.....I think pressure can be lumped in with force. there's actually no difference to what they both mean in the grand scheme of things.
"pressure gradient",........ The difference in energy force that goes from low to high or high to low.
"power",.... Energy push.
"energy"......Vibration and friction, which basically are the same thing.
And Sceppy did not know even though he earlier said "mass",.....The amount of material that makes up an object. - go figure!What is mass?
Would a litre of water and a litre of mercury have the same mass in denpressure theory?
Scepti. What I said previously. How is it possible that a firework rocket can fly if you say that the air will be 'super compressed' by the exhaust. This little firework rocket is not capable to do this, yet it will fly. Please explain how this is possible with your 'theory'.I think Sceppy has given up:
Thats too bad, :( I was really hoping sceptimatic would finally try to explain the force that pushes a rocket in his world. Probably something to do with a sloshing, stacked, atmosphere, but you cant discount that maybe his magic crystal at the center of the (flat) world was involved?
Of course. If you can't put your mind to analogies from my side then you're going to struggle.Save us all the trouble of trying to figure out your weirdo analogies
Imagine air is like a stack of mattresses.
Now imagine yourself falling through the air onto those mattresses.
So we should imagine ourselves falling through stacked mattresses onto stacked mattresses???
Weirdo doesn’t even begin to describe it.
No it's not exhaust. It's actual external burning energy and until its burned it is not exhaust..Nope. I don't argue for the exhaust
Once it has left the rocket, it is exhaust.
So he point-blank refuses to look at all the experimental work done by Galileo Galilei,Famous for finding moons of jupiter and what not.
1700's and discovered cells in a sliver of cork or something.
Robert Hooke,
We've been through this and I've shown you the laws are not laws, at all. They concepts are not reality.
Isaac Newtonon the "Laws of Motion"
Boyle's law is close to what I put forward, only I do it in a slightly different way.
and those like Robert Boyle,
Famous for hydrogen in a balloon for flight?
Jacques A. C. Charles
Known for water being two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen.
and Joseph Gay‐Lussac who worked out the "Gas Laws".
You seem to be bringing up all kinds of people from yesteryear as if you're putting some kind of back up system in place for your arguments.
In the end, Sceptimatic uses quite a different language and he uses common words
Then he thinks that single-handed and without any meaningful experiments he can replicate all that himself.I've done many meaningful experiments that prove to me what the Earth is not.
Of course, he's not the only one who thinks that way.
I agree.The only way to understand it is to pay attention and put the global shield to one side whilst you do that.
The only way to figure out scepinese is to walk through the language word by word.
It took us nearly 20pg to discover negative presure meant negative rate in relation to its previous state, not in relation to outside the vessel as most normal humans consider it.
No it's not exhaust.Yes it is.
The smoke coming out of a car is exhaust.As would flames coming out of a car's exhaust pipe be exhaust.
Scepti. What I said previously. How is it possible that a firework rocket can fly if you say that the air will be 'super compressed' by the exhaust. This little firework rocket is not capable to do this, yet it will fly. Please explain how this is possible with your 'theory'.I think Sceppy has given up:
Thats too bad, :( I was really hoping sceptimatic would finally try to explain the force that pushes a rocket in his world. Probably something to do with a sloshing, stacked, atmosphere, but you cant discount that maybe his magic crystal at the center of the (flat) world was involved?
Did you pound your chest as you typed that?
Of course. If you can't put your mind to analogies from my side then you're going to struggle.Save us all the trouble of trying to figure out your weirdo analogies
Imagine air is like a stack of mattresses.
Now imagine yourself falling through the air onto those mattresses.
So we should imagine ourselves falling through stacked mattresses onto stacked mattresses???
Weirdo doesn’t even begin to describe it.
Do you think that the 101st explanation will suddenly work when the previous 100 failed?I try to come up with simpler and simpler ways of putting it but I guess it's "Rocket Science".
Sceptimatic thinks that he's so brilliant that, using "common sense" alone he can come up with the "theory of everything".
So he point-blank refuses to look at all the experimental work done by Galileo Galilei, Robert Hooke, Isaac Newton on the "Laws of Motion" and those like Robert Boyle, Jacques A. C. Charles, and Joseph Gay‐Lussac who worked out the "Gas Laws".
In the end, Sceptimatic uses quite a different language and he uses common words
Then he thinks that single-handed and without any meaningful experiments he can replicate all that himself.
Of course, he's not the only one who thinks that way.
Sandokhan does a lot more research but seems to think that he alone can interpret this correctly and so comes up with a whole new chronology and flat-Earth "model".
But the flat-Earth of the two are in no way similar and quite different from the "usual" flat-Earth model (if there is one).
Yet each of them will explicitly state that they alone are correct.
Go figure!
This might (or might not) help:
Back on February 13, 2017 I asked Sceppy to fill in his meaning for the list of words below:
(Sceppy filled the definitions into the Quote of my post.)Also, only 9 months later Copper Knickers asked the following question:There you go. I took the time out to answer them in my own words. Sit and argue them all you want by looking in your, all knowing no wrong science book of mainstream answers to any questions that you follow without question.
You claim "I understand what they mean." OK, please define:
"mass",.....The amount of material that makes up an object.
"weight",....The amount compactness of a material that can displace atmospheric pressure.
"volume",...The amount of porosity in any object.
"density"....The structure of a material that can displace atmospheric pressure to create a scale reading. (Denpressure)
"speed",....The ability to go a distance in a certain time in any direction.
"velocity",..... The speed of something in one direction, only.
"acceleration",.....The continuous build up of movement.
"force",..... Any energy push in any direction
"inertia",..... Something that cannot be explained as anything, to be fair.
"pressure",.....I think pressure can be lumped in with force. there's actually no difference to what they both mean in the grand scheme of things.
"pressure gradient",........ The difference in energy force that goes from low to high or high to low.
"power",.... Energy push.
"energy"......Vibration and friction, which basically are the same thing.And Sceppy did not know even though he earlier said "mass",.....The amount of material that makes up an object. - go figure!What is mass?
Would a litre of water and a litre of mercury have the same mass in denpressure theory?
Have fun with the Sceppinese dictionary!
Conventional
Having different vernaculars definitely makes shared comprehension difficult, and its obvious that you can not project the precise and meaningful conventional descriptors of science onto the way that he sees the world in his mind. Thats probably one of the reasons why he struggles so desperately to actually understand the conventional scientific body of knowledge.
I've done many meaningful experiments that prove to me what the Earth is not.So you say, now where are all these experiments that verify all your weird definitions and your hypothetical behavior of gases.
What I think it all is is down to my own hypotheses and I do not pass them off as facts. I pass them off as my potentials against what I believe are lies and errors of a global, rotating, Earth.So why are all your explanations and your flat-Earth model so different from those of Sandokhan, Wise or Tom Bishop.
Basically what the theoretical science world is doing with a lot of stuff. Including yourself with simply accepting it without verifying it yourself.I've done many meaningful experiments that prove to me what the Earth is not.So you say, now where are all these experiments that verify all your weird definitions and your hypothetical behavior of gases.
Because unless you've verified this hypothetical behavior of gases it remains no more than guesswork.
All may be completely wrong or all wrong in some ways and in others, correct.Quote from: sceptimaticWhat I think it all is is down to my own hypotheses and I do not pass them off as facts. I pass them off as my potentials against what I believe are lies and errors of a global, rotating, Earth.So why are all your explanations and your flat-Earth model so different from those of Sandokhan, Wise or Tom Bishop.
Are they all complete wrong?
You need to accept that what you adhere to could also be wrong.As do you.
Conventional
Having different vernaculars definitely makes shared comprehension difficult, and its obvious that you can not project the precise and meaningful conventional descriptors of science onto the way that he sees the world in his mind. Thats probably one of the reasons why he struggles so desperately to actually understand the conventional scientific body of knowledge.
adjective
1.
based on or in accordance with what is generally done or believed.
Not struggling as such, just not accepting stuff handed out as science which isn't potentially that and more like duping or at best, mostly, pseudo-science or metaphysics.
The properties of gases were not "theoretical science"! They were all found by direct experiments with measurements.Basically what the theoretical science world is doing with a lot of stuff. Including yourself with simply accepting it without verifying it yourself.I've done many meaningful experiments that prove to me what the Earth is not.So you say, now where are all these experiments that verify all your weird definitions and your hypothetical behavior of gases.
Because unless you've verified this hypothetical behavior of gases it remains no more than guesswork.
While "there's no way of knowing the absolute truth" many things reach a point where they can be "regarded as proven beyond reasonable doubt"Quote from: rabinozAll may be completely wrong or all wrong in some ways and in others, correct.Quote from: sceptimaticWhat I think it all is is down to my own hypotheses and I do not pass them off as facts. I pass them off as my potentials against what I believe are lies and errors of a global, rotating, Earth.So why are all your explanations and your flat-Earth model so different from those of Sandokhan, Wise or Tom Bishop.
Are they all complete wrong?
There's no way of knowing the absolute truth of everything and this is why debates happen and continue to happen.
This is why philosophies and theories....hypotheses and what not, happen.
You need to accept that what you adhere to could also be wrong.Sure but until there is evidence suggesting that "what I adhere to might be wrong" I see no reason to believe things that I can easily see cannot be correct.
You could ask Scepti about nuclear power stations if you want to understand how he thinks.
I agree.The only way to understand it is to pay attention and put the global shield to one side whilst you do that.
The only way to figure out scepinese is to walk through the language word by word.
It took us nearly 20pg to discover negative presure meant negative rate in relation to its previous state, not in relation to outside the vessel as most normal humans consider it.
Failure to do this will naturally render any effort to try to understand, as pointless.
I suggest you actually take the time to look at the model handed to you on a plate before you even try to engage with my thought process.
No it's not exhaust.Yes it is.
You wanting to lie about definitions doesn't change that.The smoke coming out of a car is exhaust.As would flames coming out of a car's exhaust pipe be exhaust.
They key part is that the gases have been expelled and no longer do work on the vehicle.
In both cases the exhaust is still hot and capable of having its energy lowered.
But again, this is just another pathetic distraction.
You sure seem to love avoiding the issue, as if you KNOW you cannot resolve it.
Again, what is the gas pushing against to accelerate out of the rocket?
Conventional
Having different vernaculars definitely makes shared comprehension difficult, and its obvious that you can not project the precise and meaningful conventional descriptors of science onto the way that he sees the world in his mind. Thats probably one of the reasons why he struggles so desperately to actually understand the conventional scientific body of knowledge.
adjective
1.
based on or in accordance with what is generally done or believed.
Not struggling as such, just not accepting stuff handed out as science which isn't potentially that and more like duping or at best, mostly, pseudo-science or metaphysics.
I am all you say I am.
I am all you say I am.Who are YOU anyway? Just another unknown who drops in and makes ridiculous claims.
True dat.I am all you say I am.Who are YOU anyway? Just another unknown who drops in and makes ridiculous claims.
Nope, true claim, you are "Just another unknown who drops in and makes ridiculous claims."True day.I am all you say I am.Who are YOU anyway? Just another unknown who drops in and makes ridiculous claims.
It's raining here and I was bored so I thought I'd check out the FES. It's been like six months since I was here, and you guys are still arguing about whether rockets can work in a vacuum??? I'm actually kind of impressed that those of you who are sane can keep it up this long. So maybe I can clear it all up:Welcome back but I'm afraid facts, logic and common sense have no place in the minds of Rockets in Space Deniers.
The reason we know that rockets can work in a vacuum is that rockets do work in a vacuum. Since they do, they can. Hope this helps. :)
It's raining here and I was bored so I thought I'd check out the FES. It's been like six months since I was here, and you guys are still arguing about whether rockets can work in a vacuum??? I'm actually kind of impressed that those of you who are sane can keep it up this long. So maybe I can clear it all up:Welcome back but I'm afraid facts, logic and common sense have no place in the minds of Rockets in Space Deniers.
The reason we know that rockets can work in a vacuum is that rockets do work in a vacuum. Since they do, they can. Hope this helps. :)
When shown numerous videos and eye-witness reports of rockets they just claim that they go up arc over and are dumped into the sea.
This is all supposedly part of some ridiculous Global conspiracy controlled by "somebody" to "hide God and the true shape of the Earth from the ignorant masses.
What anybody would gain from conspiracy this is a complete mystery but so is what goes on in the minds of these Rockets in Space Deniers!
When you point out that most people can see the ISS at exactly the specified times some say that it's just a helium balloon shaped like that!
Go figure!
amazibg input from a guy who says all science is right (even rocket scientists) except for when it comes to the shape of the earth.
Scepti. What I said previously. How is it possible that a firework rocket can fly if you say that the air will be 'super compressed' by the exhaust. This little firework rocket is not capable to do this, yet it will fly. Please explain how this is possible with your 'theory'.I think Sceppy has given up:
Thats too bad, :( I was really hoping sceptimatic would finally try to explain the force that pushes a rocket in his world. Probably something to do with a sloshing, stacked, atmosphere, but you cant discount that maybe his magic crystal at the center of the (flat) world was involved?
Did you pound your chest as you typed that?
That probably did come across too aggressively. Apologies. I do actually really like Sceptimatic's fantasy world and enjoy hearing about it, I think he has a wonderful imagination.
What are your thoughts on it? Do you like the idea of an invisible magic crystal at the center of the world shining on a dome to give us the sun, moon, stars, and planets? What about the idea that we are all 'swimming' through semisolid mattress like structures as we wander about in our daily lives? I'm currently enjoying imagining there is no such thing as inertia, and instead it is always just the viscoelastic atmosphere sloshing at our backs.
Its great stuff.
Conventional
Having different vernaculars definitely makes shared comprehension difficult, and its obvious that you can not project the precise and meaningful conventional descriptors of science onto the way that he sees the world in his mind. Thats probably one of the reasons why he struggles so desperately to actually understand the conventional scientific body of knowledge.
adjective
1.
based on or in accordance with what is generally done or believed.
Not struggling as such, just not accepting stuff handed out as science which isn't potentially that and more like duping or at best, mostly, pseudo-science or metaphysics.
Interesting. This is a bit different from your previous stance on the subject. However, I disagree and my reasoning is presented in the video below.Scepti. What I said previously. How is it possible that a firework rocket can fly if you say that the air will be 'super compressed' by the exhaust. This little firework rocket is not capable to do this, yet it will fly. Please explain how this is possible with your 'theory'.Of course it's capable of doing it. What do you think that fire is doing coming out the arse end of it?
It's expanding into the atmosphere and compressing it and the atmosphere is crushing rights back, creating a platform against the thrust and following it for as long as that thrust is capable.